Re: I thought this was by Ron Hubbard?
Nah. Immanuel Velikovsky got there yonks before Hubbard did, and I don't suppose he was the first either.
8168 publicly visible posts • joined 14 Jun 2007
Nah. Immanuel Velikovsky got there yonks before Hubbard did, and I don't suppose he was the first either.
...surely is not that Microsoft have bent over for the NSA. *Every* US-based corporation is legally obliged to do that and you are being dementedly naive if you think the NSA don't take advantage. No, the realy story here is that Microsoft now reckon that the rest of the world will never trust them (or any other US-based IT provider) again, ever, unless the NSA voluntarily give up that right.
And *that's* bad news for the US economy as we move into the 21st century.
I think both IBM and Novell had problems with price. I recall a comparitive review in PC Magazine between the fairly new NT and whatever Novell were offering at the time. Novell had roughly twice the performance on any metric you cared to ask, but the MS reply was simply "but the price difference is so large that you could by a dual processor box with gobs of RAM to run NT on and it would wipe the floor with Novell's offering and *still* be cheaper".
Which is the main reason that Linux was able to wipe the floor with Windows Server several years later.
"Gates took 35 years to get the cmpany to where it was"
More like 20 and then he cruised for a while, unable to make further progress, before handing it over to his buddy coz the job (making money) finally started being less fun than the alternatives (spending it).
At this rate, Ballmer isn't going to last 20 years and the job won't be any fun at all when he hands it over unless you are a lawyer.
Trouble is, the most secure part of Windows is the kernel and most of the vulnerabilities stem from "end-user convenience". If you put the Windows Shell on top of Linux, you'd probably find you'd undermined your industrial strength foundations.
I note in passing that several governments not commonly noted for their respect for copyright law have the source code for Windows that would allow them to develop exactly that. What's the betting that the source code for XP starts to leak after 2014?
I also note that Microsoft are steadily losing the staff who actually programmed their most successful products. What's the betting that some of those staff occasionally contribute bug fixes to FOSS alternatives that only make sense to someone who knows the mis-behaviour warts in the original product?
"Rarely has so much wisdom been concentrated in so few words in The Register."
We can probably precis it down even further to just point (2), though. Really the other 9 follow logically from there.
There is no such thing as backup; there is only restore.
"Because in his mind (and Microsoft's, mind) they're a dying breed."
I think that's the central assumption -- that even if we still have ten trillion desktop computers in 2020 there isn't going to be any money in providing the OS for them and so if you are currently in that business and you want to be making profits in 2020 then you need to find a new market to sell a new (if related) product.
Personally I'm not convinced. Despite the best (?) efforts of the industry for a decade or more, I still haven't seen a UI that that fits on a phone-sized screen and doesn't need a keyboard but is still usable for content creation rather than mere consumption. Given the combined limitations of my anatomy and my typical working environment, I don't ever expect to either. I find it utterly bizarre that anyone in the industry thinks this is possible.
"The proper date format would be 2001-09-11."
What's all this crap about "proper". The only numerical date format is the ISO one. Any other arrangement of digits is just a typing error. In particular, anyone who has used a date format with two digit years in the last decade needs to be beaten about the head with a blunt instrument until two more digits drop out.
Your point about XP embedded is technically correct, but my guess is that MS will deny "desktop XP" users these updates simply out of spite. It just seems to be the way the company operates these days. I think, as the article notes, they are "trying to copy Apple".
Not quite. It isn't just fading away with 1/r^2 or something like that. The solar wind (blowing outwards) means that the solar system is a bubble with a shockwave on the outside. Give or take a few squillion miles, that bubble has a defined edge and that edge is in a physically meaningful way the limit of the Sun's domain.
"Its clever marketing though...."
Er, not really. You see, plenty of fairly dim-witted marketroids have thought along these lines. The result is that "Modern" is the brand for a now-well-out-of-date style of quite a lot of things. Yes, we all know what the word means, with a lower-case "m", but the brand with an upper-case "M" actually means old crap. Case in point: "Modern Art" refers to something from the early years of the last century. Even "post-modern" is now a bit of an old joke.
No. Clever marketing would have been to build on your existing brand that is recognised and tolerated by 99% of your customer base. Revolutions are for people who aren't currently in charge. For an established player to seek a revolution is suicidal.
"Getting the button back will be really useful for Windows 2012 R2 - no start button was a huge pain when you're logged in via RDP (which is the way to log into servers, really)."
Don't hold your breath. The "returned" start button just takes you to the tiled Metro screen, which has perhaps a dozen apps visible, rather than the hierarchial Start menu, which had no trouble showing several times that number. If you use your PC for more than just email, web and media consumption, Win8 blows.
"My guess is that Linux's cacheing of the hard disk to RAM is greatly superior to Windows'."
It could just be as simple as the VM host "optimising" any flush-to-disc operations from the guest. Alternatively, the (modern) host may just know a much better way of accessing the disc than the (10-year-old) XP guest.
I don't doubt your personal experience. I do doubt whether you have the correct explanation.
"which you were told about the first time you logged on"
Whilst I realise it is possible for an OEM (or perhaps even a nice sysadmin) to give you your new machine in a state that displays this tour on *your* first login:
they probably didn't, and
anyone who is offered a "Tour of the new features in your software" and actually takes it, is certifiable.
There has never been a "Tour of your new ..." that wasn't a complete waste of time. (The Win8 tour is no exception, being 99% concerned with trying to convince you that you no longer *want* to be able to use all your existing PC expertise on your new machine and would instead like to be transformed into a dribbling newb who knows nothing.) It is utterly unreasonable to expect users to sit through such a thing. Microsoft's inclusion of a tour merely demonstrates how little they understand of interface design (and human beings generally).
"Actually "shut down by pressing the power button" is standard since at least Win7"
I think it has been supported since 2K or thereabouts (ever since the hardware folks started using "soft" power switches), but I always assumed the support was just a bit of defensive programming by an OS team who just didn't want a load of whiny lusers giving them grief when the machine booted up into CHKDSK the following morning. That is, no-one was ever *supposed* to shut down the machine by flipping the switch.
Anyway, for many (most) desktop systems, the mouse is sitting under your palm whereas the power button is "over there" or "under there".
"Putin is all the more dangerous because he doesn't drink and all his decisions are made after clear headed contemplation and calculation"
When you've got your finger on 1000 nukes, I don't think being sober makes you all the more dangerous. It may be irritating to Western governments to have someone in the Kremlin who is essentially sane, competent and loyal to his own country, but it's better than the alternative.
"No doubt from'over the pond' - if so I wish they'd keep such bastardisations over there."
Yup. I'm afraid we East-Pondians gave up on proper English Language education a generation or two back. The only people who still care over here are those who do it as a hobby. Everyone else is dead.
By the way, shouldn't it be spelled "bastardizations" on your side?
...is exactly the list that elicited the comment "you actually understand all that stuff?" when a previous commenter waved it at the people who (through their management decisions) actually wrote it.
It's a bit like politicians and tax law. They've made it so complicated that they don't understand it anymore and when it starts delivering the wrong answers they blame whoever or whatever is following the rules.
It adds up perfectly. It's just doing a different sum from the one you wanted.
By throwing a big pot of cash at the problem, the management appear to be taking "tough decisions" to sort out the problem, thereby justifying their "compensation packages". They don't know how to actually fix it, but this should get the regulators off their backs for a while.
I expect Bruce Schneier would call it "management theater".
I imagine he went into the job believing that the NSA were operating within the law. His published statements indicate that his reasons for leaking (and the information he leaked) are motivated by (and describe) the nature of the NSA's mis-behaviour.
Whatever *you* make of his actions, they are perfectly consistent with *his* understanding of the situation, which is about as much as one can ask of any human being.
As far as I can tell, Snowden hasn't leaked anything. He has allegedly leaked that the NSA is breaking the law, but since *that* can't be true, Snowden's allegations can't be true either, so surely they don't count as a leak.
Conversely, if Snowden's *has* leaked something, he has defended the US constitution against someone else's treachery.
Or time to stop bailing out the losers. If you made it perfectly clear that there is no happy ending when your clever algorithm bets the entire bank on the 2:30 at Ascot, this would all be self-regulating (at least in the next generation).
Also, stock markets that didn't allow selected customers to buy themselves into a privileged trading position might suddenly find that sane companies wanted to be listed there, rather than live with an ever-present threat of waking up one morning to find the (real) company has been wiped out has been wiped out by some cheeky rocket scientist on $1m/year.
"C++ is stuff grafted onto stuff grafted onto stuff grafted onto stuff grafted onto C, with each grafting adding complications solely to desperately try and retain backward-compatibility."
For the C subset, C++ is demonstrably cleaner than the C it came from. I say "demonstrably" since most of the features added to C since '89 have come from C++. As for the non-subset: no-one is forcing it on you. You can use C++ as a cleaner C99 or cleaner C11 if you like. What you don't use, you don't pay for. It's one of the guiding principles of the language's evolution.
"The dotNet VM has some similar capabilities to the Java VM, which is why Microsoft have shifting a lot code off native C++ onto dotNet."
Microsoft have shifted almost nothing to .NET. They've written vast "libraries" that are thin .NET callable wrappers around the base OS facilities. They've written extensive development tools to let other people bet the farm on .NET. (Irony alert! One of the exciting new tools for .NET developers in VS2013 is a memory leak finder: http://coolthingoftheday.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/teched-na-2013-day-1-announcement-round.html.)
But shipping products? Nah. All the stuff they actually make money on is native code.
"(and &&? Really? Why not choose something not already overloaded to confusion?)"
Care to suggest something? For added points, ensure that your suggestion is syntactically brief (because rvalue references are intended to be used in end-user code, not buried in the magic parts of some library), is conveniently representable in all national character sets of note (for the same reason), does not involve any alphabetic keywords (because at this stage in history the chances of you *not* conflicting with several squilion lines of existing code are precisely zero), and ideally "reference-related" (at least in the minds of long-term C++ programmers, who I'll concede have probably developed a different aesthetic from most folks).
&& is brief, ASCII, syntactically distinct, and (to a C++ programmer looking at a function declaration) clearly something to do with references. Of all the syntax contortions in C++, I'd say you were picking on one of the least unpleasant. Now if you'd been slagging off lambdas...
"I'd take a language with first class support for threads and a coherent memory model over something kludged in via a third party library any day."
I'd refer you to the relevant sections of the C++11 standard, but I don't suppose you really want to learn. Executive summary: C++ has both of those things. Life is short and there are too many languages to attempt even a cursory study of all of them, but if you don't know that the very features you ask for are two of the headline additions to the language you are criticising, you end up looking at bit "uninformed".
"The x86 must be giving them a 2x penalty."
Uh? It's 2013! Out of order execution and micro-ops mean that the ISA's only impact on performance is instruction decode, and instruction decode is about 1% of die area. On desktop-sized chips, ISA hasn't been relevant since the last century. It would be fair to assume that it hasn't mattered on mobile-sized chips for quite a few years either.
What matters is where you choose to invest your development budget. Intel are now putting theirs into mobile.