I don't think what I said was FUD.
You still have to have a licensed server. If you didn't already have one, you would have to buy hardware and software and get the thing running.
You can only have as many concurrent IIS accesses as the connection limit (which I called width, my term).
If you know how to set the policy right the first time, more power to you.
I was shooting from the hip about the client access licenses, I admit that...
IT Teachers in High School, now that's something I never knew. When I was in High School, we had a bendix g15 with tubes. I was in charge of the computer club, and what we knew about computers was how to write a program by arranging prepunched cards in a certain order. Learning about computers in school would have been nice. You should appreciate it.
That assumes that a company wants to pay for a server and keep it secure just so that they can get personal with each and every update. The server would have to be licensed wide enough for all the users and then there are the client access licenses. And an administrator to look after the WSUS server and its updates.
I acknowledge that Apple equipment has a higher entry price, but I have been very satisfied with the quality of the hardware and service from Apple. Once you get past that, I really like that they provide a lot of development software and references for free to the Apple user's. As a software engineer I have always voted for bundling the development software with the operating system. Of course recently Microsoft has started macking express versions of their development products free to download. I guess that's sort of cool. Since I purchased my apple's, there have only been two new OS releases, Panther and Tiger. Both times I bought the family pack and I have been very happy with the license terms. Apple even replaced my Tiger DVD when I lost mine.
I think that even though Apple comes oujt with new operating systems, they are still complying with CUA (common user access) and I have no trouble learning new stuff, given that the framework stays the same. Recently Microsoft has deviated from CUA, and their new operating system and office suite are no longer CUA compliant. I like using Microsoft and deviated in the same sentence. I do not feel comfortable with their new operating system or office suite. I would have to start over from scratch learning how to use them. And by the way, after my PC got its IE7 update, the friendly menu bar was gone and I am lost again. When Microsoft was stealing Apple's look and feel, they joined the CUA croud because the standards were helpful to make users feel at home. What is their excuse now for not being CUA compliant? We don't care if the user feels at home because we know best, we are Microsoft?
Ah... I am glad you mentioned the anti-phishing support. That one really stopped me dead in my tracks for about ten minutes. Do I really want my browser URLs being sent to Microsoft and having them decide if I can safely go where I want to. If they are not trustworthy, that sure puts a lot of my browser habits into their logs. I mean I think the filter might me a good idea if hashes of bad URLs were downloaded to the browser, but sending the raw urls to Microsoft gives me the willinillies. The idea sounds ok to start but after a moments thought, I don't know. What do you'all think?
As a software developer, and an ex-company owner, I believe I understand all the sides of the issue. But in all fairness to everyone but Microsoft,
I think I need to point out that Microsoft changes the rules all the time. Just because it workes a certain way in a beta or an RC, doesn't mean that is how it is going to work in the RTM (release to manufacturing). Since I don't write browser specific HTML code, I am not aware of the specific changes causing the problems, but in a more perfect world, companies and their developers would receive as much advance knowledge aboujt the impact of coming changes through the developer and support programs, such as MSDN and TechNet. Microsoft sends out so much beta stuff these days that a company would need about four sets of developers for their internet projects, infranet... A core group working on the application, a legacy group working on compatibility with previous versions of os/browsers. A current technology group dealing with todays os/browser, and a future technology group working on what is to come, and maybe two of those for the near stuff (Vista) and the far away stuff (longhorn). It is hard for companies to decide how to best administer their scant developer resources amongst these functions. Microsoft often changes it's mind and discontinues products and features unexpectedly. We are all doing to best we can. It is hard to resist browser specific enhancements when they improve the look and feel of the web app, but I don't give in. My web apps are all browser independent.:-)
I am fscinated they were so eager to compete with the Firefox release that they pushed it in the update channel.
My, they are full of themselves aren't they?
I am not sure why you are badmouthing OpenOffice. OpenOffice is CUA (Common User Access) compliant. That means it has the main menus you expect and that the File mennu has an exit/quit option. Beyond the basic look and feel issues, it is not necessary for Open Office to be an exact knock off. If it were, Microsoft would have a case when we stood back and squinted. I would prefer that Open Office was "better" and I don't mind learning a few differences in the menus. It's a lot better than re-learning everything with the new office suite. The same for Linux look and feel. I would prefer that the CUA guidelines get followed but beyond that I don't want it to look exactly like Windows. What's the point. I like Better.
I think the real patent troll here is IBM.
I am waiting for them to come out of the woodwork and claim they have a patent on programs being stored in memory, instead of programming with a plugboard. IBM has been around since before I was born in 1945 and they own a lot of patents, like to one on core memory...
I have been waiting for this to come up. I have read extensively on the ECMA-INTERNATIONAL web site. Here is the story about Mono.
Mono is based on the "open standards" published at www.ecma-international.org. Those standards contain Microsoft patented information that Microsoft has agreed to license under RAND. This is a troll bomb waiting to go off. I emailed the FSF abot this problem months ago and that have ignored me. Microsoft is a charter member of ECMA. The Mono developers thought that "Open standards" meant "public domain". But if you read the fine print on the ecma site, You will see that it is far from the truth. Ecma is the key to this plot, and the Mono developers fell right in without a moments hesitation Dot-gnu has the same problem.
I noticed that ubuntu's package manager can load the mono development stuff too. I think that this may be about mono, was a very keen insight.
A friend of mine wrote a popular PC basic system that is quite extensive. When I was working with him, we talked about him writing a C++ backend to his compiler and the last I knew he was cranking out the c++ runtime for use with the generated c++ output of the compiler. I think it's a good idea.
I think that the reason for the bias against BASIC is that years ago, it lacked the features that would be neeed for writing a full featured application program with the bells and whistles. I know that eventually Microsoft added features for using COM, Active X, and stuff like that. I think my bias against Microsoft Basic was that it was single sourced and as a wise software engineer, I avoid using single source tools where possible because it closes off opportunity if you get a chance to port your software to another platform. I mean to say, use VB and your pretty much stuck on Windows, that's the way Microsoft likes it.
I am a system programmer, whoo has been self employed for 25 years. At my yearly review, where I evaluate myself because I am my own boss, I ask myself questions like, how many new operating systems did I learn this year? How many nw programming languages have I been using this year. Have I embraced any new networking topologies this year? Coming from that position, I have the use of lots of programming languages, and I tend to choose multi sourced tools. That has come to mean GNU since Mac Xcode is GNU under the hood. I guess it has hurt me over the years to not know VB, but it's been a dignity issue for me. I don't like to behave in a way that promotes the agenda of the monopolistic Microsoft.
Thanks for your elegant note. Here is my thoughtful reply. I hope what I have said helps you understand why Basic is a hard sell to some people.
Respectfully, Doug
I remember that when I was in the US Navy in 1972-76, I cared a great deal about who was president because the Commander in Chief was the man making decisions like should the country spend my life on this or that. There is a lot more to who wins than just partisan politics. It makes a crucial difference to our fighting men and women, our poor, and our unemployed, who is in charge. This country obviously needs some strong leadership, from someone with some rationall values. Fiscally conservative would be nice. I have lost count of how many zeroes there are in the national debt. I think when I was in high school the national debt was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I indend to vote in a few days, and I sincerely hoope my one little vote at least gets counted correctly.
If they cannot control all of the conditions of the benchmark, and therefore the results, they are afraid to compete in an open marketplace on the basis of efficiency and reliability. Two words I live by when it comers to software quality.
I am not as argumentative as I sound. I said I see why we are attached to it. Not that I am attached to controlling it, and as you correctly say, DNS servers are the cornerstone.
What I found the most interesting about your reply though was the last line:
The Chinese are already constructing their ChinaNet - making it impossible for foreign companies to offer products and services.
I had never heard of that before, and yet I see the truth of it in a flash. Thanks for pointing that out, because I do dislike our balance of trade with China and I see how their protectionist (closed) Internet would fit into the matrix of control that enforces it. Very neat (I don't mean groovy). I am truly sorry to see the technology used that way. I don't know what else to say:-(
Windows CE 6 Arrives Complete with Kernel Source
does not mean
Windows CE 6 Arrives with Complete Kernel Source
read the fine print, portions of every subsystem are unreleased.
The http protocol is one protocol out of many that make up the Internet Protocols. Yes it's very clever, and yes, it makes up a lot of the Internet traffic. When email (smtp) was new, it made up a large part of the traffic. The IP protocols grow and change over time, bu they all run on top of the IP/UDP/TCP protocols that are the nuts and bolts of the Internet. Adaptive routing protocols that route around dead links, and clever adaptations like that are what actually make up the Internet. The United States started the Internet by publishing the RFC (request for comments) documents that contained the wisdom of the protocols, and people that wanted to interoperate with us wrote compatible software. Our desktop operating systems today have TCP/IP because DARPA paid UC Berkeley to write a reference implementation that was included in 4.2BSD and that code has been copied into every operating system in sight. That's our Internet. If you really want to be fair about it, the way COMPAQ was when they wrote their own BIOS, start from scratch and invent your own Internet, but don't look at the RFCs written by americans, and don't copy any code out of the BSD distribution. See how far that gets you. We have contributed a lot to the development of the Internet. Now it should be said that people in countries other than the United states worked on the RFC's also. But that is where and how it started. Since we wrote the refence implementations and paid for the infrastructure that was used while the network grew, I can see why we are attached to it. I know all this is true because I worked for UCLA in 1971 on the ARPA network using the Sigma 7 which was arpa host #1 (the network measurement center NMC) under the direction of Jon Postel, Depputy Chief architect of the Internet (or should I say Catenet).
I am a driver writer, I wonder, I wonder.
On Vista I develop, I ponder, I Ponder.
Will my next driver test trigger SPP, I fear, I fear.
Developing this driver could be expensive.
(EULAg to a coder)
Meanwhile on Dune,
The Microsoft ecologist says, "I see your copy of Vista is configured redmond fashion, who showed you how to do that?"
"No one, it seemed the proper way."
and the fremen housekeeper says, "It is known to us you have a traitor in our midst, we think its name might be EULA."
Clang clang clang, the Duke says, "The Harkonnens have tried to take the life of my Son's Vista."
"They have destroyed the wierd modules".
Speak for yourself.
There is a huge difference between pounding out code, and thoughtfully crafting the right (elegant) code for the job.
You make it sound like RMS wrote all the GNU code himself, while it is my belief that a very large number of contributors were involved.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think what I said was FUD. You still have to have a licensed server. If you didn't already have one, you would have to buy hardware and software and get the thing running. You can only have as many concurrent IIS accesses as the connection limit (which I called width, my term). If you know how to set the policy right the first time, more power to you. I was shooting from the hip about the client access licenses, I admit that...
IT Teachers in High School, now that's something I never knew. When I was in High School, we had a bendix g15 with tubes. I was in charge of the computer club, and what we knew about computers was how to write a program by arranging prepunched cards in a certain order. Learning about computers in school would have been nice. You should appreciate it.
That assumes that a company wants to pay for a server and keep it secure just so that they can get personal with each and every update. The server would have to be licensed wide enough for all the users and then there are the client access licenses. And an administrator to look after the WSUS server and its updates.
I acknowledge that Apple equipment has a higher entry price, but I have been very satisfied with the quality of the hardware and service from Apple. Once you get past that, I really like that they provide a lot of development software and references for free to the Apple user's. As a software engineer I have always voted for bundling the development software with the operating system. Of course recently Microsoft has started macking express versions of their development products free to download. I guess that's sort of cool. Since I purchased my apple's, there have only been two new OS releases, Panther and Tiger. Both times I bought the family pack and I have been very happy with the license terms. Apple even replaced my Tiger DVD when I lost mine. I think that even though Apple comes oujt with new operating systems, they are still complying with CUA (common user access) and I have no trouble learning new stuff, given that the framework stays the same. Recently Microsoft has deviated from CUA, and their new operating system and office suite are no longer CUA compliant. I like using Microsoft and deviated in the same sentence. I do not feel comfortable with their new operating system or office suite. I would have to start over from scratch learning how to use them. And by the way, after my PC got its IE7 update, the friendly menu bar was gone and I am lost again. When Microsoft was stealing Apple's look and feel, they joined the CUA croud because the standards were helpful to make users feel at home. What is their excuse now for not being CUA compliant? We don't care if the user feels at home because we know best, we are Microsoft?
Ah... I am glad you mentioned the anti-phishing support. That one really stopped me dead in my tracks for about ten minutes. Do I really want my browser URLs being sent to Microsoft and having them decide if I can safely go where I want to. If they are not trustworthy, that sure puts a lot of my browser habits into their logs. I mean I think the filter might me a good idea if hashes of bad URLs were downloaded to the browser, but sending the raw urls to Microsoft gives me the willinillies. The idea sounds ok to start but after a moments thought, I don't know. What do you'all think?
As a software developer, and an ex-company owner, I believe I understand all the sides of the issue. But in all fairness to everyone but Microsoft, I think I need to point out that Microsoft changes the rules all the time. Just because it workes a certain way in a beta or an RC, doesn't mean that is how it is going to work in the RTM (release to manufacturing). Since I don't write browser specific HTML code, I am not aware of the specific changes causing the problems, but in a more perfect world, companies and their developers would receive as much advance knowledge aboujt the impact of coming changes through the developer and support programs, such as MSDN and TechNet. Microsoft sends out so much beta stuff these days that a company would need about four sets of developers for their internet projects, infranet... A core group working on the application, a legacy group working on compatibility with previous versions of os/browsers. A current technology group dealing with todays os/browser, and a future technology group working on what is to come, and maybe two of those for the near stuff (Vista) and the far away stuff (longhorn). It is hard for companies to decide how to best administer their scant developer resources amongst these functions. Microsoft often changes it's mind and discontinues products and features unexpectedly. We are all doing to best we can. It is hard to resist browser specific enhancements when they improve the look and feel of the web app, but I don't give in. My web apps are all browser independent. :-)
I am fscinated they were so eager to compete with the Firefox release that they pushed it in the update channel. My, they are full of themselves aren't they?
I am not sure why you are badmouthing OpenOffice. OpenOffice is CUA (Common User Access) compliant. That means it has the main menus you expect and that the File mennu has an exit/quit option. Beyond the basic look and feel issues, it is not necessary for Open Office to be an exact knock off. If it were, Microsoft would have a case when we stood back and squinted. I would prefer that Open Office was "better" and I don't mind learning a few differences in the menus. It's a lot better than re-learning everything with the new office suite. The same for Linux look and feel. I would prefer that the CUA guidelines get followed but beyond that I don't want it to look exactly like Windows. What's the point. I like Better.
I think the real patent troll here is IBM. I am waiting for them to come out of the woodwork and claim they have a patent on programs being stored in memory, instead of programming with a plugboard. IBM has been around since before I was born in 1945 and they own a lot of patents, like to one on core memory...
I have been waiting for this to come up. I have read extensively on the ECMA-INTERNATIONAL web site. Here is the story about Mono. Mono is based on the "open standards" published at www.ecma-international.org. Those standards contain Microsoft patented information that Microsoft has agreed to license under RAND. This is a troll bomb waiting to go off. I emailed the FSF abot this problem months ago and that have ignored me. Microsoft is a charter member of ECMA. The Mono developers thought that "Open standards" meant "public domain". But if you read the fine print on the ecma site, You will see that it is far from the truth. Ecma is the key to this plot, and the Mono developers fell right in without a moments hesitation Dot-gnu has the same problem. I noticed that ubuntu's package manager can load the mono development stuff too. I think that this may be about mono, was a very keen insight.
I like that erm, "patent infected code".
Don't feel bad, I recently had to look up "fanboy" to make sure I wasn't one. I am not, thank goodness.
A friend of mine wrote a popular PC basic system that is quite extensive. When I was working with him, we talked about him writing a C++ backend to his compiler and the last I knew he was cranking out the c++ runtime for use with the generated c++ output of the compiler. I think it's a good idea. I think that the reason for the bias against BASIC is that years ago, it lacked the features that would be neeed for writing a full featured application program with the bells and whistles. I know that eventually Microsoft added features for using COM, Active X, and stuff like that. I think my bias against Microsoft Basic was that it was single sourced and as a wise software engineer, I avoid using single source tools where possible because it closes off opportunity if you get a chance to port your software to another platform. I mean to say, use VB and your pretty much stuck on Windows, that's the way Microsoft likes it. I am a system programmer, whoo has been self employed for 25 years. At my yearly review, where I evaluate myself because I am my own boss, I ask myself questions like, how many new operating systems did I learn this year? How many nw programming languages have I been using this year. Have I embraced any new networking topologies this year? Coming from that position, I have the use of lots of programming languages, and I tend to choose multi sourced tools. That has come to mean GNU since Mac Xcode is GNU under the hood. I guess it has hurt me over the years to not know VB, but it's been a dignity issue for me. I don't like to behave in a way that promotes the agenda of the monopolistic Microsoft. Thanks for your elegant note. Here is my thoughtful reply. I hope what I have said helps you understand why Basic is a hard sell to some people. Respectfully, Doug
No, in object oriented programming, you aren't sure which instance of your foot just got shot.
I remember that when I was in the US Navy in 1972-76, I cared a great deal about who was president because the Commander in Chief was the man making decisions like should the country spend my life on this or that. There is a lot more to who wins than just partisan politics. It makes a crucial difference to our fighting men and women, our poor, and our unemployed, who is in charge. This country obviously needs some strong leadership, from someone with some rationall values. Fiscally conservative would be nice. I have lost count of how many zeroes there are in the national debt. I think when I was in high school the national debt was in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I indend to vote in a few days, and I sincerely hoope my one little vote at least gets counted correctly.
If they cannot control all of the conditions of the benchmark, and therefore the results, they are afraid to compete in an open marketplace on the basis of efficiency and reliability. Two words I live by when it comers to software quality.
I am not as argumentative as I sound. I said I see why we are attached to it. Not that I am attached to controlling it, and as you correctly say, DNS servers are the cornerstone. What I found the most interesting about your reply though was the last line: The Chinese are already constructing their ChinaNet - making it impossible for foreign companies to offer products and services. I had never heard of that before, and yet I see the truth of it in a flash. Thanks for pointing that out, because I do dislike our balance of trade with China and I see how their protectionist (closed) Internet would fit into the matrix of control that enforces it. Very neat (I don't mean groovy). I am truly sorry to see the technology used that way. I don't know what else to say :-(
Windows CE 6 Arrives Complete with Kernel Source does not mean Windows CE 6 Arrives with Complete Kernel Source read the fine print, portions of every subsystem are unreleased.
The http protocol is one protocol out of many that make up the Internet Protocols. Yes it's very clever, and yes, it makes up a lot of the Internet traffic. When email (smtp) was new, it made up a large part of the traffic. The IP protocols grow and change over time, bu they all run on top of the IP/UDP/TCP protocols that are the nuts and bolts of the Internet. Adaptive routing protocols that route around dead links, and clever adaptations like that are what actually make up the Internet. The United States started the Internet by publishing the RFC (request for comments) documents that contained the wisdom of the protocols, and people that wanted to interoperate with us wrote compatible software. Our desktop operating systems today have TCP/IP because DARPA paid UC Berkeley to write a reference implementation that was included in 4.2BSD and that code has been copied into every operating system in sight. That's our Internet. If you really want to be fair about it, the way COMPAQ was when they wrote their own BIOS, start from scratch and invent your own Internet, but don't look at the RFCs written by americans, and don't copy any code out of the BSD distribution. See how far that gets you. We have contributed a lot to the development of the Internet. Now it should be said that people in countries other than the United states worked on the RFC's also. But that is where and how it started. Since we wrote the refence implementations and paid for the infrastructure that was used while the network grew, I can see why we are attached to it. I know all this is true because I worked for UCLA in 1971 on the ARPA network using the Sigma 7 which was arpa host #1 (the network measurement center NMC) under the direction of Jon Postel, Depputy Chief architect of the Internet (or should I say Catenet).
Please! If you stay with Windows, the only person that wins is Bill Gates. Staying the course didn't work in the middle east, and Windows is a POS.
I have never had problems with NetGear, but I am having big troouble with Linksys. I will never buy another linksys product *ever*.
I am a driver writer, I wonder, I wonder. On Vista I develop, I ponder, I Ponder. Will my next driver test trigger SPP, I fear, I fear. Developing this driver could be expensive. (EULAg to a coder)
Meanwhile on Dune, The Microsoft ecologist says, "I see your copy of Vista is configured redmond fashion, who showed you how to do that?" "No one, it seemed the proper way." and the fremen housekeeper says, "It is known to us you have a traitor in our midst, we think its name might be EULA." Clang clang clang, the Duke says, "The Harkonnens have tried to take the life of my Son's Vista." "They have destroyed the wierd modules".
I don't get it.. Are you complaining about Dapper LTS? I have had nothing but good experiences with it.
Speak for yourself. There is a huge difference between pounding out code, and thoughtfully crafting the right (elegant) code for the job. You make it sound like RMS wrote all the GNU code himself, while it is my belief that a very large number of contributors were involved.