Don't confuse "specification" with "implementation." Nowhere in the article is Mono mentioned, as it is a non-Microsoft application of the CLI specification. I was specifically referring to Microsoft-published software, and as mentioned above in a separate thread, I was correct in referring to the bytecode (CIL) with respect to how it can be interpreted by a Microsoft VM on either architecture. Obvious by my confusion with the command-line, I wasn't even aware there was an approved specification for .NET's VM (or any Microsoft product, for that matter). But regardless of whether it's standardized for all to use or not, the article focuses on Microsoft. Even if it were not standardized they could continue to publish VMs on their own platform as far as I'm aware.

I hate Slashdot sometimes.

Nowhere in the article did I say that CIL executes anything. Every instance of CIL was meant to refer to the intermediate bytecode itself, which can be JIT compiled by a virtual machine (the CLR everyone here who clearly did not comprehend the article thinks I'm confusing it for). Re-read the article carefully, keeping this in mind, and I might not appear as stupid as everyone here believes me to be regarding a subject that they themselves must not completely understand.

Hi, I'm the "complete moron" who wrote the article. I most definitely meant CIL and not CLI, as I was referring to the Common Intermediate Language, and not the Command Line Interface. One is used to interact with an operating system through mostly text (curses and cursor-based terminal graphics being a stark exception), and the other allows multiple human-written programming languages to be compiled to a common bytecode form for interpretation by a .NET virtual machine runtime, and the basis of this article was that the same VM can be ported to Windows 8 on ARM in place of Metro apps. And your diagram does not clearly note anywhere that it is valid for Windows 8 on ARM as it is for x86/x86-64. Next time, don't be so quick to jump to conclusions and throw the words "moron" and "idiot" around. Thank you in advance.

Did you even read the Secunia links you posted? Both unpatched vulnerabilities require usage of Apache's mod_ftp module, which I've honestly never even seen used as most hosts and general servers use external (and hardened) FTP software like ProFTPd:

And the second (first in order on the site) unpatched vulnerability deals strictly with a mod_ftp input validation issue. Again, I rarely even see mod_ftp even used as opposed to an entirely seperate FTP server daemon but disabling the faulty module is simple enough in environments requiring absolute security.

And input validation issues are usually patched fairly quickly anyways, I mean come on, this is 2009 and there are too many developers for the project that wouldn't let this sort of thing continue for this amount of time. Not to mention the fact that these unpatched vulnerabilities are nothing compared to the olde IIS Webdav exploit of a few years ago - too bad there wasn't a community aware of it sooner other than the underground black hats already using it to their advantage by the time it was brought to the attention of MS.

Yeah I get those at the bottom of websites all the time, usually because I'm the Xth visitor etc. For some reason, the prize is always a bunch of forms to fill out promising more prizes. (this is a joke, by the way)

This is probably an effort to keep inode count down, so as not to overtax the filesystem. Having a million 1KB files can be more expensive than having a single 1TB file, depending on the FS, which they apparently worked out in order to impose this limit. They could also be trying to keep down extraneous file hosting (hurting their business as a host) in the same manner that you can't share a Comcast business Internet connection amongst clients.

That'd be my guess, in addition to just plain common sense: why/how on earth would you need 50,000+ files anyways? Something a database couldn't satisfy?

Pictures and the Mother's day rush killed our 2Mbps cable bandwidth; here's a "mirror":

Netbooks are making huge waves within the hardware and software industries today, but not many would believe that the whole Netbook craze actually started back around 1996 with the Toshiba Libretto 70CT. Termed technically as a subnotebook because of its small dimensions (given below), the computer is the first that fits all of the qualifications of being what we would call a Netbook today, due in part to its built-in Infrared and PCMCIA hardware, and itâ(TM)s (albeit early) web browsing software. The First Netbook Computer

The First Netbook Computer

The hardware includes the two (potentially) wireless PCMCIA and Infrared network connections, Windows 95 OSR 2 with Internet Explorer 2.0, a whole 16MB of RAM and a 120Mhz Intel Pentium processor (weâ(TM)re flying now!).

A further look at the hardware reveals even more Netbook-ish hardware/software trends (and pictures below), given todayâ(TM)s standards for Netbook qualifications.

The Libretto (70CT) was certainly not the first small (8â) form factor laptop produced in the early 90â(TM)s, but it was the first to be considered a Netbook given todayâ(TM)s standards because of itâ(TM)s PCMCIA and Infrared connections, used for wireless network connectivity and possibly even via a phone card. The inclusion of Internet Explorer 2.0 within the software also contributes to its ability to be officially termed a âoeNetbookâ (more on this below).

The hardware includes an 8â wide, 5â deep and almost 1.5â form factor containing a whopping 16MB of RAM, a 120Mhz Intel Pentium processor (with added MMX technology!) and a whole 30-45 minutes of battery life.

The software running on the âoeNetbookâ is Windows 95 OSR2, with Included Internet Explorer 2.0 and the Windows 95 Plus! pack of software. The mouse is the nub/nipple/clit mouse, given the lack of trackpad hardware and the only alternative being the bulky ball-based mice of the time, and the actual mouse buttons are mounted on the back.

I donâ(TM)t consider Internet Explorer 2.0 being the most supported browser for web-based applications (hell, I donâ(TM)t even support 6 or 7), and 16MB doesnâ(TM)t sound like a whole lot of RAM for storing a large web page and JavaScript into memory along with the operating system, but around the year 1996 this laptop/subnotebook/netbook would meet all the requirements given its environment to be called a Netbook as we would today.

Other hardware besides what was listed above includes a (HiFi?) 1/4â sound port on the back, a mono speaker on the front above the mouse, and a proprietary docking port on the bottom.

The Pentium MMX and bulky battery connector doesnâ(TM)t exactly make this ACPI-lacking portable the most environmentally-friendly book of all time, but it is certain that it must have gotten the job done in its time.

The screen was a very low-resolution (640Ã--480) 5â LCD screen, leaving enough room on the front for the mouse, speaker, power button, and all-too-important logos of Intel and Toshiba.

While I write this largely with humorous intent, it is worth noting the satire I intend to make of the industryâ(TM)s buzzwords for modern products that sometimes have been out for quite a while, e.g. cloud computing versus clustering/distributed applications and âoehigh-speed Internetâ versus what a T1/ATM connection was over decade ago.

Also, something patent trolls working for Toshiba might wish to investigate are the 22 patents listed on the bottom of the Libretto model (pictured below). What these patents cover and how many modern netbooks/subnotebooks violate these are unknown to me, although Iâ(TM)m sure you could find a few with the right research as these patents were approved less than 25 years ago.

Picture Gallery

These (possibly slow-loading) pictures display several features of the computer, displaying as many of its features as possible (and probably killing our bandwidth): (and indeed they did)

As if the MSPaint diagram you displayed earlier wasn't enough, I can't stop laughing at the thought of a giant hamster-filled zeppelin flying through the air, and the god-awful grinding the turbines make as it flies (not to mention the discarded entrails after they pass through the motor). Then there's the Slashdot user at the very back, with a laptop connected to the contraption, laughing all the way.

Also, you must have an automated forklift system to actually deposit the hamsters into the meat grinders (they can't just pile in, since you're in the confined space of a zeppelin), and even at that where does the power supply of the forklifts themselves rely? Surely they can't power themselves just off of the hamsters since over 2,000 are needed to power the laptop.

And if you don't have an array of forklifts, what you have? Oompa-loompas? Is this the evil Willie-Wonka zeppelin flying through the air? I guess reading Slashdot can pervert even the most good of people...