|
In the middle of the Nevada desert north of Las Vegas, the first-ever passengers just rode a Hyperloop. "I don't want to cause no fuss, but can I buy your Magic Bus?"
|
|
|
|
|
In the beginning there was .NET Framework, and it was all very simple. But then, over time, it grew and grew, and became a lot more complicated. Write once, run in some places
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: .NET Framework, the OG
Damn, you can't get away from @OriginalGriff anywhere these days! 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: However, .NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities, so only one version could be installed at any time.
I see this "alternative fact" is spreading. 
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: However, .NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities, so only one version could be installed at any time.
I see this "alternative fact" is spreading.
You're ignoring an important qualifier to what you quoted:
Quote: At least not initially…
And even after that, it was "complicated".
.net 1.1, was an in place replacement for 1.0, after that you could only have one of 2.0/3.0/3.5 installed, and then 4.x was the third set of only 1 version installed at a times.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: But the framework could be updated separately, meaning that the release cadence was not completely tied to the Windows release cadence. At least not initially… However, .NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities ...
I think you're parsing that paragraph incorrectly. 
"At least not initially..." relates to "the release cadence was not completely tied to the Windows release cadence", not ".NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities".
It's
- the release cadence was not completely tied to the Windows release cadence. At least not initially…
- .NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities
Not:
- the release cadence was not completely tied to the Windows release cadence.
- At least not initially… However, .NET Framework did not have side-by-side installation capabilities
I've spoken to the author on Twitter, and he's confirmed that he'd forgotten that 1.x, 2.x, and 4.x could be installed side-by-side.
And IIRC, 1.1 was a side-by-side install with 1.0. The first in-place upgrade was 3.0 and 3.5, which were more like service packs for 2.0.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: And IIRC, 1.1 was a side-by-side install with 1.0. The first in-place upgrade was 3.0 and 3.5, which were more like service packs for 2.0.
The last column of the table here says 1.1 was a replacement for 1.0; it's been a long time since I've had to think about that version too, but my memory was of it being a smaller service pack than the 3.x releases were.
.NET Framework version history - Wikipedia
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The footnote points to this page[^], which then leads to:
In many ways, the side-by-side model introduced in the .NET Framework version 1.1 is the same model that Microsoft Visual Basic® has used for years.
...
At a high level, then, side-by-side execution enables multiple versions of the .NET Framework to be present on a system and execute concurrently without interfering with each other.
That page also describes what will happen on "a system with both 1.1 and 1.0 of the Framework".
My recollection concurs that 1.1 was a smaller "service pack" than any of the 3.x releases; but at the time, it didn't actually replace 1.0.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to wrestle control of your personal data from companies, governments, hospitals and other organizations, a startup called Inrupt could be an ally. What has been pulled asunder, let one man fix
Or something like that. Needs more coffee.
|
|
|
|
|
I recently had the idea that our data should be traceable, like food.
If some cretin calls me for gas and electricity I need to know where they got my data.
They never know.
I have an idea, since it all started when I signed up at the Chamber of Commerce, which is mandatory for companies, but who are known to sell my data (now forbidden) 
Unfortunately, I'll never know.
I always ask to be forgotten, but as long as I can't be forgotten at the source it keeps on coming.
And an even better idea, the laws around gas and electricity here should be thoroughly reformed.
Some ![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif) ing call center that I've never heard of and who's probably out to rip me off (actually happened once) knows all about my usage and can sign me up for another provider just like that
I sometimes get multiple calls A DAY! 
|
|
|
|
|
Surely the fatal flaw in this plan is that users of people's personal data and manipulators/storers/aggregators of said data must sign up to use it.
Or they could just carry on doing what they're doing, without paying Inrupt a penny. Hmm... difficult choice.
As far as I can see, Inrupt has no buildable, sustainable business model at all unless businesses can be forced to use the technology. Who or what can do that? I detest statism and yet more laws, but it strikes me that only governments can force companies to use Inrupt or similar technologies.
BUT... if laws force businesses to use Inrupt or similar, then the current data baddies will just begin to compete with Inrupt so as to be able to carry on with their business model in a new, state-approved, 'secure', 'private' manner.
I (sadly and unhappily) predict that Inrupt will be about as successful in their endeavours as Mozilla has been in getting businesses to use open IoT technologies. 
|
|
|
|
|
Winning hacker team pockets $744,500 at the Tianfu Cup, China's top hacking contest. "Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
First prize is cash and a government job. 
|
|
|
|
|
After being announced nearly a month ago, AMD’s highly anticipated and Ryzen 5000 desktop processors are finally available to buy. Ryzen to the challenge
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, but Intel has a pathetically slow GPU! Take that AMD!
|
|
|
|
|
Google has been gradually rolling out new icons across the whole of Google Workspace this year, but it was only with the update to Gmail's logo last month that many sat up and took notice. But... NEW ICONS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Experienced product engineers and designers talk a lot about empathy, but we are actually the least-equipped people to empathize with most users. "You don't know how it feels to be me"
|
|
|
|
|
On the other hand, users do not understand engineers/designers/developers.
It's amazing we get anything done that someone can actually use.
As for empathy, it is greatly lacking no matter where one looks. We are all just "resources" -- underpowered, high maintenance computing platforms with excessive surface area that only deliver our best payloads on the "throne" - we are at best a bacteria in the "big data" body.
|
|
|
|
|
We suspected the workday was bleeding farther into your personal time, but we couldn’t prove it. Until now. "Everyone's hoping it'll all work out"
|
|
|
|
|
Published in November. Only contains data from May and prior.
There's no reason for not including data from over the summer to see if/how things changed as people stabilized into their WTH routines; for that matter September to see how back to school impacted parents in the northern hemisphere...
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
'Two to three times faster' in .NET 5.0 - but is running .NET in the browser a good idea? Does it have patches on the elbows?
|
|
|
|
|
Software firm’s director thought name using HTML would be ‘fun and playful’ Bobby Tables would be proud
|
|
|
|
|
Time to say goodbye to the WIndows 10 Control Panel as Microsoft is purging it It's not like it's important or anything
Think of the time savings from switching it to "small icons" view EVERY FREAKING TIME.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Think of the time savings from switching it to "small icons" view EVERY FREAKING TIME.
Each time repeat a snappy Nadella quote to yourself. Use the following template to create it from, and then curse the day Kent Sharkey brought it to your attention:
Quote: "That means, the innovation in Windows Settings Panel is the best way to conceptualize how we even think about Windows because it’s one surface area where we want to deliver our best payloads for productivity, communications, collaboration, business process."
|
|
|
|
|
David O'Neil wrote: Satya Nadella babbled: "That means, the innovation in Windows Settings Panel is the best way to conceptualize how we even think about Windows because it’s one surface area where we want to deliver our best payloads for productivity, communications, collaboration, business process."
Can you explain that in plain English? Can anyone?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
