Although it might have military applications, for reconnaissance over difficult terrain, Austin rejected suggestions that the XFV might be useful for special forces. "I can't see the SAS being very keen on it because the enemy could see it coming," he said. "You'd be a sitting duck."
Me thinks someone hasn't been playing enough Tiberian Sun.
I need a pause for the device on the com port to reply. Only, say, 50ms. It would have been dead easy to implement if I could just enter 'Wait 50' in my program. But no. I have to cann an ActiveX 'Timer' control, set it for 50ms (Timer1.Time = 50), make a call to start it (Timer1.Running = True) and then go to a totally different subroutime to tell it what to do when the timer had timed for 50ms. I could accept the difficulty in a low-level language like C, but it's not like VB is producing high-quality executables. They're messy, oversized and have to be distributed with a sh*tload of big-assed DLLs full of functions I don't want. I say 'screw this'. I'd rather learn C++.
Yeesh. Just cause there's one way, doesn't mean it is the only way. Sick and tired of hearing these types of complaints. The timer control is meant for something completely different.
Public Declare Sub Sleep Lib "kernel32" Alias "Sleep" (ByVal dwMilliseconds As Long)
And office always warns you when you open a document that contains a macro.
obviously anything that has scripting capabilities (like bash/ksh) can do dangerous things. depends on who you're logged on as, and your permissions as to how dangerous it can get.
its not news that documents with scripts (or scripts themselves) can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. and office warns you about them.
you all complain about windows holding peoples' hands. then you complain about this. it is just ridiculus.
i suppose windows should not allow users to run any exe?
Apple hasn't been a threat to Microsoft on the desktop for a long time...
and while i'm here, i'd just like to complain about the mindless comments of ESR.
"The problem the Mac community has is this: While the Windows interface stinks on ice, it is just good enough from the point of view of the casual user to rob the Mac of its mass market and its future,"
What the hell?
Yeah, us poor stupid windows users have no idea how crappy the windows UI.
Has ESR ever used Windows at ALL?
The windows UI is the most extensible UI. You can change it, hook onto it, write plugins for it, and even write scripts for it with DHTML/Javascript.
On windows, apps like ICQ and winzip can add to context menus for example - something no other GUI shell has done anywhere near as well.
BTW, having the source code does not mean something is extensible. It's an extremely poor excuse for bad coding practise.
I wasn't refering to the 'shell' extensions like 'command prompt here' stuff when you right click in explorer. I was referring to stuff like the webpage formatting of a dir in win2k explorer. Not something you can just add.
Webpage formatting of a fir in Win2k is the same thing. Why in gods name do you think this needs 'hidden apis'. Any idiot can do 'webpage formatting' of any dir. Explorer is a SHELL. It's a user level process than believe it or not can call win32 functions to list files and folders, and then dynamically generate a DHTML view of the files in C:\WINNT.
The fact that some application adds SH* functions, doesn't mean it somehow uses hidden APIs.
For example, the standard explorer shell extensions for adding icons to the tray (notify icons) don't use any 'hidden' APIs. You call it, and it uses IPC to tell explorer to add a new icon. This is an APPLICATION SPECIFIC, e.g. SHELL SPECIFIC API call. Nothing to do with anything underneath.
Other shell extensions like adding new menus when you right click on a file etc also have nothing to do with shell extensions.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
They need the NT source code so they can support Win32, not 'hidden apis'.
Paul Thurrott, the author of the Wininformant piece, askes a good question in as to why Mainsoft needs a copy of the WinNT source code if it's only porting IE.
Firstly this IE is integrated into NT is tiring. NT doesn't need IE to run. IE needs NT to run. However, Microsoft has all the right in the world to inculde IE as an integral part of NT. (remember, windows explorer/file manager isn't integrated - but it's essential to windows). Just like car seats aren't integrated - car still runs without seats. But its an essential part of the car.
Mainsoft has licensed the source to windows NT not just for IE. The source to NT is important cause IE uses windows APIs. The fastest way to get windows apps to run on unix is to license the source for windows from microsoft. This is something Mainsoft has been doing since before linux became important.
It has, for a long time, been thought of for strictly business use because of it's scalability, multi-user and SMP capabilites.
Um, no. Otherwise it would be running some of the world's largest websites.
Linux is used as cheap routers and web servers for some businesses. Why do you think the rest of the world runs NT/Solaris & BSD?
Linux is only commercially successful because of it's price. In a few years it will become scalable (even NT bet it in TCP/IP and web benchmarks) after all this commercial support - when it will get more organised development.
While I'm all for making computers easier to use, would typing "move all files beginning with the letter a to the directory called 'foo'" be any improvement over "mv a* foo" (or "move a* foo" for that matter)?
Well, no, not to experienced people, but try thinking outside of your Unix world for a while.
The kind of thing the type-in line does is make tasks that traditional CLI can't do easily, faster.
e.g.
user: schedule a meeting for me with bob. computer: when would you like to meet with bob? user: friday sometime. computer: where would you like to meet with bob? user: in his office. computer: ok, checking bob's schedule (goes over the internet using XML to get bob's schedule which you have been granted access to)....checking your schedule. ok, i've scheduled a meeting for you with bob in his office at 2pm on friday afternoon. Is this ok? user: yep. computer: done.
It's a natural interface, e.g. hopefully will be no different from you talking to a secretary. And you don't need a computer science degree to do it from a CLI.
Eventually in the future, the type-in line will be replaced by a speech recognition engine.
You're mixing your arguments here. Full-featured IE I believe only exists for desktop Windows. The IE on WinCE is seriously stripped down and probably doesn't even come close to Netscape's features.
Nah, stripped down, but more features than netscape (esp netscape for unix/linux). XML, DHTML, CSS1 and partial CSS2, Flashplugin etc.
All files I could possibly want to edit can be viewed in Emacs. To put it simply there was no need for a reusable component model simply to share data between applications.
Well, Windows has had many ways to share data too (pipes, mailslots, sockets etc etc), but that's not what COM solved.
It's about reusable code, and implementation transparency.
For example, in unix there's not standard way of embedding another application into your own for example.
In Windows, I can embedd other applications into my own, and what's more, I can embedd applications which don't even exist yet! As an example, Office 95 can contain Media Player 7, Even though media player 7 wasn't even around when Office 95 was written.
COM solved a lot more than IPC (IPC was just one convenience).
Well, Microsoft's customers aren't arrogant bastards who know computer science, and think everyone else should know just as much as them (otherwise they're stupid).
You do realise people have OTHER things to do, and people have other areas of expertise that aren't computer related don't you?
I personally want computers like this. I want computers that act the way the enterprise computer does, or the computers the as'gard have on sg1. They're powerful, and predict what you want etc.
That way I can get on with my life and have more time to do important things, not mundane tasks that you repeat over and over again (i'm sure they get you excited and feeling l33t tho).
Slashdot Mirror
Although it might have military applications, for reconnaissance over difficult terrain, Austin rejected suggestions that the XFV might be useful for special forces. "I can't see the SAS being very keen on it because the enemy could see it coming," he said. "You'd be a sitting duck."
Me thinks someone hasn't been playing enough Tiberian Sun.
I need a pause for the device on the com port to reply. Only, say, 50ms. It would have been dead easy to implement if I could just enter 'Wait 50' in my program. But no. I have to cann an ActiveX 'Timer' control, set it for 50ms (Timer1.Time = 50), make a call to start it (Timer1.Running = True) and then go to a totally different subroutime to tell it what to do when the timer had timed for 50ms. I could accept the difficulty in a low-level language like C, but it's not like VB is producing high-quality executables. They're messy, oversized and have to be distributed with a sh*tload of big-assed DLLs full of functions I don't want. I say 'screw this'. I'd rather learn C++.
Yeesh. Just cause there's one way, doesn't mean it is the only way. Sick and tired of hearing these types of complaints. The timer control is meant for something completely different.
Public Declare Sub Sleep Lib "kernel32" Alias "Sleep" (ByVal dwMilliseconds As Long)
"Sleep 50"
And office always warns you when you open a document that contains a macro.
obviously anything that has scripting capabilities (like bash/ksh) can do dangerous things. depends on who you're logged on as, and your permissions as to how dangerous it can get.
its not news that documents with scripts (or scripts themselves) can be dangerous if you don't know what you're doing. and office warns you about them.
you all complain about windows holding peoples' hands. then you complain about this. it is just ridiculus.
i suppose windows should not allow users to run any exe?
Sounds more like you need to sue your system adminstrator.
Absurd example if you know how Windows does this (you are in a maze of twisty little CLSIDs).
They're implented as COM objects. And they're not twsity or obsurd.
And judging by how many people take advantage of the public interfaces explorer exports, its not hard either.
Apple hasn't been a threat to Microsoft on the desktop for a long time...
and while i'm here, i'd just like to complain about the mindless comments of ESR.
"The problem the Mac community has is this: While the Windows interface stinks on ice, it is just good enough from the point of view of the casual user to rob the Mac of its mass market and its future,"
What the hell?
Yeah, us poor stupid windows users have no idea how crappy the windows UI.
Has ESR ever used Windows at ALL?
The windows UI is the most extensible UI. You can change it, hook onto it, write plugins for it, and even write scripts for it with DHTML/Javascript.
On windows, apps like ICQ and winzip can add to context menus for example - something no other GUI shell has done anywhere near as well.
BTW, having the source code does not mean something is extensible. It's an extremely poor excuse for bad coding practise.
And yes, I am bitter.
What do you mean by that?
There's the standard Random class, and Math.random. There are also numerous other random number generator classes outthere with much greater cycles.
I don't know what you mean by "try implementing it in the real world". Many people do.
I'm no fan of sun...but I just don't know what you're getting out of this...
Math.random() too hard for you to understand?
Why spend 10 years reverse engineering Win32 (like WINE) when you can just license the source?
I wasn't refering to the 'shell' extensions like 'command prompt here' stuff when you right click in explorer. I was referring to stuff like the webpage formatting of a dir in win2k explorer. Not something you can just add.
Webpage formatting of a fir in Win2k is the same thing. Why in gods name do you think this needs 'hidden apis'. Any idiot can do 'webpage formatting' of any dir. Explorer is a SHELL. It's a user level process than believe it or not can call win32 functions to list files and folders, and then dynamically generate a DHTML view of the files in C:\WINNT.
Nothing magic. Geez.
You've never seen a car without seats?
That's not the point. A car could run without seats, so why are these evil car companies forcing us to buy cars with their ugly seats?
I want a rocking chair in my car.
Analogy was fine.
Do you even know what shell extensions are?
The fact that some application adds SH* functions, doesn't mean it somehow uses hidden APIs.
For example, the standard explorer shell extensions for adding icons to the tray (notify icons) don't use any 'hidden' APIs. You call it, and it uses IPC to tell explorer to add a new icon. This is an APPLICATION SPECIFIC, e.g. SHELL SPECIFIC API call. Nothing to do with anything underneath.
Other shell extensions like adding new menus when you right click on a file etc also have nothing to do with shell extensions.
I don't think you know what you're talking about.
They need the NT source code so they can support Win32, not 'hidden apis'.
Paul Thurrott, the author of the Wininformant piece, askes a good question in as to why Mainsoft needs a copy of the WinNT source code if it's only porting IE.
Firstly this IE is integrated into NT is tiring. NT doesn't need IE to run. IE needs NT to run. However, Microsoft has all the right in the world to inculde IE as an integral part of NT. (remember, windows explorer/file manager isn't integrated - but it's essential to windows). Just like car seats aren't integrated - car still runs without seats. But its an essential part of the car.
Mainsoft has licensed the source to windows NT not just for IE. The source to NT is important cause IE uses windows APIs. The fastest way to get windows apps to run on unix is to license the source for windows from microsoft. This is something Mainsoft has been doing since before linux became important.
It has, for a long time, been thought of for strictly business use because of it's scalability, multi-user and SMP capabilites.
Um, no. Otherwise it would be running some of the world's largest websites.
Linux is used as cheap routers and web servers for some businesses. Why do you think the rest of the world runs NT/Solaris & BSD?
Linux is only commercially successful because of it's price. In a few years it will become scalable (even NT bet it in TCP/IP and web benchmarks) after all this commercial support - when it will get more organised development.
If you are basically using your computer for browsing the web, does it really matter whether you have a 1 Gig cpu?
I guess you didn't try out Netscape 6 PR2.
Huh? Why would you develop for a specific browser? Just follow the standards, and your stuff should work with all browsers.
Well yes, I try to develop using standards like XML, VML, CSS, DHTML, HTML4.0, ECMAScript etc, and guess what, it's all bullshit under Netscape.
While I'm all for making computers easier to use, would typing "move all files beginning with the letter a to the directory called 'foo'" be any improvement over "mv a* foo" (or "move a* foo" for that matter)?
Well, no, not to experienced people, but try thinking outside of your Unix world for a while.
The kind of thing the type-in line does is make tasks that traditional CLI can't do easily, faster.
e.g.
user: schedule a meeting for me with bob.
computer: when would you like to meet with bob?
user: friday sometime.
computer: where would you like to meet with bob?
user: in his office.
computer: ok, checking bob's schedule (goes over the internet using XML to get bob's schedule which you have been granted access to)....checking your schedule.
ok, i've scheduled a meeting for you with bob in his office at 2pm on friday afternoon. Is this ok?
user: yep.
computer: done.
It's a natural interface, e.g. hopefully will be no different from you talking to a secretary. And you don't need a computer science degree to do it from a CLI.
Eventually in the future, the type-in line will be replaced by a speech recognition engine.
You're mixing your arguments here. Full-featured IE I believe only exists for desktop Windows. The IE on WinCE is seriously stripped down and probably doesn't even come close to Netscape's features.
Nah, stripped down, but more features than netscape (esp netscape for unix/linux). XML, DHTML, CSS1 and partial CSS2, Flashplugin etc.
All files I could possibly want to edit can be viewed in Emacs. To put it simply there was no need for a reusable component model simply to share data between applications.
Well, Windows has had many ways to share data too (pipes, mailslots, sockets etc etc), but that's not what COM solved.
It's about reusable code, and implementation transparency.
For example, in unix there's not standard way of embedding another application into your own for example.
In Windows, I can embedd other applications into my own, and what's more, I can embedd applications which don't even exist yet! As an example, Office 95 can contain Media Player 7, Even though media player 7 wasn't even around when Office 95 was written.
COM solved a lot more than IPC (IPC was just one convenience).
And yes, I know GNOME and KDE are working it.
Well, Microsoft's customers aren't arrogant bastards who know computer science, and think everyone else should know just as much as them (otherwise they're stupid).
You do realise people have OTHER things to do, and people have other areas of expertise that aren't computer related don't you?
I personally want computers like this. I want computers that act the way the enterprise computer does, or the computers the as'gard have on sg1. They're powerful, and predict what you want etc.
That way I can get on with my life and have more time to do important things, not mundane tasks that you repeat over and over again (i'm sure they get you excited and feeling l33t tho).
You CAN'T turn it off.
/. nowdays.
Shouldn't be suprised, ignorance is flourishing on
Tools -> Customize -> Options
Typically u get modded up...
I wouldn't think that XBox will be very open to develop for, but the DC might be.
Yeah, just like windows, not open to develop, no wonder windows has the least applications and games of any OS...oh wait...
for your interest, you can develop for x-box with visual studio (C++/VB etc) and the SDK will be free (like all the windows SDKs).
You're kind of, umm...deluded.
i think one of the keys in this fight (if you want to call it that) is to get kids using linux.
Yes, good god, we don't want kids dealing windows now do we?
Unicode = 2 bytes.
That is 2^16 (65536) characters.
That's NOT 20million.
And wouldn't fit all the languages if you went and tried to have them all represented at once.
Duh So what? That's not useful at all. GPF is an application error.