As a contrary opinion, I've used both and found them both good in different areas. And I've certainly not found any difference in reliance on "Wizards" between the two packages.
I've found that, in general, VS.NET is a little better integrated with its languages, whereas Eclipse has far superior refactoring support and integration with build processes (as you mention). 2005 is going some way to fixing this.
They're both fantastic IDEs though. I'd recommend either (although the only C# plugin I've found for Eclipse is very, very basic so far, which is a real shame).
Don't give me BS about the basic concepts being all the preperation you need from any language.
It's not BS. My course focussed on general programming language principles, and now I can move reasonably effortlessly between languages (and in most cases, paradigms) without too much bother. Compare this to a course teaching, say, Java and PHP, where you'd come out knowing how to program Java and PHP.
...or with one GUI command on a server with permissions to change permissions on other servers. Don't confuse things which have command line tools with things which need a command line.
This is a viewpoint I've always found kinda interesting. I mean, I know for some things the command line is more convenient (I certainly use bash shells for a lot of stuff), but in the case of Windows servers and their configuration, is there a lot of call for it? I mean, I know it's a bit annoying having a GUI nobody will see set up, but with Remote Desktop set up over an appropriate level of security, is there any real utility problem with a GUI securities application, or is it just a case of not being what most older administrators are used to?
Seeing that most OSDL projects are licensed under the GPL unlike Java, MS can't embrace, extend and extinguish OSDL projects.
Why not? My understanding of the Java thing was that they made their own similar-but-not-quite JVM and so forth, is there anything to stop them doing this again? Were they using the same APIs or something?
The usability – except, as I said, with version 2, which seems a lot better – is well-off. The features I'm personally not too fussed about (although the word count being hidden until recent version was extremely annoying).
There's absolutely NOTHING "intuitive" about ANY computer software except the fact that when you click the mouse on something, something happens (usually...I've seen that fail a lot, too.)
No. There wouldn't be studies into usability if it weren't quantifiable in some way. Computer software can have greater or lesser degrees of ease-of-use and learnability (which is influenced largely by how "intuitive" it is). MS front ends have been consistent with one another and with Windows – in the main, at least – for some time, and that makes them easier to use.
Also, they did add an option to get rid of Clippy. What does that mean? They learned from their mistake. There's a lot of systems that would do well to do the same.
I have many friends who will not use OpenOffice (version 1, at least, but 2 seems to go a way towards remedying this and I'll be back at them about it) because of its poor responsiveness and overall lack of usability compared to the Office suite. Version 2 has helped, but not entirely. But on the whole it's helped by behaving more like Office, which is obviously good for transitioning people, but it hasn't gone far towards providing much more in terms of usability. So either Office is pretty damn perfect, or OOo is just playing usability catchup at the time.
The parent post was referring to the front-end, and he/she was right. Unfortunate though that may be. An open document format isn't much of a draw if the software is significantly behind the leader in terms of usability and features.
Always possible, but as I said before there's a dignificant difference between on-demand media and scheduled media, and I think that's causing quite a few problems, since the internet/digital services are quite suited to the arguably superior one, and more traditional broadcast media is only suited to the other.
As for fixing winding speed, I don't think it's practical. I don't think it's practical because, particularly with digital media, it's the kind of thing that you need to specifically cripple the end-user hardware to enforce. Anything that you can do that to, you can theoretically un-do it to, and that should be legal. It should therefore, at least most likely, be legal to sell machines that do it already, and once one person does it everyone will to keep up. This will lead to the system most likely being circumvented fairly quickly. That said there are time-shift systems available which essentially do what you suggest. If you paid extra for ad-free programming, however, and things are still semi-scheduled (rotation) as you suggest, there's going to be some interesting problems with synchronisation between channels and the like.
I like the idea of buying services (shows might be more appropriate) from a selection of providers, but I'm just not seeing a practical way to factor ads into it. Suggestions welcome, though.
Saying isn't doing though — I'd like to see this actually implemented, but I wouldn't like to be the one to implement it, if you get my meaning.
Another problem are the technical aspects of providing both ad-supported and ad-free content, timing and so on would all go to pot. Switching to content-on-demand would semi-remedy this but we're already straying further from traditional TV, which as we've seen by the music industry's unreasonable royalty demands for online stores is not a great way of dealing with existing providers.
That said, living in the UK, I already pay about another $250 a year for some ad-free channels...
So my advertising is the factor that decides my culpability?
Exactly. There's a difference between creating software that can do something, and specifically marketing it for doing that thing. Grokster sat on their site and said "violate copyright with our products". That was a prime reason they were held responsible when their users did exactly that.
Vista is MacOS deja-vu all-over-again, not to mention a dozen other examples.
Vista/Longhorn has been in development for so long, and the feature benefits are so predictable, that I don't think "copying" is an allegation that is at-all justified in this case, to be honest. Apple themselves are yet to release anything very original in OSX (Spotlight is cool, but let's face it, BeOS was doing the more-intelligentfile management thing first), and they've had the benefit of being able to release additions like that as (for-cash) "updates", which isn't really MS's business model.
But when the actions they take are not illegal (which clearly doesn't cover them all, but the vast majority of them), is it the company or the law that's at fault?
Well, the end of Google as a "do no evil" company, anyway. With that many damn cooks in the kitchen, it's only a matter of time (IMNSHO) before someone spoils the recipe.
I'm not convinced. The information they note as being "collected" by Google has not yet been shown to be being used for any purpose other than personalising or improving ones services, or targetted advertising (which, in the latter case, the more sensitive information like email is only processed by machine, and not accessible to employees or other companies any more than a normal email service).
I know this is awfully unfashionable, but Google haven't breached trust, and given the good they've done on the web, I'm inclined to trust them until they do.
As others have pointed out, this is not a notification of a vulnerability. The exact same things can be done with Python, Bash, Ruby, Perl... hell, you can even write stuff with the general gist of this with batch files and the DOS command line.
As far as we can tell, and this includes a reply from a writer of Monad elsewhere in the discussion, this is an alarmist article proving little other than the fact that Monad is a shell scripting language.
Regardless of how good it is as a package format, it's aiming to be distribution-neutral, which puts it a lot better than many. I'm not a big fan of the current practice of treating system/library packages and applications packages so similarly as they are now -- it means that the maintainer of a distribution has accept full control over a vast number of packages, and makes it harder for application developers to develop for a "neutral" Linux platform.
Autopackage may not be the solution, but "traditional" package managers are no better for the problems facing Linux for mass (particularly desktop) acceptance.
Slashdot Mirror
As a contrary opinion, I've used both and found them both good in different areas. And I've certainly not found any difference in reliance on "Wizards" between the two packages.
I've found that, in general, VS.NET is a little better integrated with its languages, whereas Eclipse has far superior refactoring support and integration with build processes (as you mention). 2005 is going some way to fixing this.
They're both fantastic IDEs though. I'd recommend either (although the only C# plugin I've found for Eclipse is very, very basic so far, which is a real shame).
It's not BS. My course focussed on general programming language principles, and now I can move reasonably effortlessly between languages (and in most cases, paradigms) without too much bother. Compare this to a course teaching, say, Java and PHP, where you'd come out knowing how to program Java and PHP.
Thanks for the clarification. I should really clear the hangover before I post. :)
This is a viewpoint I've always found kinda interesting. I mean, I know for some things the command line is more convenient (I certainly use bash shells for a lot of stuff), but in the case of Windows servers and their configuration, is there a lot of call for it? I mean, I know it's a bit annoying having a GUI nobody will see set up, but with Remote Desktop set up over an appropriate level of security, is there any real utility problem with a GUI securities application, or is it just a case of not being what most older administrators are used to?
Why not? My understanding of the Java thing was that they made their own similar-but-not-quite JVM and so forth, is there anything to stop them doing this again? Were they using the same APIs or something?
Your parent post was referring to atomic warfare, however, which I think was less of a contentious subject for him.
I think the "joke" was that Valve/Steam games are time-limited while Steam still exists and hosts them.
You're thinking of Apple.
The usability – except, as I said, with version 2, which seems a lot better – is well-off. The features I'm personally not too fussed about (although the word count being hidden until recent version was extremely annoying).
No. There wouldn't be studies into usability if it weren't quantifiable in some way. Computer software can have greater or lesser degrees of ease-of-use and learnability (which is influenced largely by how "intuitive" it is). MS front ends have been consistent with one another and with Windows – in the main, at least – for some time, and that makes them easier to use.
Also, they did add an option to get rid of Clippy. What does that mean? They learned from their mistake. There's a lot of systems that would do well to do the same.
I have many friends who will not use OpenOffice (version 1, at least, but 2 seems to go a way towards remedying this and I'll be back at them about it) because of its poor responsiveness and overall lack of usability compared to the Office suite. Version 2 has helped, but not entirely. But on the whole it's helped by behaving more like Office, which is obviously good for transitioning people, but it hasn't gone far towards providing much more in terms of usability. So either Office is pretty damn perfect, or OOo is just playing usability catchup at the time.
The parent post was referring to the front-end, and he/she was right. Unfortunate though that may be. An open document format isn't much of a draw if the software is significantly behind the leader in terms of usability and features.
Always possible, but as I said before there's a dignificant difference between on-demand media and scheduled media, and I think that's causing quite a few problems, since the internet/digital services are quite suited to the arguably superior one, and more traditional broadcast media is only suited to the other.
As for fixing winding speed, I don't think it's practical. I don't think it's practical because, particularly with digital media, it's the kind of thing that you need to specifically cripple the end-user hardware to enforce. Anything that you can do that to, you can theoretically un-do it to, and that should be legal. It should therefore, at least most likely, be legal to sell machines that do it already, and once one person does it everyone will to keep up. This will lead to the system most likely being circumvented fairly quickly. That said there are time-shift systems available which essentially do what you suggest. If you paid extra for ad-free programming, however, and things are still semi-scheduled (rotation) as you suggest, there's going to be some interesting problems with synchronisation between channels and the like.
I like the idea of buying services (shows might be more appropriate) from a selection of providers, but I'm just not seeing a practical way to factor ads into it. Suggestions welcome, though.
Saying isn't doing though — I'd like to see this actually implemented, but I wouldn't like to be the one to implement it, if you get my meaning.
Another problem are the technical aspects of providing both ad-supported and ad-free content, timing and so on would all go to pot. Switching to content-on-demand would semi-remedy this but we're already straying further from traditional TV, which as we've seen by the music industry's unreasonable royalty demands for online stores is not a great way of dealing with existing providers.
That said, living in the UK, I already pay about another $250 a year for some ad-free channels...
Thanks for that, I was sitting there with my head spinning at the thought that someone would actually need this pointed out.
I wonder if a more-money-but-no-ads service would be feasible? My gut feeling is, feasible or no, people just wouldn't want to pay the extra premium.
Always a possibility. But then if they're hiding it that well, it ceases to be marketable, I suppose.
I believe that it's different because they're not trying to hide what they collect, and why, from anyone.
Microsoft's new Server OS for Servers will apparently run exclusively on Servers, and be used to serve a server's servable content.
Yes.
Exactly. There's a difference between creating software that can do something, and specifically marketing it for doing that thing. Grokster sat on their site and said "violate copyright with our products". That was a prime reason they were held responsible when their users did exactly that.
Vista/Longhorn has been in development for so long, and the feature benefits are so predictable, that I don't think "copying" is an allegation that is at-all justified in this case, to be honest. Apple themselves are yet to release anything very original in OSX (Spotlight is cool, but let's face it, BeOS was doing the more-intelligentfile management thing first), and they've had the benefit of being able to release additions like that as (for-cash) "updates", which isn't really MS's business model.
But when the actions they take are not illegal (which clearly doesn't cover them all, but the vast majority of them), is it the company or the law that's at fault?
I'm not convinced. The information they note as being "collected" by Google has not yet been shown to be being used for any purpose other than personalising or improving ones services, or targetted advertising (which, in the latter case, the more sensitive information like email is only processed by machine, and not accessible to employees or other companies any more than a normal email service).
I know this is awfully unfashionable, but Google haven't breached trust, and given the good they've done on the web, I'm inclined to trust them until they do.
Including Intellisense without quotes, for the record. :)
As others have pointed out, this is not a notification of a vulnerability. The exact same things can be done with Python, Bash, Ruby, Perl... hell, you can even write stuff with the general gist of this with batch files and the DOS command line.
As far as we can tell, and this includes a reply from a writer of Monad elsewhere in the discussion, this is an alarmist article proving little other than the fact that Monad is a shell scripting language.
Regardless of how good it is as a package format, it's aiming to be distribution-neutral, which puts it a lot better than many. I'm not a big fan of the current practice of treating system/library packages and applications packages so similarly as they are now -- it means that the maintainer of a distribution has accept full control over a vast number of packages, and makes it harder for application developers to develop for a "neutral" Linux platform.
Autopackage may not be the solution, but "traditional" package managers are no better for the problems facing Linux for mass (particularly desktop) acceptance.