I usually don't directly code IO completion ports cause I don't usually write high end 'enterprise' software, however I do benefit from them indirectly cause my ASP runs IIS, and many other NT software uses IO completion:)
Define sufficient; some parts of Linux are more threaded than others. Why rework something if it isn't a bottleneck?
The thing is it is. Almost everything is a bottleneck - especially on TCP/IP if it's not threaded - this is especially important too as linux becomes more GUIish.
For what? And if so, where are all the sites out there using it:)
Well, Microsoft.com and a few other sites out there are using IIS5 (microsoft.com is the world's largest commercial site).
And the speed record was set with the university of washington.
And I somehwat disagree with what you say at the end in a way.
I'm a prorgammer too...lemme give you this scenario.
If you wrote your own DNS server, and some DNS clients. Now, I would actually have the DNS clients _very_ simple, and since I _KNOW_ that I wrote the DNS server, and know if should deny invalid names, then I would write the client to send bad names, that way if anything changes (eg. DNS becomes more lenient) I would only have to change the server, the server would be the one that determines whether it's correct or not.
There's too many cases where programmers hard wrire there software (which is especially bad in these client-server situations). The rule? The server should be able to handle any bad requests from a client.
What you're saying reminds me of netscape when they made an excuse about a bug in their web server - the excuse was, IE is bad, it sends unexpected characters...bad bad bad.
The only down side of having the server do verification is the speed...but then that's where you add extra options to the clients.
If Microsoft doesn't properly validate input in the browser, then how can we be sure that Microsoft is properly validating input anywhere else? Maybe that is the reason why Windows has the many problems that it does.
If it's something like DNS, I wouldn't be worried at all (for the above reasons).
Seeing as it resolves microsoft-.com and 3com.com.
Being able to pass on invalid domains in windows 2000 does not make it broken, it makes it lenient (imagine all those people complaining after not being able to get to 3com.com)
NT's TCP/IP stack seems to outperform linux farely substantially, because it's threaded, and generally BSD based. NT keeping up with Linux's TCP/IP performace? Maybe on a 486, but not on a scaled SMP or even normal high end machines. Linux lacks many of NT's optimization features (like IO completion ports), or evn sufficient use of any threading.
Also, lets not forget Windows 2000 currently holds the networking speed record.
Everyone who's encountered this crammed-together style has suffered data loss by accidently clicking the wrong button... not by way of momentary braindeath, but because the mouse overshot the button that was supposed to be clicked.
Ofcourse in windows you could just double click on the title to maximize or restore the window. Who the heck actually uses the min/max caption buttons (unless the mouse is close).
Apparently. Oh that's what it was, was it? 'A coding flaw' that just happened to send information back to a database, after assigning everyone a unique ID?
I wouldn't even call it a flaw, an oversight.
And I don't think any GUIDs where being collected into any special database. I mean, GUIDs have been in use for like 15 years now, and MS uses them extensively, i mean, a GUID gets attached to a word (compound OLE document - eg. uses GUIDs) it's hardly a security flaw IMHO...or a bug IMHO.
MS just don't seem to realise how many people out there get freaked over something so small (the same people who use credit cards)
Oh please, show me a BETTER equivalent of PowerPoint, Excel, Word and Access in Linux. Star Office only takes about 2 minutes to load, then tries to take over the entire desktop, and crash at the same time.
They make proper choices, most people can handle using Word with their eyes closed.
And you're using Linux, I wouldn't be talking about stability, ever had the file system crash on you multiple times? Ever seen X croak consistantly?
Yes, ofcourse you can, you could since before Windows 3.0. Ever seen litestep etc? Alternatives are extending the shell with COM objects/dlls etc (adding items to context menus of files, extending the task bar etc).
Can you replace the kernel?
What would be the point? If you buy windows with the intention of changing the kernel you shouldn't be buying windows.
Does it run on 20+ Architectures?
What's this got to do with my original objection? NT's kernel design allows it to run on almost anything with very little source change, but most people didn't want to run it on 20+ archtectures. Windows CE (based on NT) runs on a bit more cause of the wide variety of vendors.
Would 911 run Windows (I do wonder why they run Linux, hmm..)?
I believe lots of police and emergency response places run Windows (many i've seen actually run win31). Most businesses would say that run Linux now days - even if they just have a single box as an internet gateway or soemthing. It's fasionable.
Gee that's original.
Yes, but it was relevent, you can extend windows (something you implied to otherwise).
Again, how is that better than Linux. Dude man show me a 2000 release that doen't need sound recorder or media player to play a sound file. Only the driver.
I never said anything about being better than Linux, I was making an objection to the statement made about having to wait 4 years for "new features". And I don't know what you mean by the second comment....no version of windows since 3.0 has needed sound recorder or media player to play a sound file, why don't you just use the winmm (winmm.dll) apis? Or, in windows 2000, the DirectSound apis.
cat(concatenate, or just send) sound.au(raw audio) > (to, like DUH!)/dev/dsp (digital signal processor aka sound card)
Yes that is nice how you can do it in the shell, but it's only a limitation that windows doesn't have a shell that's quite as advanced as unix's shells. Windows has an advanced GUI and API. To play a simple sound, you can use the SndPlaySound API, to do more extensive transformations etc, you would probably want to use DirectSound. Win32 and NT's implementation especially has basically the equivalants of all of unix's/dev things, \Device\PhysicalMemory for/dev/kmem etc, but you generally can't access them from a CLI shell. Ofcourse, that doesn't stop anyone writing a CL processor to accept windows monikers. What you point out here is window's lack of CLI support for it's advanced features, not anything lacking in the kernel. Windows also has a nice model of "contexts", DeviceContexts etc, and normally when you want to directly access a sound card (without using DirectSound) you'd use EnumDevices etc and see what sounds cards are there, then pick the one you want. Many windows devices are indeed mapped to names like "/dev/dsp". eg. "\Device\Display0" etc.
Second, Kernel extensions that need to be rewritten every few years compared to fully published stable APIs.
NT's DDK, SDK etc are fully published, and fully supported by microsoft (ever seen MSDN?). The windows driver model looks like it'll be around for a while yet, but I'm betting that it will indeed get phased out in about 5 years and new hardware comes along. Standard Application APIs stay the same for a long time though (Win32).
Nope. Wrong. I compare only the distributions I use to what comes on the Windows CD. I only need to do that. Though Linux still beats Windows in bare bones setup.
That's exactly what I mean, many distributions come with a lot of software. Microsoft generally has to support everything on their CDs, that's why they don't even include freeware windows applications like WinAMP on their CDs. It's unfair to compare a Linux distribution CD to an out of the box windows CD. Imagine if MS wasn't allowed to distribute IE in windows, you'd be complaning about how crap windows is cause windows doesn't have a web browser - when in reality windows is the best browsing platform ATM.
Windows gives me a click and drool universe and oh my god look at the pretty colors euphoria as the only reward. I'm not a kid anymore. It takes power and gunctionality to make me drool. I'm certainly not impressed.
Power and functionality is exactly why I use NT. I love extending the OS, and the RICH, nicely documented APIs I have available to me. How good is Linux at (Remote Access) RAS, Componentization (COM+), Telephony (TAPI), Speech (SAPI), 3D (DirectX), DataAccess (ODBC), Accessibility (MSA), Transaction Servers (MTS), Message Queuing (MSMQ), IIS, ASP, ActiveX, PnP..etc ...the list goes on (note, everthing i list is free with windows)...
Part of the reason that linux has been lacking good software with easily configuration is it's lack of easy IDEs, and rich, but easy APIs to do next to everything. That's changing a lot now though, which is ofcourse a good thing.
Windows NT may look pretty, but don't let that fool you into thinking there's nothing underneath.
Part of the reason people don't realise NT has a hell of a lot of power (basically it has equivalents of what Unix has and more..) is cause they see they can do all this stuff from the unix CLI, in Windows, you generally have to write an application (and generally in C/C++) to actually see what you can do. That's changing a wee bit now that MS have been working on Windows Scripting, trying to get a few more COM objects that do a bit more with the OS. Linux still needs to grow up where it's importnant now days, scalability - more use of threading, new io apis like NT's IO completition ports would help with Linux's network speed as well.
I think Windows beats Unix at everything, except for stability - which they're continuing to work on. Windows 2000 still can't beat something like solaris at stability, though it tries hard. But that's the price you pay for supporting a wide array of commodity hardware, rather than using proprietry hardware.
Remember, if you choose W2K you have to live with that feature set for the next three or four years, perhaps more
How did you figure that one out? Windows is a modular OS and NT is a modular kernel.
The feature set is already richer than Linux/Unix is many areas - anything that's missing - write it yourself. Write kernel extensions, drivers, software. I don't really see how what you say is relevant. You're like one of those people who go and compare Linux + every single piece of unix software created to Windows NT out of the box. NT4 didn't have a telnet server - but you didn't have to wait to W2K to get one, write one yourself, port it from Unix using cygwin, or buy one. You complain when windows includes too many features - then you complain when windows lacks some features.
Using extensions to identify filetypes is quite a nice idea you know. It's not like windows absolutely needs it, but it's just the status quo at the moment, and it works quite nicely.
Thank you. Since I can replace IE in Windows, it means Windows and IE are not integrated. Which in turn means that Microsoft has blantantly lied during the trial. Perhaps you'd care to revise your statement?
No, cause integration doesn't imply a permanent situtation. in the case of windows, windows is integrated with ie. It would not work the same without IE. However, windows _IS_ software, and nothing in software is permanent. Do you think the IO subsystem in linux is integrated into the kernel? It could easily be replaced couldn't it? This is software. Pick anything in software which you think is integrated and think if it can be replaced. Duh.
That's a strange statement. First you say that Mozilla, as a COM component, can replace IE, and then you say that Windows won't work quite right without IE. Why not? If Windows is only using the COM interface to IE, then Mozilla/COM should work perfectly.
Yes, mozilla/COM with windows will work, but windows without mozilla/com or ie won't work the same.
Windows won't work the same without IE. You could replace IE with something else - any HTMl renderer that supports DHTML properly. But the court isn't trying to force microsoft to replace IE in windows with something not called IE or mozilla are they?
Noone is saying that it is absolutely impossible for windows to work without IE. It is just that many features of windows rely on IE - the HTML rendering component. Ofcourse you can replace the component with something else - it is software. If you can't accept all this, then you will just have to accept that NOTHING in software is legal or integrated cause it can all be replaced with something else. That would mean that all software is made up of millions of components that aren't "really" integrated since the integration isn't permanent (something you know isn't true of any software).
It's like saying your body won't work without a heart. But how can you say that when I could take out your heart and replace it with a heart/lung machine.
Given that IE is essentially a COM component, which by definition has an interface which should, if written correctly, makes the component a black box, I see no technical reason why replacing the IE component with another rendering component which supports the same interface should fail - unless IE and Windows are artifically tied together.
IE doesn't use any secret COM APIs to acheive this. It is not 'artificially' tied together. Infact, some member of the mozilla group has written a COM wrapper that implements IWebBrowser so you can replace IE in windows with mozilla. By hijacking MSHTML's GUID, it'll be the renderer for help etc.
You can't do this with netscape cause netscape is too lame (not componentized).
BTW, windows without IE would not work exactly the same. Therefore it relies on it. Your arguments would mean ever OO application is illegal since it integrates many components from many different applications. This is stupid.
Can I use Navigator inside Explorer to view the contents of a file folder? Can I use Navigator to peruse my Windows help files
You can with mozilla or any other applicaton which implements IWebBrowser. But the fact that netscape doesn't have a feature doesn't mean Microsoft is evil - or that it can't be done. Yeesh.
It would be server side (CGI, ASP etc) Dynamic HTML is done client side, all the text would be downloaded but then the text would dynamically change from what's already been downloaded. And you'd need IE to do it properly anyway.
then you benefited from the speed and robustness of the Java platform.
ROFLMAO. Hello Mr McNealy, how's Sun stock doing these days?
If you want to see examples of 'unscalability' etc visit Sun's java bug site. There are major limitations to java's network support (thread per socket connection for example) that makes it so much less scalable than traditional C/C++ or COM applications. It'll be interesting to see how java scales when sun get JTS going (ripoff of MTS ofcourse)...unfortunately JTS isn't free.
What I love about java is the language, the platfrom frankly just sucks. What would be better (now that java is realistic only on the server side) is a cross compiler, many java apps are written one enviroment (say NT) and deployed on another (say Solaris), having a cross compiler would save all those valuable CPU cycles servers need....and it would still be easy for literally _anyone_ to write java apps cause of the simplistic language.
KDE copies gnome? Uh looks like the other way round considering KDE is a year ahead of Gnome.
Does gnome have anything as good as KOffice? KDE also uses a nice C++ library which is much easier to use (especially for MFC programmers), it's goal is not only to make things "user friendly", KDE has developed very cool componentization - what has made windows stand out - making apps very easy to write and 'reuse'. Gnome will never surpase KDE IMHO.
geee, anyone who designs a pencil that has no eraser should be charged with criminal negligence.
OSs come in many forms, and for many purposes. I suppose you wnat your washing machine to have security too.
Perhaps you should try to sue apple for making an OS with no security as well? At least Microsoft have NT, which has MUCH MUCH higher security granuality than Linux (security on just about every object).
Slashdot Mirror
that's what i was thinking
andreesen, erk.
Yeah, Torvalds isn't looking too great up top these days either.
I usually don't directly code IO completion ports cause I don't usually write high end 'enterprise' software, however I do benefit from them indirectly cause my ASP runs IIS, and many other NT software uses IO completion :)
Define sufficient; some parts of Linux are more threaded than others. Why rework something if it isn't a bottleneck?
The thing is it is. Almost everything is a bottleneck - especially on TCP/IP if it's not threaded - this is especially important too as linux becomes more GUIish.
For what? And if so, where are all the sites out there using it
Well, Microsoft.com and a few other sites out there are using IIS5 (microsoft.com is the world's largest commercial site).
And the speed record was set with the university of washington.
blah
Slackware 6 box here, microsoft-.com works fine.
And I somehwat disagree with what you say at the end in a way.
I'm a prorgammer too...lemme give you this scenario.
If you wrote your own DNS server, and some DNS clients. Now, I would actually have the DNS clients _very_ simple, and since I _KNOW_ that I wrote the DNS server, and know if should deny invalid names, then I would write the client to send bad names, that way if anything changes (eg. DNS becomes more lenient) I would only have to change the server, the server would be the one that determines whether it's correct or not.
There's too many cases where programmers hard wrire there software (which is especially bad in these client-server situations).
The rule? The server should be able to handle any bad requests from a client.
What you're saying reminds me of netscape when they made an excuse about a bug in their web server - the excuse was, IE is bad, it sends unexpected characters...bad bad bad.
The only down side of having the server do verification is the speed...but then that's where you add extra options to the clients.
If Microsoft doesn't properly validate input in the browser, then how can we be sure that Microsoft is properly validating input anywhere else? Maybe that is the reason why Windows has the many problems that it does.
If it's something like DNS, I wouldn't be worried at all (for the above reasons).
Uh ok, Linux must be a BROKEN OS too.
Seeing as it resolves microsoft-.com and 3com.com.
Being able to pass on invalid domains in windows 2000 does not make it broken, it makes it lenient (imagine all those people complaining after not being able to get to 3com.com)
uh, TCP == Transfer Control Protocol.
better TCPIP stack?
NT's TCP/IP stack seems to outperform linux farely substantially, because it's threaded, and generally BSD based.
NT keeping up with Linux's TCP/IP performace? Maybe on a 486, but not on a scaled SMP or even normal high end machines.
Linux lacks many of NT's optimization features (like IO completion ports), or evn sufficient use of any threading.
Also, lets not forget Windows 2000 currently holds the networking speed record.
Actually, my power supply is rather quiet (can hardly hear it).
What makes computers noisy these days is the harddrives.
Everyone who's encountered this crammed-together style has suffered data loss by accidently clicking the wrong button... not by way of momentary braindeath, but because the mouse overshot the button that was supposed to be clicked.
Ofcourse in windows you could just double click on the title to maximize or restore the window. Who the heck actually uses the min/max caption buttons (unless the mouse is close).
Apparently. Oh that's what it was, was it? 'A coding flaw' that just happened to send information back to a database, after assigning everyone a unique ID?
I wouldn't even call it a flaw, an oversight.
And I don't think any GUIDs where being collected into any special database. I mean, GUIDs have been in use for like 15 years now, and MS uses them extensively, i mean, a GUID gets attached to a word (compound OLE document - eg. uses GUIDs) it's hardly a security flaw IMHO...or a bug IMHO.
MS just don't seem to realise how many people out there get freaked over something so small (the same people who use credit cards)
Why do you think rats can't feel pain?
Any more questions?
You could try answering all my questions first.
I've always hated that statement...so if there's no network, there's no computer?
Scott McNeally rulez, oh yeah! Oh and his buddy Larry Ellison rocks too.
Oh please, show me a BETTER equivalent of PowerPoint, Excel, Word and Access in Linux. Star Office only takes about 2 minutes to load, then tries to take over the entire desktop, and crash at the same time.
They make proper choices, most people can handle using Word with their eyes closed.
And you're using Linux, I wouldn't be talking about stability, ever had the file system crash on you multiple times? Ever seen X croak consistantly?
Can you replace the shell?
Yes, ofcourse you can, you could since before Windows 3.0.
Ever seen litestep etc? Alternatives are extending the shell with COM objects/dlls etc (adding items to context menus of files, extending the task bar etc).
Can you replace the kernel?
What would be the point? If you buy windows with the intention of changing the kernel you shouldn't be buying windows.
Does it run on 20+ Architectures?
What's this got to do with my original objection?
NT's kernel design allows it to run on almost anything with very little source change, but most people didn't want to run it on 20+ archtectures.
Windows CE (based on NT) runs on a bit more cause of the wide variety of vendors.
Would 911 run Windows (I do wonder why they run Linux, hmm..)?
I believe lots of police and emergency response places run Windows (many i've seen actually run win31). Most businesses would say that run Linux now days - even if they just have a single box as an internet gateway or soemthing. It's fasionable.
Gee that's original.
Yes, but it was relevent, you can extend windows (something you implied to otherwise).
Again, how is that better than Linux. Dude man show me a 2000 release that doen't need sound recorder or media player to play a sound file. Only the driver.
I never said anything about being better than Linux, I was making an objection to the statement made about having to wait 4 years for "new features".
And I don't know what you mean by the second comment....no version of windows since 3.0 has needed sound recorder or media player to play a sound file, why don't you just use the winmm (winmm.dll) apis? Or, in windows 2000, the DirectSound apis.
cat(concatenate, or just send) sound.au(raw audio) > (to, like DUH!)
Yes that is nice how you can do it in the shell, but it's only a limitation that windows doesn't have a shell that's quite as advanced as unix's shells. Windows has an advanced GUI and API.
To play a simple sound, you can use the SndPlaySound API, to do more extensive transformations etc, you would probably want to use DirectSound. Win32 and NT's implementation especially has basically the equivalants of all of unix's
What you point out here is window's lack of CLI support for it's advanced features, not anything lacking in the kernel.
Windows also has a nice model of "contexts", DeviceContexts etc, and normally when you want to directly access a sound card (without using DirectSound) you'd use EnumDevices etc and see what sounds cards are there, then pick the one you want.
Many windows devices are indeed mapped to names like "/dev/dsp". eg. "\Device\Display0" etc.
Second, Kernel extensions that need to be rewritten every few years compared to fully published stable APIs.
NT's DDK, SDK etc are fully published, and fully supported by microsoft (ever seen MSDN?). The windows driver model looks like it'll be around for a while yet, but I'm betting that it will indeed get phased out in about 5 years and new hardware comes along. Standard Application APIs stay the same for a long time though (Win32).
Nope. Wrong. I compare only the distributions I use to what comes on the Windows CD. I only need to do that. Though Linux still beats Windows in bare bones setup.
That's exactly what I mean, many distributions come with a lot of software. Microsoft generally has to support everything on their CDs, that's why they don't even include freeware windows applications like WinAMP on their CDs. It's unfair to compare a Linux distribution CD to an out of the box windows CD.
Imagine if MS wasn't allowed to distribute IE in windows, you'd be complaning about how crap windows is cause windows doesn't have a web browser - when in reality windows is the best browsing platform ATM.
Windows gives me a click and drool universe and oh my god look at the pretty colors euphoria as the only reward. I'm not a kid anymore. It takes power and gunctionality to make me drool. I'm certainly not impressed.
Power and functionality is exactly why I use NT.
I love extending the OS, and the RICH, nicely documented APIs I have available to me.
How good is Linux at (Remote Access) RAS, Componentization (COM+), Telephony (TAPI), Speech (SAPI), 3D (DirectX), DataAccess (ODBC), Accessibility (MSA), Transaction Servers (MTS), Message Queuing (MSMQ), IIS, ASP, ActiveX, PnP..etc
...the list goes on (note, everthing i list is free with windows)...
Part of the reason that linux has been lacking good software with easily configuration is it's lack of easy IDEs, and rich, but easy APIs to do next to everything.
That's changing a lot now though, which is ofcourse a good thing.
Windows NT may look pretty, but don't let that fool you into thinking there's nothing underneath.
Part of the reason people don't realise NT has a hell of a lot of power (basically it has equivalents of what Unix has and more..) is cause they see they can do all this stuff from the unix CLI, in Windows, you generally have to write an application (and generally in C/C++) to actually see what you can do. That's changing a wee bit now that MS have been working on Windows Scripting, trying to get a few more COM objects that do a bit more with the OS.
Linux still needs to grow up where it's importnant now days, scalability - more use of threading, new io apis like NT's IO completition ports would help with Linux's network speed as well.
I think Windows beats Unix at everything, except for stability - which they're continuing to work on. Windows 2000 still can't beat something like solaris at stability, though it tries hard. But that's the price you pay for supporting a wide array of commodity hardware, rather than using proprietry hardware.
Remember, if you choose W2K you have to live with that feature set for
the next three or four years, perhaps more
How did you figure that one out?
Windows is a modular OS and NT is a modular kernel.
The feature set is already richer than Linux/Unix is many areas - anything that's missing - write it yourself.
Write kernel extensions, drivers, software. I don't really see how what you say is relevant.
You're like one of those people who go and compare Linux + every single piece of unix software created to Windows NT out of the box.
NT4 didn't have a telnet server - but you didn't have to wait to W2K to get one, write one yourself, port it from Unix using cygwin, or buy one. You complain when windows includes too many features - then you complain when windows lacks some features.
Using extensions to identify filetypes is quite a nice idea you know. It's not like windows absolutely needs it, but it's just the status quo at the moment, and it works quite nicely.
I saw an article on using wavelets for image compression a while back now, and it's nice to know there's a standard.
:)
Anyone know where I can find some reference implementations?
I hope JPG2000 spreads better than PNG has so far.
Thank you. Since I can replace IE in Windows, it means Windows and IE are not integrated. Which in turn means that Microsoft has blantantly lied during the trial. Perhaps you'd care to revise your statement?
No, cause integration doesn't imply a permanent situtation. in the case of windows, windows is integrated with ie. It would not work the same without IE. However, windows _IS_ software, and nothing in software is permanent. Do you think the IO subsystem in linux is integrated into the kernel? It could easily be replaced couldn't it? This is software. Pick anything in software which you think is integrated and think if it can be replaced. Duh.
That's a strange statement. First you say that Mozilla, as a COM component, can replace IE, and then you say that Windows won't work quite right without IE. Why not? If Windows is only using the COM interface to IE, then Mozilla/COM should work perfectly.
Yes, mozilla/COM with windows will work, but windows without mozilla/com or ie won't work the same.
Windows won't work the same without IE. You could replace IE with something else - any HTMl renderer that supports DHTML properly. But the court isn't trying to force microsoft to replace IE in windows with something not called IE or mozilla are they? Noone is saying that it is absolutely impossible for windows to work without IE. It is just that many features of windows rely on IE - the HTML rendering component. Ofcourse you can replace the component with something else - it is software. If you can't accept all this, then you will just have to accept that NOTHING in software is legal or integrated cause it can all be replaced with something else. That would mean that all software is made up of millions of components that aren't "really" integrated since the integration isn't permanent (something you know isn't true of any software). It's like saying your body won't work without a heart. But how can you say that when I could take out your heart and replace it with a heart/lung machine.
Given that IE is essentially a COM component, which by definition has an interface which should, if written correctly, makes the component a black box, I see no technical reason why replacing the IE component with another rendering component which supports the same interface should fail - unless IE and Windows are artifically tied together.
IE doesn't use any secret COM APIs to acheive this. It is not 'artificially' tied together. Infact, some member of the mozilla group has written a COM wrapper that implements IWebBrowser so you can replace IE in windows with mozilla. By hijacking MSHTML's GUID, it'll be the renderer for help etc. You can't do this with netscape cause netscape is too lame (not componentized). BTW, windows without IE would not work exactly the same. Therefore it relies on it. Your arguments would mean ever OO application is illegal since it integrates many components from many different applications. This is stupid.
Can I use Navigator inside Explorer to view the contents of a file folder? Can I use Navigator to peruse my Windows help files
You can with mozilla or any other applicaton which implements IWebBrowser. But the fact that netscape doesn't have a feature doesn't mean Microsoft is evil - or that it can't be done. Yeesh.
It would be server side (CGI, ASP etc)
Dynamic HTML is done client side, all the text would be downloaded but then the text would dynamically change from what's already been downloaded.
And you'd need IE to do it properly anyway.
then you benefited from the speed and robustness of the Java platform.
ROFLMAO. Hello Mr McNealy, how's Sun stock doing these days?
If you want to see examples of 'unscalability' etc visit Sun's java bug site.
There are major limitations to java's network support (thread per socket connection for example) that makes it so much less scalable than traditional C/C++ or COM applications.
It'll be interesting to see how java scales when sun get JTS going (ripoff of MTS ofcourse)...unfortunately JTS isn't free.
What I love about java is the language, the platfrom frankly just sucks.
What would be better (now that java is realistic only on the server side) is a cross compiler, many java apps are written one enviroment (say NT) and deployed on another (say Solaris), having a cross compiler would save all those valuable CPU cycles servers need....and it would still be easy for literally _anyone_ to write java apps cause of the simplistic language.
KDE copies gnome? Uh looks like the other way round considering KDE is a year ahead of Gnome.
Does gnome have anything as good as KOffice? KDE also uses a nice C++ library which is much easier to use (especially for MFC programmers), it's goal is not only to make things "user friendly", KDE has developed very cool componentization - what has made windows stand out - making apps very easy to write and 'reuse'.
Gnome will never surpase KDE IMHO.
don't be such a total dickhead.
geee, anyone who designs a pencil that has no eraser should be charged with criminal negligence.
OSs come in many forms, and for many purposes. I suppose you wnat your washing machine to have security too.
Perhaps you should try to sue apple for making an OS with no security as well? At least Microsoft have NT, which has MUCH MUCH higher security granuality than Linux (security on just about every object).