Besides the obvious (you have all the surface area of Chrome and IE together in the browser), there are a lot of questions I have about whether and how it respects IE's security settings, privacy settings, site filtering settings, no-script settings, script debugger settings and on and on. People can joke about how early versions of IE had huge security issues, but all the mitigations and fine grained control over what a page can and cannot do, as well as group policies put in place for sys-admins at corporations trying to protect their intranets are important. Maybe Chrome Frame plays nice with these, maybe they don't. My guess is that it doesn't handle every one of them with grace. (Disclaimer, I work at MS, but am not on the IE team).
Through property, per-employee, sales, vehicle licensing taxes etc, MS and it's employees contribute a lot to the cost. They also contribute directly to many public works projects that benefit them such as roads and bridges in the Bellevue/Redmond area. (Disclaimer, I'm an MS employee.)
Yeah, because I'm going to go to some building off-campus that no one's advertised for me to dump an iPod I could craigslist or eBay (I'm a MS employee and worked there at the time the Zune first came out and I never heard of that box until I saw the same picture you're referring to online). I think you're overblowing what was a joke in a lobby for the building the Zune team was working in at the time.
That said, I have to agree - this Win7 house party thing was pretty hilarious. Sweet - let's party by checking out those hot new OS features! That said, there's nothing to say you have to sit amazed, crowded in front of a laptop the whole time. Any excuse for a party right?
Or, you know, Microsoft could have about one hundred thousand tech savvy employees (like myself) who also happen to frequent tech sites and have a higher than average opinion of the company. Doesn't have to be nefarious. That might not even be it either. Especially since the launch of Xbox, there are a surprising number of MS-fanboys out there unassociated with the company in any way.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I have no real evidence one way or another - conspiracy theory away!
Funny, my girlfriend just bought an Eee PC 1000 and even the preinstalled distro couldn't connect to wireless networks. So I popped a win7 usb stick in, installed, downloaded and installed the XP drivers off ASUS's website and it's now working flawlessly.
This guy's point is completely valid. If I hadn't been there, the whole thing would have gone back to the shop. It has to work out of the box, or it's not good enough.
...no googling forum after forum looking for answers...
...
With Linux there's always one more resource, google the problem and you'll find a forum somewhere with the answer, even if it means you'll have to recompile something. It's better to recompile than to fall back to reformat and reinstall...
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You also seem to lack perspective - if I'm a Windows user, the likelihood of me needing to fix a problem using regedit is near nil. If I'm a Linux user, the likelihood of me having to edit a conf file, recompile something or find some obscure repository I have no frame of reference for trusting is extremely high, even for basic tasks like getting working video drivers, or say an mp3 or DVD codec. At install time I'll likely have the option of installing (or not) thousands of applications / libraries I don't understand and don't have an easy way of understanding. I would keep going, but it's been a few years since I last was using Linux on a regular basis. I'm sure others could fill me in on what's improved and what's still a PITA.
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with parts of conservatism (perhaps because Ayn Rand is so strongly associated with libertarianism). Libertarianism in the sense I understand it is a political position against restricting the actions of individuals. Think pro free speech, pro gay and sexual rights, anti-regulation, pro gun rights, pro choice etc. That said, there are a number of groups who take up the mantle of libertarianism, but don't live up to it (for a group whose members often claim to be libertarian, Republicans have been particularly bad in the recent past what with trying to restrict gay rights, spying on the public and trampling on civil liberties).
Maybe that was Q3 right when the iPhone 3G came out? I wouldn't be surprised that after a big launch they'd get higher sales for that quarter. I guess its all lies, damned lies and statistics. The figure I'd like to see isn't sales figure for a given time period, but rather which phones are currently used as someone's primary phone at the moment. Otherwise you have to extrapolate from total sales ever, along with date of sale to try to figure out what the actual active marketshare is (rather than look at quarterly sales figures).
The Expression feature renders on whichever browsers you have installed locally, plus a cloud based service for rendering on other OSes as you describe.
What is this "old days" you speak of? The "old days" I remember was the one where each website said "best viewed at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator 3.5". Or if you were lucky "800x600 in Netscape Navigator 4 or IE 5.5".
Should we charge every new browser that doesn't match existing browsers? Because there's certainly no browser which is 100% compliant with every standard. And the standards themselves leave a lot of leeway with things like "might", "may" etc.
You're certainly allowed to put a "works best in Chrome" stamp on your pages - no one's making you keep them working in Safari, FF, and the various versions of IE. What you're paying, essentially, is the non-monopoly tax. The only way you're not going to have to test on each browser is when there's only one browser and it stops rev'ing versions. Until then, a little extra work is the cost you pay for interoperability.
On another note, yoking Microsoft with IE6 at this point is also hardly fair. It's an 8 year old browser. Its competition was not even Mozilla yet - Mozilla 1.0 came a year later. Believe me, if your users were still using Netscape 4.0, you'd have just as much fun hacking to get it working. IE7's been out for 3 years and 8 just launched. If you really want to save the effort, drop 6 from your supported matrix and put up the upgrade badge. Until sites stop working in it, corporate IT departments are going to stick on 6 to keep their intranet apps working. Once the boss's online poker game stops working, they'll have to fix it, but until then, it's going to be around.
You will be writing insecure code if you actually believe that those "secure" functions are good for anything.
Also, I fail to see how avoiding boilerplate copy/paste bounds checking code is worthless. If you write that stuff a thousand times, chances are there will be a few where you get it screwed up, either due to negligence, copy/paste errors or off by one errors. The _s stuff is useful in that you just need to make sure the caller has accurately represented their buffer length during code review, you don't have to look through their own custom bounds checking and validate it does what you expect.
I've hard a lot of negativity about the TR, but not any specific criticisms other than the meh, "it's from Microsoft, they just want vendor lock in". Given the TR, sure seems like unconstructive moaning to me.
I understand that the _s functions were first implemented in MS's CRT implementation, but they're hardly Microsoft-specific. Remember, before C itself was an ANSII standard (subsequently ISO etc) it was a "AT&T specific" programming language. Advancing the state of the art is hardly anti-competitive. I'm not sure what the current state of the ISO standard is, but the _s set of functions have been standardized and are making their way in. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1225.pdf
Really, if you know C++ well you've learned enough to understand the whole family of C, Java, C# etc. So spend a few weeks with a good book, understand the core concepts and you're good to go with OO procedural C derived languages.
Then, learn some web stuff to be marketable - just some basic HTML/CSS + learning JavaScript's crazy scoping and memory issues and your good
Finally, familiarize yourself with some basic SQL so you're ready for web backend stuff and now your good to go!
Just make sure you pick up good, secure techniques - understand and know the STL and secure C functions (_s). Understand what XSS, SQL injection etc are and how and when to safeify input.
Any shop worth its salt (at least who have an engineer doing the hiring) knows that you look for good people who can learn the environment. This doesn't mean someone who has their particular set of languages and APIs as a bullet point on their resumes, it's someone who comes in and understands their problems quickly during the interview.
Standards compliance and a page rendering well are not the same thing. IE6 is far less standards compliance than pretty much any modern browser, but most websites render well in it because they were written to render well in it.
If a page is not standards compliant, you can have the most standards compliant browser in the world and it will still render terribly. What you want is actually a standards *in-compliant* browser that smartly substitutes out its standards compliant mode for an appropriate quirks mode when it sees a site that is standards in-compliant.
Re:One word - ads
on
Why TV Lost
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This type of advertising is a direct result of TiVo and folks downloading stuff to skip the advertising. If the trend continues, marketers will continue to find ways to make ads unskippable (for instance, by incorporating them into the plot).
The question is what the funding model will become. Because of the ability to skip ads, either the prevalence of for pay service will increase, or the ads will be incorporated into the content via product placement as we already see. Alternately services like Hulu will rise where their convenience outweighs individual's motivation to find alternate streams sans-ads.
Slashdot Mirror
Besides the obvious (you have all the surface area of Chrome and IE together in the browser), there are a lot of questions I have about whether and how it respects IE's security settings, privacy settings, site filtering settings, no-script settings, script debugger settings and on and on. People can joke about how early versions of IE had huge security issues, but all the mitigations and fine grained control over what a page can and cannot do, as well as group policies put in place for sys-admins at corporations trying to protect their intranets are important. Maybe Chrome Frame plays nice with these, maybe they don't. My guess is that it doesn't handle every one of them with grace. (Disclaimer, I work at MS, but am not on the IE team).
Through property, per-employee, sales, vehicle licensing taxes etc, MS and it's employees contribute a lot to the cost. They also contribute directly to many public works projects that benefit them such as roads and bridges in the Bellevue/Redmond area. (Disclaimer, I'm an MS employee.)
Yeah, because I'm going to go to some building off-campus that no one's advertised for me to dump an iPod I could craigslist or eBay (I'm a MS employee and worked there at the time the Zune first came out and I never heard of that box until I saw the same picture you're referring to online). I think you're overblowing what was a joke in a lobby for the building the Zune team was working in at the time.
That said, I have to agree - this Win7 house party thing was pretty hilarious. Sweet - let's party by checking out those hot new OS features! That said, there's nothing to say you have to sit amazed, crowded in front of a laptop the whole time. Any excuse for a party right?
They have already attracted opposition from the open-source community and the Pirate Party.
Oh good, I can really see those groups charming the pants off legislators the world over.
Market cap of MSFT: 209.94B
Market cap of GOOG: 144.28B
Now it's almost definitely not going to happen, but...
Or, you know, Microsoft could have about one hundred thousand tech savvy employees (like myself) who also happen to frequent tech sites and have a higher than average opinion of the company. Doesn't have to be nefarious. That might not even be it either. Especially since the launch of Xbox, there are a surprising number of MS-fanboys out there unassociated with the company in any way.
Anyway, sorry to interrupt, I have no real evidence one way or another - conspiracy theory away!
You think ftp:// is forgotten about? What about gopher:// !?
Funny, my girlfriend just bought an Eee PC 1000 and even the preinstalled distro couldn't connect to wireless networks. So I popped a win7 usb stick in, installed, downloaded and installed the XP drivers off ASUS's website and it's now working flawlessly.
This guy's point is completely valid. If I hadn't been there, the whole thing would have gone back to the shop. It has to work out of the box, or it's not good enough.
...no googling forum after forum looking for answers...
...
With Linux there's always one more resource, google the problem and you'll find a forum somewhere with the answer, even if it means you'll have to recompile something. It's better to recompile than to fall back to reformat and reinstall...
You seem to be contradicting yourself. You also seem to lack perspective - if I'm a Windows user, the likelihood of me needing to fix a problem using regedit is near nil. If I'm a Linux user, the likelihood of me having to edit a conf file, recompile something or find some obscure repository I have no frame of reference for trusting is extremely high, even for basic tasks like getting working video drivers, or say an mp3 or DVD codec. At install time I'll likely have the option of installing (or not) thousands of applications / libraries I don't understand and don't have an easy way of understanding. I would keep going, but it's been a few years since I last was using Linux on a regular basis. I'm sure others could fill me in on what's improved and what's still a PITA.
You realize there is no such thing as 100% secure?
You seem to be confusing libertarianism with parts of conservatism (perhaps because Ayn Rand is so strongly associated with libertarianism). Libertarianism in the sense I understand it is a political position against restricting the actions of individuals. Think pro free speech, pro gay and sexual rights, anti-regulation, pro gun rights, pro choice etc. That said, there are a number of groups who take up the mantle of libertarianism, but don't live up to it (for a group whose members often claim to be libertarian, Republicans have been particularly bad in the recent past what with trying to restrict gay rights, spying on the public and trampling on civil liberties).
They sure as heck install MS Office, and back in the day they also installed IE. They can also easily install Photoshop and WoW.
Maybe that was Q3 right when the iPhone 3G came out? I wouldn't be surprised that after a big launch they'd get higher sales for that quarter. I guess its all lies, damned lies and statistics. The figure I'd like to see isn't sales figure for a given time period, but rather which phones are currently used as someone's primary phone at the moment. Otherwise you have to extrapolate from total sales ever, along with date of sale to try to figure out what the actual active marketshare is (rather than look at quarterly sales figures).
Actually, the latest figures have it Nokia #1, followed by RIM at about 20% followed by WM at 12 and Apple at 11: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smartphone#Operating_systems
The Expression feature renders on whichever browsers you have installed locally, plus a cloud based service for rendering on other OSes as you describe.
What is this "old days" you speak of? The "old days" I remember was the one where each website said "best viewed at 800x600 in Netscape Navigator 3.5". Or if you were lucky "800x600 in Netscape Navigator 4 or IE 5.5".
Should we charge every new browser that doesn't match existing browsers? Because there's certainly no browser which is 100% compliant with every standard. And the standards themselves leave a lot of leeway with things like "might", "may" etc.
You're certainly allowed to put a "works best in Chrome" stamp on your pages - no one's making you keep them working in Safari, FF, and the various versions of IE. What you're paying, essentially, is the non-monopoly tax. The only way you're not going to have to test on each browser is when there's only one browser and it stops rev'ing versions. Until then, a little extra work is the cost you pay for interoperability.
On another note, yoking Microsoft with IE6 at this point is also hardly fair. It's an 8 year old browser. Its competition was not even Mozilla yet - Mozilla 1.0 came a year later. Believe me, if your users were still using Netscape 4.0, you'd have just as much fun hacking to get it working. IE7's been out for 3 years and 8 just launched. If you really want to save the effort, drop 6 from your supported matrix and put up the upgrade badge. Until sites stop working in it, corporate IT departments are going to stick on 6 to keep their intranet apps working. Once the boss's online poker game stops working, they'll have to fix it, but until then, it's going to be around.
Isn't that explicitly what the GP is pointing out - that it is light years behind Windows in terms of secure design?
You will be writing insecure code if you actually believe that those "secure" functions are good for anything.
Also, I fail to see how avoiding boilerplate copy/paste bounds checking code is worthless. If you write that stuff a thousand times, chances are there will be a few where you get it screwed up, either due to negligence, copy/paste errors or off by one errors. The _s stuff is useful in that you just need to make sure the caller has accurately represented their buffer length during code review, you don't have to look through their own custom bounds checking and validate it does what you expect.
I've hard a lot of negativity about the TR, but not any specific criticisms other than the meh, "it's from Microsoft, they just want vendor lock in". Given the TR, sure seems like unconstructive moaning to me.
I understand that the _s functions were first implemented in MS's CRT implementation, but they're hardly Microsoft-specific. Remember, before C itself was an ANSII standard (subsequently ISO etc) it was a "AT&T specific" programming language. Advancing the state of the art is hardly anti-competitive. I'm not sure what the current state of the ISO standard is, but the _s set of functions have been standardized and are making their way in. http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1225.pdf
Really, if you know C++ well you've learned enough to understand the whole family of C, Java, C# etc. So spend a few weeks with a good book, understand the core concepts and you're good to go with OO procedural C derived languages.
Then, learn some web stuff to be marketable - just some basic HTML/CSS + learning JavaScript's crazy scoping and memory issues and your good
Finally, familiarize yourself with some basic SQL so you're ready for web backend stuff and now your good to go!
Just make sure you pick up good, secure techniques - understand and know the STL and secure C functions (_s). Understand what XSS, SQL injection etc are and how and when to safeify input.
Any shop worth its salt (at least who have an engineer doing the hiring) knows that you look for good people who can learn the environment. This doesn't mean someone who has their particular set of languages and APIs as a bullet point on their resumes, it's someone who comes in and understands their problems quickly during the interview.
Standards compliance and a page rendering well are not the same thing. IE6 is far less standards compliance than pretty much any modern browser, but most websites render well in it because they were written to render well in it.
If a page is not standards compliant, you can have the most standards compliant browser in the world and it will still render terribly. What you want is actually a standards *in-compliant* browser that smartly substitutes out its standards compliant mode for an appropriate quirks mode when it sees a site that is standards in-compliant.
How would that help?
This type of advertising is a direct result of TiVo and folks downloading stuff to skip the advertising. If the trend continues, marketers will continue to find ways to make ads unskippable (for instance, by incorporating them into the plot).
The question is what the funding model will become. Because of the ability to skip ads, either the prevalence of for pay service will increase, or the ads will be incorporated into the content via product placement as we already see. Alternately services like Hulu will rise where their convenience outweighs individual's motivation to find alternate streams sans-ads.