Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:bad statistics (Score 4, Interesting) 189

by benjymouse (#49605581) Attached to: Chrome Passes 25% Market Share, IE and Firefox Slip

Why is it that when I look at wikipedia , they show all the various counters more or less in agreement, except netapplications which vastly overcounts IE and undercounts Chrome, android and safari?

Maybe because Net Applications is the only counter that tries to correct for known skewed sampling. Net Applications uses CIA internet usage data (how much of the population in each country has access to the Internet) to estimate absolute numbers for each country based on the measures distribution and the "Internet" population number. Net Applications is perfectly honest and upfront about this.

The other counters just report whatever stats has been collected. They also are perfectly honest and upfront about this.

Both correcting and not correcting may leave errors. Be your own judge.

But there's a perfectly good explanation as to *why* the numbers seem not to agree: They do not even claim to illustrate the same thing. Net Applications tries to create a number for "true" global distribution (and risk errors), the others do not even claim to compute such a number. In theory you could take the numbers from, say statcounter, by country and extrapolate the absolute number per country, sum them up by browser and calculate a number similar to net app. Could be interesting to see.

Also, be aware that there is also great popential for skewed demographics between the counters, not to mention the fact that Net Applications tries to measure unique visitors (discarding repeat visitors within a month) while most of the others just report page impressions. If for instance users of Chrome are more active on the 'net than users of IE, chrome would have a bigger share of page impressions than they would of unique visitors. There is no "right" in this: It all depends on the question you ask: If the Q is "which browser is the most popular?" you would look at unique visitors. If the Q is "which browser is used the most?" you would look at page impressions.

Why is it that of all the various counters netapplications is the one most often quoted, even though they appear to be using a bad methodology.

Maybe because they use the *least bad* methodology. The others do not even *pretend* to estimate global usage. They may report what *they* see of usage globally, but none of them claim to know how many users there are in each contry.

Comment: Re:How did he even get that job? (Score 1) 164

Climbing Everest is stupid, irresponsible, dangerous, pointless task for people with severe mental problems like constantly needing approval from others or pathological levels of arrogance or constantly feeling inadequate. So I have to wonder how he even got that job at Google with the personality of an Everest climber.

He was privacy director at Google. Hello? Being away climbing mountains 11 months a year was a core qualification.

Comment: Re:Hi I'm Patrick (Score 2) 130

1) Are you saying that the signature does not cover the entire download, and that an attacker could supplement or exchange content of the download without invalidating the signature, and have the injected code execute when the user starts the app?

2) Sounds bad.

3) Sounds bad

4) That a signature-based AV engine is only effective when attacks have been reported, analysed and a has been signature developed is bloody obvious. All an AV engines is good for is herd immunity. Which is sorta ok, except that they are peddled as the most important security product *you* can use. Some AV engines more advanced than XProtect use heuristics (or se they claim) but I have to admit that I am *really* sceptical about the claims of the effectiveness.

Comment: Re:The difference between Open Source and Free (Score 1) 110

One that implements the published specification for the platform/language? Just like MS got burnt trying to knock off java with J++ if you make a C# like languages that is broken from the standard in fundamental ways they'll come after you.

No - they can't. They have not put any clause in the licensing term for neither C# or core libraries prohibiting you from extending those. Sun did that with Java. Microsoft put the equivalent of C# delegates and P/Invoke into their Java implementation. Especially the latter riled Sun, as it allowed MS to integrate Java much more efficiently on Windows than Sun could do on other platforms. Sun sued and won and MS walked away from Java and created J++ but eventually went all-in on C#

This time around you can add anything you want. There is no non-free, licensed test suite you'll have to pass and there's limitation on how you can extend.

Comment: Re:Rank Amateurs (Score 2) 105

by benjymouse (#49484733) Attached to: The Voting Machine Anyone Can Hack

As I read it, it was not an issue with the developed software (although there may be issues there as well), but rather an issue with the *setup* of the machines. It was not the developers who failed (passwords not hardcoded) but rather the admins deploying the machines were braindead and the auditors obviously clueless. For something like this they shold have used an randomly generated password or simply shut themselves out of the system (which is possible on Windows).

Comment: Re:Cruft (Score 4, Informative) 209

by benjymouse (#49467959) Attached to: Linux Getting Extensive x86 Assembly Code Refresh

For some time now, Mark Russinovich at Microsoft has been talking about just how bad the Windows kernel was/is in his blog.

I think you are confused. It was not Mark Russinovich, but rather Linus Torvalds, and he was talking about the Linux kernel, not the Windows kernel.

"I mean, sometimes it's a bit sad that we are definitely not the streamlined, small, hyper-efficient kernel that I envisioned 15 years ago...The kernel is huge and bloated, and our icache footprint is scary. I mean, there is no question about that. And whenever we add a new feature, it only gets worse."

Glad I could help.

Comment: Re:Anything unique? (Score 1) 223

by benjymouse (#49413945) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor.

I find that immensely useful.

When Intel contributes drivers for graphics chips, it is *also* so that Linux can work on their hardware.

Maybe you should take a clue from Linus Torvalds. (hint: It's about scratching your own itch)

Comment: Re:Anything unique? (Score 2) 223

by benjymouse (#49413893) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Microsoft has granted patents, to anyone who implements a .NET runtime. The grants were part of the standardization of .NET CLR and core libraries.

It is a misunderstanding that it is bound to Microsofts own implementation. Those grants has always extended to Mono. The anti-Mono and anti-Microsoft fanatics started a FUD campaign based on speculation that MS could just sue anyway, and the mere cost of defending against MS would force Mono underground. It was a response to that FUD campaign that MS also issued the community promise.

The patent grants also are not tied to a full-stack implementation like Java/Oracle. The fact is, the patent protection when using CLR is far more transparent and effective, compared to Oracle/JVM.

Comment: Re:Mono practically useless (Score 1) 223

by benjymouse (#49412933) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

- e.g. XAML syntax is unnecessary verbose, and QML is much better in that regard. But most of those are surface issues. The core design - the notion of element tree, layout engine, layout and render transforms, data binding, styles, triggers etc - is solid, very powerful, and very flexible.

The beauty of WPF and (especially) XAML is that they really are 2 very different technologies. WPF - like many GUI frameworks - describes an UI through an object graph. You can "new" up the controls yourself, wire the event handlers and achieve the exact same result as describing it through XAML. Which also means that you can dynamically change the graph through code.

XAML on the other hand is not in any way specific to WPF. It is simply a way to describe an object graph. Only, XAML can describe very, very complex object graphs with wired event handlers etc. XAML is also used to describe workflows in Workflow Foundation. And anyone can use the format to describe object graphs of any other type. XAML uses a convention for mapping XML namespaces to CLR namespaces. That is a really, really cool.

Comment: Re:Patents? (Score 1) 223

by benjymouse (#49410827) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Cases in point:

1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent
2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown)
3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.

Thanks.

Which of the above illustrate Microsofts visceral hatred of open source?

(For the record: I believe that software patents should be abolished and I do not condone Microsofts patent litigation)

Comment: Re:Newbie Mono question (Score 1) 223

by benjymouse (#49410741) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Problem is let's say there is a bug that is causing your web app to constantly run out of threads or restart?

Who do you call for support? Let's say you think it is mono causing it? WIth VS.NET on Windows you see the bug is not there.

Isn't that a concern with open source in general? That argument could be used against all open source projects where commercial support is not available. Yet, many open source projects thrives despite of this.

.NET is great but not if you make calls that emulate Windows.

But Mono does not make calls that "emulate Windows". In general the call upon native and/or open source libraries. Certainly you'd be hard pressed to come up with any examples of this behavior in the Mono server stack.

Winforms is an example too which uses dcom/com underneath. It would make more sense to use GTK calls if it is a Linux app.

But you are wrong about that. Winforms is definitively NOT based on COM (much less DCOM).Winforms is a thin wrapper around Win32 APIs. When you create a text box in Winforms, you'll get an actual native Windows textbox.

You may be confused by the fact that Winforms also allow ActiveX controls to be used. When you use that capability you will be using COM (not DCOM), as ActiveX controls are implemented using COM. Interestingly, the part of COM that makes this possible is remarkably similar to the object model of Gnome, almost binary compatible. Basic COM is a binary standard which can be implemented on any platform out there.

Comment: Re:Patents? (Score 1, Insightful) 223

by benjymouse (#49410115) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors.

Then you should have no problems finding a few examples that illustrates Microsofts visceral hatred of open source (your words).

... long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors

Fear!

Microsoft isn't trustworthy,

Uncertainty!

Why risk future woes when you have no need to?

Doubt!

As I suspected: Nothing but FUD. But pretty textbook FUD, that much I have to give you credit for.

Comment: Re:Patents? (Score 2, Interesting) 223

by benjymouse (#49409967) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.

BS again. Microsoft has NEVER expressed visceral hatred of open source. Ballmer has compared one open source license - GPL - with cancer, because of it's viral nature. The intentionally viral nature.

Ballmer is not at the helm any more. But even he never expressed hatred at open source, as you claim. You could construe his comments about GPL as hatred against that particular license type. And indeed, Microsoft has always opted for other OSI approved licenses when they had the choice.

But if you have any other sources for your made-up claim - say other MS top executives, maybe even present ones - then please feel free to post them.

Comment: Re:Newbie Mono question (Score 2) 223

by benjymouse (#49409751) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Can you run a .NET application that currently resides on a Windows-based web server on a Linux-based shared hosting server using Mono?

In general: Yes. Need more context about the application to give a definitive answer, e.g. if it uses Windows specific infrastructure such as AD, Workflow Foundation.

Comment: Re:Patents? (Score 4, Informative) 223

by benjymouse (#49409685) Attached to: Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code

Quite simply, a patent "promise" is not the same thing as a license. You see, even if they're bared by Laches, they can still drag you through the courts and you've got to prove they're barred by making the promise. If you had a license...you could make a single motion at the first hearing or in the pretrial motions to dismiss because of being licensed if they sought to sue you.

Having this crap in there means Mono's toast without a real license to any valid patents, combined with a covenant to license all tech as it becomes apparent, that ends up in this common core of stuff. Otherwise, you're INSANE for using it- because you can and most probably WILL be sued over it.

No - it is actually stronger (look up promissory estoppel). But leave that aside, because the patents have also already been granted.

The *promise* was issued because fanatics cried foul at the patent grant, arguing that Microsoft with it vast army of lawyers could just sue any OS project out of existence, patent grant or not. Hence, Microsoft issued the promise, all but ensuring that such a case would be outright dismissed since you've acted in good faith on a promise. The promise in that case is actually one of the strongest contract forms imaginable, as it is one-sided: you do not have to sign anything to be covered.

Always try to do things in chronological order; it's less confusing that way.

Working...