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

Paul D. Murphy

Paul D. Murphy Paul D. Murphy The Anti-Beer

Niner since 2005

  • Scott Guthrie - MIX07, Work, and Personal Details Revealed

    You are spot on with that assesment of ScottGu.
  • Office UI - New Licensing Story

    staceyw wrote:
    
    Paul D. Murphy wrote:
    What a bunch of BS. Microsoft can no more license the look and feel of thier UI than Ford can license the look and feel of the GT. You can license the icons, you can license the code; you can't simply state this layout belongs to me and anyone who wants this layout needs my license.

    For about 10k I can by a 3rd party shell to fit on a car chasis that will make my car look like a Ford GT. I have no love for the Open Office crowd, but I hope to God they release a ribbon just to challenge you guys on this draconian and absurd move.


    I'm a big Microsoft fan, but this is nonsense.

    Paul



    IIRC, yes you can.  Apple does it, MS does it, you can do it.



    You are just flat wrong dude.  You can license code. You can license copy. You can license icons. You can license all kinds of things that are tangible. You can't simply say 'blue tabs belong to me' so sign my license if you want blue tabs.

    The whole program is designed to license the document describing the design guildelines. This is fine. Microsoft can license thier guidelines all day long. That doesn't preclude me from making a ribbon like control that looks, feels and operates exactly like the ribbon found in office. By agreeing to the guildelines, I would put myself on the legal bubble with Microsoft. I am free to not license the guidelines and build ribbons till I'm blue in the face so long as my code doesn't violate any patent or copyright held by Microsoft.

    It sounds like Microsoft is trying to say "we own anything that looks or feels like a Ribbon" which they can't do. If you want to make a ribbon go ahead. If you want to make a ribbon and put it onto a word processor that you wrote go ahead. Unless you infringing on Microsoft patents or thier copyright you are free to do that.

    Just like these guys do with the Ford GT.
    http://www.erareplicas.com/gt/gt.htm

    Microsoft is framing the licensing of some guildelines as if that carries the same weight as licensing the actual IP (the code, copy and art used in a ribbon). It doesn't.
  • Office UI - New Licensing Story


    What a bunch of BS. Microsoft can no more license the look and feel of thier UI than Ford can license the look and feel of the GT. You can license the icons, you can license the code; you can't simply state this layout belongs to me and anyone who wants this layout needs my license.

    For about 10k I can by a 3rd party shell to fit on a car chasis that will make my car look like a Ford GT. I have no love for the Open Office crowd, but I hope to God they release a ribbon just to challenge you guys on this draconian and absurd move.


    I'm a big Microsoft fan, but this is nonsense.

    Paul

  • Windows, Part IV - Dave Probert

    I've been saying for years the only feasible technical solution to the Windows Anywhere vision is to effectivly pump the LPC over port 80. It's good to see more evidence of that in this latest batch of videos.

    They DID NOT put http.sys in the Win2k3 kernel for 'performance' reasons like make webpages faster. They put it there for 'performance' reasons like make an internet accessible message loop.

    This is the *only* windows stack that works moving forward...

    ------------------------
    |   managed host  |  [1]
    ------------------------
    |   SQL OS             |  [2]
    ------------------------
    | Kernel                 |  [3]
    ------------------------

    [1] the managed host will talk to the SQL OS
    [2] http://blogs.msdn.com/slavao/archive/2005/02/05/367816.aspx
    [3] everything underneath ntdll.dll

  • Suzanne Cook - Developing the CLR, Part II

    Beer28 wrote:
    got my wickedy windows operating system on my left deskside wing tower all fired up here waiting...

    It can't be too hard to write a hello world box and hit the obfuscate button....

    Please get on with it.


    Sure. I'll send you something later today. I don't have a commercial obfuscator, as I'm not trying to hide any of my code from myself. Like I said before, this is a hobby for me. I don't actually sell anything. As soon as one of these component developers I know pop up on line, I'll get them to run a project of mine through thier tools.
  • Chris Gray - Building your own home server

    Manip wrote:
    I am saying you shouldn't use that code in ANY enviroment. And as a lot of 'noobies' will take example code, mess with it and use it as their own, these people will end up releasing very insecure systems.


    I agree 100%.
  • Suzanne Cook - Developing the CLR, Part II

    Beer28 wrote:
    I never said I was going to reverse engineer a .NET module, you wrote that.

    I don't even use .NET, I use Java TM (all rights reserved) virtual machine



    Just to be clear, you didn't say this?

    Beer28 wrote:
    With .NET, you can decompile, take the source, even obfuscated, and modify and recompile with your new additions.
    Cause if you didn't mayhaps you should find the miscreant who is using you account to post lies about the integrity of commercial obfuscators.

    Do the peddles on your go-ped even go forward?
  • Chris Gray - Building your own home server

    Minh wrote:
    Susan joined up with Vertigo Software.

    See the details here:
    http://weblogs.asp.net/swarren/archive/2003/11/06.aspx



    I thought she had since moved on. I suppose I'll try to ping here there though I had forgotten about that. Thanks.
  • Suzanne Cook - Developing the CLR, Part II

    Beer28 wrote:
    how's that?

    if you want to see something that's nearly uncrackable or un reversable for C++ code, or very hard, try aspack, or pe crypt or one of the russian derivatives. The more obscure the harder it will be to get by.


    That's not what we are talking about beer. We are talking about your statement stating that you can 'take' the source to an obfuscated .net assembly and recompile it as you see fit with your own enhancement. Everyone agrees C++ code is hard to reverse engineer.

    For those who don't know, let me translate, "I just stuck my foot in my mouth big time, so I'm going to try and change the subject so no one notices".
  • Suzanne Cook - Developing the CLR, Part II

    Beer28 wrote:
    Paul D. Murphy wrote:
    ------

    You are out of your league beer, either admit you made it up or produce a result.


    do you know ILASM? use ILDASM then edit it. There


    lol. wow you really just shot yourself in the foot with that one. I'm done with this thread, you really just showed your ignorace.

See more comments…