Shh! It's a secret, but Intel offers 4 very nice books at a great price: free.
They aren't tutorials, so there isn't the same hand-holding that you would get in a book from Barnes & Noble, but they explain things well enough that a seasoned assembly programmer should be able to follow with no problem at all. I think they are exactly what you want.
"Thanks for revealing your identity. AT&T has been looking for that phone for years, and we will come by to reclaim this *leased* phone and present you with your bill for 30 years of lease fees, plus penalties and interest."
Yeah, I remember those phones, but they showed up in the phone bill. Wasn't a monopoly great? You are the only one allowed to manufacture phones, so you can lease them out at any price to a captive market.
That is a bit expensive. But not *REALLY* weird. At the last two companies I've worked for, managers are told to consider a developer's time as costing about $130/hour after overhead (benefits, office space, support personnelle, equipment, etc.). In cases where an employee needs a lot of extra support or overhead (some positions require a LOT more -- classes, airplane tickets for remote jobs, etc.), that could easily double or triple.
I was torn over the highlighted search. It was incredibly helpful to see all places that matched, but once I was done with the search it was terribly annoying.
I now map C-s to:nohls. Makes the evil yellow go away. Much rejoicing.
You can process the message by providing a WM_TIMER case in the window procedure. Otherwise, the default window procedure will call the TimerProc callback function specified in the call to the SetTimer function used to install the timer.
The "default window procedure" happens after you've had 3 (or more) chances to process the message.
Re:Yes, but who's fault is it? Not MS'!
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 1
Nah. I hang out here because I like the nifty green color.
Actually, I get halfway decent news summaries as well as some entertaining comments. I also like to fill in missing points in the conversation -- make myself heard if somebody says something that is factually wrong, or misses a detail or idea that I consider important. And once in a blue moon, there is some reasonable Microsoft bashing, and I find it worthwhile to find out about (and comment on) things that Microsoft isn't doing well.
But far more often, there is unreasonable knee-jerk Microsoft bashing. It isn't well thought out, it ignores important facts, and it sounds like meaningless propaganda to me. (Microsoft does the propaganda stuff too, in the other direction.) When I see uninformed arguments, I want to tell people to save it for a more significant problem. If the Linux community is constantly yelling about Microsoft this and Microsoft that, and if they are picking at nits 95% of the time, nobody will pay attention during the 5% of the time there is actually something worthwhile to say. You get tuned out. You sound like idiots to people who actually know what is going on. And those are the ones that you really need in your camp if Linux is going to go anywhere.
So I like to make comments in Microsoft's favor when the Slashdot crowd runs wildly off a cliff (IMHO). I'll make my voice heard, if possible, when I see a prejudiced viewpoint on Slashdot. Likewise, when (not if) Microsoft makes legitimately stupid mistakes, I'll post something if I see something else that needs to be said.
If you really want a one-sided forum, I suppose all us "Microsoft Lovers" could leave. But forums with only one side represented don't go anywhere.
Not blind. You can toss any message between GetMessage and DispatchMessage if you want to, including all of the messages in the mentioned article -- consider it a logical location for a firewall if you are concerned about things like this. Windows doesn't simply respond to the message for you. It is the default handler that causes problems.
This is the Win32 version of SUID vulerability
on
Shattering Windows
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
C'mon, people! This is nothing new. We all should know by now that writing priviledged applications is way different from writing normal user-mode apps. In this case, we have an example of how a poorly written priviledged app that interfaces with a local user might give the local user a chance to escalate priviledges. How is this different from the fact that a poorly written SUID app gives the user a chance to escalate?
Knowing what this guy brought up in his paper, it seems a lot more obvious why you are NOT SUPPOSED TO INTERACT WITH THE DESKTOP AS "SYSTEM" if you are running as a service. This has been common knowledge among Win32 programmers for a LONG time.
The UNIX model has some exploits to which Windows is immune, due to structural/design differences. And the reverse is just as true. If you don't understand the security practices required on your platform of choice, you shouldn't be programming apps on systems that need to be secure.
I'm just saying that just because nobody can prove to you that God/afterlife/Elvis exists doesn't mean it is false. And neither does it mean that their opinion is unreasonable (which is an attitude that I sensed a little bit in your postings). It means that at least one of two conditions exists:
They have been exposed to more/better evidence than you, or
They have chosen differently about what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject.
Personally, I have had enough experiences and been exposed to enough acceptable evidence that I strongly believe in God and an afterlife. In your case, it appears that you haven't, or that you have been exposed to evidence to the contrary. That's all well and good, but please don't disparage those whose opinions differ from yours. Opinions that are different from yours don't always mean that the other person doesn't think every bit as rationally as you do.
You missed something: Nobody can prove *anything*.
When was the last time you saw an electron? How do you *know* that the Holocaust isn't something made up by the Jews and snuck into our history books? How do you even know that your body really exists (a la Matrix), or that reality doesn't really go away when you close your eyes?
The answer is that you really can't *prove* anything. The best you can do is convince somebody else beyond a reasonable doubt. You provide good arguments and explanations, perhaps use the information to infer additional conclusions (predictions) that can be verified, etc.
I'm a bit fed up with people trying to be so "rational" by rejecting all forms of religion but accepting whatever popular fad of the day blows by.
I respect people's right to not be religious if they choose to accept the arguments against religion and reject the arguments for religion. But before you ask anyone to prove the existence of God/afterlife/the easter bunny, before rejecting an opinion because it is held by a religious person, please provide an incontrovertible proof that Columbus is not a made-up figure from history.
(Sorry about the ranting. And please don't burn all the "blasphemous" stuff, 'cuz then we're just as bad as all the anti-religious people.)
I played around with the sample data you provided. I came across some funny business which I am almost certain is an error in your spreadsheet, which throws the whole thing into doubt. Did you mean to repeat the slot encoding 0x05 for both slots 5 and 6? I'm going to assume it was a typo. If so, I learned the following about the impact the slot number has on the checksum:
8-bit-number Bits == 76543210
Csum(x) is the value of the checksum with slot #x and all else held constant.
Note that the values added/subtracted for each bit follow a pattern: 0x0F = 00001111 0x1E = 00011110 0x3C = 00111100 0x78 = 01111000 0xF0 = 11110000
More data might shed some light on the pattern. Whatever the case, I think this is reminiscent of a CRC16, since I don't think a checksum would have this kind of behavior -- a standard addition checksum or a XOR-based checksum (even with bit rotation) would make a bit always add/subtract the same amount, but it would be a power of 2 (I think).
So now you need to find the CRC's polynomial, and I don't know enough about that kind of thing to help you. (And there is a chance that everything I've said here is wrong, since this is not my specialty!)
Apple did it with OS-X. And please don't try to tell me that the MacOS API was more closely related to the FreeBSD/Mach hybrid (which in and of itself is a good chunk of work) than the Win32 API and Linux.
As another example, Microsoft put together Win32-s to run on top of Win 3.1. If a Linux distro is so different that you can't emulate the Win32 API on it, it isn't because of the OS underneath.
Open source is great, and for some things it works REALLY WELL. But for getting something specific ready to ship in a timely manner, I don't think it stands a chance against:
Working 8-10 hours a day on something
Being able to depend on a known number of other people who are also working 8-10 hours a day on their portion of the job
If you don't do the job, you get fired
All of the people working on the project are working in the same building or area, allowing for good collaboration on demand
Re:From using MySQL/PostgreSQL and researching SAP
on
PostgreSQL vs. SAP?
·
· Score: 1
My comment was referring to this. I just was too lazy to look it up last night.
I agree about the conformance -- PostgreSQL is fairly good in that respect. Just as a matter of taste, I prefer MySQL's way of doing certain things over the ANSI standard. YMMV.
(Don't get me wrong. I'm trying to make the switch from MySQL to PostgreSQL because I want the power PostgreSQL has. I'm just finding it hard, because I keep running into these roadblocks where I think "MySQL does this so much simpler!")
Actually, it always has been, and probably always will be, in Microsoft's best interests to allow ASF players anywhere. You just have to understand their motivation properly. It is in Microsoft's best interest to get players on as many computers as possible, so they are perfectly willing to tolerate people using Linux to watch ASF videos. On the other hand, it is seriously damaging to Microsoft's best interests to let unlicensed 3rd parties create certain kinds of ASF stream editors.
Why?
Because from what I can tell (definitely NOT insider information, just from experience working with MS on ASF issues) Microsoft created ASF simply to sell server software. You have to have a server to stream ASF media. Driving sales of the Windows client isn't the first priority (otherwise they wouldn't have made a Mac client or a Solaris client, and they definitely would have said something about the Linux work going on). And as far as I can sense (which isn't all that far, to tell the truth) the server people are going to continue to drive the ASF format, meaning that it might even be in MS's interest to write a Linux client (ok, you're right, that is a bit crazy).
On the other hand, MS doesn't want anybody messing with the format or making editors that go beyond the rules imposed by MS. This is because the people who pay for ASF (the people who run media servers and therefore purchase Windows Server) want to be sure their content is "properly consumed." If the content is streamed, they don't want a 3rd party program recreating the original ASF file from the stream. If the content has DRM flags, they don't want a 3rd party program turning the flags off. Microsoft inspires confidence in the format (thus improving Windows Server sales) by sending C&D letters to programmers distributing unauthorized programs dealing with ASF.
Re:From using MySQL/PostgreSQL and researching SAP
on
PostgreSQL vs. SAP?
·
· Score: 1
I looked into using PostgreSQL for some of my personal projects. I've been using MySQL, but I want the triggers and stored procedures that the more sophisticated databases offer.
Most of what you mentioned above compares well with my findings. I take issue with only one. You mention that PostgreSQL is clean compared to MySQL. I suppose that could mean many things. After studying the database syntax, I didn't feel PostgreSQL was nearly as "clean" as MySQL.
It has been a while since I've read the PostgreSQL manual, so I don't have the best examples. But I found many more inconsistencies and "why the heck did they do it that way" features in PostgreSQL. One token example is escaping data. Depending on the situation, you may need to escape a character with one, two, or even four backslashes. That makes putting binary data into a PostgreSQL database fairly difficult. With MySQL, you only have to backslash the apostrophe and the backslash -- very simple and clean. With most other databases, there is a prepared statement feature that directly transfers data as a separate blob. With PostgreSQL, good luck getting your binary data in.
But when all is said and done, other than syntax complaints, PostgreSQL is an amazing database system.
Normal routers don't care what protocol is being used. They route at the IP layer. ICMP, TCP, UDP, and "Protocol 11" are all layered on top of the IP layer.
I strongly disagree. There are two separate issues with p2p sharing: Whether it "OK" to have a copy of a song without paying for the associated hardcopy (CD, vinyl, etc.), and whether p2p hurts sales/profits. I'm not going into the first issue with this post, although there are decent arguments for both sides. I'll stick with the second issue.
First, I'll make an argument based on the assumption that p2p does hurt sales of CDs. In this case, who is hurt? The answer is that the record labels will probably be hurt far more than the artists. In fact, the artists may benefit. The labels take nearly all sales profits from CDs until they have been sufficiently reimbursed for their expenses (recording studios, CD printing, marketing, etc.). Only then do the artists make any significant profit from the sales of CDs. However, as an artist becomes popular, additional royalties come in from Radio, MTV, etc., plus T-shirts, etc. And when they are sufficiently popular, they can start selling out concerts and actually making money.
So the question is, does the label deserve to complain? Perhaps. Especially during this transition period where they are going from "highly profitable" to "lame." They were profitable because they performed a needed service: helping artists become marketable. However, if p2p takes the place of the recording label (might happen, might not...), the needed service is no longer needed. So they complain (rightfully) that they have been driven out of business by p2p.
A problem with modern society is that we are sometimes too sympathetic. We seem to give in to whining far too often. He who whines loudest gets the largest piece of the pie. In this case, the labels whine because evil Napster has stolen their piece of the pie. The customers are happier than ever, and perhaps the artists, too. But the label isn't happy any more.
So what? Industries change. When that happens, the companies based around them should ideally adapt or shut down gracefully if their service really is no longer needed. Instead, the labels are asking for laws to enforce the status quo while the consumers and artists foot the bill. Instead, they should admit that their position in the market is like that of the horse trader after cars took over the market, or the telegraph operator after telephones came into popularity.
Now, I'll argue against my initial assumption (that p2p does actually directly hurt sales), in which case the labels probably won't disappear so quickly and have little to complain about.
First, the statistics indicate that CD sales have roughly followed the general economy. The statistics also indicate that CD sales were highest when Napster activity was highest, although this is a bit more sketchy. (Statistics are very lousy for determining cause and effect -- they only can determine correlation. Correlation between general economy and sales is fairly good, while correlation between Napter and sales is harder to pin down.) So there isn't yet any hard evidence that sales have been hurt by p2p.
There are definitely cases where people use p2p who get the music without getting the CDs. Some of these people would have purchased the CDs if there weren't a p2p system in place. But a large number either would have found another way to pirate the music (record off of the radio station or copy from a friend's CD onto tape), or simply would have gone without. So the loss to the music industry is not necessarily proportional to the number of copied MP3s.
On the other hand, there are those who use MP3s and p2p copying in ways that significantly help the music industry. I think I fall into this category.
Out of the 20 or 30 CDs that I have bought in the past year, all of them were purchased after getting the MP3s of the songs on them and listening to them for a while. I took interest in an artist or album, downloaded some music or ripped from a friend's CD, and if I liked the music I went and purchased the CD to satisfy my conscience and/or get the remaining tracks. If I had not gone through this process, I would certainly not have purchased nearly as many CDs as I did.
So I would argue that it is not certain that p2p hurts the music industry as a whole, and it seems very likely that it does not. It is likely to hurt the labels in the long run, but I'm not convinced that hurting the labels is necessarily a bad thing if they are unnecessary middle-men.
We can continue to wish for MS to open-source more of its software, but it isn't going to happen in the way that we want - not now, not ever. Remember that Microsoft is a public company, and thus has an obligation to its stockholders to protect certain interestes. Thus:
-- Microsoft can see that open source is a good idea, and is getting on the open-source bandwagon (for both PR benefits and for other more real benefits) in some areas. For example, HUGE portions of the Windows CE operating system are public and visible to the world. Several other MS products also have source code available. However, these are under a much more restrictive license than GNU or BSD.
-- Microsoft is in a very different position than many of the companies that have "made open source work." Microsoft SELLS OPERATING SYSTEMS. They can't make open source work by releasing their intellectual property to the wind. They can do some open source stuff, but it has to be limited by relatively restricting licenses -- otherwise, they are giving away the very thing that keeps them profitable.
-- Microsoft has to protect their intellectual property and their marketing position at all costs. The way to protect their intellectual property is to have limits on their available source code. The way to protect their marketing position is to always try to offer something that is not available through open source means.
I personally use both purchased and open source software all the time. A huge portion of the software that I have paid for is Microsoft. I would like to see open source continue on as a thorn in the side of Microsoft, spurring it on and forcing it to make higher quality products. I also hope that open source continues to provide alternatives to Microsoft for those who don't want to pay for expensive software. However, I think there is a place for both Microsoft and Open Source in the future. I don't expect either to go away anytime soon.
You are correct -- SQL server is very tightly bound to the Win32 API, and will probably never run on anything else. At the cost of portability, they did whatever they could to take advantage of the NT OS. (They claim, however, that they do not use any non-public APIs or use any public APIs in undocumented ways.)
I don't have any specific information about IIS, but I am fairly certain that it is fairly similar in nature -- strongly tied to Win32, but with little or no IIS-specific support in the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Shh! It's a secret, but Intel offers 4 very nice books at a great price: free.
They aren't tutorials, so there isn't the same hand-holding that you would get in a book from Barnes & Noble, but they explain things well enough that a seasoned assembly programmer should be able to follow with no problem at all. I think they are exactly what you want.
"Thanks for revealing your identity. AT&T has been looking for that phone for years, and we will come by to reclaim this *leased* phone and present you with your bill for 30 years of lease fees, plus penalties and interest."
Yeah, I remember those phones, but they showed up in the phone bill. Wasn't a monopoly great? You are the only one allowed to manufacture phones, so you can lease them out at any price to a captive market.
That is a bit expensive. But not *REALLY* weird. At the last two companies I've worked for, managers are told to consider a developer's time as costing about $130/hour after overhead (benefits, office space, support personnelle, equipment, etc.). In cases where an employee needs a lot of extra support or overhead (some positions require a LOT more -- classes, airplane tickets for remote jobs, etc.), that could easily double or triple.
I was torn over the highlighted search. It was incredibly helpful to see all places that matched, but once I was done with the search it was terribly annoying.
:nohls. Makes the evil yellow go away. Much rejoicing.
I now map C-s to
GIGO
Quote from MSDN:
You can process the message by providing a WM_TIMER case in the window procedure. Otherwise, the default window procedure will call the TimerProc callback function specified in the call to the SetTimer function used to install the timer.
The "default window procedure" happens after you've had 3 (or more) chances to process the message.
Nah. I hang out here because I like the nifty green color.
Actually, I get halfway decent news summaries as well as some entertaining comments. I also like to fill in missing points in the conversation -- make myself heard if somebody says something that is factually wrong, or misses a detail or idea that I consider important. And once in a blue moon, there is some reasonable Microsoft bashing, and I find it worthwhile to find out about (and comment on) things that Microsoft isn't doing well.
But far more often, there is unreasonable knee-jerk Microsoft bashing. It isn't well thought out, it ignores important facts, and it sounds like meaningless propaganda to me. (Microsoft does the propaganda stuff too, in the other direction.) When I see uninformed arguments, I want to tell people to save it for a more significant problem. If the Linux community is constantly yelling about Microsoft this and Microsoft that, and if they are picking at nits 95% of the time, nobody will pay attention during the 5% of the time there is actually something worthwhile to say. You get tuned out. You sound like idiots to people who actually know what is going on. And those are the ones that you really need in your camp if Linux is going to go anywhere.
So I like to make comments in Microsoft's favor when the Slashdot crowd runs wildly off a cliff (IMHO). I'll make my voice heard, if possible, when I see a prejudiced viewpoint on Slashdot. Likewise, when (not if) Microsoft makes legitimately stupid mistakes, I'll post something if I see something else that needs to be said.
If you really want a one-sided forum, I suppose all us "Microsoft Lovers" could leave. But forums with only one side represented don't go anywhere.
Not blind. You can toss any message between GetMessage and DispatchMessage if you want to, including all of the messages in the mentioned article -- consider it a logical location for a firewall if you are concerned about things like this. Windows doesn't simply respond to the message for you. It is the default handler that causes problems.
C'mon, people! This is nothing new. We all should know by now that writing priviledged applications is way different from writing normal user-mode apps. In this case, we have an example of how a poorly written priviledged app that interfaces with a local user might give the local user a chance to escalate priviledges. How is this different from the fact that a poorly written SUID app gives the user a chance to escalate?
Knowing what this guy brought up in his paper, it seems a lot more obvious why you are NOT SUPPOSED TO INTERACT WITH THE DESKTOP AS "SYSTEM" if you are running as a service. This has been common knowledge among Win32 programmers for a LONG time.
The UNIX model has some exploits to which Windows is immune, due to structural/design differences. And the reverse is just as true. If you don't understand the security practices required on your platform of choice, you shouldn't be programming apps on systems that need to be secure.
Whoops, that's "prove." My bad.
I think a more applicable analogy is as follows:
Person A: Your house is vulnerable. Somebody could break in anytime he/she wants.
Person B: Is not!
Person A: Yes, it is. And I suggest you get it fixed before somebody takes advantage of it.
Person B: Proove it!
Person A: Puts hand on front door's doorknob, turns doorknob, pushes door open. See?
Person B: Dials 911 on his cell phone. Hello, I'd like to report that "Person A" just broke into my house, and I want to press charges.
- Copies a headline from a news source (The Register, MSNBC, Kuro5hin, etc.)
- Submits the story to Slashdot
- Checks back to see if the story has been accepted
That should be random enough for anyone.I'm just saying that just because nobody can prove to you that God/afterlife/Elvis exists doesn't mean it is false. And neither does it mean that their opinion is unreasonable (which is an attitude that I sensed a little bit in your postings). It means that at least one of two conditions exists:
- They have been exposed to more/better evidence than you, or
- They have chosen differently about what evidence to accept and what evidence to reject.
Personally, I have had enough experiences and been exposed to enough acceptable evidence that I strongly believe in God and an afterlife. In your case, it appears that you haven't, or that you have been exposed to evidence to the contrary. That's all well and good, but please don't disparage those whose opinions differ from yours. Opinions that are different from yours don't always mean that the other person doesn't think every bit as rationally as you do.You missed something: Nobody can prove *anything*.
When was the last time you saw an electron? How do you *know* that the Holocaust isn't something made up by the Jews and snuck into our history books? How do you even know that your body really exists (a la Matrix), or that reality doesn't really go away when you close your eyes?
The answer is that you really can't *prove* anything. The best you can do is convince somebody else beyond a reasonable doubt. You provide good arguments and explanations, perhaps use the information to infer additional conclusions (predictions) that can be verified, etc.
I'm a bit fed up with people trying to be so "rational" by rejecting all forms of religion but accepting whatever popular fad of the day blows by.
I respect people's right to not be religious if they choose to accept the arguments against religion and reject the arguments for religion. But before you ask anyone to prove the existence of God/afterlife/the easter bunny, before rejecting an opinion because it is held by a religious person, please provide an incontrovertible proof that Columbus is not a made-up figure from history.
(Sorry about the ranting. And please don't burn all the "blasphemous" stuff, 'cuz then we're just as bad as all the anti-religious people.)
I played around with the sample data you provided. I came across some funny business which I am almost certain is an error in your spreadsheet, which throws the whole thing into doubt. Did you mean to repeat the slot encoding 0x05 for both slots 5 and 6? I'm going to assume it was a typo. If so, I learned the following about the impact the slot number has on the checksum:
8-bit-number
Bits == 76543210
Csum(x) is the value of the checksum with slot #x and all else held constant.
Csum(x) = Csum(0) +
(Bit0(x) ? -0x0F : 0) +
(Bit1(x) ? -0x1E : 0) +
(Bit2(x) ? +0x3C : 0) +
(Bit3(x) ? -0x78 : 0) +
(Bit4(x) ? -0xF0 : 0)
Note that the values added/subtracted for each bit follow a pattern:
0x0F = 00001111
0x1E = 00011110
0x3C = 00111100
0x78 = 01111000
0xF0 = 11110000
More data might shed some light on the pattern. Whatever the case, I think this is reminiscent of a CRC16, since I don't think a checksum would have this kind of behavior -- a standard addition checksum or a XOR-based checksum (even with bit rotation) would make a bit always add/subtract the same amount, but it would be a power of 2 (I think).
So now you need to find the CRC's polynomial, and I don't know enough about that kind of thing to help you. (And there is a chance that everything I've said here is wrong, since this is not my specialty!)
As another example, Microsoft put together Win32-s to run on top of Win 3.1. If a Linux distro is so different that you can't emulate the Win32 API on it, it isn't because of the OS underneath.
Open source is great, and for some things it works REALLY WELL. But for getting something specific ready to ship in a timely manner, I don't think it stands a chance against:
My comment was referring to this. I just was too lazy to look it up last night.
I agree about the conformance -- PostgreSQL is fairly good in that respect. Just as a matter of taste, I prefer MySQL's way of doing certain things over the ANSI standard. YMMV.
(Don't get me wrong. I'm trying to make the switch from MySQL to PostgreSQL because I want the power PostgreSQL has. I'm just finding it hard, because I keep running into these roadblocks where I think "MySQL does this so much simpler!")
Actually, it always has been, and probably always will be, in Microsoft's best interests to allow ASF players anywhere. You just have to understand their motivation properly. It is in Microsoft's best interest to get players on as many computers as possible, so they are perfectly willing to tolerate people using Linux to watch ASF videos. On the other hand, it is seriously damaging to Microsoft's best interests to let unlicensed 3rd parties create certain kinds of ASF stream editors.
Why?
Because from what I can tell (definitely NOT insider information, just from experience working with MS on ASF issues) Microsoft created ASF simply to sell server software. You have to have a server to stream ASF media. Driving sales of the Windows client isn't the first priority (otherwise they wouldn't have made a Mac client or a Solaris client, and they definitely would have said something about the Linux work going on). And as far as I can sense (which isn't all that far, to tell the truth) the server people are going to continue to drive the ASF format, meaning that it might even be in MS's interest to write a Linux client (ok, you're right, that is a bit crazy).
On the other hand, MS doesn't want anybody messing with the format or making editors that go beyond the rules imposed by MS. This is because the people who pay for ASF (the people who run media servers and therefore purchase Windows Server) want to be sure their content is "properly consumed." If the content is streamed, they don't want a 3rd party program recreating the original ASF file from the stream. If the content has DRM flags, they don't want a 3rd party program turning the flags off. Microsoft inspires confidence in the format (thus improving Windows Server sales) by sending C&D letters to programmers distributing unauthorized programs dealing with ASF.
I looked into using PostgreSQL for some of my personal projects. I've been using MySQL, but I want the triggers and stored procedures that the more sophisticated databases offer.
Most of what you mentioned above compares well with my findings. I take issue with only one. You mention that PostgreSQL is clean compared to MySQL. I suppose that could mean many things. After studying the database syntax, I didn't feel PostgreSQL was nearly as "clean" as MySQL.
It has been a while since I've read the PostgreSQL manual, so I don't have the best examples. But I found many more inconsistencies and "why the heck did they do it that way" features in PostgreSQL. One token example is escaping data. Depending on the situation, you may need to escape a character with one, two, or even four backslashes. That makes putting binary data into a PostgreSQL database fairly difficult. With MySQL, you only have to backslash the apostrophe and the backslash -- very simple and clean. With most other databases, there is a prepared statement feature that directly transfers data as a separate blob. With PostgreSQL, good luck getting your binary data in.
But when all is said and done, other than syntax complaints, PostgreSQL is an amazing database system.
Do routers even route protocol 11?
Mu.
Normal routers don't care what protocol is being used. They route at the IP layer. ICMP, TCP, UDP, and "Protocol 11" are all layered on top of the IP layer.
Now, a firewall is a different story...
Get rid of spider.
Step on spider.
We love you, spider!
I strongly disagree. There are two separate issues with p2p sharing: Whether it "OK" to have a copy of a song without paying for the associated hardcopy (CD, vinyl, etc.), and whether p2p hurts sales/profits. I'm not going into the first issue with this post, although there are decent arguments for both sides. I'll stick with the second issue.
First, I'll make an argument based on the assumption that p2p does hurt sales of CDs. In this case, who is hurt? The answer is that the record labels will probably be hurt far more than the artists. In fact, the artists may benefit. The labels take nearly all sales profits from CDs until they have been sufficiently reimbursed for their expenses (recording studios, CD printing, marketing, etc.). Only then do the artists make any significant profit from the sales of CDs. However, as an artist becomes popular, additional royalties come in from Radio, MTV, etc., plus T-shirts, etc. And when they are sufficiently popular, they can start selling out concerts and actually making money.
So the question is, does the label deserve to complain? Perhaps. Especially during this transition period where they are going from "highly profitable" to "lame." They were profitable because they performed a needed service: helping artists become marketable. However, if p2p takes the place of the recording label (might happen, might not...), the needed service is no longer needed. So they complain (rightfully) that they have been driven out of business by p2p.
A problem with modern society is that we are sometimes too sympathetic. We seem to give in to whining far too often. He who whines loudest gets the largest piece of the pie. In this case, the labels whine because evil Napster has stolen their piece of the pie. The customers are happier than ever, and perhaps the artists, too. But the label isn't happy any more.
So what? Industries change. When that happens, the companies based around them should ideally adapt or shut down gracefully if their service really is no longer needed. Instead, the labels are asking for laws to enforce the status quo while the consumers and artists foot the bill. Instead, they should admit that their position in the market is like that of the horse trader after cars took over the market, or the telegraph operator after telephones came into popularity.
Now, I'll argue against my initial assumption (that p2p does actually directly hurt sales), in which case the labels probably won't disappear so quickly and have little to complain about.
First, the statistics indicate that CD sales have roughly followed the general economy. The statistics also indicate that CD sales were highest when Napster activity was highest, although this is a bit more sketchy. (Statistics are very lousy for determining cause and effect -- they only can determine correlation. Correlation between general economy and sales is fairly good, while correlation between Napter and sales is harder to pin down.) So there isn't yet any hard evidence that sales have been hurt by p2p.
There are definitely cases where people use p2p who get the music without getting the CDs. Some of these people would have purchased the CDs if there weren't a p2p system in place. But a large number either would have found another way to pirate the music (record off of the radio station or copy from a friend's CD onto tape), or simply would have gone without. So the loss to the music industry is not necessarily proportional to the number of copied MP3s.
On the other hand, there are those who use MP3s and p2p copying in ways that significantly help the music industry. I think I fall into this category.
Out of the 20 or 30 CDs that I have bought in the past year, all of them were purchased after getting the MP3s of the songs on them and listening to them for a while. I took interest in an artist or album, downloaded some music or ripped from a friend's CD, and if I liked the music I went and purchased the CD to satisfy my conscience and/or get the remaining tracks. If I had not gone through this process, I would certainly not have purchased nearly as many CDs as I did.
So I would argue that it is not certain that p2p hurts the music industry as a whole, and it seems very likely that it does not. It is likely to hurt the labels in the long run, but I'm not convinced that hurting the labels is necessarily a bad thing if they are unnecessary middle-men.
Correction: it says the people who buy from him are suckers. And potentially losers. And definitely need to get a life...
We can continue to wish for MS to open-source more of its software, but it isn't going to happen in the way that we want - not now, not ever. Remember that Microsoft is a public company, and thus has an obligation to its stockholders to protect certain interestes. Thus:
-- Microsoft can see that open source is a good idea, and is getting on the open-source bandwagon (for both PR benefits and for other more real benefits) in some areas. For example, HUGE portions of the Windows CE operating system are public and visible to the world. Several other MS products also have source code available. However, these are under a much more restrictive license than GNU or BSD.
-- Microsoft is in a very different position than many of the companies that have "made open source work." Microsoft SELLS OPERATING SYSTEMS. They can't make open source work by releasing their intellectual property to the wind. They can do some open source stuff, but it has to be limited by relatively restricting licenses -- otherwise, they are giving away the very thing that keeps them profitable.
-- Microsoft has to protect their intellectual property and their marketing position at all costs. The way to protect their intellectual property is to have limits on their available source code. The way to protect their marketing position is to always try to offer something that is not available through open source means.
I personally use both purchased and open source software all the time. A huge portion of the software that I have paid for is Microsoft. I would like to see open source continue on as a thorn in the side of Microsoft, spurring it on and forcing it to make higher quality products. I also hope that open source continues to provide alternatives to Microsoft for those who don't want to pay for expensive software. However, I think there is a place for both Microsoft and Open Source in the future. I don't expect either to go away anytime soon.
You are correct -- SQL server is very tightly bound to the Win32 API, and will probably never run on anything else. At the cost of portability, they did whatever they could to take advantage of the NT OS. (They claim, however, that they do not use any non-public APIs or use any public APIs in undocumented ways.)
I don't have any specific information about IIS, but I am fairly certain that it is fairly similar in nature -- strongly tied to Win32, but with little or no IIS-specific support in the OS.