Yeah, I'm also dumbfounded that the guy managed to patent the intermixing of two MS products, then sue MS for using them. It's pretty unusual to even see MS defy logic that strongly.
In fact, there are lots of free operating systems available. The only thing keeping Microsoft in business is their proprietary nature and their current lockin. Keeping secrets from their customers is the only thing keeping them in business. What kind of morality is that?
lol. Very nice framing, as you just provided Microsoft with the moral high ground. What kind of morality is that? Well, the way you've said it, it's do or die: the most universal form of morality there is. If that isn't justification to do it, I don't know what is.
Maybe somebody can clarify, because it seems a bit ambiguous to me. Is this a prohibition against using the MS stuff in free programs, or in open source programs? There's a significant difference. I could see it being at least halfway reasonable if MS didn't want their stuff published in open source software (thus making it public knowledge), but it would be rather irrational to ban its use in free closed-source software as well.
That's the sound of a Mac-programmer friend of mine (who's at WWDC) getting hit by this news, after swearing even yesterday that there was no way in hell that Macs would switch to Intel processors.
Not possible. At least in Windows. User mode code cannot access the hardware without the kernel enabling some processor flags. You'd have to find an exploit to get your process (very) priviledged before you could directly access the hardware, not the other way around.
I haven't trusted NVidia drivers since a bug in one of my programs (my first time programming D3D) turned up a bug in the NVidia GeForce3 Windows XP driver (it was the latest driver, at the time): when you try to create many D3D devices without freeing existing ones (a resource leak in my program caused the existing device to not be freed before creating a new one), the computer hard-resets. This bug was completely reproducable (although I reverted to an older driver after about the third time it did this, and the older driver didn't do this). Ooops.
Imagine Apple going after the Linux developers with an x86 Macintosh. Would be hilarious if the deathblow to Linux came not from Microsoft but from Apple. Realistic or not, it's certainly amusing to consider.
While we're talking about sensationalist headlines, how about "Inquirer Blasts Mozilla for Microsoft-Style Bashing"? This is not "Microsoft-style" bashing; this is Slashdot-style Microsoft bashing. What's the difference? Well, I can think of two things:
1. Slashdot is much more savage when Microsoft screws up (thus implying that there's some truth in the what's said against it)
2. The Netscape-bashing that Inquirer is responding to is true. Can you say the same for Microsoft's anti-Linux campaigns?
That headline is intentional flamebait (or at least it would be, if any serious MS fans came here).
So... wouldn't that make Netscape management (and by association the company, since management ultimately decides what happens) highly untrustworthy? Why would you deal with a company that knowingly puts out flaws just to meet a timeline? I'd think that'd be worse than the first two options.
Of course I don't find that possibility very likely, if it is indeed 24 hours we're talking about.
*shrug*
As I almost exclusively play (and hack) games, I've never needed to leave my Windows boxes.
That was my first (and only) experience using Unix in any form. As a matter of fact that was an introduction to Unix class (which was a required lab class). I just used what they showed us:P
Well duh. Never give away something you can sell. And even better, never sell something for a given price when you can sell it for more. Those are the rules MS lives by:P
Remote Desktop is a stripped down version of terminal services. As you mentioned, remote desktop only allows one connection to the computer. Terminal services allows many users, each with their own logon session.
My experiences have been just the same as the others, after using VNC for a semester (to use the university's Solaris system) and TS everywhere else: there is no comparison. You use VNC when you have to, and nothing more. TS is so much faster it's almost laughable to put the two of them in the same catagory. TS performs over broadband internet (30 KBps upstream for the server, in my case) as fast as VNC on the university's LAN (IIRC, it was a gigabit connection from the servers to the buildings, then each building had a 100 mbps network in it), as far as I've seen.
I applaud your courage, being the lone voice of reason when the majority of Slashdot has fallen prey to the deception of the Great Satan. I mean, it's not like having the machine get infected right in front of you so that you can whip out a kernel debugger would be any more effective than end users reporting that their computer just went down in flames, anyway. And certainly it's only rational that programmers go hunting for things hackers already figured out, rather than spending their time looking for undiscovered holes, and letting bots do the rest for them.
Better yet, MS should just whip out their omniscience machine that they've been building in secret with their hundreds of billions of dollars, and instantly find every problem in the millions of lines of existing code, and build an OS so secure that God Himself couldn't hack it!
Whoa. So you mean the number of "extremely critical" holes discovered in a program varies in accordance with the number of users of the program? I never would have guessed... Gosh, you don't think that maybe IE's code really isn't worse than other browsers' after all, do you?
Slander? Why, no. You are the slanderer, here, as indicated by your subject "Wow, you really are an asshole!" Our mule-loving friend (or whatever the name was supposed to mean, I don't really know) said one thing which is indisputably true: you have offered no evidence (even including your more recent post) that your vicious accusations are true. That is not slander. That is an irrefutable fact.
In fact, you are a liar. But not because of your accusations (we can only say that the accusations are PROBABLY false, not definitely), but because you accuse him of calling you a liar. That is irrefutably untrue. He merely said that we have no reason to believe you UNTIL you show some proof of your claims. If you'd like to do so now and make us all eat our words, then you go right ahead and do so; if not, stop crying and get a life.
Holy crap, MS has been funding the research? That makes it so OBVIOUS the research is invalid! Y'all don't waste any time going for the ad hominem, do you?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I'm also dumbfounded that the guy managed to patent the intermixing of two MS products, then sue MS for using them. It's pretty unusual to even see MS defy logic that strongly.
lol. Very nice framing, as you just provided Microsoft with the moral high ground. What kind of morality is that? Well, the way you've said it, it's do or die: the most universal form of morality there is. If that isn't justification to do it, I don't know what is.
Heh. The future of open/closed source interoperability.
Maybe somebody can clarify, because it seems a bit ambiguous to me. Is this a prohibition against using the MS stuff in free programs, or in open source programs? There's a significant difference. I could see it being at least halfway reasonable if MS didn't want their stuff published in open source software (thus making it public knowledge), but it would be rather irrational to ban its use in free closed-source software as well.
You have slightly increased my faith in Slashdot moderators.
That's the sound of a Mac-programmer friend of mine (who's at WWDC) getting hit by this news, after swearing even yesterday that there was no way in hell that Macs would switch to Intel processors.
I posted this story and it was rejected. 4 or 5 days later somebody else posted it, and it was published. And now it's been published a SECOND time.
You'd prefer more spectacular crashes? I can recommend an nVidia driver that'll hard reset your computer, if you'd like.
Not possible. At least in Windows. User mode code cannot access the hardware without the kernel enabling some processor flags. You'd have to find an exploit to get your process (very) priviledged before you could directly access the hardware, not the other way around.
I haven't trusted NVidia drivers since a bug in one of my programs (my first time programming D3D) turned up a bug in the NVidia GeForce3 Windows XP driver (it was the latest driver, at the time): when you try to create many D3D devices without freeing existing ones (a resource leak in my program caused the existing device to not be freed before creating a new one), the computer hard-resets. This bug was completely reproducable (although I reverted to an older driver after about the third time it did this, and the older driver didn't do this). Ooops.
I estimate the probability of that post being a joke at 90%.
Imagine Apple going after the Linux developers with an x86 Macintosh. Would be hilarious if the deathblow to Linux came not from Microsoft but from Apple. Realistic or not, it's certainly amusing to consider.
While we're talking about sensationalist headlines, how about "Inquirer Blasts Mozilla for Microsoft-Style Bashing"? This is not "Microsoft-style" bashing; this is Slashdot-style Microsoft bashing. What's the difference? Well, I can think of two things:
1. Slashdot is much more savage when Microsoft screws up (thus implying that there's some truth in the what's said against it)
2. The Netscape-bashing that Inquirer is responding to is true. Can you say the same for Microsoft's anti-Linux campaigns?
That headline is intentional flamebait (or at least it would be, if any serious MS fans came here).
So... wouldn't that make Netscape management (and by association the company, since management ultimately decides what happens) highly untrustworthy? Why would you deal with a company that knowingly puts out flaws just to meet a timeline? I'd think that'd be worse than the first two options. Of course I don't find that possibility very likely, if it is indeed 24 hours we're talking about.
*shrug* As I almost exclusively play (and hack) games, I've never needed to leave my Windows boxes. That was my first (and only) experience using Unix in any form. As a matter of fact that was an introduction to Unix class (which was a required lab class). I just used what they showed us :P
Well duh. Never give away something you can sell. And even better, never sell something for a given price when you can sell it for more. Those are the rules MS lives by :P
Remote Desktop is a stripped down version of terminal services. As you mentioned, remote desktop only allows one connection to the computer. Terminal services allows many users, each with their own logon session.
My experiences have been just the same as the others, after using VNC for a semester (to use the university's Solaris system) and TS everywhere else: there is no comparison. You use VNC when you have to, and nothing more. TS is so much faster it's almost laughable to put the two of them in the same catagory. TS performs over broadband internet (30 KBps upstream for the server, in my case) as fast as VNC on the university's LAN (IIRC, it was a gigabit connection from the servers to the buildings, then each building had a 100 mbps network in it), as far as I've seen.
Scott Adams is cursing you for commenting on that first.
I applaud your courage, being the lone voice of reason when the majority of Slashdot has fallen prey to the deception of the Great Satan. I mean, it's not like having the machine get infected right in front of you so that you can whip out a kernel debugger would be any more effective than end users reporting that their computer just went down in flames, anyway. And certainly it's only rational that programmers go hunting for things hackers already figured out, rather than spending their time looking for undiscovered holes, and letting bots do the rest for them. Better yet, MS should just whip out their omniscience machine that they've been building in secret with their hundreds of billions of dollars, and instantly find every problem in the millions of lines of existing code, and build an OS so secure that God Himself couldn't hack it!
Whoa. So you mean the number of "extremely critical" holes discovered in a program varies in accordance with the number of users of the program? I never would have guessed... Gosh, you don't think that maybe IE's code really isn't worse than other browsers' after all, do you?
Slander? Why, no. You are the slanderer, here, as indicated by your subject "Wow, you really are an asshole!" Our mule-loving friend (or whatever the name was supposed to mean, I don't really know) said one thing which is indisputably true: you have offered no evidence (even including your more recent post) that your vicious accusations are true. That is not slander. That is an irrefutable fact. In fact, you are a liar. But not because of your accusations (we can only say that the accusations are PROBABLY false, not definitely), but because you accuse him of calling you a liar. That is irrefutably untrue. He merely said that we have no reason to believe you UNTIL you show some proof of your claims. If you'd like to do so now and make us all eat our words, then you go right ahead and do so; if not, stop crying and get a life.
Holy crap, MS has been funding the research? That makes it so OBVIOUS the research is invalid! Y'all don't waste any time going for the ad hominem, do you?