Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Karim Karim Trapped in a world he never made!
  • WPF/E question

    blatzcoder wrote:
    My concern is that if this goes the same route as "turn off your active scripting" or "don't use ActiveX components".  Will these new components run in a sandbox environment or will they have access to your hard drive (which they shouldn't, but given Microsoft's track record and apparent cluelessness on these issues...)?


    Man you're harsh.  Big Smile

    The MIX06 presentation on WPF/E is up at:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/mharsh/archive/2006/03/24/559923.aspx

    Slide 13 says:

    "WPF/E" hosts an x-platform .NET runtime

     - Code (C#/VB.NET) is compiled into an intermediate language (IL)

     - IL is run in a secure and "managed" environment

  • Steve Jobs joins the dark side

    Minh wrote:
    It goes to prove that if you're fat & happy, you can't make good art.


    A recurring question at the local Philosophy Club.  I tend to agree with you.  Though occasionally there's somebody like Matisse who throws a wrench into the works by being fat, happy, stable, married with children, well-adjusted, popular, AND a good artist.

    There's an interesting film by Lars Von Trier called The Five Obstructions, in which Von Trier takes a filmmaker he idolizes (Jorgen Leth) and asks him to make short films, but with "obstructions" (obstacles) randomly created by Von Trier.  One of the ideas was, I think, that great art comes out of a struggle, that you have to be working against some kind of obstruction -- in other words, that you can't be fat and happy to make great art.

    Star Wars was great because Lucas was trying to make this epic saga and he had no budget, nobody was interested in science fiction films.  Lucas had obstacles galore -- that's why they gave him merchandising rights, the studio thought they were worthless.  The Phantom Menace sucked because finally Lucas had all the money in the world and he could finally make the boring saga about the Trade Federation's role in Galactic Politics that he always dreamed of making.  He had no obstacles.

    rjdohnert wrote:
    Yeah I tried to force choke someone, unfortunately it didnt work.  Beer28 kept showing up.


    LOL

    Charles: This isn't the forum you're looking for.  [handwave]

    Beer28: This isn't the forum I'm looking for.

    Charles: You want to go home and rethink your life.  [handwave]

    Beer28: I want to go home and rethink my life.

    BenZilla wrote:
    The funny thing is, Lucas didn't direct Empire and Return of the Jedi which are probably the 2 best star wars films.


    Lucas is a great director, I think... as awesome as Kershner was on Empire, if you're just talking about direction, I'd still give the nod to Lucas. 

    The dialogue that Lucas wrote, on the other hand... Tongue Out

    I found the two Clone Wars DVDs to be more entertaining than most of the films.... and strangely, one of the "obstructions" in the Von Trier film was to remake a film as a cartoon...

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    arunpv wrote:
    huh? Microsoft doesn't copy from anyone..
    does this look familiar
    http://search.msn.com/
    or does the above link look like the one below?
    http://www.google.com/

    IE7 tabbeb browing dubbed *cough* firefox *cough*

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_SQL_Server

    The code base for Microsoft SQL Server (prior to version 7.0) originated in Sybase SQL Server, and was Microsoft's entry to the enterprise-level database market, competing against Oracle, IBM, and, later, Sybase itself. Microsoft, Sybase and Ashton-Tate originally teamed up to create and market the first version named SQL Server 4.2 for OS/2 (about 1989) which was essentially the same as Sybase SQL Server 4.0 on Unix, VMS, etc. Microsoft SQL Server for NT v4.2 was shipped around 1992 (available bundled with Microsoft OS/2 version 1.3) and was a simple port from OS/2 to NT. Microsoft SQL Server v6.0 was the first version of SQL Server that was architected for NT and did not include any direction from Sybase.

    my point is every company copies from one or the other.....


    Oh, I agree completely.  I didn't say anything remotely like "Microsoft doesn't copy from anyone."

    I actually remember those early versions of SQL Server.  Microsoft did not have any real RDBMS product prior to that, and no one trusted the Microsoft name on a database, so it was marketed as having been written by Sybase, to give it credibility.  Big Smile

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    I feel the words "superior" and "inferior" coincide with absolute extremities. I mainly think that Office 2003 is a bit more stable (fewer bugs) and a little more versatile with things like VB macros and such. But overall they are fairly close in terms of functionality and usability.


    "Superior" and "inferior" do not describe extremes.  Most of the time they describe relative position or rank.  In anatomy, "superior" just means towards the top or upper portion, "inferior" means towards the bottom; in that case, it's not even a judgement...

    What makes you think it has anything to do with absolute extremes...?

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:


    I think the direction OpenOffice should take is stop trying to copy Microsoft Office.  Go off on some different direction, give people something entirely new. Instead of copying Microsoft Office (and forever playing catch-up, forever be just a cheap knock-off), make something better than Microsoft Office. That would be cool and something I could enthusiastically support.

    Thats probably good advice. I agree that there are way too many simularities between the two suites. Innovation with the suite leaves much to be desired. I feel its a good Office solution for the FOSS world though. I guess the benefits of these simularities is people with Microsoft Office experience can become productive in OpenOffice in minimal time.


    That's the upside to being a copycat -- flat learning curve Wink

    I'd like it if they didn't just aim for "a good Office solution for the FOSS world" -- "whadda ya want for free?" -- but rather aimed at kicking Microsoft's butt.  Not just "good enough," but better.  That would be real competition.

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    blatzcoder wrote:
    Karim wrote: With the Microsoft windows, I can see things like Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Flash, Quark... I can see Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, Access... I can see great games... I can see Visual Studio... the Microsoft windows give you a beautiful vista.

    Through the Linux windows you can't see anything except some gimp and a terminal.

    Your turn.
    You obviously are not getting my point.  I'll simplify my point then. 

    Linux is like a box of Legos.  All different kinds of blocks that can be put together to build masterpieces of software.  But let's be more specific.  Let's say your distribution is a "mobile rocket transport".  You follow the directions, and play around with your mobile rocket transport for a few days and then get bored.  Want to change it? Take it apart and build a space station.  If you need more blocks, you can simply go online and find more.  No waiting time. If you lose the directions, you can still build things and tear them apart and make the creations your own.

    Microsoft, on the other hand, ships you a one-piece mobile rocket transport.  Johnny plays with it a few days, runs over the cat's tail, whatever, but by the end of the week he is bored with it. What do you do? Well, if you want the mobile rocket transport with remote control (which the Linux version had years ago) you'll just have to wait a few months. Or maybe years. Now, let's label the parts of Johnny's transport.  We'll call the rocket part the Windows Media Player and the pairs of wheels we'll call IE, the registry and I dunno, Paint.

    Let's say Johnny gets mad one day with his transport and wants to to turn into a stationary rocket launcher.  He takes off the wheel sets one by one but sadly finds the WHOLE THING stops functioning altogether.  He goes onto the internet and finds that many others have this same problem and even finds articles where the government tried to get the toy company to change their way of making toys. But the big bad toy company insists they know what Johnny wants even before Johnny knows what Johnny wants.

    Merry Christmas, Sucker!


    You know how Microsoft got started, don't you?

    Developer tools.

    Compilers and intepreters.

    Microsoft invented Legos.  Back when IBM was renting "mobile rocket transport" toys to you for $10,000 a year.

    Nice try, Grinch, but your hard disk is two sizes two small.

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    That is a lie. What you said was, and I quote, "I don't antisipate any wide spread Linux adoption mostly due to Microsoft's typical huge marketing investments for their Windows platform."  You were talking about Linux users. Not "ordinary desktop users."

    Wrong! I clearly meant I do not predict to see a mass of ordinary desktop users migrating to linux because of Microsofts marketing efforts and vendor lock-in.



    Whatever you meant, it wasn't clear to me.

    So if I can summarize -- to see if I understand you -- people will buy Vista because Microsoft will spend a ton of money advertising it.  Is that your point?

    You have a talent for stating the obvious in a way that seems... a little tortured.

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    Thank you, Captain Obvious

    No need to become overally agressive. We're all kind mannered gentlemen, right?


    No. Big Smile

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    Another lie.  Apple does NOT support the iPod on Linux.  If you look at the bottom of a current-model iPod box, it reads, and I quote, "Requires Mac or PC with USB port (USB 2.0 recommended); Mac OS X v10.3.9 or later, Windows 2000 (SP4), or Windows XP Home or Professional (SP2); and iTunes 6 or later"

    Did you see the word "Linux" anywhere in there?

    The iPod is well supported on Linux. You just have to reformat it's hard drive to FAT32 or recompile the linux kernel with HFS+ enabled to use it. The first method is the easiest and you can do that with iTunes. The same thing happens with Windows as well since the MacOS X HFS+ file system isn't supported on Windows.

    http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8160


    LOL It's not supported by the manufacturer.  You know, Apple, the company that MAKES iPods?  They don't support it.  You can't call them up and ask them questions about it.  They don't have any help for Linux + iPod on their web site.  If it breaks they're not going to help you fix it.  What part of "not supported" do you not understand?

    Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's supported.  (Or that it's reliable, or that it works well.)

    Hey, if I set up Granny with Linux and an iPod, do YOU promise to support her 24/7?  Can she call you up any time of the day or night and ask you how to do ./configure/make/make install?  Can she ask you which one is the slash and which one is the backslash?  After all, you're claiming it's supported.  So please post your phone number so Granny can call you 24/7/365 with her "iPod under Linux" questions.  Thanks!!!

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:


    Or worse, they could use phrases like, "technologically fit for an impressive user experience."

    FUN...E!! I bet you think you're the real joker now.


    No.  Big Smile

  • Beer28 Adventures

    ChrisA wrote:
    JohnAskew wrote: Oh my! I just heard that ChrisA lost his job due to excessive internet use at work!

    Poor b@stard.


    Im self employed and do very well thank you. 



  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    Microsoft Office Student & Teacher Edition 2003 is $124.99 at Amazon.  You can install it on up to 3 computers.  That's $41.67 per computer, not "$250+."

    OK. That price isnt bad. But lets look at a scenerio. One of my college campuses have 400+ Dell systems. All of them are Pentium IV HT 3.0 GHz, 1 GB RAM, integrated video cards, etc. Volume discounts from Dell brought each system down to $1070 or something. They all have Office 2003 Pro and Windows XP Pro and other good stuff.

    At my other campus there are probably an additional 400 computers with Office 2003 Pro though. Theres even a third campus, that I do not attend, but imagine having a few hundred systems of their own.

    Lets say it costed them $50 to put Office 2003 on each system. We know $50 would be really cheap for something that could normally cost $300 per copy.

    So $50 x 1,000 systems = $50,000 for Office 2003 alone. The real cost might be different since Microsoft may charge more or less to schools with Academic partnerships. But if students wanted to buy Office 2003 at the school book store, they'd have to pay about $130 for each box copy (half price), so it makes me wonder if my schools are actually paying more.

    One cool thing though is students enrolled in computer science classes are elgible for certain Microsoft products at no cost. Office 2003 is not one of them, but Windows XP Pro is and so will Vista (I think).

    Anyway, at the same time, they could have used OpenOffice 2.0 on all 1,000+ systems for $0 and even recieve the source code.

    So in this case it might be $50,000+/- verses $0. In reality it might actually be more or less. It's very expensive anyway you look at it.



    And if you keep going like that, to include all the computers in the whole wide world, golly, Office gets to be REALLY expensive!!! :O  Sure McDonald's hamburgers are cheap, but they sell BILLIONS of them and that really adds up!!!!! :O  Who wants to pay <Sagan> BILLIONS AND BILLIONS </Sagan> of dollars for McDonald's hamburgers when you can pick through trash dumpsters for free!!!! 

    If your word processing, spreadsheet, email and presentation needs aren't worth spending $42 -- by all means, PLEASE, go use something else.  Have it your way.  (Sorry, that's Burger King.)

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    But even if the school did save $50,000 they'd unlikely reduce tuition costs. The schools are hungry for money so they can pry themselves out of two million dollars of debt.


    They're just hungry for money, period. 

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    It's certainly not "inferior". I've used OpenOffice to design a Powerpoint type presentation for a computer science class.
    I was amazed at the compatability between OpenOffice 2.0 and Office 2003. It isn't perfect but suprizingly good.


    Well, you said Microsoft Office was "ahead of" OpenOffice.  I understood that to mean you thought it was better than (superior to) OpenOffice.  If Microsoft Office is superior, then OpenOffice must be inferior.  You did say it wasn't inferior by much, but let's be honest here: one can't be superior without the other being inferior.  One can't be "ahead" without the other being "behind."

    You come off as somewhat believable if you say OpenOffice is almost as good.  If you say "It's certainly not inferior," it looks like you are just trying to weasel out of your previous statement.

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:

    When Microsoft releases Office 12, there will be alot of catching up needed in OpenOffice, KOffice, etc. I'm confident that they will eventually.


    Well it will certainly be interesting.  I am not as confident that OpenOffice will catch up "eventually" -- mostly because Microsoft seems to patenting anything that isn't nailed down and I assume that this includes some of the cool stuff in Office 12.  So I don't know if OpenOffice could copy it outright without exposing themselves to an IP lawsuit.

    I think the direction OpenOffice should take is stop trying to copy Microsoft Office.  Go off on some different direction, give people something entirely new.  Instead of copying Microsoft Office (and forever playing catch-up, forever be just a cheap knock-off), make something better than Microsoft Office.  That would be cool and something I could enthusiastically support.

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    arunpv wrote:
    Karim wrote:
    Xaero_Vincent wrote: When you look at Microsoft Office 2003, we're talking $250+ per license copy. Put it on ten computers legally and we're talking ten licenses or $2,500, right? But I can install OpenOffice 2.0 free of charge on an unlimited number of machines. Imagine all the savings by doing that. Imagine how much educational institutions can save by embracing FOSS. I'm not saying that people should abandon commerical products but I think FOSS is something really to consider carefully.


    Microsoft Office Student & Teacher Edition 2003 is $124.99 at Amazon.  You can install it on up to 3 computers.  That's $41.67 per computer, not "$250+."

    Microsoft has Academic licensing programs for educational institutions.  For all I know, the cost might actually be cheaper.

    You yourself said "Microsoft Office 2003 is still ahead of it's [sic] open-source equivalents."  Word processing, spreadsheets, email -- these are things students use every day.  It's not like you're buying a new frilly hat.  They're essential tools.  "Saving" $42 to go with an inferior product doesn't seem like a particularly smart move -- particularly if your school charges you $5,000 a year for tuition and fees.


    ooooo... Microsoft Office 2003 - $41.67 per computer, for 10 computers it comes to $41.67 x 10 = $416.7 as compared to
    Open-source 1 computer = $0 
                        10 computers = $0 ... amazing
    Yes, students do use word/spreadsheet and email. Open Office do have Word/Spreadsheet and Email. Come out of closet. Microsoft software isn't only software which is good. Lots of open source software are getting better.
    Its only a matter of preference and money.



             


    I had two points: the first being, it's NOT "$250+" for educational institutions as originally stated.  That was an error of fact.

    The second point was subjective.  It's not that Office is cheaper -- obviously, it's not (unless you want to discuss TCO) -- but rather, that if you're forking over thousands of dollars for your education, do you really want to scrimp on tools that you're going to use day-in, day-out, every day?  Saving $42 just so you can go with an admittedly inferior product seems "pennywise and pound foolish."  But it's a free country.  People can use OpenOffice, Wordpad, Notepad, vi or edlin if they need to spend their $42 on a nice frilly hat instead.

  • Vista ​delayed...​misses Christmas - launch now 2007

    Xaero_Vincent wrote:
    When you look at Microsoft Office 2003, we're talking $250+ per license copy. Put it on ten computers legally and we're talking ten licenses or $2,500, right? But I can install OpenOffice 2.0 free of charge on an unlimited number of machines. Imagine all the savings by doing that. Imagine how much educational institutions can save by embracing FOSS. I'm not saying that people should abandon commerical products but I think FOSS is something really to consider carefully.


    Microsoft Office Student & Teacher Edition 2003 is $124.99 at Amazon.  You can install it on up to 3 computers.  That's $41.67 per computer, not "$250+."

    Microsoft has Academic licensing programs for educational institutions.  For all I know, the cost might actually be cheaper.

    You yourself said "Microsoft Office 2003 is still ahead of it's [sic] open-source equivalents."  Word processing, spreadsheets, email -- these are things students use every day.  It's not like you're buying a new frilly hat.  They're essential tools.  "Saving" $42 to go with an inferior product doesn't seem like a particularly smart move -- particularly if your school charges you $5,000 a year for tuition and fees.