Yes, there are cases where Linux is insecure and unscalable. There are cases where it is more secure and more scalable.
So you're the one who named his first child Ignorance.
Re:Nothing but Vanity on Microsoft's part.
on
IE7 Details Emerge
·
· Score: 1
It's not like they are making money on IE.
No, it's not directly about money here. It's simple mind/thought control. They don't want their users to even think about replacing MS apps or the OS with anything else. They don't want Joe Sixpacks to consider anything to even exist besides MS or MS apps. That's what can give you power over your userbase, and give a bit of confidence that you can always feed your next loaf of bread with your flock. It also gives you a bit of time, because the momentum you have can be exploited to be able to be a bit late with your "innovations" since your users will wait for you.
No, no, no, their self-proclaimed focus on their developers, that is those who click-and-build a website/service with MS tools and don't care what the generated code looks like (I've seen quite some folks "developing" like this) and who ever test their codes only with IE and they're done with it.
[offtopic]Quickly on a really sidenote, I just recalled an event where a MS guy came showing university kids aps.net capabilities,.net, the tools, vs.net2k3, etc etc. I went just out of curiosity, to see what's up. At the end there was a Q&A session and one of the kids asked what about the crappy html&js code that was generated (the MS guy made a working aps.net example during the presentation), what about making it cleaner, better formatted, less bloated, etc. The answer: it will be fixed in vs.net2k5. Yup, _THE_ MS answer to all problems.[/offtopic]
First seen in Opera that is first seen implemented in a web browser. If you take away that bit, tabbed browsing is actually quite and really old. A good one, still, but the Opera guys just brought over an old idea and put it in. Just like M$ is doing now, and for ages.
For me, tabbed browsing is not a major goodie for firefox, but it's
I have to agree, there are many FFox extentions which make also my life easier and - besides the very good other features of FFox that I can appreciate as a developer - I couldn't easily drop using them. I currently have about a dozen very nice extentions installed which all by themselves make FFox - for me - high above than others in usability.
when they do, we'll fix those bugs immidiately... or at least in a few months
Yup, right, and you say that based on similar M$ behavior in the past ? That would be quite hard to do. So you'd have to express your own hopes on the matter, which is nice, but entirely unrealistic. And, yup, that _is_ based on past M$ behavior.
Why in the hell do you need an RSS aggregator in your web browser?
Actually, I also thought the same back when they implemented it. But when I saw how good it actually works and how fun it is to actually have a bookmark folder with my favourite news sites all listing the news items as subfolders, I come to love the stuff. I find it much more useful than any other e-mail client implementation I ever used.
Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?
The problem is guys like you think this way and think they know and that they are right. Patent office clerks probably have about the same amount of information when accept patents like this as you do: a bit below nothing.
I for one - having developed big software, and just in the process of starting up a small company - just care for one thing: patents stay out of Europe, and M$-like patenting behaviour stay out of Europe. I don't want no big company coming here, patenting everything from water to stars and making us pay for them. I don't want to spend my life checking whether the lines of code I've written are already owned by some big bull.
Big companies on sw-patenting sprees are only good for one thing: killing off smaller companies instantly and middle size companies on the long run. Many see and know this, still nothng is done.
And hell, why would anything be done, in Africa hundreds die a day in hunger and still nothing is done.
Re:What is their definition of IT anyway?
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Well, basically, what we studied is also similar to C.S. but extended with engineering topics and studies. As the tendency shows (coming from the west, blowing in the wind:) IT degrees seem to perish, evolving "back" to separate C.S. and electrical engineering and mathematical programmer and the like seperate educations.
What I liked in our studies and that it's really an IT degree was that if you wished you could gather a quite broad and not that specific knowledge and at the same time, on the same course one also could gather a very specific deep knowledge and specialization. Well, both can be good and bad sometimes.
I for one mixed what I liked the best: did IT and electrical engineering in parallel, which was good since it provided me more insight in many areas.
If IT remains a field where the only relevant knowledge is what you've done in the last two months or two years, then it makes no sense for someone to spend a career on it.
While there are areas of IT that can have the definition you gave above, there are far more aread of it that would not fit to that assumption. And especially if someone works in R&D fields of IT. All in all, there is a large amount of practical knowledge that can relatively quickly be outdated, but this does not encompass the IT as a whole.
For a quite uninteresting example, I don't consider myself outdated in any ways, I spend 8-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week doing my work (mostly R and frequently R&D), still the most knowledge I use springs not mainly from the knowledge I gathered recently [although that is constantly quite a quantity], but over a quite much longer period.
Re:What is their definition of IT anyway?
on
Women Leaving I.T.
·
· Score: 1
Does writing content for websites count as IT?
Most of my past univ. profs would bash you for such a question. Me [i.e. having msc in information technology] would only do that because you said "writing content for".
Now, I know women [i.e. more than one:) ] working in IT or closely related area, in a quite broad age spectrum. And most of them do their stuff quite well.
[OFFTOPIC]
Yup, but you can't mount it under A: or B:. On other news, you can't load drivers during Win install only from A:, but you can't make anything A: besides FDD, which many of us don't have for years.
[/OFFTOPIC]
combined with the WinFS service running on top of NTFS
Actually this has been one of my problems since I heard the first rumours. Did you ever tried simply entering a directory under ntfs with indexing turned on in which there were hundredthousand+ files ? Yes ? Then imagine adding extra indexing/metadata extraction in the background to that. Well, unless extra speedup is achieved by Redmond fellows, I don't need that.
Expect this to be the first step toward the wholesale elimination of drive letters in a future Windows version.
And for which century do you expect that to happen ?:)) Probably you'd need to take the time from befs to winfs and go exponential:) And remember Duke Nukem Forever in the meanwhile:)
However, there's more to it than fast database searches in WinFS
Yes it is, and that is a good thing, be it MS or not. What I not really that much like is that I imagine what kind of fast hdd and pc one will need to be able to really seamlessly and unnoticeably run MSSQL upon NTFS.
I don't see how anything net-based could replace DVD (or b-ray, or hd-dvd etc) disk-based video distribution in the not-so-near future. Why ? Simple: quality.
I wouldn't drop DVDs for anything with less quality, even if it would be a bit more comfortable to get, than going to the local DVD-store or order a DVD online. True, that good quality compression can be today achieved in less the filesize, but these techniques are not so widespread, as DVDs and MPEG2 are. Not until H-264 will be really ubiquitous (both in sw and hw players) will we have anything capable to deliver good enough quality in a size which will not take hours long to download even on "broad"band. I wouldn't want to download a movie and paying for it if
a). it has worse quality than my DVDs or the HDTV movies on tv
b). takes longer to get than going and buying or renting a disk
c). won't stay on my collection just for a few hours/watchings/etc because of bull DRM applied.
Besides these above, I mostly buy such movies on DVD which I consider classics - on many scales - but I still didn't manage to get some I wished, e.g. Blade Runner can't be bought in my region [dvd region that is] for years now. So what if the net-based movie rental company decided not to make available older movies: you'd be left with nothing. I don't want that. I might just be too paranoid with this, but today's businness practices tought me/us not to really trust _any_ company in the long term.
The only thing that doesn't make me too interested in this idea [from the article] is that I can see no way that _all_ the music could ever be sold/bought this way. I mean, I don't even buy and/or download about 90% of today's fashionable pop crap, which I suppose would make up most of such available music contents. Also, just think how few publishers sell music today on the net. The music I mostly buy (jazz genres, blues, oldschool rock, etc., contemporary and from the last 30+ years) I will always buy, and I would be reasonably happy to see much of these genres widely available also in music netshops.
Shortly put, for me it's not the 5 cents that would make such an option most appealing, but much more the content, for which I would gladly pay more than 0.05 of whatever currency.
but they usually say that they think it's crisper and the look is more consistent across applications
Ok, so here's my example. I don't care that much about the whatever look they say kde has or hasn't. I use kde for many years now - while I also use gnome from time to time and I like it better at every release - and it isn't all shiny and bloated: it's totally customized to my needs and it's very fast, clean, consistent _and_ at the same time quite good looking. That's why I, and many others, use it. I also spend time using and customizing gnome from time to time, but never could achieve the same comfortable feeling and get to the same "usefulness level" for my taste (!!).
If you belong to an institution and you need access to publications to carry out your work than the institution is supposed to pay subscriptions.
Well, quick example, here they pay for some, but generally not for those which I would prefer, and especially not for all of them. And I don't have the [financial] sources to pay myself for the memberships I would like to have. Now that can be some real showstopper.
replacing "s" with "$" is considered to be the height of coolness in a community
I just hate when this comes up again and again. So I tell you: we don't replace s with $ because it's cool. We do so, because it just perfectly represents what is the most important there in Redmond. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. $tupid (now that was cool:)
You're talking about binary cmpatibility, so why don't you say it up ahead ? Hell, I could come up with dozens of examples when apps compiled with vs6+sp5+pp under winxp didn't run under win98/me. Would that change your rambling mind ? Guess not, so why bother ? brb
Ease of use is all that mattersTO YOU, dude. There are those guys who call us zealots. Then they come up front and preach like they are the next Jesus of OS design.
Get lost, we love linux because what it's like, not because some of you wish it to become some wierd sick windows-clone.
Being the developer nerd as I sometimes am, I have to - quite sarcastically - say: ok, so where's the problem ? If one can't build a Cobra racing car from parts, buy a pre-built Suzuki. You'll be able to drive, but will just wonder till retirement how some guys can do such tricks on the road. Most users are no developers. But most of them always comply when they willingly put their hands on a distro not especially crafted to clickety-click users' needs.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are cases where Linux is insecure and unscalable. There are cases where it is more secure and more scalable.
So you're the one who named his first child Ignorance.
It's not like they are making money on IE.
No, it's not directly about money here. It's simple mind/thought control. They don't want their users to even think about replacing MS apps or the OS with anything else. They don't want Joe Sixpacks to consider anything to even exist besides MS or MS apps. That's what can give you power over your userbase, and give a bit of confidence that you can always feed your next loaf of bread with your flock. It also gives you a bit of time, because the momentum you have can be exploited to be able to be a bit late with your "innovations" since your users will wait for you.
No, I won't switch since for some of us support for other platforms (like Linux) is just as important as being standards compliant and secure.
With their self-proclaimed focus on developers
.net, the tools, vs.net2k3, etc etc. I went just out of curiosity, to see what's up. At the end there was a Q&A session and one of the kids asked what about the crappy html&js code that was generated (the MS guy made a working aps.net example during the presentation), what about making it cleaner, better formatted, less bloated, etc. The answer: it will be fixed in vs.net2k5. Yup, _THE_ MS answer to all problems.[/offtopic]
No, no, no, their self-proclaimed focus on their developers, that is those who click-and-build a website/service with MS tools and don't care what the generated code looks like (I've seen quite some folks "developing" like this) and who ever test their codes only with IE and they're done with it.
[offtopic]Quickly on a really sidenote, I just recalled an event where a MS guy came showing university kids aps.net capabilities,
Oh wait...
Yup, this summs the whole thing up quite well, should also be put on M$'s flag or something and replacing M$ release dates.
first seen in Opera
First seen in Opera that is first seen implemented in a web browser. If you take away that bit, tabbed browsing is actually quite and really old. A good one, still, but the Opera guys just brought over an old idea and put it in. Just like M$ is doing now, and for ages.
For me, tabbed browsing is not a major goodie for firefox, but it's
I have to agree, there are many FFox extentions which make also my life easier and - besides the very good other features of FFox that I can appreciate as a developer - I couldn't easily drop using them. I currently have about a dozen very nice extentions installed which all by themselves make FFox - for me - high above than others in usability.
when they do, we'll fix those bugs immidiately... or at least in a few months
Yup, right, and you say that based on similar M$ behavior in the past ? That would be quite hard to do. So you'd have to express your own hopes on the matter, which is nice, but entirely unrealistic. And, yup, that _is_ based on past M$ behavior.
Why in the hell do you need an RSS aggregator in your web browser?
Actually, I also thought the same back when they implemented it. But when I saw how good it actually works and how fun it is to actually have a bookmark folder with my favourite news sites all listing the news items as subfolders, I come to love the stuff. I find it much more useful than any other e-mail client implementation I ever used.
Well they did invent XML so I dont see what the problem is?
The problem is guys like you think this way and think they know and that they are right. Patent office clerks probably have about the same amount of information when accept patents like this as you do: a bit below nothing.
I for one - having developed big software, and just in the process of starting up a small company - just care for one thing: patents stay out of Europe, and M$-like patenting behaviour stay out of Europe. I don't want no big company coming here, patenting everything from water to stars and making us pay for them. I don't want to spend my life checking whether the lines of code I've written are already owned by some big bull.
Big companies on sw-patenting sprees are only good for one thing: killing off smaller companies instantly and middle size companies on the long run. Many see and know this, still nothng is done.
And hell, why would anything be done, in Africa hundreds die a day in hunger and still nothing is done.
Well, basically, what we studied is also similar to C.S. but extended with engineering topics and studies. As the tendency shows (coming from the west, blowing in the wind :) IT degrees seem to perish, evolving "back" to separate C.S. and electrical engineering and mathematical programmer and the like seperate educations.
What I liked in our studies and that it's really an IT degree was that if you wished you could gather a quite broad and not that specific knowledge and at the same time, on the same course one also could gather a very specific deep knowledge and specialization. Well, both can be good and bad sometimes.
I for one mixed what I liked the best: did IT and electrical engineering in parallel, which was good since it provided me more insight in many areas.
If IT remains a field where the only relevant knowledge is what you've done in the last two months or two years, then it makes no sense for someone to spend a career on it.
While there are areas of IT that can have the definition you gave above, there are far more aread of it that would not fit to that assumption. And especially if someone works in R&D fields of IT. All in all, there is a large amount of practical knowledge that can relatively quickly be outdated, but this does not encompass the IT as a whole.
For a quite uninteresting example, I don't consider myself outdated in any ways, I spend 8-12 hours a day 6-7 days a week doing my work (mostly R and frequently R&D), still the most knowledge I use springs not mainly from the knowledge I gathered recently [although that is constantly quite a quantity], but over a quite much longer period.
Does writing content for websites count as IT?
:) ] working in IT or closely related area, in a quite broad age spectrum. And most of them do their stuff quite well.
Most of my past univ. profs would bash you for such a question. Me [i.e. having msc in information technology] would only do that because you said "writing content for".
Now, I know women [i.e. more than one
example mount my DVD-ROM at E: to C:\Devices\DVD
:)) Probably you'd need to take the time from befs to winfs and go exponential :) And remember Duke Nukem Forever in the meanwhile :)
[OFFTOPIC]
Yup, but you can't mount it under A: or B:. On other news, you can't load drivers during Win install only from A:, but you can't make anything A: besides FDD, which many of us don't have for years.
[/OFFTOPIC]
combined with the WinFS service running on top of NTFS
Actually this has been one of my problems since I heard the first rumours. Did you ever tried simply entering a directory under ntfs with indexing turned on in which there were hundredthousand+ files ? Yes ? Then imagine adding extra indexing/metadata extraction in the background to that. Well, unless extra speedup is achieved by Redmond fellows, I don't need that.
Expect this to be the first step toward the wholesale elimination of drive letters in a future Windows version.
And for which century do you expect that to happen ?
However, there's more to it than fast database searches in WinFS
Yes it is, and that is a good thing, be it MS or not. What I not really that much like is that I imagine what kind of fast hdd and pc one will need to be able to really seamlessly and unnoticeably run MSSQL upon NTFS.
I don't see how anything net-based could replace DVD (or b-ray, or hd-dvd etc) disk-based video distribution in the not-so-near future. Why ? Simple: quality.
I wouldn't drop DVDs for anything with less quality, even if it would be a bit more comfortable to get, than going to the local DVD-store or order a DVD online. True, that good quality compression can be today achieved in less the filesize, but these techniques are not so widespread, as DVDs and MPEG2 are. Not until H-264 will be really ubiquitous (both in sw and hw players) will we have anything capable to deliver good enough quality in a size which will not take hours long to download even on "broad"band. I wouldn't want to download a movie and paying for it if
a). it has worse quality than my DVDs or the HDTV movies on tv
b). takes longer to get than going and buying or renting a disk
c). won't stay on my collection just for a few hours/watchings/etc because of bull DRM applied.
Besides these above, I mostly buy such movies on DVD which I consider classics - on many scales - but I still didn't manage to get some I wished, e.g. Blade Runner can't be bought in my region [dvd region that is] for years now. So what if the net-based movie rental company decided not to make available older movies: you'd be left with nothing. I don't want that. I might just be too paranoid with this, but today's businness practices tought me/us not to really trust _any_ company in the long term.
The only thing that doesn't make me too interested in this idea [from the article] is that I can see no way that _all_ the music could ever be sold/bought this way. I mean, I don't even buy and/or download about 90% of today's fashionable pop crap, which I suppose would make up most of such available music contents. Also, just think how few publishers sell music today on the net. The music I mostly buy (jazz genres, blues, oldschool rock, etc., contemporary and from the last 30+ years) I will always buy, and I would be reasonably happy to see much of these genres widely available also in music netshops.
Shortly put, for me it's not the 5 cents that would make such an option most appealing, but much more the content, for which I would gladly pay more than 0.05 of whatever currency.
but they usually say that they think it's crisper and the look is more consistent across applications
Ok, so here's my example. I don't care that much about the whatever look they say kde has or hasn't. I use kde for many years now - while I also use gnome from time to time and I like it better at every release - and it isn't all shiny and bloated: it's totally customized to my needs and it's very fast, clean, consistent _and_ at the same time quite good looking. That's why I, and many others, use it. I also spend time using and customizing gnome from time to time, but never could achieve the same comfortable feeling and get to the same "usefulness level" for my taste (!!).
I don't care about underlying architechture, but just shipping KDE with a gnome-like
If you really don't care, why don't you suggest the opposite, for a change...
If you belong to an institution and you need access to publications to carry out your work than the institution is supposed to pay subscriptions.
Well, quick example, here they pay for some, but generally not for those which I would prefer, and especially not for all of them. And I don't have the [financial] sources to pay myself for the memberships I would like to have. Now that can be some real showstopper.
opensource development continues to be done by insecure "14 year olds"
You'd be surprised how very many of them have wife&kids and well-payed jobs. Not bad for a 14 year-old.
replacing "s" with "$" is considered to be the height of coolness in a community
:)
I just hate when this comes up again and again. So I tell you: we don't replace s with $ because it's cool. We do so, because it just perfectly represents what is the most important there in Redmond. That's it, nothing more, nothing less. $tupid (now that was cool
You're talking about binary cmpatibility, so why don't you say it up ahead ? Hell, I could come up with dozens of examples when apps compiled with vs6+sp5+pp under winxp didn't run under win98/me. Would that change your rambling mind ? Guess not, so why bother ? brb
Ease of use is all that matters TO YOU, dude. There are those guys who call us zealots. Then they come up front and preach like they are the next Jesus of OS design.
Get lost, we love linux because what it's like, not because some of you wish it to become some wierd sick windows-clone.
Being the developer nerd as I sometimes am, I have to - quite sarcastically - say: ok, so where's the problem ? If one can't build a Cobra racing car from parts, buy a pre-built Suzuki. You'll be able to drive, but will just wonder till retirement how some guys can do such tricks on the road. Most users are no developers. But most of them always comply when they willingly put their hands on a distro not especially crafted to clickety-click users' needs.