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


William Kempf wkempf
  • Groklaw and the Shared Source Licenses

    Hysteria and FUD at their finest.


    First, the major hoopla seems to be over this quote:

    Michael Tiemann, president of the non-profit Open Source Initiative, said that provisions in three out of five of Microsoft's shared-source licenses that restrict source code to running only on the Windows operating system would contravene a fundamental tenet of open-source licenses as laid out by the OSI. By those rules, code must be free for anyone to view, use, modify as they see fit.

    "I am certain that if they say Windows-only machines, that would not fly because that would restrict the field of use," said Tiemann in an interview late Friday.

    Huh?  The limitation is on 2 of 5, not 3 of 5.  I'm not at all certain the "limited" licenses were submitted to OSI, and if they were, so what?  Don't accept them, if it's politically a bad move.  Regardless, the vileness directed at Microsoft, when they have submitted 3 worth licenses and are in the process of actually using those licenses, seems to contradict the goals of these folks (well, other than the goal of destroying Microsoft at all costs, including costs counter to the other goals).

    Let me please clarify something for you. Most of us do *not* want Microsoft to participate.

    Seems to summarize the whole thing up to me.

    With regard to IronRuby, which will be released under one of these licenses:

    Separate implementations. Yup. Just like ODF and PDF. Microsoft can't play nicely with others, folks. It has to have its own, and if you are stoopid, you will help them take over the world. Guess who won't be allowed to play in that world, by the way? The GPL and true FOSS. You think?

    Utter idiocy.  PJ isn't a developer, so she attributes the decisions made here to something she understands and expects (i.e. something evil on the part of Microsoft).  Anyone with any knowledge knows this is so blatantly false, that it should illicit guffaws.  The implementations vary, because Microsoft wants all of their dynamic languages to be based on the DLR for interopability (and other technical) reasons.  Politics are absent here, except on PJ's part.

    Honestly, the FSF folks are militant to the point they remind me of certain images from Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (heads up their...).  If you wanna be anti-MS, fine, what ever floats your boat.  But once you step off the ledge of sanity, well, they make rubber rooms for that.

  • Vista UAC and Amazon.com -- MSFT staff Please read this!

    littleguru wrote:
    You can have the c# compiler create the private fields, but only if you don't want do anything with them or have some logic in the getter OR the setter. I have even blogged about that... and the extension methods and the lambdas etc.

    I find it interesting that people start to pick up DLINQ now, although there were a lot of ORMs (even freeware) avaialble that did the same

    I've blogged about it too.  Lamest new feature in C#.

    As for DLINQ... I have to disagree.  There never has been an ORM that does the same as DLINQ, at least on the .NET platform.  I could care less how the objects are created, what I care about is the integrated query language I can use to work with the data.  No ORM today works this way.

  • Summer CTP Madness for Sure!

    DCMonkey wrote:
    Rosario sounds like a VSTS-only update to whatever TS stuff is in VS 2008, not a whole new version of VS.

    But I'd love to be proven wrong. One day I might even get 2 full versions of VS in one year's MSDN subscription! And a pony!

    Once upon a time, you were gauranteed a new VS every quarter!  I actually miss that.

  • Lovin' the Channel8 design

    I don't agree.  Too "cartoony" in appearance.  Navigation hidden amongst the drawings made it difficult for me to find may way around initially.  Just finding the RSS feed took me way too long, since it's not in a place I'd find intuitive and the image was lost amongst the rest of the "cartoon".  Lots of wasted space, shoving the too narrow text to the right (content is the most important thing, remember?).

  • Minor Vista Issues *****​Resolved***​**

    Right click, Run as administrator.  Never have to turn UAC off and limit your exposure to the smallest possible attack vector.  For file level stuff, do this on explorer.  For other things you might want to do this with a command prompt and execute stuff from there.  Just be sure to close elevated processes as soon as possible.

    BTW, UAC isn't "protecting the user from themselves".  If you're computer is internet facing, you run the risk of being hacked.  If UAC is off and you're running as an admin, the hacker has complete access to your computer.  With UAC on, you only get prompted when doing admin level stuff, and that should be rare enough that you could rarely care less, especially when you can employ "Run as administrator" tricks for more serious administrative tasks.

  • Resharper

    eagle wrote:

    Not a VS addon, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

  • Is this code ok?

    JChung2006 wrote:
    amotif wrote:
    Sounds like a devious way to introduce hard-to-find deadlocks as well.

    Any sort of synchronization mechanism that requires blocking is going to introduce the possibility of deadlocks unless it is explicitly designed not to do so, e.g., the software transactional memory mechanisms you referenced.

    True, but some ideas are worse in this regard than others.  The "atomic" concept is a horrible idea on many fronts, including the likelyhood of leading to deadlocks (though the performance problems are the worst... using this to "fix" DCL is like riding a bike instead of a toyota because the Ferrari is busted.

  • Is this code ok?

    And the real answer to all of this is a "once" function.  I'm not sure that .NET has such a thing, but it's trivial to roll your own.  The implementation of a "once" function can actually _safely_ use the DCL, especially since .NET has a MemoryBarrier.  The problem in this example, however, is that even a "once" function isn't going to help you with the issue of needing to add to the dictionary.

    Sorry, if you must have this concept, you're going to have to always pay the penalty of doing proper synchronization.  The DCL is broken and isn't going to help you.  If speed is a primary concern, and memory a lesser concern, you can optimize by using a thread local dictionary for lookups first.  If the item's there, use it.  If it's not, use the shared dictionary (with proper synchronization) to get the instance and store it in the thread local dictionary.

  • Orcas?

    rhm wrote:
    JChung2006 wrote:
    Expression Blend.

    Yes, right now the best setup for WPF is Blend with VS2005 or VS2005 EE.

    Don't agree.  Blend is great, but you'll have to do some actual coding as well, for which Blend won't work.  And VS2005 is going to frustrate you for WPF.  The latest CTP (June, hidden, but there's references to it on here) seems very stable and has actually made the designer finally usable (though Blend, once you learn it, is till nicer).  Beta 2 is due out very soon, and I'm sure it will be rock solid.

    As others have said, though, run it on a VPC.

  • Think for ​yourselves..​.

    blowdart wrote:
    JChung2006 wrote:
    Making a profession easier to practice makes the practitioners better.  Simplifying a task makes it less prone to error.  The more complicated a task is, the more likely you will screw it up, no matter how good you are.

    Except at the end of the day programming really isn't hard. The hard stuff is the design and thought around it; the integration with business needs, scalability, and so on. Things that cannot be taught out of books or followed by recipes. In the same way that medicine is not about "you have symptom X you are suffering from Y", it cannot truly be simplified in that sort of way.

    Code monkey work on the other hand might be easily simplified, except the amount of *bad* advice on google has already put paid to that.

    Can't agree.  Programming is NOT easy, and not for those not dedicated and with some apptitude.  Here's a great example: http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html.  The "best and the brightest" have been coding a simple algorithm incorrectly for years.

    I agree that we should be trying to simplify our profession.  I don't agree that we'll be able to simplify it enough to lower the entry level requirements, at least in any reasonable time frame.

    You certainly don't need a degree.  Some of the best developers I've worked with have not had degrees.  However, they did lean heavily on those of us who did have degrees for many tasks that they didn't have formal training to handle.  Not that we didn't rely on strengths they had either.  My point is that dismissing a degree as a "pointless piece of paper" is as short sighted, and wrong, as dismissing a potential employee because they don't have a degree.