April 30, 2005
Virtualization to be Part of the OS
Microsoft plans to build virtualization support into the operating system with Longhorn, and may ultimately drop Virtual PC and Virtual Server.
It doesn't sound like exactly what I'm looking for, but interesting none the less.
April 28, 2005
Cold Fusion (for real)
I just love this quote:
"This development, which scientists heralded as "amazing," has no practical application at the moment..."
April 24, 2005
You Eat What you Are
For some time, biotech companies have been splicing genes into plants to make them resistant to herbicides. This lets you, for example, spray your entire corn field with Round-Up, and not exterminate your crop. However, the genes have been selective, confering resistance to generally a single herbacide. When you spray with the same herbacide every year, the weeds can build up immunity.
However, by inserting a human liver gene into rice, Japanese researchers have created a plant that is resistant to as many as 13 herbacides.
One note on VB.NET Refactoring...
The VB.NET Refactor! tool will work with the full Visual Studio, but it's not support with just VB Express.
April 21, 2005
Microsoft Provides Refactoring for VB.NET
Microsoft is providing refactoring for VB.NET after all. Woo Hoo.
April 20, 2005
The product doesn't ship until the Customer says it's ready.
It looks like Microsoft is planning some significant improvements on the virtualizaiton front. Good news, esp. about the support for the Intel Vanderpool technology (which moves more of the virtualizaiton work into the chip), and 64 bit support.
But, to me, the holy grail is an operating system that's designed from the ground up for virtualization. I want an OS that clearly separates the "code segment" from the "data segment". Meaning, I want the OS isolated from applications, which are isolated from application/user data, such that I can use one OS binary for many configurations, the gain being that when I apply SP2 to my OS portion of the image, all my images get it (and I don't have to patch each one individually).
April 19, 2005
We are behoovant of you.
We see this across many industries. Ever read a legal contract? It's written in English, and yet you need to pay someone $250 per hour to tell you what it says, or to write down what you mean. Many professional domains develop their own code. I think it's on purpose. It's to separate those who are in the
cult club from those who aren't. If you don't have the decoder ring, you can't understand what someone is saying. The medical profession does the same thing. Do we need anterior and posterior? Couldn't we just say "front" and "back"? If my doctor talks to me about abrasions or hematomas, is that servicing me better than saying "scrap", "clot" or "bruise"?
We have it to. We've all sat in a room and had a technical conversation, and afterwords, the non-techie in the room says "I have no idea what you were all talking about, but it seems like everyone's happy." Why? We all spoke English, or did we?
Within the techie culture, we develop accents so strong, they're unintelligible even to other technies from a different region. So you think it's an accident that a Java developer would have no idea what you mean if you say "Yukon is able to import assemblies and host the CLR allowing procedures to be implemented in managed code."
The problem is when you actually want to have a conversation with someone who doesn't speak Redmondian English, you want to convey information, and although the English language has the words you need, you haven't used them in so long that you can't find them any more.
Paul Yuknewicz blogs on
Paul Yuknewicz has started blogging. Subscribed.
I thought SkypeOut was cool. It's nothing compared to SkypeIn. For $13 for 3 months, I have a local Portland Oregon phone number that anyone can call to reach me while I travel through Latin America. Magic.