after running this "OS"I was very underwelmed, i command their effort, but am not impressed. it seems to me they are simply trying to be a linux wanabe by making open source. I also have a suspicion that the slashdot response is directly responsible for this.
they saw that only a small group of people we're interesting in a bairly functional OS if it was closed. this is another of many recant demonstrations that the Open Source Movement(tm) is effecting the world.
Microsoft's support site articals are written when a question is asked repeatedly to the support division. apparently this is a question a number of windows's users want an answer for. it only show's that a lot of windows users are trying out linux.
btw: i agree with many of the posts the the KB artical is virtually useless and incorrect. i think they just wrote it to shut people up.
The target for this artical is for windows users who tried out linux and want to swtich back. it's obvoisly not FUD or any anti-linux campaining.
also i don't think this is news worthy except for the./'s out their who can't get enough of MS vs. Linux debats, which i am personally sick to death of.
Are you crazy? Are you a programmer who has actually looked at Microsoft's APIs or are you just spewing forth nonsense to make excuses for your defense of Microsoft? If you're a programmer of any measurable skill level and have examined Microsoft's APIs you will know that they are the biggest example of fudged, inconsistant, and incompatible mess that you've ever seen.
how would you improve the following?
the mmio* functins the acm* functions the wave* functions
or some based off COM like
the IHTML* interfaces, OLEDB, ADO?
Different "versions" of Windows API are incompatible with other "versions" of Windows API.
what's not backwards compatabile?
Everyone is going to have to recode for Windows 2000, because there is a fundamental incompatability with earlier code.
gee i ran acidtetris on win2000. it ran fine. this is a DOS app with VGA graphics. what the hell are you refereing too? you mean you have to learn new code to work with new fearures? NAWW?? ya THINK?
I can't believe you used their API as the basis for your defense. If you actually believe that Microsoft Windows API is really technically ellegant then you truely are hopeless.
sure nothings perfect. but with all becouse of backwards compatabily, there's some things that have to be kludged. things like "duel interfaces" in COM. ya that's a hack, but what are you going to do if you still want to support people who arn't up with the latest and greatest?
>Basically, he's looking for quick and easy answers to hard problems. Microsoft does put up a glitzy facade >and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look >too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
And basically that is a bunch of FUD. When it comes to my endorsement of Microsoft I'm talking about the API's and the SDK's. and that is defiantly not "glitzy".
>That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C >per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT >necessarily "low-level".
Yes assembly can be very productive, if you're proficient at it. but that like anything isn't it? I think you're picked on a side comment I made about how I don't agree with Java's VM implementation. Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully.. you guys have a real talent for picking out poorly worded text's and throwing them back in my face.
>This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the >basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the >pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces, >and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW,
I agree pipes are great. I remember when I first used them I was awed by the power of such a simple concept. I guess when it comes down to it, this is a religious issue. Personally I don't perfere them command lines. There are some fantastic advantages to them. In some situations they are clearly superior. I could go on, but really this is a matter of preference.
>were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
I'll be the first to admit I can't spell jack. I wouldn't dare post anything with out typing it up in Word. My spelling is about on par with a 6th graders. Ever sense I was a child slacking off in elementary school I always figured I could get by on spell checkers. Now that I work in professional environments, I'm seeing what a huge mistake this was. It's become a thorn in every situation. Like when I write comments in my code I need to spell check it, when I write little one-sentence memos. Anything. Unfortunately when I post something people disagree with. I don't get to hear thoughtful responses to my points. I hear something like:
"Do you know what the word "litigate" means?"
arg... you know what I meant.
>You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so >that the interfaces match.
IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers.
..and back to me spelling... >I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition, >the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell >checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes. >However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
I try to make my points as eloquent and clear as possible. Unfortunately my spelling is so horrific that I'll spell something SO wrong, that it's actually a word, therefore the spell checker misses it. Also sometimes I just screw up and agree with the wrong word as a suggestion on a misspelled word.
I think I need to put this in my./ bio.. or something as a.sig that gives people a little clear warning. I really enjoy posting here, but it gets more and more frustrating when people get so wrapped up in my grammar and spelling.
Sounds like you like attacking me personally. Which I find rather childish. Ironic no?
The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine. Id rather spends my time doing something actually productive, something original. Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new. This is the philosophy behind "code-reuses" and the main reason we don't all write our software with our own hardware. Drive car's we build from scratch, or write up insults to our fellow man on keyboards made of wood we cute down in our backyard.
As for the "fully integrated spell checker". This is something I've wanted for a long time. And you're correct no OS offers it. Their are applications for Windows that attempt at this, but don't integrate as will as I would like.
The point behind the post (since most of you seemed to miss it). is that linux is not all that great of an OS from a usability standpoint. It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have some type of integration for applications that would allow this, something I have yet to see (and I'm sure lots of people have something to say about this, but before you reply. Realize that this thread is about FUD. And anything about how lunux apps are "so well integrated" would be complete bullshit).
This is getting offtopic, but I do have a serious concern that integration will never succeed with Open Source software. There are to many people doing things the way they feel is best, even things like command line parameters aren't consistent. You get a bunch of great programmers out their doing great apps, but none of the work together at all, they isn't any standard, no consistent way of doing something (and this is in a general "big picture" sense people).
For any two programs to work together they're needs to be some ground rules. Some type of standard. And if you not willing to have a large powerful company (like Microsoft) come up with them and shove them in your face, you may be stuck with a bunch of people in a standards committee for years debating on it. a good example of this is C++, this took something like a decade to get standardized, and a lot of people have very litigate issues with that they finally settled on (things like locale come to mind). Then you have something like Java, it only took Sun a few years to come up with. and it's a pretty darn good language, mind you I don't thing the write once run anywhere crap is a good idea. But the language itself is yummie.
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the "Fountain Head". Howard rook designed beautiful buildings, they we're beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision". When a committee got involved it became a hogpoge of mixed ideas, some of this from one guy, and a little of this from another guy. And this does not good art make.
In my last project we used hidden input tags to maintain state. Basically we would pass in all the state fields into each page over and over again. While this does work, the pipe was taking a little more data then it should have, and things like "bookmarks" wouldn't work.
Key to the trick was the whole page was in a big . any anchor link would actually be routed to a javascript function that would submit the forum. they we're some other things we had to work out, but I don't want to violate any NDA or whatever. After hearing about the whole Amazon.com 1-Click BS, you can' be to paranoid.
This of course is not a real solution, it's a hack. Unfortunately there isn't any good standard solution. Maybe this thing from Novel is good, but on principle I'm not going to endorse it. that "my credit card was stolen from a cookie" crap is just to much.
aye, good points. I didn't even know about the "SmartQuotes" thing until you respond. As for ActiveX I don't see it as fragmenting the browsers as it is only used (99% of the time) in intranets. Personally I think they're pretty darn useful in that situation. for instance Microsoft has a ActiveX control in their ITGweb system for changing your machine name for the internal network.
-Jon
p.s. I'm posting this one as good o'l HTML in hope that the quotas come out ok for those "less fortunate":)
p.s.s. never mind the p.s. how the hell do I make sure the text doesn't have those nasty Microsoft char's in them?
anyone else suspicious that they're is a Mac under the table?, I'm not saying he didn't do it. it's just it looks so much like a monitor with a keyboard in front. also he doesn't talk very much about it technically, more comically. most of the technical talk is about how hard it was to get the cd-rom in. the cd-rom being the only visible proof that anything was done to the monitor.
I would like to know exactly what IE has that is not part of the WC3 standard. Although I am far from an expert, I often have conversations with people who are. Usually the conversation goes like this:
"DAMM!" "what's wrong?" "stupid netscape" "ya ya, what is it this time?" "freakin table doesn't show up, netscape doesn't support correctly" "well just do it a way netscape likes it" "dude, that would take forever! netscape doesn't like anything!!"
so from my casual observations, netscape doesn't support as many standards as IE. And if Microsoft's is "bending" standards into the browser, that would seem like a good thing.
-Jon
btw: we just had to re-design out site to work with netscape.
Very well put. this place is popular because it's a Microsoft witch hunt. It's fun to see people get so fired up about things.
i don't think much is getting accomplished. sure they're lots of good points. but you'll all forget them by the next time a MS vs. Linux article comes up.
two points that make me laugh:
1) search/. for Microsoft, m$, etc.. in ANY artical. you'll find it. people talking about talking rats from outer space. Someone's got something to say about how the evil M$ will buy out whatever, and steal this and that. and make it inferior
2)/. LOVES IE. they hate "windoze", hate anything to do with microsoft. they support the DOJ fucking microsoft about the Netscape thing. yet they all seem to LOVE IE. freakin hypocrites
hehe, i logged into my roommates linux box at home today and chatted with him using 'talk'. sure it works. but reminds me a whole lot of 1970's. seems like we would have something better then that by now.
oh that's right, we have "Netmeeting", but that would be "evil"
"Even though Transmeta's patents indicate that its chips are x86 compatible, it isn't a given that it will join the bloody desktop PC battle. Its most recent patent describes a type of "code-morphing" hardware and software that is, as the patent says, "an apparatus for enhancing the operation of a microprocessor, which is less expensive than conventional state of the art microprocessors, yet is compatible with and capable of running application programs and operating systems designed for other microprocessors at a faster rate than those other microprocessors.""
the key here is "code-morphing". i'm betting that somehow the linux kernal will be able to run much closer to the hardware.
of course this would mechnision would have to allow for new patchs, and most likely other OS's. very interesting idea if i'm right.
i'm not right.. hey maybe i should patent it. hehe
I'm curious if Microsoft DNS Server has this same problem? of is this one of those issues where no sophistication = no security holes. like the military using Apple web servers? please don't replay with endless ramblings about how Microsoft DNS is inferior, and how bill gates is an evil monster sent from the devil to destroy mankind. -Jon
I would hope they could get sick amounts of venture capital to pay the bills. Personally I think they should give it away so cheap bastards like me will play with it, and perhaps start writing apps for it.
and fuck you very much for correcting my spelling you anal retarded piece of shit.
it looks like where Java will succeeded is in the Middle tier. so I'm unsure on how useful it will be for poor BeOS. a lot of barley functionally games do not make a OS succeeded. Either Java needs to start providing a good way to make good windowed apps or people actually need to write stuff for BeOS. I have heard about something called something like "JFC", it's supposed to be a really good API for creating GUI's. I still am skeptical if it will allow Java to make usable GUI apps in a "pure" "portable" java however.
It would help a lot of BeOS didn't try to get money for there OS. I'd love to check it out, but I'm not about to spend $80. also why the heck did they give away the PowerPC one and not the Intel one? maybe the Intel support still sucks to hard and they're afraid it won't work on 90% of the boxes out there.
as far as I know it won't play well with my TNT2. darn..
a while back a purchased O'Riellys book on BeOS development, not a great book. but it did say "BeOS on CD-ROM". when I got home I found out it was for the friggin PowerPC. (ARGGH!!). I mailed them a little letter and ended up getting the "BeOS Advanced Developer Topics". so if BeOS would just let me download there OS I would write some Killer apps for them.
no i don't, becouse it has NOTHING to do with my points.
btw: your are right, i wrote it in MS Word and c n/ pasted into./, basicly becouse i can't spell anything, and i wanted people to look at what i had to say, not my spelling
i don't see how this addresses any of my points. instead of ranting about UNIX, talk to me about how UNIX is better (or dare i say worse) then Microsoft in terms of development. -Jon
guess you missed the discussion on MainSoft porting Win32 to linux. it's not just Win32 it's ATL, COM, and a bunch of other stuff. Also Chili!Soft will be releaseing there ASP port soon.
Let me start off that I am primary a microsoft developer. I know VB/ASP/C++/MFC/ATL/COM pretty much all the stuff Microsoft would like developers to learn.
So you can tell I'm already biased.
But without screaming about how much better microsoft's development environment is to linux's I'll admit I don't know jack about linux development. The only time I ever wrote an app is on a SCO/UNIX box a few years back. It was pure ANSI/C++; all it did was r/w to ONE file. And took a few parameters. Although I do know vi and have wrote some small test crap in it I opted for VC++ IDE.
Here's what I like about developing with Microsoft tech:
- nice IDE's. the VB/VC/InterDev IDE is assume. Integrated debugging, initi-pop-up-thingy. Class tree thing. And of course pretty colors for key words - VB, great for prototype's, testing COM objects, and little crappy apps. - ASP brain dead web development, super easy and has COM automation support - COM, I'm in love with COM. Write reusable distributed black box's in any language. (and soon coming to linux guys:) - Documentation [BIG POINT]: I almost always know where to find documentation, (1) msdn, (2) dejanews, (3) msdn online. Even if it's not that good, I can figure it out with what I find. And after enough digging, I find what I need to know 95% of the time.
And now what I DON'T like
- MFC: I like to call MFC the VB for C++. It's REALLY REALLY good for making ONE type of app. The big mololithic MDI app with file/open/save and edit/paste/ yadda yadda. Anyway. Other then that. It stinks. it spoils you from knowing the Win32 API in SOME parts, then in others it's like "welcome to the registry"
- Win32 API: ehh... it's OK. I mean I have some sympathy for microsoft. They have to make this thing backwards compatible with crap from the 1980's. but like many have you said there's a million ways to do anything, and each way you have to choose from passing 15,000,000 parameters or 4 parameters with a structure with 15,00,000 parameters.
- C++ type InSaniTy!. Bstr, BSTR, string, Cstring, OLECHAR, unicode, ANSI, or multibyte? CcomPtr, IdispatchPtr, FAR PASCAL* etc.. etc... C++ is partly to blam here. But it would be nice if it didn't take me 2 days to figure out how to convert a DB_DATETIME to a DATE type (it really did take that long).
- Million ways to do anything: lots of competition within microsoft's own madness. Lots and lots and lots of ways to do anything. What's really bad is you pick up a book and it shows you how to say, sink event's from IwebBrowser2, then you pick up another book and they do it a totally different way. It makes it hard to know which is the "best" way, or even the "approved, modern" way. I guess if you've actually mastered this stuff you can decide, but for people like me who learn by copying stuff our of books and messing around with it, it sucks.
So what id like to hear is how is linux better, the good points and the bad. From my impression (ignorant as it is). Developing in Linux means you need to know basic POSIX stuff. Know how to compile stuff in GNU C++. And know what's up with glib, libc,(I think that's what there called) or gdk, or tcl/tk, or perl, or? I'm just through stuff out. How would linux make me development a smoother more pain free.
I've seen some gdk stuff and it didn't look much better then Win32, still wasn't C++ OOP. Still had funny pointers and type's. honestly it looks like the same good and bad, except that there isn't one big central place to get everything from. No "way to do this". Just lots of stuff thrown in from everyone and there dog.
Slashdot Mirror
after running this "OS"I was very underwelmed, i command their effort, but am not impressed. it seems to me they are simply trying
to be a linux wanabe by making open source. I also have a suspicion that the slashdot response is directly responsible for this.
they saw that only a small group of people we're interesting in a bairly functional OS if it was closed. this is another of many recant
demonstrations that the Open Source Movement(tm) is effecting the world.
-Jon
Microsoft's support site articals are written when a question is asked repeatedly to the support division. apparently this is a question a number of windows's users want an answer for. it only show's that a lot of windows users are trying out linux.
btw: i agree with many of the posts the the KB artical is virtually useless and incorrect. i think they just wrote it to shut people up.
-Jon
The target for this artical is for windows users who tried out linux and want to swtich back. it's obvoisly not FUD or any anti-linux campaining.
./'s out their who can't get enough of MS vs. Linux debats, which i am personally sick to death of.
also i don't think this is news worthy except for the
-Jon
nightvision porn?
how would you improve the following?
the mmio* functins
the acm* functions
the wave* functions
or some based off COM like
the IHTML* interfaces, OLEDB, ADO?
Different "versions" of Windows API are incompatible with other "versions" of Windows API.
what's not backwards compatabile?
Everyone is going to have to recode for Windows 2000, because there is a fundamental incompatability with earlier code.
gee i ran acidtetris on win2000. it ran fine. this is a DOS app with VGA graphics. what the hell are you refereing too? you mean you have to learn new code to work with new fearures? NAWW?? ya THINK?
I can't believe you used their API as the basis for your defense. If you actually believe that Microsoft Windows API is really technically ellegant then you truely are hopeless.
sure nothings perfect. but with all becouse of backwards compatabily, there's some things that have to be kludged. things like "duel interfaces" in COM. ya that's a hack, but what are you going to do if you still want to support people who arn't up with the latest and greatest?
-Jon
>Basically, he's looking for quick and easy answers to hard problems. Microsoft does put up a glitzy facade
./ bio.. or something as a .sig that gives people a little clear warning. I really enjoy posting here, but it gets more and more frustrating when people get so wrapped up in my grammar and spelling.
>and there are some spiffy (that should date me) things that can be done with it (provided you don't look >too closely). Microsoft has succeeded in selling this ersatz to PHBs as if it were the best.
And basically that is a bunch of FUD. When it comes to my endorsement of Microsoft I'm talking about the API's and the SDK's. and that is defiantly not "glitzy".
>That's the basic reason for FORTRAN, COBOL, PL/I etc., rather than Assembly Language. (4 lines of C
>per line of Assembly -- comment a few days back). Assembly can be quite productive and is NOT
>necessarily "low-level".
Yes assembly can be very productive, if you're proficient at it. but that like anything isn't it? I think you're picked on a side comment I made about how I don't agree with Java's VM implementation. Perhaps I should have worded that more carefully.. you guys have a real talent for picking out poorly worded text's and throwing them back in my face.
>This is basic Unix philosophy, from at least the 70's IIRC. A | B | C | D | E type of thing. Many of the
>basic tools were designed explicitly to fit in the middle of a piping scheme. To fit together smoothly the
>pieces have to be defined carefully. The "do it yourself" part of Unix is that you can compose the pieces,
>and if necessary supply any of the missing pieces. BTW,
I agree pipes are great. I remember when I first used them I was awed by the power of such a simple concept. I guess when it comes down to it, this is a religious issue. Personally I don't perfere them command lines. There are some fantastic advantages to them. In some situations they are clearly superior. I could go on, but really this is a matter of preference.
>were the misspellings added after you composed it or did you substitute them contemporaneously with the composition?
I'll be the first to admit I can't spell jack. I wouldn't dare post anything with out typing it up in Word. My spelling is about on par with a 6th graders. Ever sense I was a child slacking off in elementary school I always figured I could get by on spell checkers. Now that I work in professional environments, I'm seeing what a huge mistake this was. It's become a thorn in every situation. Like when I write comments in my code I need to spell check it, when I write little one-sentence memos. Anything. Unfortunately when I post something people disagree with. I don't get to hear thoughtful responses to my points. I hear something like:
"Do you know what the word "litigate" means?"
arg... you know what I meant.
>You do need to know what the interfaces are, and if necessary supply the necessary shims so
>that the interfaces match.
IMHO that's a hack. A clean design does not rely on compatibility layers.
..and back to me spelling...
>I find it curiously interesting that jon_c wants an integrated spell checker. If you analyze the composition,
>the writing style is not consistent with the typographical errors. It is possible that he is using a spell
>checker that has substituted correct spellings of wrong words, and he doesn't read what he writes.
>However, it seems more plausible that this is a carefully concocted essay, typos and all. Doublethink?
I try to make my points as eloquent and clear as possible. Unfortunately my spelling is so horrific that I'll spell something SO wrong, that it's actually a word, therefore the spell checker misses it. Also sometimes I just screw up and agree with the wrong word as a suggestion on a misspelled word.
I think I need to put this in my
-Jon
Sounds like you like attacking me personally. Which I find rather childish. Ironic no?
The "do it your self" philosophy may be your preference, but my preference is that I don't have to spend time doing things that could be done for me by a machine. Id rather spends my time doing something actually productive, something original. Take tools that other people have used and use them to create something new. This is the philosophy behind "code-reuses" and the main reason we don't all write our software with our own hardware. Drive car's we build from scratch, or write up insults to our fellow man on keyboards made of wood we cute down in our backyard.
As for the "fully integrated spell checker". This is something I've wanted for a long time. And you're correct no OS offers it. Their are applications for Windows that attempt at this, but don't integrate as will as I would like.
The point behind the post (since most of you seemed to miss it). is that linux is not all that great of an OS from a usability standpoint. It's an exercise in pain to get the simplest things working correctly. To accomplish something like a integrated spell checker linux would have some type of integration for applications that would allow this, something I have yet to see (and I'm sure lots of people have something to say about this, but before you reply. Realize that this thread is about FUD. And anything about how lunux apps are "so well integrated" would be complete bullshit).
This is getting offtopic, but I do have a serious concern that integration will never succeed with Open Source software. There are to many people doing things the way they feel is best, even things like command line parameters aren't consistent. You get a bunch of great programmers out their doing great apps, but none of the work together at all, they isn't any standard, no consistent way of doing something (and this is in a general "big picture" sense people).
For any two programs to work together they're needs to be some ground rules. Some type of standard. And if you not willing to have a large powerful company (like Microsoft) come up with them and shove them in your face, you may be stuck with a bunch of people in a standards committee for years debating on it. a good example of this is C++, this took something like a decade to get standardized, and a lot of people have very litigate issues with that they finally settled on (things like locale come to mind). Then you have something like Java, it only took Sun a few years to come up with. and it's a pretty darn good language, mind you I don't thing the write once run anywhere crap is a good idea. But the language itself is yummie.
I know I'll get in trouble for this, but I totally agree with Ann Rand with what she wrote in the "Fountain Head". Howard rook designed beautiful buildings, they we're beautiful because he and only he designed them, it was his "vision". When a committee got involved it became a hogpoge of mixed ideas, some of this from one guy, and a little of this from another guy. And this does not good art make.
why thank you.
-Jon
In my last project we used hidden input tags to maintain state. Basically we would pass in all the state fields into each page over and over again. While this does work, the pipe was taking a little more data then it should have, and things like "bookmarks" wouldn't work.
Key to the trick was the whole page was in a big . any anchor link would actually be routed to a javascript function that would submit the forum. they we're some other things we had to work out, but I don't want to violate any NDA or whatever. After hearing about the whole Amazon.com 1-Click BS, you can' be to paranoid.
This of course is not a real solution, it's a hack. Unfortunately there isn't any good standard solution. Maybe this thing from Novel is good, but on principle I'm not going to endorse it. that "my credit card was stolen from a cookie" crap is just to much.
-Jon
aye, good points. I didn't even know about the "SmartQuotes" thing until you respond. As for ActiveX I don't see it as fragmenting the browsers as it is only used (99% of the time) in intranets. Personally I think they're pretty darn useful in that situation. for instance Microsoft has a ActiveX control in their ITGweb system for changing your machine name for the internal network.
:)
-Jon
p.s. I'm posting this one as good o'l HTML in hope that the quotas come out ok for those "less fortunate"
p.s.s. never mind the p.s. how the hell do I make sure the text doesn't have those nasty Microsoft char's in them?
anyone else suspicious that they're is a Mac under the table?, I'm not saying he didn't do it. it's just it looks so much like a monitor with a keyboard in front. also he doesn't talk very much about it technically, more comically. most of the technical talk is about how hard it was to get the cd-rom in. the cd-rom being the only visible proof that anything was done to the monitor.
-Jon
what the fuck are you talking about? my post doesn't have question marks in place of apostrophes.
get off the crack, and post some actual facts.
-Jon
I would like to know exactly what IE has that is not part of the WC3 standard. Although I am far from an expert, I often have conversations with people who are. Usually the conversation goes like this:
"DAMM!"
"what's wrong?"
"stupid netscape"
"ya ya, what is it this time?"
"freakin table doesn't show up, netscape doesn't support correctly"
"well just do it a way netscape likes it"
"dude, that would take forever! netscape doesn't like anything!!"
so from my casual observations, netscape doesn't support as many standards as IE. And if Microsoft's is "bending" standards into the browser, that would seem like a good thing.
-Jon
btw: we just had to re-design out site to work with netscape.
Very well put. this place is popular because it's a Microsoft witch hunt. It's fun to see people get so fired up about things.
/. for Microsoft, m$, etc.. in ANY artical. you'll find it. people talking about talking rats from outer space. Someone's got something to say about how the evil M$ will buy out whatever, and steal this and that. and make it inferior
/. LOVES IE. they hate "windoze", hate anything to do with microsoft. they support the DOJ fucking microsoft about the Netscape thing. yet they all seem to LOVE IE. freakin hypocrites
i don't think much is getting accomplished. sure they're lots of good points. but you'll all forget them by the next time a MS vs. Linux article comes up.
two points that make me laugh:
1) search
2)
hehe, i logged into my roommates linux box at home today and chatted with him using 'talk'. sure it works. but reminds me a whole lot of 1970's. seems like we would have something better then that by now.
oh that's right, we have "Netmeeting", but that would be "evil"
-Jon
"shutup ya freaks"
mag's of the future will only be ones that are great reading in the can.
:)
the only magazine i read regulary is PcAccelerator, it's a game zine with lots-a-hot-chicks.
great for reading in the can
-Jon
but check this out:
"Even though Transmeta's patents indicate that its chips are x86 compatible, it isn't a given that it will join the bloody desktop PC battle. Its most recent patent describes a type of "code-morphing" hardware and software that is, as the patent says, "an apparatus for enhancing the operation of a microprocessor, which is less expensive than conventional state of the art microprocessors, yet is compatible with and capable of running application programs and operating systems designed for other microprocessors at a faster rate than those other microprocessors.""
the key here is "code-morphing". i'm betting that somehow the linux kernal will be able to run much closer to the hardware.
of course this would mechnision would have to allow for new patchs, and most likely other OS's. very interesting idea if i'm right.
i'm not right.. hey maybe i should patent it. hehe
-Jon
(no comments about be spelling please)
I'm curious if Microsoft DNS Server has this same problem? of is this one of those issues where no sophistication = no security holes. like the military using Apple web servers? please don't replay with endless ramblings about how Microsoft DNS is inferior, and how bill gates is an evil monster sent from the devil to destroy mankind. -Jon
I would hope they could get sick amounts of venture capital to pay the bills. Personally I think they should give it away so cheap bastards like me will play with it, and perhaps start writing apps for it.
and fuck you very much for correcting my spelling you anal retarded piece of shit.
-Jon
the free PPC version was *apparently* a while back. as for the TNT2, the last time i checked beOS's web site the TNT2 was not supported.
-Jon
it looks like where Java will succeeded is in the Middle tier. so I'm unsure on how useful it will be for poor BeOS. a lot of barley functionally games do not make a OS succeeded. Either Java needs to start providing a good way to make good windowed apps or people actually need to write stuff for BeOS. I have heard about something called something like "JFC", it's supposed to be a really good API for creating GUI's. I still am skeptical if it will allow Java to make usable GUI apps in a "pure" "portable" java however.
It would help a lot of BeOS didn't try to get money for there OS. I'd love to check it out, but I'm not about to spend $80. also why the heck did they give away the PowerPC one and not the Intel one? maybe the Intel support still sucks to hard and they're afraid it won't work on 90% of the boxes out there.
as far as I know it won't play well with my TNT2. darn..
a while back a purchased O'Riellys book on BeOS development, not a great book. but it did say "BeOS on CD-ROM". when I got home I found out it was for the friggin PowerPC. (ARGGH!!). I mailed them a little letter and ended up getting the "BeOS Advanced Developer Topics". so if BeOS would just let me download there OS I would write some Killer apps for them.
-Jon
I've never seen this app. But I used to use an Amiga around the turn of the decade. Some good apps for it's time. But sadly outdated..
Variety in any case will be a good thing.
Anyone know if it will be open-source?
-Jon
no i don't, becouse it has NOTHING to do with my points.
./, basicly becouse i can't spell anything, and i wanted people to look at what i had to say, not my spelling
:)
btw: your are right, i wrote it in MS Word and c n/ pasted into
(no spell checker avail at the time
-Jon
-Jon
i don't see how this addresses any of my points. instead of ranting about UNIX, talk to me about how UNIX is better (or dare i say worse) then Microsoft in terms of development. -Jon
check it out
MainSoft
Chili!Soft
Let me start off that I am primary a microsoft developer. I know VB/ASP/C++/MFC/ATL/COM pretty much all the stuff Microsoft would like developers to learn.
:)
So you can tell I'm already biased.
But without screaming about how much better microsoft's development environment is to linux's I'll admit I don't know jack about linux development. The only time I ever wrote an app is on a SCO/UNIX box a few years back. It was pure ANSI/C++; all it did was r/w to ONE file. And took a few parameters. Although I do know vi and have wrote some small test crap in it I opted for VC++ IDE.
Here's what I like about developing with Microsoft tech:
- nice IDE's. the VB/VC/InterDev IDE is assume. Integrated debugging, initi-pop-up-thingy. Class tree thing. And of course pretty colors for key words
- VB, great for prototype's, testing COM objects, and little crappy apps.
- ASP brain dead web development, super easy and has COM automation support
- COM, I'm in love with COM. Write reusable distributed black box's in any language. (and soon coming to linux guys
- Documentation [BIG POINT]: I almost always know where to find documentation, (1) msdn, (2) dejanews, (3) msdn online. Even if it's not that good, I can figure it out with what I find. And after enough digging, I find what I need to know 95% of the time.
And now what I DON'T like
- MFC: I like to call MFC the VB for C++. It's REALLY REALLY good for making ONE type of app. The big mololithic MDI app with file/open/save and edit/paste/ yadda yadda. Anyway. Other then that. It stinks. it spoils you from knowing the Win32 API in SOME parts, then in others it's like "welcome to the registry"
- Win32 API: ehh... it's OK. I mean I have some sympathy for microsoft. They have to make this thing backwards compatible with crap from the 1980's. but like many have you said there's a million ways to do anything, and each way you have to choose from passing 15,000,000 parameters or 4 parameters with a structure with 15,00,000 parameters.
- C++ type InSaniTy!. Bstr, BSTR, string, Cstring, OLECHAR, unicode, ANSI, or multibyte? CcomPtr, IdispatchPtr, FAR PASCAL* etc.. etc... C++ is partly to blam here. But it would be nice if it didn't take me 2 days to figure out how to convert a DB_DATETIME to a DATE type (it really did take that long).
- Million ways to do anything: lots of competition within microsoft's own madness. Lots and lots and lots of ways to do anything. What's really bad is you pick up a book and it shows you how to say, sink event's from IwebBrowser2, then you pick up another book and they do it a totally different way. It makes it hard to know which is the "best" way, or even the "approved, modern" way. I guess if you've actually mastered this stuff you can decide, but for people like me who learn by copying stuff our of books and messing around with it, it sucks.
So what id like to hear is how is linux better, the good points and the bad. From my impression (ignorant as it is). Developing in Linux means you need to know basic POSIX stuff. Know how to compile stuff in GNU C++. And know what's up with glib, libc,(I think that's what there called) or gdk, or tcl/tk, or perl, or? I'm just through stuff out. How would linux make me development a smoother more pain free.
I've seen some gdk stuff and it didn't look much better then Win32, still wasn't C++ OOP. Still had funny pointers and type's. honestly it looks like the same good and bad, except that there isn't one big central place to get everything from. No "way to do this". Just lots of stuff thrown in from everyone and there dog.
-Jon