First, ones and zeros on a harddisk platter are not magnetic north and south, they are different frequencies of an FM sine wave.
Second, the formatted tracks on a harddisk don't line up physically. The start of the track is wherever the head was when the controller was told to format that track.
Third, Sectors aren't written in precise places inside their formatting. The low-level formatting process writes headers across the track that are used later to find the data. There's enough extra space between those headers that a sector of data will fit there, based on the ability of the controller to read where the sector starts and be able to write it.
If you really need to write magnetic north & south to specific spots, you should look at Floppies. Floppy disks have a hole to mark one spot on the disk, so the start of track comes much closer to lining up. You can even write ones and zeroes instead of FM patterns if you have an old Apple II, which didn't use FM encoding.
I was looking for a reply to reply to, and gave up.
I worked for Microsoft at the time of the OS/2/NT split, and here's how I remember it.
DOS 4, Windows 1-3, and OS2 1-2.3 were developed by Microsoft and IBM under a joint development agreement.
The term of the agreement was 10 years, and it covered DOS, Windows, and OS/2.
The agreement was not renewed, and expired just after the time that windows 98 shipped.
at the end of the agreement, IBM and Microsoft each took a copy of the Current OS/2 code. which IBM was to market under the OS/2 name, and Microsoft would market thier future versions under the name Windows New Technology.
The agreement was not public, and the details were no more than rumor, even inside the development teams involved on the products.
I do know for a fact that there were VERY important parts of OS/2 that were designed and written entirely by Microsoft developers. HPFS was written by a microsoft architect.
When the agreement was spoken of within microsoft, which happened often near the end of the time period, it was said that ownership of code written for those products during the time of the agreement was 'shared by IBM and Microsoft'
I do not know what that meant exactly, how close it was to the actual language of the agreement, and how it may apply to the question at hand.
Unless someone has access to the actual agreement, it seems fruitless to speculate as to whether IBM would have the right to put the code in open source, but I suspect that IBM does not have a clear enough title to the code to do so.
It seems to me that removing all the code that was in OS/2 2.3 from the source would probably make it worthless.
They obviously mean that there are no Firewall boxes. They have been doing port blocking for as long as there's been a microsoft.com. That was one of the first sites to be hit by distributed ping Denial of service attacks.
You manage 650GB/Day of logs by posting them to a set of SQL servers.
The Server 2008 issue is one of 'Eating your own dogfood' which was always the policy at MSFT. sometimes that's an IT nightmare, and sometimes it works out well. NT4 and SQL7 were adopted in-house long before any public betas, because the alpha releases were more stable than the shipping product (NT3.51/SQL6.5)
I happen to have been working for Microsoft at the time of the release of windows 3.0. Lotus chose to develop a version of 1-2-3 for OS/2, but for the release of Windows 3.0, they only did Notes. Now Notes was a pretty cool product, but they chose to work on the OS/2 version of 123 instead of the Windows version. They may have been swayed by IBM, but the hallway talk was that Steve Ballmer would have done anything to do a windows version, despite the fact that Microsoft had a competing product.
Around that time, someone published a book named 'Undocumented Windows Calls' or something like that. I was a tester for one of the windows applications, and we were given a new task at that time: Find and report as bugs any uses of undocumented API calls. That pass turned up only one or two in the our application's code, and the developer who'd put it in had to drop what he was doing and fix them immediately.
The SDK writer's purpose of documenting some API calls and leaving others out was to create a way for new versions of the operating system to be backward compatible without being forced to support the entire api exactly. (I know this, because the author of the SDK explained it to me)
Those policies may have changed, but the marketing sea-change between 123 and Excel really started with the release of windows 3. The version of Excel already on the shelves worked with the new OS, and the new OS gave it a platform to really shine from. The reason it worked with 3.0 was because they used the Documented API for win386 exclusively.
It's the use of the undocumented API's that is the main source of the 'Blue screen of death' that has been attributed to Windows instability. Not all cases certainly, but the undocumented calls can change from release to release. It got so bad that with windows 98 they had to release 'compatibility mode' api's so that the illegal calls in old programs could be mapped to the new functionality...
For the record, I left Microsoft in 2000, and have been less than impressed with the company since before that, but we used to do good work once upon a time...
I'd assume that that number refers to the mails identifiable as violating the law from the spammer in order to be counted, they'd have to be collectable, identifiable, and end up in the jurisdiction of the court (Austrailia). I'm sure that the number is a tiny fraction of the total number sent.
Slashdot Mirror
First, ones and zeros on a harddisk platter are not magnetic north and south, they are different frequencies of an FM sine wave. Second, the formatted tracks on a harddisk don't line up physically. The start of the track is wherever the head was when the controller was told to format that track. Third, Sectors aren't written in precise places inside their formatting. The low-level formatting process writes headers across the track that are used later to find the data. There's enough extra space between those headers that a sector of data will fit there, based on the ability of the controller to read where the sector starts and be able to write it. If you really need to write magnetic north & south to specific spots, you should look at Floppies. Floppy disks have a hole to mark one spot on the disk, so the start of track comes much closer to lining up. You can even write ones and zeroes instead of FM patterns if you have an old Apple II, which didn't use FM encoding.
I was looking for a reply to reply to, and gave up. I worked for Microsoft at the time of the OS/2 /NT split, and here's how I remember it.
DOS 4, Windows 1-3, and OS2 1-2.3 were developed by Microsoft and IBM under a joint development agreement.
The term of the agreement was 10 years, and it covered DOS, Windows, and OS/2.
The agreement was not renewed, and expired just after the time that windows 98 shipped.
at the end of the agreement, IBM and Microsoft each took a copy of the Current OS/2 code. which IBM was to market under the OS/2 name, and Microsoft would market thier future versions under the name Windows New Technology.
The agreement was not public, and the details were no more than rumor, even inside the development teams involved on the products.
I do know for a fact that there were VERY important parts of OS/2 that were designed and written entirely by Microsoft developers. HPFS was written by a microsoft architect.
When the agreement was spoken of within microsoft, which happened often near the end of the time period, it was said that ownership of code written for those products during the time of the agreement was 'shared by IBM and Microsoft'
I do not know what that meant exactly, how close it was to the actual language of the agreement, and how it may apply to the question at hand.
Unless someone has access to the actual agreement, it seems fruitless to speculate as to whether IBM would have the right to put the code in open source, but I suspect that IBM does not have a clear enough title to the code to do so.
It seems to me that removing all the code that was in OS/2 2.3 from the source would probably make it worthless.
They obviously mean that there are no Firewall boxes. They have been doing port blocking for as long as there's been a microsoft.com. That was one of the first sites to be hit by distributed ping Denial of service attacks. You manage 650GB/Day of logs by posting them to a set of SQL servers. The Server 2008 issue is one of 'Eating your own dogfood' which was always the policy at MSFT. sometimes that's an IT nightmare, and sometimes it works out well. NT4 and SQL7 were adopted in-house long before any public betas, because the alpha releases were more stable than the shipping product (NT3.51/SQL6.5)
I happen to have been working for Microsoft at the time of the release of windows 3.0. Lotus chose to develop a version of 1-2-3 for OS/2, but for the release of Windows 3.0, they only did Notes. Now Notes was a pretty cool product, but they chose to work on the OS/2 version of 123 instead of the Windows version. They may have been swayed by IBM, but the hallway talk was that Steve Ballmer would have done anything to do a windows version, despite the fact that Microsoft had a competing product. Around that time, someone published a book named 'Undocumented Windows Calls' or something like that. I was a tester for one of the windows applications, and we were given a new task at that time: Find and report as bugs any uses of undocumented API calls. That pass turned up only one or two in the our application's code, and the developer who'd put it in had to drop what he was doing and fix them immediately. The SDK writer's purpose of documenting some API calls and leaving others out was to create a way for new versions of the operating system to be backward compatible without being forced to support the entire api exactly. (I know this, because the author of the SDK explained it to me) Those policies may have changed, but the marketing sea-change between 123 and Excel really started with the release of windows 3. The version of Excel already on the shelves worked with the new OS, and the new OS gave it a platform to really shine from. The reason it worked with 3.0 was because they used the Documented API for win386 exclusively. It's the use of the undocumented API's that is the main source of the 'Blue screen of death' that has been attributed to Windows instability. Not all cases certainly, but the undocumented calls can change from release to release. It got so bad that with windows 98 they had to release 'compatibility mode' api's so that the illegal calls in old programs could be mapped to the new functionality... For the record, I left Microsoft in 2000, and have been less than impressed with the company since before that, but we used to do good work once upon a time...
I'd assume that that number refers to the mails identifiable as violating the law from the spammer in order to be counted, they'd have to be collectable, identifiable, and end up in the jurisdiction of the court (Austrailia).
I'm sure that the number is a tiny fraction of the total number sent.