Common attempt already defeated
SecuROM has already been defeated for all 'entertainment software' published before.
Seems odd that they would still use something that has already been defeated.
201 publicly visible posts • joined 17 Jul 2008
Strange Anti-HTTPS comments.
GMail can support everyone turning it on. That's why they feature that. Currently. They're doing fine, they can afford it.
Other companies, that aren't Google, might have 100 apps running on a small server, and of course, that wouldn't be feasible to offer HTTPS to huge groups of users. Of course, maybe if they had invested in new hardware, they could have promoted secure growth without stifling advancement.
But this is Google. They're good to go.
FTA: XP is immune.
It's a shame Microsoft is too blind to realize what assets they have, before, ya know, they destroy them.
Let's hope Microsoft gets off it's high horse and supports XP until the users don't want to use it anymore... and not the other way around.
I still can't believe that MS is dictating that I should use an insecure OS... honestly.
The Music Industry is doing just fine.
It's like anything; you have years and years and years of obscene profits. Then when the going gets tough, sue all of your customers, ask for bailout money, etc.
I think that's how business works. The company is always right, and the consumer is always wrong.
Just think how much free software they got!
All those developers, writing and writing for hourly wages. The company fires all the developers, and they don't have to pay anything to keep using the software... for free! No royalties, no compensation. What you made, is now theirs. Hope the $10/hour was worth it!
I would love to cash in on the blood of hard-working Americans... unfortunately, I have scruples.
I was pro-Microsoft when they acted normal.
Decided to cut sales for XP, the OS that users know and love? Not Normal.
Decided to stop listening to their users? Not Normal.
Sure, it might be normal for some companies to act like this -- Apple for instance -- but I'm bummed that Microsoft has turned the corner.
I was a Microsoft fan boy. Love my XP Media Center 2005 PC. Then it came out that people who upgraded to Vista could not tape certain shows on the MCE DVR that comes with Vista Ultimate.
Then it becomes clear that if you want Vista, you will experience a big performance hit (especially people like me, who watch AVI movies on monitor 2, while playing 3D games on monitor 1).
Then Microsoft ditches the sale of Windows XP all together. Apparently they are too stupid to release that if someone likes your stuff, they might not like ALL of it. In this case, Vista is no good... we need XP. Something with performance that doesn't waste electricity rendering ugly new GUI features. UAC? A non-feature, since it doesn't do what it was intended.
In the end, a lot of fans of Microsoft (like myself) are no longer interested... until the day Microsoft shows us that they care about what we are looking for. Right now, they say "TALK TO THE HAND". That's rude. Guess what, they don't care.
It's a shame they turned on their own fans! Now I recommend anything BUT Microsoft... exception: Visual Studio.
I've done my share of online applications in .NET and also Flash. Flash is neat, because it can use whatever you got on the back-end (PHP or ASP or what have you). .NET is neat, because you don't have to worry about the browser aka Web Client... just add your InnerHTML.
So I tried Silverlight many times, and no matter what PC I've used, no matter what browser, SL1 or SL2, I always get the same error "_gat not defined".
If it's that unstable, I don't recommend it. It fails the Ease-Of-Use test.
bad developers are paid the same as good developers. Which is nothing.
Example: Any other IP development scenario, if you are creating something, you get royalties.
With software development, 9 times out of 10, you get paid hourly.
There is absolutely no incentive to provide anything above 'average' for this type of remuneration.
It's not going to get better until developers are better respected. Comment #1 shows that management probably doesn't understand why the programmer is 'bad'. They have no incentive. They want job security, and if that means buggy, sloppy code, who cares?
The customer is getting what they want. Sure there are bugs here and there, but those can be fixed.
... to get the work done.
But, you must have the right stack in place... a business intelligence layer works perfectly for most application development.
During development, the DLL might return fake data... meanwhile the DBAs are busy working on providing accurate data when a SP is returned. The front-end folks don't care, they just see the data as it comes from the DLL.
Seems like any problem during the SDLC would be someone that's just not doing their job.
As per "Microsoft prefers to 'obsolete ourselves'"...
I am a big fan of Windows XP Media Center. I've used it for years (going on 4 years now). It's basically a TIVO, and it runs on my second monitor while I do other things on my first monitor.
I had a feeling that Microsoft preferred to abandon their past work (including XP and Media Center).
How pathetic? Seriously. It's just sad, really.
Until then, get used to being ignored.
As a .NET developer, I'm fine with the development tools. Server OSs are fine.
But desktop OS? Web content? Not interested. I'm concentrating on keeping my XP Media Center up and running, and visiting websites that don't change every 6 months because a new manager decides its time for a new direction.