F
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
Why would Microsoft disable steadily all things I like in it, includes
my best ideas on systems programming and almost drops, l dropped, all
my expertise in some areas? GINA is one of the best interfaces there
was, the graphical identification and authetication DLL. It cost me
several weeks worth of programming in a dual boot system different
from the compiling system to have it work without raising a blue
screen of death. But it is not included in the GCC header packages,
and documentation says Vista and what may come after would drop it
altogether. Once working there is almost no trace there is a GINA dll
operating in the system, no system lag, but the dialogs pop up when
needed. That particular GINA was well connected to peripheral harware
that also ought to be quite common but is nonexistent in the market,
unless RAM cards are compared to it. GINA is particularly interesting
because it activates at kernel boot time, but is not a driver, only an
interface oriented dll, which gives it a lot of programming
flexibility without falling into device driver complexities.
[Incidentally, I had two versions of the GINA file, one version was
three versions in one, controlled with macros and commenting out,
waiting for the next component interface to, uh, finally stabilize
itself; the other version was the clean production version. It was a
design decision not to use a commercial GUI package but to produce a
light version GUI framework then fall down to common C /C++ API for
the graphical interface.]
Anyone would expect that particular system to have become very
widespread, but nothing has been seen of it in the last decade. The
system was working and tested by November 2000. It seemed also to have
been the only GINA based product in the industry! Maybe Microsoft
cannot yet understand that, overall, such drops and changes are not
very welcomed by the industry, represent a cost tantamount to tax
transferences, impose a burden on users, raise the time cost and
effort of programming in an already dumped industry and establishes an
unnecessary monopoly when other companies would have benefitted.
Without making the system particularly robust yet but actually a chase
to remain equally inefficient (efficient) despite advances in hardware
power.
I think that GINA dlls are indispensible for some companies and even
for particular, in-house, programmers and users.
Of course I am interested in recovering the code for that particular
GINA and get specific information on why a product that ought to yield
rights and income was not launched into the market, not even for
chances at reusing the expertise. It does sound like an antieconomic
**supression of invention** economic crime,
Danilo J Bonsignore
my best ideas on systems programming and almost drops, l dropped, all
my expertise in some areas? GINA is one of the best interfaces there
was, the graphical identification and authetication DLL. It cost me
several weeks worth of programming in a dual boot system different
from the compiling system to have it work without raising a blue
screen of death. But it is not included in the GCC header packages,
and documentation says Vista and what may come after would drop it
altogether. Once working there is almost no trace there is a GINA dll
operating in the system, no system lag, but the dialogs pop up when
needed. That particular GINA was well connected to peripheral harware
that also ought to be quite common but is nonexistent in the market,
unless RAM cards are compared to it. GINA is particularly interesting
because it activates at kernel boot time, but is not a driver, only an
interface oriented dll, which gives it a lot of programming
flexibility without falling into device driver complexities.
[Incidentally, I had two versions of the GINA file, one version was
three versions in one, controlled with macros and commenting out,
waiting for the next component interface to, uh, finally stabilize
itself; the other version was the clean production version. It was a
design decision not to use a commercial GUI package but to produce a
light version GUI framework then fall down to common C /C++ API for
the graphical interface.]
Anyone would expect that particular system to have become very
widespread, but nothing has been seen of it in the last decade. The
system was working and tested by November 2000. It seemed also to have
been the only GINA based product in the industry! Maybe Microsoft
cannot yet understand that, overall, such drops and changes are not
very welcomed by the industry, represent a cost tantamount to tax
transferences, impose a burden on users, raise the time cost and
effort of programming in an already dumped industry and establishes an
unnecessary monopoly when other companies would have benefitted.
Without making the system particularly robust yet but actually a chase
to remain equally inefficient (efficient) despite advances in hardware
power.
I think that GINA dlls are indispensible for some companies and even
for particular, in-house, programmers and users.
Of course I am interested in recovering the code for that particular
GINA and get specific information on why a product that ought to yield
rights and income was not launched into the market, not even for
chances at reusing the expertise. It does sound like an antieconomic
**supression of invention** economic crime,
Danilo J Bonsignore