Re: Shocking.

Post #52,411 by wharris2 9/19/02 11:10:37 PM 9/19/02 11:12:57 PM Reply	Re: Shocking. Shocking? Just business as usual. But most of those complaints are fluff. Most serious: You need internet explorer to download patches. (editorial note: though given recent SP1 complaints I don't really know why you would want to do so. :=) Opening Internet Exploder for online shopping is probably the worst. Whether something is intuitive or not, the capability is there. I don't see where they have much a leg to stand on, with those complaints. And the "disabling of Microsoft's Common Language Runtime"? What are they supposed to do? Disable it and make their Office suit inoperable? GMAFB. Procomp should concentrace on the real Mickeywoft violations, and not clutter things up with stupid allegations that will incline any judge hearing the case to throw it out of court. I'm not a Microsoft supporter, but I'd like to see them prosecuated (and the executive officers imprisoned) on violations of law. Not for non-violations of their Justice agreement. The lawyers would mostly rather be what they are than get out of the way even if the cost was Hammerfall. - Jerry Pournelle Edited by wharris2 Sept. 19, 2002, 11:12:57 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #52,452 by jb4 9/20/02 9:03:15 AM Reply	CLR not necessary Common Language Runtime is Micros~1's putative "replacement" for the Mighty Fucked-up Code (MFC) classes foisted upon developers when Micros~1 first pretended to support C++. They are supposedly the underpinnings for .NuT, and no comercial products (that I am aware of, at least) use them at the present time. So, if you are not using .NuT, you could disable them, regain a good portion of your swap space, and perhaps make it a little harder for post-SP1 Micros~1 "software" to phone home. jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #52,483 by inthane-chan 9/20/02 11:37:59 AM Reply	Correct. However, let it be known that the next version of Office is indeed being written using the .NET framework and C#. There are several other C#-based projects running internally there... End of world rescheduled for day after tomorrow. Something should probably be done. Please advise.
Post #52,489 by jb4 9/20/02 12:04:57 PM Reply	Yet more fuel for the Linux fire.... jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #52,781 by static 9/23/02 1:34:42 AM Reply	It's a conspiracy, I tell ya. They're in league with the DRAM makers and the CPU makers and... Oh wait. We knew this already, yah? :-) Wade. "Ah. One of the difficult questions."
Post #55,709 by tuberculosis 10/9/02 8:21:15 AM Reply	Then we'll have the source code. I mean, its trivially simple to get the source code to java binaries. The utilities that decompile the source are free and very very good. So if you ship java, you might as well ship source (funny how this isn't widely pointed out by Sun). Given CLR is a similar beast, it must be about the same level of difficulty to recover source from those bytecodes. Although if I know MS, the product will just use C# glue to pull together vast hunks of compiled binary they will optomistically call "components". Its really quite brilliant what Sun and MS have achived with this stuff - please use our languages so we can have your source code. Thanks. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #55,723 by jb4 10/9/02 9:17:08 AM Reply	Well, the same sorta thing occurs with VB, don't it? Since VB (or, for that matter, all of MS BASIC language surogates) do the same thing. When to "recompile" them, all you get is a series of jmp instructions to various entry points in the libraries. (Looks a lot like Forth...) I believe your assertion will prove correct for CLR/.NoT, also. (After all, there's no new thinking at Micors~1, except for the possible "how can we extort more money from our 'customers'"...) jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #55,837 by ben_tilly 10/9/02 7:06:05 PM Reply	Not always Particularly not if it has been obfuscated by [link\|http://www.preemptive.com/\|these guys]. (Reference and description of their technique [link\|http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20020613.html\|courtesy] of Cringely.) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #55,943 by tuberculosis 10/10/02 8:00:26 AM Reply	There's a big catch Obfuscators change method names. This means method name lookups fail when using dynamic invocation techniques (which I do a lot in non-trivial programming - its what makes OO development really powerful). So any code that works well with obfuscation is going to be 100% statically bound - you might as well write it in C or maybe C++ then. Apple ported WebObjects and their OR Mapping framework to Java then released that. An hour of machine time later and I have the source code. If you look around the code a bit you find extensive use of dynamic invocation - obfuscation would break the code. I think this is typical of the more powerful software. I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration. Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #56,086 by ben_tilly 10/10/02 9:24:01 PM Reply	Good point "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #52,576 by mmoffitt 9/21/02 12:15:17 AM Reply	Nit. It's not ".Nut" it's ".Not"
Post #52,599 by Ashton 9/21/02 4:23:45 AM Reply	Personal pref: __.nyet
Post #52,940 by mmoffitt 9/23/02 11:13:09 PM Reply	'Tis my preference now - Ochin spasiba, tovarish. ;0)
Post #53,076 by Ashton 9/24/02 5:56:39 PM Reply	Ne za chto.. ___<0:-)
Post #53,102 by mmoffitt 9/24/02 8:51:45 PM Reply	However... my full original was... ".Not ready for prime time" But then, that applied to ALL their products.
Post #52,817 by jb4 9/23/02 10:06:29 AM Reply	Re: Nit. Sorry. I stand corrected! Thanx- jb4 "About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. " -- Edsger W.Dijkstra (1930 - 2002) (I wish more managers knew that...)
Post #52,586 by altmann 9/21/02 1:23:40 AM Reply	Have .net installed. Swap unimpacted.. -- Chris Altmann

Welcome to IWETHEY!