Paint.NET - The anti-Gimp?

[Bob Adkins]

"richer" features. It seems that Microsoft want Internet Explorer to be
able to run applications, probably over the 'net. So, the theory appears
to be that gone will be the days of writing Windows applications. It
will all be browser applications (and specifically Internet Explorer
applications).

That's a darn scary thought! I think many users would reject that
technology, and MS probably knows it.

I think MS was enamored with the possibilities of the Web and threw stuff
out there too quickly and with too much trust. I think they have probably
learned their lesson, as they have slowed down to a crawl.

-- Bob

 

[poiuyt]

Interesting post on Slashdot

"FYI:
Program also works on Windows 2000 with .NET 1.1 installed.

What exactly is .NET 1.1?

And should I want it installed on my machine?

 

[Mike Andrade]

What exactly is .NET 1.1?
Satan.

And should I want it installed on my machine?

No.

 

[derek / nul]

What exactly is .NET 1.1?

And should I want it installed on my machine?

see www.microsoft.com

 

[MLC]

_REM_, venerdì 24/dic/2004:

Because of .NET?

Hi REM,
I see you're an helpful guy ;-) so I ask this to you. If I install the .NET
framework, do I lose the automatic logon at Windows startup? I remember to
have installed it some months ago and then uninstalled immediately because I
couldn't automatically logon anymore. Is there a workaround?
Thanks!

 

[Tim Weaver]

Satan.

You silly people.

No.

Why?

Seriously, since you're so dead set against it, tell my *exactly* why it's
so terribly awful that you refer to it as Satan.

 

[Art Iculos Libres]

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:56:07 +0100, MLC wrote:

Hi REM,
I see you're an helpful guy ;-) so I ask this to you. If I install the .NET
framework, do I lose the automatic logon at Windows startup? I remember to
have installed it some months ago and then uninstalled immediately because I
couldn't automatically logon anymore. Is there a workaround?
Thanks!

Hope you don't mind this coming from someone other than REM; I think this
is what you are looking for:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;827072

It's a simple "fix". Sorry you went to the trouble of uninstalling before
finding the solution.

 

[REM]

MLC <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi REM,
I see you're an helpful guy ;-) so I ask this to you. If I install the .NET
framework, do I lose the automatic logon at Windows startup? I remember to
have installed it some months ago and then uninstalled immediately because I
couldn't automatically logon anymore. Is there a workaround?

I had no adverse effects when I installed .NET. I really could tell no
difference at all. I've read here about .NET changing settings and a
few other problems, but I don't know if the install was the culprit or
not. It's possible, as I can only imagine the many varied systems,
both hardware and software, we all use here. Sometimes differing
softwares conflict.

I got my .NET on a CD from Microsoft and as far as I can tell it was a
self extracting zip that neatly placed the files in two directories.
I'm sure there were registry changes, but I did not monitor the
install and my machine was not affected by it.

I'm not sure what you use to auto-logon. You can try using Total
Uninstall to monitor it. You should be safe if it does conflict with
anything and I'd like to see what changes are made.

I am really glad that the VC++ that came with .NET does not depend on
the framework. I had assumed that it did and I never even tried it out
until Roger found the xearth program. Stand alone programs are great.

As far as Visual Basic goes, it is pretty easy to put a Windows GUI
app together and it's probably best that all of the required files are
in place on the host machine. I recall trying many VB programs in the
old days and it was rare that one worked without having to track down
some runtime .dll. In the .NET package, everything is updated as a
whole, so there will be no missing files. I'm not really seeing all
that many VB programs out there though.

..NET is really a business thing centered on business connectivity.

http://www.microsoft.com/Net/Basics.aspx

The VB portion is added to make quick inhouse apps I guess. I'm not
sure about C# and the other languages included in the developer part.

There is nothing evil about .NET that I can see, but it does seem
centered on business connectivity and might not be necessary for home
users unless someone writes a killer app in VB, or there are a great
number of VB apps to choose from.

 

[MLC]

_Art Iculos Libres_, venerdì 31/dic/2004:

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 09:56:07 +0100, MLC wrote:



Hope you don't mind this coming from someone other than REM; I think this
is what you are looking for:

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;827072

It's a simple "fix".

Thank you very much: this is exactly what I was looking for!

Sorry you went to the trouble of uninstalling before finding the solution.

You're very kind
Actually, when some change worries me, I use GoBack ($ware) to have my
system back before that change. The problem is that I can go back only to
4-5 days before, so I have to make my decision ASAP.

Now I'm downloading it again (and I'm on dialup :-/), via the Windows Update
because it has found the Italian version, which I think need, my XP being in
Italian.

(2 hours later)
I've installed it and made the registry modification: it works perfectly,
thank you again!

 

[MLC]

_REM_, venerdì 31/dic/2004:

[...]

I'm not sure what you use to auto-logon. You can try using Total
Uninstall to monitor it. You should be safe if it does conflict with
anything and I'd like to see what changes are made.

Unfortunately I've downloaded it via the Windows Update (see my reply to Art
Iculos Libres) so I I was not able to run TUN before the installation start.
Sorry for that.

[...]

There is nothing evil about .NET that I can see, but it does seem
centered on business connectivity and might not be necessary for home
users unless someone writes a killer app in VB, or there are a great
number of VB apps to choose from.

I think we'll have more and more applications requiring the .NET framework,
so I've resolved to install it, now that Art Iculos Libres has pointed out
to me the solution for the logon problem.

In addition, I remember Microsoft offered some developing applications for
free, requiring the .NET installed, so I didn't download anything at that
time. Now I'd be interested. By chance do you still have that link?

Thanks again!

 

[Mike Andrade]

You silly people.


Why?

Seriously, since you're so dead set against it, tell my *exactly*
why it's so terribly awful that you refer to it as Satan.

I would, but it would be like explaining "red" to a person born blind.

--
Mike
A bather whose clothing was strewed
By breezes that left her quite nude,
Saw a man come along
And, unless I'm quite wrong,
You expected this line to be lewd.

 

[Tim Weaver]

I would, but it would be like explaining "red" to a person born blind.

Give it a shot. Hopefully, having used computers and coded for 25+ years,
I'll have *some* idea of what you'll say.

 

[MLC]

_MLC_, venerdì 31/dic/2004:

In addition, I remember Microsoft offered some developing applications for
free, requiring the .NET installed, so I didn't download anything at that
time. Now I'd be interested. By chance do you still have that link?

Uhmm, I remembered wrong.
It was some developer kit (only tutorials I think) that requires Microsoft
Internet Information Server, and I won't install it.

 

[JanC]

Mark Carter schreef:

My conclusion is that yes, they really do want it that way. Some time
ago, I was fiddling around with Hamster, an NNTP server, and
experimenting with NNTP clients using Scheme and Python. Python was able
to extract articles from the server, but Scheme was not. After
investigation, it turned out that Hamster does thing the Microsoft (i.e.
*wrong*) way, rather than implementing the relevant RFC standard (can't
quote which one off the top of my head) exactly. The Python library code
is able to cope with the non-conformance, but the Scheme library was
not. It implemented the standard exactly as specified. It all turned out
to be something in the way that lines were terminated.

Now, the RFC was quite specific about how lines were to be terminated.
It should not have been difficult for Microsoft to have conformed to the
RFC standard if they so chose. Tedious maybe, but quite doable. For
Microsoft to foul up on this takes either laziness, stupidity, or
malice. My vote goes on malice.

NNTP uses CRLF ("Microsoft-style") line endings, so it's strange that they
would do that wrong?

 

[JanC]

Mark Carter schreef:

One thing, for instance, that p*sses me off about Java is that
everything is an object. Why?? What's so broken about the concept of a
plain, straightforward, ordinary function anyway?

In Python everything is an object too.
It just doesn't get into your way like it does in Java or C#... ;-)

 

[JanC]

MLC schreef:

In addition, I remember Microsoft offered some developing applications
for free, requiring the .NET installed, so I didn't download anything
at that time. Now I'd be interested. By chance do you still have that
link?

For developing with MS.NET you most likely need the ".NET Framework SDK"
(which is a *large* download). If you want a .NET IDE, you can have a
look at the open source SharpDevelop program.

 

[Mark Carter]

;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
;; If you want to create a file, first visit that file with C-x C-f,
;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.

Mark Carter schreef:


....

NNTP uses CRLF ("Microsoft-style") line endings, so it's strange that they
would do that wrong?

Looks like I haven't thought it through!

Yes, indeed, according to RFC 977 (Network News Transfer Protocol)
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc977.html
lines should be terminated CR-LF

I think I picked up on a comment from
http://www.codecomments.com/archive282-2004-5-194441.html:
"We have recently experienced problems with MS-based servers (for different
things) that eventually turned out to be bugs in the server code but
other tools
had already worked around MS's mis-implementation of an RFC."

but I was probably too hasty to do so. I suspect that my particular
problem was a bug in the DrScheme library (which has since been fixed).

After that adventure, and supplemented by other difficulties that I had
with Scheme, I decided that Scheme was not for me, and just stuck with
Python. I'm a great fan of Python, which Just Works.

 

[MLC]

_JanC_, venerdì 31/dic/2004:

MLC schreef:


For developing with MS.NET you most likely need the ".NET Framework SDK"
(which is a *large* download).

Ouch, I've seen. 108 MB for the .NET Framework SDK, plus 23 MB for the .NET
Framework Version 1.1 Redistributable Package.
I'm on dialup, then I give up for now.

If you want a .NET IDE, you can have a look at the open source
SharpDevelop program.

That's interesting. Maybe in the future, if I manage to get the above
packages. Thanks.

 

[JanC]

Mark Carter schreef:

I'm a great fan of Python, which Just Works.

I know, I've seen you on c.l.py and I like Python too... ;-)

 

[Mike Andrade]

I'm a great fan of Python

Yeah, they're hilarious.