You can't throw names and "facts" in the wild and hide behind anonymity.
There's simply no balance in this, and open to abuse. If you wanna call names, put your name behind your words, and if this is free speech, the laws will protect you from further repercussions.
Of course, laws aren't perfect, but total chaos is a lot less perfect.
Funny, I was just mentioning that to another poster elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps my post was what gave you this idea?;-)
Indeed! So I just pasted it from your response, in case you forgot what you were talking about exactly 47 seconds ago!
BTW, Flash implements most of ECMAScript 4.0 in ActionScript 2.0. Which is Flash version 7.
If you can say "most" when Flash 7 implemented loosely the class syntax at compiler time, on top of their extended prototypes engine, added types only as a compiler time check and no runtime support, didn't have regex, sealed classes, e4x, the machine types (int/uint/byte etc.), real namespaces (not the basic package hack of As2), event model, proper core runtime exceptions, method closures and probably a hundred other things which I can't recall immediately, then, YES, flash 7 had most of it.
But I bet Adobe (at the time MM) just thought "hey we had most of it in Flash 7, but we'll just dump all of this completely and rewrite the script engine from scratch in Flash 9, just for sheer fun".
Okay, first of all they rip off Second Life and The Sims--only with annoying ads flashing everywhere and the "opportunity" to give them money to buy virtual crap for your generic apartment, with no REAL customization (i.e. letting you build your OWN stuff, like in Second Life). Then they tout it like THEY discovered this whole idea (as if about 100 other online worlds hadn't been doing it for YEARS). Then, for a topper, they throw in their obvious knockoffs of the "Mii" and the 360's achievements.
But... dude, it's 3.0. The other consoles are only now beginning with 2.0, get it?
This link is a good way to win in a discussion with ill-informed opponents.
Scope hacks are not a way to achieve member visibility, it's just that: a hack.
It adds overhead to the constructor, wastes memory by keeping the construction activation object alive long after the constructor function has returned, doesn't let the public methods access the "private" ones (ooops...), doesn't resolve the issue of protected members.
Well, for protected members maybe it doesn't matter since extending "classes" in JS is hell anyway (no standard way to call a super method, no standard way to create a child class without running the constructor on its prototype/terribly wrong, and could lead to malfunctioning code unless manually taken care of/).
Congratulations, you're a zealot. Who exactly invited you to paste your default JavaScript rant here, simlpy because the article is about a JavaScript book? Did you just wanna "let it out" since noone around you has idea what JavaScript means?
Both the DOM API and innerHTML have their place, and event handlers attached in the tag as attributes, and even eval() (yes OMGWTFBBQ!! I suck!!) can be useful for plenty of purposes, next to the "better" approaches you advertise.
You're simply repeating well known cliches here, and for what purpose exactly? A really good developer knows how to use the tools at his disposal and doesn't discriminate against a technique if it's the best way to achieve a result. A pseudo good developer simply repeats what his buddies told him is "better" and what is "lame".
Oh.. and by the way "addEventListener... [is] much more portable as it can be constrained to a single JS file without overriding the ability of other code to receive events".
While you have a point for the multiple events, what does "portable" mean to you? IE doesn't support it (attachEvent is the alternative, but it's different in many very subtle ways), but who cares about measly ~90% of the web users. Not good developers for sure!
And for the record: prototype hacks are NOT modern OOP, if you believe OOP just those hacks, I advise you to take a look at the ECMA4 proposal (implemented in Flash 9 as "ActionScript 3", which is also reference implementation for JavaScript 2).
Of course, maybe ECMA is just stupid and we should be stuck with the awesome prototypes.
Because many of these people change their user agent string, use TOR [eff.org] and "what not" while browsing. I suppose that these are also the folks for whom firewalls will catch and optionally block this traffic as well, so they might be complaining out of principle.
Do you see people randomly hiding their face with masks in public? What would you think of someone just thought he has the right of privacy and wears a big black sock on his head with little holes for his eyes and mouth? Is this normal? Would you suspect that maybe this guy's up to something?
Where would you draw the line of "privacy" and our tolerance to privacy freaks, at the expense of normal operation of our society? You have:
agreed to purchasing a computer with Windows on it;
proceeded to using it (and not formatting the disk or anything)
agreed to receiving Windows Updates
agreed to receiving that particular WGA update (or during the Windows setup, agreed to receive all updates automatically without consent, YES, the setup will ask you specifically which way you want updates working).
And.. now suddenly Microsoft should feel guilty because a bunch of dorks with pirated Windows are freaking out that Microsoft saw them declining an EULA.
I disagree. When I send my IP to a web site, it is because I have chosen to browse there.
In the WGA example, on the other hand, one chooses NOT to do something, and yet data is sent. That is very different to browsing voluntarily to a web site.
Just choose not to use Windows Updates, and problem solved. Just turn it off. Really.
Does that make you happy? I bet not, let's whine about how Microsoft can send your full system specification to Microsoft to assist for retrieving the proper updates, but OMG it can't send your "no" to their EULA, this would be so wrong!
That sounds like a definition of "intelligence", not "sentience".
This is because I do believe sentience is a side effect of intelligence. I do believe you can be "more sentient" or "less sentient" depending how sophisticated you are (a worm is less sentient than a cat), and your current health condition (you drop out - you're less sentient).
Didn't they teach you about the difference between living cells , like we're made of, and inorganic materials like cellphones are composed of in third grade like me?
Yea, what they taught me is carbon, which is what life forms are built upon, just has this weird property of very easily forming complex structures, which is why RNA/DNA happened to evolve from carbon atoms.
And the various chemical properties of the various materials determined what we call "organic materials" today. Or do you believe god gave carbon a "spirit" or something? Do you believe in intelligent design?
What about the opposite, where I deny rights to anything that's different than me? Lower life forms, then birds, then mammals, then apes, then we have historical (and present) examples of discrimination against black and jewish people as well.
How "similar" should a being be to yourself to pronounce it "sentient" and deserving of rights?
I personally have a very sound (I believe) theory about what you call sentient: any sufficiently complex system capable of thought process, making decisions upon processed information.
Yea that is in fact including present computer technology:P Is this too much anthropomorphism for you? Can you accept your cellphone could be sentient?
------------
Now there's the other issue of will it "hurt" a robot if I abuse it or wreck it to pieces. The present robots: no. You average AIBO could appear to have feelings, but the internal implementation of this is very static and simplistic as of yet. Your AIBO doesn't have a true self-preservation "instinct" so it basically doesn't care if I run it over with a car.
That said, I believe pretty soon we'll have sufficiently sophisticated software which will posses all these qualities, and we have to be ready to recognize their rights as sentient beings.
As long as they're not threat to ours... (humanity > robots, and will probably be the case long after I'm dead, but maybe not forever).
I can understand people not wanting WGA on their PC-s as it can cause issues on legitimate installations as well, in certain situations.
But sending back a little XML that you denied the EULA? Don't you detect hypocrisy here. You send your "identification" in the form of IP, browser user agent string and what not to virtually any site you visit, without "agreeing" to this every time. Why is nobody whining about this?
Having privacy and right to deny something is cool. But I think some of the most vocal opposition is simply using pirated Windows and not being honest about it.
I don't install WGA on existing (legit) computers as it doesn't help me with anything. I don't have any problem with Microsoft getting my "no" back though. In fact, I *want* them to hear my no.
Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function.
I really don't want to drop the discussion to clarifying the basics that drive modern web and desktop languages, but I guess I will.
The PHP Interpreter, which "doesn't need Zend to work", is called "Zend Core".
Since most of us are aware of the basics (like that ASP is a framework for IIS that embeds other languages etc etc), I hoped you would all comment on the big picture I'm painting, versus decompose my post for the purpose of nitpicking into it. Guess I was wrong.
I agree. Plus the whole fad of storing programs and data on that thing called a "hard disk" is a trend that is soon to wane. Why have a device separate from the ALU to store things when you turn the power off?... If you need the information so badly, just punch it onto paper tape or onto cards. Same thing with storing programs on this "hard disk" thing... I've got a drawer full of paper tapes that will run on ANY of the PDP-8 machines... I don't need this "hard disk" to get work done.
TDz.
May I ask what is your sarcasm targeted at, or trying to prove?
The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...
It won't be the first time we're coming full circle in computer technologies (or elsewhere), it doesn't mean that he's wrong. Do you think "organic food" is a thing of the past? It's pretty modern franchise these days.
In computer software, we see interpreted languages coming in an out every few years. When I had my Apple II, the primary means of programming it was an interpreted Applesoft Basic script.
As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).
And yet again the need for performance converted those to compiled language in the mid term (later Java runtimes/JIT/,.NET which is compiled on demand, although stored as source or bytecodes). Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now (as used in their popular research OS - Singularity).
Still the portable version of.NET interprets... as a mobile device has no enough RAM to do the compilation and store the result, which is ironically the same reason Basic was interpreted on Apple II-s to start with.
The notion that the future of software is to store absolutely everything remotely, like is the case with Google apps, is a very shortsighted one. It's a current short-term / mid-term trend.
There's already lots of talk about rich clients which support "interrupted connectivity", which is, web apps that have lots of functionality even when you have no internet (i.e. with laptop on the go etc.). These apps operate by usually having a small and simple web-server or runtime and SQL database embeded in them, along with ability for rich caching of remotely downloaded assets. Examples include the upcoming Firefox 3, Adobe's Apollo, Microsoft's WinFX (aka NET3) and so on.
Pro has Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and Publisher; Ultimate adds OneNote, Groove, and InfoPath. What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever. Microsoft claim Groove is a "peer-to-peer collaboration solution", which has left me only slight more enlightened than before. Onenote's supposed to be pretty good, though.
The question is: what happened to Microsoft Visio. It's in neither of the packages. Nor is Microsoft Project.
Like the previous poster said, we all produce tons of data daily without storing it. Mobile phone calls. VOIP. Video conferencing. IM without history. etc. That's countless gigabytes daily worldwide...
I'm sorry that I have to clarify myself, but neither I or the survey include temporary data in the discussion. We're talking data that is stored and represents archived information..
Otherwise where do we stop? Do we count copies of the programs in RAM, swap files, temporary caches and so on? It'll become pointless pretty soon... That said, the whole study is pointless anyway.
"Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple" -> Microsoft didn't "want" anything.
They were discussing it, but mostly as as a card for bargaining with Apple on different matter. Notice Bill Gates said if they can hide their progress from Apple, since revealing the project is almost done and to be out will put them in a worse position for negotiations.
Or you believe Microsoft should simply say "hey what the heck, Office it the de-facto Office package, so we can't negotiate our position, we'll just bend-over and let be f-ed in the ass by everyone".
This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.
Purely out of interest, it'd be really curious to see how long does Apple last if Adobe would stop Photoshop for Mac. Never mind all the rest, just Photoshop.
I don't think Aperture which can't even display a histogram properly will be deemed an appropriate replacement. What about the designers using it. I use Photoshop for years and years, and maybe edited photos in it only few times (all the rest - original designs, is Aperture even capable of this?).
It's a nice brain teaser to mix and match products like this, but in the end Apple Mac, like Windows itself, is nothing without their software vendors, Microsoft's Mac Office in that number.
Noone asked me or my family, or my friends, or my colleagues, how much data we store. How do they even come up with those estimates? Do they just count the more "visible" corporate data warehouses and ignore the millions of individial users?
You can't "produce more data than is stored", this is idiotic to claim. How do they imagine this happening? Millions of people stubbornly trying to save files on their full hard drives, leading to a global crisis? This should join the FUD that we're about to "clog" the Internet any minute now, because we're watching funny videos on YouTube.
The first prediction didn't account for data duplication, this does. Let's ignore for a minute how wildly inaccurate those "assumptions" are if you can change the methodology every time. They drew a straight line between those to and extrapolate a bit, to arrive at "catastrophic" predictions anyway. Never mind that statistically it doesn't make sense. If I ate 10 grams of food yesterday since someone didn't account for bananas yesterday, but I ate 1 kilo of food today since they did... extrapolating this to tommorow says I'm about to eat 100 kilos of food.
"A deep recursion of PHP userland code will exhaust all available stack which leads to a sometimes remotely triggerable crash."
I've found a very similar bug in GLIBC!
int main(){
main();
}
This code will cause a segment violation!
Shock! Gasp! Horror!
Now you know why web pages aren't generally coded in C. There's a reason people use higher level languages for such tasks, and one of them is that you can NOT crash the server via deep recursion, or have memory leaks when you have a garbage collector.
Slashdot Mirror
You fail in life.
You can't throw names and "facts" in the wild and hide behind anonymity.
There's simply no balance in this, and open to abuse. If you wanna call names, put your name behind your words, and if this is free speech, the laws will protect you from further repercussions.
Of course, laws aren't perfect, but total chaos is a lot less perfect.
Funny, I was just mentioning that to another poster elsewhere in this thread. Perhaps my post was what gave you this idea? ;-)
Indeed! So I just pasted it from your response, in case you forgot what you were talking about exactly 47 seconds ago!
BTW, Flash implements most of ECMAScript 4.0 in ActionScript 2.0. Which is Flash version 7.
If you can say "most" when Flash 7 implemented loosely the class syntax at compiler time, on top of their extended prototypes engine, added types only as a compiler time check and no runtime support, didn't have regex, sealed classes, e4x, the machine types (int/uint/byte etc.), real namespaces (not the basic package hack of As2), event model, proper core runtime exceptions, method closures and probably a hundred other things which I can't recall immediately, then, YES, flash 7 had most of it.
But I bet Adobe (at the time MM) just thought "hey we had most of it in Flash 7, but we'll just dump all of this completely and rewrite the script engine from scratch in Flash 9, just for sheer fun".
Okay, first of all they rip off Second Life and The Sims--only with annoying ads flashing everywhere and the "opportunity" to give them money to buy virtual crap for your generic apartment, with no REAL customization (i.e. letting you build your OWN stuff, like in Second Life). Then they tout it like THEY discovered this whole idea (as if about 100 other online worlds hadn't been doing it for YEARS). Then, for a topper, they throw in their obvious knockoffs of the "Mii" and the 360's achievements.
But... dude, it's 3.0. The other consoles are only now beginning with 2.0, get it?
This link is a good way to win in a discussion with ill-informed opponents.
/terribly wrong, and could lead to malfunctioning code unless manually taken care of/).
Scope hacks are not a way to achieve member visibility, it's just that: a hack.
It adds overhead to the constructor, wastes memory by keeping the construction activation object alive long after the constructor function has returned, doesn't let the public methods access the "private" ones (ooops...), doesn't resolve the issue of protected members.
Well, for protected members maybe it doesn't matter since extending "classes" in JS is hell anyway (no standard way to call a super method, no standard way to create a child class without running the constructor on its prototype
What is this?
function LightBulb(on)
{
this.on = on;
this.isOn = function() { return this.on; }
this.setOn = function(on) { this.on = on; }
}
var mybulb1 = new LightBulb(true);
var mybulb2 = new LightBulb(false);
alert(mybulb1.isOn()+" - "+mybulb2.isOn());
This is the wrong way to add methods to your "class", by adding pointless overhead to your constructor.
And this is the normal way:
function LightBulb() {...}
LightBulb.prototype = {isOn: function() {...}, setOn: function() {...}};
Congratulations, you're a zealot. Who exactly invited you to paste your default JavaScript rant here, simlpy because the article is about a JavaScript book? Did you just wanna "let it out" since noone around you has idea what JavaScript means?
... [is] much more portable as it can be constrained to a single JS file without overriding the ability of other code to receive events".
Both the DOM API and innerHTML have their place, and event handlers attached in the tag as attributes, and even eval() (yes OMGWTFBBQ!! I suck!!) can be useful for plenty of purposes, next to the "better" approaches you advertise.
You're simply repeating well known cliches here, and for what purpose exactly? A really good developer knows how to use the tools at his disposal and doesn't discriminate against a technique if it's the best way to achieve a result. A pseudo good developer simply repeats what his buddies told him is "better" and what is "lame".
Oh.. and by the way "addEventListener
While you have a point for the multiple events, what does "portable" mean to you? IE doesn't support it (attachEvent is the alternative, but it's different in many very subtle ways), but who cares about measly ~90% of the web users. Not good developers for sure!
And for the record: prototype hacks are NOT modern OOP, if you believe OOP just those hacks, I advise you to take a look at the ECMA4 proposal (implemented in Flash 9 as "ActionScript 3", which is also reference implementation for JavaScript 2).
Of course, maybe ECMA is just stupid and we should be stuck with the awesome prototypes.
Do you see people randomly hiding their face with masks in public? What would you think of someone just thought he has the right of privacy and wears a big black sock on his head with little holes for his eyes and mouth? Is this normal? Would you suspect that maybe this guy's up to something?
Where would you draw the line of "privacy" and our tolerance to privacy freaks, at the expense of normal operation of our society? You have:
And.. now suddenly Microsoft should feel guilty because a bunch of dorks with pirated Windows are freaking out that Microsoft saw them declining an EULA.
I disagree. When I send my IP to a web site, it is because I have chosen to browse there.
In the WGA example, on the other hand, one chooses NOT to do something, and yet data is sent. That is very different to browsing voluntarily to a web site.
Just choose not to use Windows Updates, and problem solved. Just turn it off. Really.
Does that make you happy? I bet not, let's whine about how Microsoft can send your full system specification to Microsoft to assist for retrieving the proper updates, but OMG it can't send your "no" to their EULA, this would be so wrong!
That sounds like a definition of "intelligence", not "sentience".
This is because I do believe sentience is a side effect of intelligence. I do believe you can be "more sentient" or "less sentient" depending how sophisticated you are (a worm is less sentient than a cat), and your current health condition (you drop out - you're less sentient).
Maybe I'm crazy.
Didn't they teach you about the difference between living cells , like we're made of, and inorganic materials like cellphones are composed of in third grade like me?
Yea, what they taught me is carbon, which is what life forms are built upon, just has this weird property of very easily forming complex structures, which is why RNA/DNA happened to evolve from carbon atoms.
And the various chemical properties of the various materials determined what we call "organic materials" today. Or do you believe god gave carbon a "spirit" or something? Do you believe in intelligent design?
"How "similar" should a being be to yourself to pronounce it "sentient" "
If it's dissimilar to you, that's enough for me, pondslime.
What if I'm a sentient pondslime? You can never be sure...
It's anthropomorphizm run amuck!
:P Is this too much anthropomorphism for you? Can you accept your cellphone could be sentient?
What about the opposite, where I deny rights to anything that's different than me? Lower life forms, then birds, then mammals, then apes, then we have historical (and present) examples of discrimination against black and jewish people as well.
How "similar" should a being be to yourself to pronounce it "sentient" and deserving of rights?
I personally have a very sound (I believe) theory about what you call sentient: any sufficiently complex system capable of thought process, making decisions upon processed information.
Yea that is in fact including present computer technology
------------
Now there's the other issue of will it "hurt" a robot if I abuse it or wreck it to pieces. The present robots: no. You average AIBO could appear to have feelings, but the internal implementation of this is very static and simplistic as of yet. Your AIBO doesn't have a true self-preservation "instinct" so it basically doesn't care if I run it over with a car.
That said, I believe pretty soon we'll have sufficiently sophisticated software which will posses all these qualities, and we have to be ready to recognize their rights as sentient beings.
As long as they're not threat to ours... (humanity > robots, and will probably be the case long after I'm dead, but maybe not forever).
I can understand people not wanting WGA on their PC-s as it can cause issues on legitimate installations as well, in certain situations.
But sending back a little XML that you denied the EULA? Don't you detect hypocrisy here. You send your "identification" in the form of IP, browser user agent string and what not to virtually any site you visit, without "agreeing" to this every time. Why is nobody whining about this?
Having privacy and right to deny something is cool. But I think some of the most vocal opposition is simply using pirated Windows and not being honest about it.
I don't install WGA on existing (legit) computers as it doesn't help me with anything. I don't have any problem with Microsoft getting my "no" back though. In fact, I *want* them to hear my no.
Zend has added some additional things (e.g. the Zend Optimizer and Zend Compiler) to (i) add performance, and (ii) help companies hide secret stuff. But PHP does not require either of those to work. It just requires the PHP Interpreter to function.
I really don't want to drop the discussion to clarifying the basics that drive modern web and desktop languages, but I guess I will.
The PHP Interpreter, which "doesn't need Zend to work", is called "Zend Core".
Since most of us are aware of the basics (like that ASP is a framework for IIS that embeds other languages etc etc), I hoped you would all comment on the big picture I'm painting, versus decompose my post for the purpose of nitpicking into it. Guess I was wrong.
I agree. Plus the whole fad of storing programs and data on that thing called a "hard disk" is a trend that is soon to wane. Why have a device separate from the ALU to store things when you turn the power off? ... If you need the information so badly, just punch it onto paper tape or onto cards. Same thing with storing programs on this "hard disk" thing... I've got a drawer full of paper tapes that will run on ANY of the PDP-8 machines... I don't need this "hard disk" to get work done.
TDz.
May I ask what is your sarcasm targeted at, or trying to prove?
The fact that you clarify in obvious things, which I didn't for the sake of length and clarity of my main point, show that you missed that main point.
Too bad.
The 1960's called, they want their computing paradigms back. Future of software? More like the past, we're coming full circle...
/JIT/, .NET which is compiled on demand, although stored as source or bytecodes). Microsoft even has C# compiler now which compiles to machine code with no CLR dependencies now (as used in their popular research OS - Singularity).
.NET interprets... as a mobile device has no enough RAM to do the compilation and store the result, which is ironically the same reason Basic was interpreted on Apple II-s to start with.
It won't be the first time we're coming full circle in computer technologies (or elsewhere), it doesn't mean that he's wrong. Do you think "organic food" is a thing of the past? It's pretty modern franchise these days.
In computer software, we see interpreted languages coming in an out every few years. When I had my Apple II, the primary means of programming it was an interpreted Applesoft Basic script.
As computers advance and more performance is required, the interpreters become full-blown compilers (C, C++, later Basic compilers), but then the needs for flexibility arises and today we use lots of interpreted languages again (JavaScript, PHP, Perl, ASP, Ruby, Java).
And yet again the need for performance converted those to compiled language in the mid term (later Java runtimes
Still the portable version of
The notion that the future of software is to store absolutely everything remotely, like is the case with Google apps, is a very shortsighted one. It's a current short-term / mid-term trend.
There's already lots of talk about rich clients which support "interrupted connectivity", which is, web apps that have lots of functionality even when you have no internet (i.e. with laptop on the go etc.). These apps operate by usually having a small and simple web-server or runtime and SQL database embeded in them, along with ability for rich caching of remotely downloaded assets. Examples include the upcoming Firefox 3, Adobe's Apollo, Microsoft's WinFX (aka NET3) and so on.
Pro has Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, Access, and Publisher; Ultimate adds OneNote, Groove, and InfoPath. What are Groove and Infopath, you ask? Your guess is as good as mine, because I have no ****ing idea whatsoever. Microsoft claim Groove is a "peer-to-peer collaboration solution", which has left me only slight more enlightened than before. Onenote's supposed to be pretty good, though.
The question is: what happened to Microsoft Visio. It's in neither of the packages. Nor is Microsoft Project.
Like the previous poster said, we all produce tons of data daily without storing it. Mobile phone calls. VOIP. Video conferencing. IM without history. etc. That's countless gigabytes daily worldwide...
I'm sorry that I have to clarify myself, but neither I or the survey include temporary data in the discussion. We're talking data that is stored and represents archived information..
Otherwise where do we stop? Do we count copies of the programs in RAM, swap files, temporary caches and so on? It'll become pointless pretty soon... That said, the whole study is pointless anyway.
"Microsoft Wanted To Drop Mac Office To Hurt Apple" -> Microsoft didn't "want" anything.
They were discussing it, but mostly as as a card for bargaining with Apple on different matter. Notice Bill Gates said if they can hide their progress from Apple, since revealing the project is almost done and to be out will put them in a worse position for negotiations.
Or you believe Microsoft should simply say "hey what the heck, Office it the de-facto Office package, so we can't negotiate our position, we'll just bend-over and let be f-ed in the ass by everyone".
This merger/aquisition would never be approved since MS is already a convicted monopolist. Even if approved, Apple has Aperture (high end) and iPhoto (low end) ready for precisely this contingency.
Purely out of interest, it'd be really curious to see how long does Apple last if Adobe would stop Photoshop for Mac. Never mind all the rest, just Photoshop.
I don't think Aperture which can't even display a histogram properly will be deemed an appropriate replacement. What about the designers using it. I use Photoshop for years and years, and maybe edited photos in it only few times (all the rest - original designs, is Aperture even capable of this?).
It's a nice brain teaser to mix and match products like this, but in the end Apple Mac, like Windows itself, is nothing without their software vendors, Microsoft's Mac Office in that number.
they are convicted monopolists
Jesus... so this is the level of the discussion we're having here.
They may have done lots of illegal things but the mere situation of monopoly by naturally developed market share isn't one.
"A deep recursion of PHP userland code will exhaust all available stack which leads to a sometimes remotely triggerable crash."
I've found a very similar bug in GLIBC!
int main(){
main();
}
This code will cause a segment violation!
Shock! Gasp! Horror!
Now you know why web pages aren't generally coded in C. There's a reason people use higher level languages for such tasks, and one of them is that you can NOT crash the server via deep recursion, or have memory leaks when you have a garbage collector.