# Thursday, 15 July 2004


  • Back to Basics. Win32 and C++. Bread and butter. Not everything can run in the freaking CLR.
  •  [via Mini-Microsoft]

    Interesting - not surprisingly the guy/gal keeps themselves anonymous; it is a delight to sit back, read and imagine its The Bill himself being subversive having lost control of the company.

    #    Comments [0] |
    # Wednesday, 14 July 2004

    Net curtains rather than a whitewash.

    UK Probe Finds Flaws in Pre-War Iraq Intelligence.  LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's pre-war intelligence on Iraq's armaments had "serious flaws" but Prime Minister Tony Blair was not personally responsible, an inquiry found on Wednesday. [via Reuters: Top News]

    It couldn't be another whitewash after Hutton somewhat backfired so here we have some of the smelly stuff stated and then hidden behind the net-curtains of "no-one is to blame". Some people should get their lives back, but sadly they can't.

    #    Comments [0] |

    Explorer is dead - not; at least some agree.

    The much-trumpeted fall in Explorer's share is very far from conclusive. It has fallen from 95.73 percent of the market to 94.16 percent from June to July, claimed some previously anonymous web stats company. A statistical blip would easily cover such a small movement. This is very much a case of people finding the facts to fit the story - Web users flee insecure Explorer.  [via Techworld.com - RIP Internet Explorer?]

    A statistical blip was very much my view of this story that I first saw on, ahem, that paragon of journalistic integrity, the BBC. I particularly enjoyed this sporty approach to numbers:

    By contrast, the share of alternatives, like the open source Mozilla browser Firefox, rose substantially. WebSideStory said the combined Mozilla and Netscape market share rose from 3.21% in June to 4.05% in July.

    Percentages on percentages is always one of my favourites. Since then the story has bounced around most of the news sites I subscribe to. Question, because the web stats company sent the press release to all the news sites or because all the news sites journalists subscribe to the BBC or some combination - i.e. get your press release on the BBC and it gains 'credibility'? 

    Oh, and the Techworld.com article points to 'new kid on the block' Deepnet Explorer:

    What about new kid on the block Deepnet Explorer? It hasn't been around long enough to suffer a security issue, but since it also incorporates peer-to-peer sharing, the chances of its being exposed are doubled.

    Errr, well since it uses the IE WebBrowser control, just like MyIE or any of the browsers like Zowser or iMunch that you can develop with Zeepe then it suffers the same security issues as IE - 'new kid on the block' or not.

    #    Comments [2] |

    Moving forwards or back?

    Can .NET framework 2.0 assemblies run under .Net framework 1.1?.  

    Short answer: NO.

    Long answer: In .Net framework 2.0 many features are added. Many features(Generics first comes to mind) warrant a medata format change. As a result, .Net framework 1.0 and 1.1 will not recognize assemblies compiled with .Net framework 2.0 compilers.

     [via Microsoft WebBlogs]

    I can write a program now that works on Win98 through Windows XP SP2 and takes advantage of the 'more advanced' features of the more recent platforms - in this way one maintains a very broad reach as far as potential customer base is concerned.

    With .NET, which is meant to be the platform of the future this is no longer going to be possible. You can write an app to take advantage of new features but it won't run at all on old platforms. Stuff written for old may/probably run on new (though you might get caught by a breaking change - in which case what happens?). This gets even more interesting in the Longhorn timeframe, an OS that is going to only support one version of the CLR being available on the machine.

    I suppose its really not that different to dependency on a version of the VB runtime - its just not an idea I (C/C++) am used to.

    #    Comments [0] |
    # Tuesday, 13 July 2004

    Hooray - Zeepe: is OK

    Lots of email flew around, and Dave eventually seemed to buy in to the idea of using semi-pseudo namespaces. I thought this meant that he’d require something like xmlns:apple="http://www.apple.com/2004/xhtml-extended/" on the root element and then use <apple:dashboard>. Of course it wouldn’t really be a namespace when it was being used in HTML, but it would be an OK tag name and wouldn’t cause any software heartburn. And when it was in XHTML, it would really be a namespace and everything would be fine. [via ongoing · Extending HTML, Again]

    Oh this is all such fun! Tim lays into Ian and says (by implication) what Zeepe is doing is fine (xmlns:zeepe="http://www.zeepe.com"), and what Apple (or Dave) originally proposed to do was fine - glad to see a consensus emerging!. (Note, they are not discussing Zeepe, but Dashboard, but Zeepe does similar things to Dashboard, but on Windows).

    #    Comments [0] |

    HTML is dead

    Apple could have put forward their proposals, discussed them, got concensus, and everyone would have thought they were just planning these features for the Web Application space. [via Hixie's Natural Log]

    Don't touch HTML, or if you want to, tell some one about what you want to do and lie about why. Funny old world, you can see why MS is not interested [anymore].

    The best from Ian is this:

    For specific features like these, it doesn't take long to get consensus; they are small features whose basic design can be agreed reasonably quickly.

    All depends on your definition of 'reasonable' I suppose and given how long the WHAT group have been discussing things and it is not, to my understanding, a consensual environment (you get to rant, Ian gets to decide) I don't really see how it helps.

    Still, the bottom line is we should not claim that Zeepe displays HTML because while it can, it can sometimes also display something else - though they are not at all sure what that something else is. .... <sigh>

    #    Comments [1] |
    # Friday, 09 July 2004

    How to find out which process is locking a DLL

    How to find out which process is locking a DLL.  ...  Just type: tasklist /m thelocked.dll and it will return all processes that have loaded that DLL! [via WinClient]

    Very useful.

    #    Comments [0] |

    Good job I used zeepe:

    Hyatt and the Safarians look like they’re willing to try a sensible semi-pseudo-namespaced approach [via ongoing · How To Grow HTML]

    Apple writes a little program to enable development of widgets. They thought 'we could create yet another mark-up language', or, 'we could use html and add some bits, hey everyone will know this is just for use in this application'.

    Oh no, no, no. World + dog descends - how dare you polute html, how dare you play with a standard, how dare you.... oh gawd it goes on and on.

    Just to show how stupid and ignorant I am, everyone would be happy if this stuff had been discussed at a standards group or even just a group (like WHAT). Weird. Even weirder, putting this:

    <!DOCTYPE html SYSTEM "http://www.whatwg.org/dtd/2004/whatml-10.dtd">

    At the top of the file would have made it all OK because then Eric would have known that he wasn't looking at real html.

    These people would seriously freak-out if they ever looked at zeepe. Or perhaps they wouldn't, all the 'extensions' are in the zeepe: namespace.

    On a different tack, I note that Apple has added <canvas> (or <apple:canvas>). This is an idea I've toyed with for quite a while but never came up with the application idea that absolutely demanded it.

    #    Comments [0] |
    # Thursday, 08 July 2004

    XP SP2 and web sites

    Fine-Tune Your Web Site for Windows XP Service Pack 2.  Make your Web site work well with the new security features in Windows XP SP2 that affect ActiveX controls, file downloads, pop-up windows, and more. [via MSDN Just Published]

    I should think it is getting near to it being a requirement that your site plays well with SP2 and hopefully these documents are describing final functionality.

    #    Comments [0] |
    # Wednesday, 07 July 2004

    Windows is a pain at times - but whose fault is it?

    In writing the IP Address Widget (Zeepe sample), I decided to take the opportunity to look at WMI (looking beyond the initial widget it might enable looking at the IP addressing on any machine). Anyway, what the widget wants to know is a) what are the available IP connections and b) what type are they (ethernet, wireless etc).

    The WMI classes Win32_NetworkAdapter and Win32_NetworkAdapterConfiguration seemed appropriate. The latter has IPEnabled and IPAddress properties so one can determine the active adapaters and their ip address. The former has the property AdapterType, described as Network medium in use, sounds perfect but it has the caveat "This property may not be applicable to all types of network adapters listed within this class".

    Oh well, lets move on and hope as usual - a few lines of script later (common, scripting together components just makes so much sense) and we are up and running. And on every machine I've tried it it comes back as Ethernet 802.3 for all adapters, even the wireless ones..... <sigh>. Perhaps the caveat should more accurately be written as "This property may occassioanly be correct for network adapters listed within this class" - has a higher level of warning don't you think.

    Presumably this isn't a problem with Windows/WMI per se, but with the driver implementation. Who knows, all one knows is it doesn't do what one wants with any usable level of realiability.


    #    Comments [0] |