Specifically it argued that MS should code the Windows desktop as a window interface running on top of a Linux core. At the time I dismissed it as the ravings of a Linux fan, but I wonder more and more if there isn't some value in the argument.
So you get all the Windows compatibility of Linux, but with the flexibility of a Windows UI? Sounds like a winner to me.
Even within a distribution, there's a completely new version of Linux seemingly every 6 months. That's enough to keep my business far, far away from Linux.
You don't _have_ to upgrade when the new version comes out. Do you complain that your car manufacturer puts out a new model of your car every year?
They're boned as far as operating systems go. They can't break backwards compatibility, but that same backwards compatibility is killing them as they try to improve the system.
They could always run two OS lines for a while, like they did when it was Win98/ME on the desktop and 2000 on the server. Specifically I can see them making a small, fast, modular OS to replace XP on netbooks, maybe building off of WinCE or XP Embedded, while continuing with Vista on the desktop. If.Net becomes the common API between both platforms, it will drive more development to that and away from the aging Win32 API. Eventually, Microsoft will be able to merge the two line once they can safely drop the older API.
Hmmm, good point, let's use a white board instead. Write the contents of one page on the board, ship it to viacom who reviews it, erases it, and sends it back for the next page.
"[the judge] ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives."
I don't really care if they put the pages on a table, stool, or on top of 4 tera-btye drives. Though I'm guessing the weight won't be good for the drives.
For minor-version updates yes. But does it do that for the jump from 2.x to 3.0? I ran 2.x on one computer for over a week after the 3.0 release and never saw it prompt me to update. I even ran the "check for updates" and wasn't prompted to update to 3.
Uh... not at all. People upgrade IE all the time, and you could probably get a lot of people to join you in shouting that IE hasn't had any innovation in ages.
I haven't know many people to upgrade IE specifically, either it comes with their new computer, or it came a part of the SP2 update from Microsoft. Either way it wasn't a choice made by the usesr.
Upgrading your browser version doesn't mean you aren't using that browser due to inertia.
My point was that it takes user effort _not_ to upgrade to IE7, but it does take user effort to upgrade to FF3. Inertia would result in whichever outcome took the least amount of user action to achieve. In this case, we're seeing the opposite much more in the case of Firefox than with IE.
Honestly.. whose brilliant idea was it to screw up the theme system? Used to be, I could use FF and TB on any of my Linux boxes or any of my Windows boxes, and the browser was consistent. That was a valuable feature. Now it's gone, and for what? Everything that was gained could have been realized with a few standard themes.
Um, can't you just use the same theme on different platforms?
What is the status of Wine's implementation of ntoskrnl.dll? Is there a possibility of Wine being able to run Windows drivers, like ndiswrapper does for wireless NICs?
I believe you can install different Windows XP themes on wine. So I guess a better question would be, is it possible to create a Windows XP theme specifically for Wine that would use the current GTK and/or QT theme settings?
Isn't Visio a program that has a more technical user base? Why would the average Joe want to draw flow, state, or design diagrams on the computer, much less know that Visio is a program for this? That was the point, that the name is not descriptive, but nobody has a problem with it.
But if say, you were to compare the names "Visio" with "Dia," I'd say Visio was some kind of graphics-related software, and Dia has something to do with calendars and organization. Calendars and organizations? I'd have just thourgh "diagrams".
More accurate would be asking random people what "Windows Media Player" does, or "Windows Movie Maker" for that matter. Not everyone uses these applications, but they sure as hell can tell what it does when they hear the name. Fair enough. And Ubuntu has Rhythmbox Music Player, and Totem Movie Player, also quite descriptive.
As opposed to "Gimp" which evokes imagery of...uh, someone whose leg got mangled in an accident. True, but I do believe Ubuntu also list that is "Gimp Image Editor".
The difference arises in that there is one official Windows Media Player, but significantly more than one unofficial Linux Media Players. On Linux, we need unique names to distinguish the different options, they can't all be called "Media Player". Now Ubuntu stakes out a middle ground, it selects one specific app, and adds it's description after the app's unique name, like "Firefox Web Browser".
Most of the perceived "slowness" of Java desktop apps was a combination of loading the contents of the JVM into memory, and GUI programmers putting long processes on the AWT update thread. Neither is necessarily the fault of Java, but it is somewhat responsible for making it hard to do things the right way.
But they don't know what those apps are for because of their name, they learned their function first, and then they learned their name. Ask somebody who doesn't know what Excel is what they think it does, and you won't get anything close to a spreadsheet.
A better example would be to ask 100 random people what Visio does, probably less than half could tell you.
Slashdot Mirror
Specifically it argued that MS should code the Windows desktop as a window interface running on top of a Linux core. At the time I dismissed it as the ravings of a Linux fan, but I wonder more and more if there isn't some value in the argument.
So you get all the Windows compatibility of Linux, but with the flexibility of a Windows UI? Sounds like a winner to me.
Even within a distribution, there's a completely new version of Linux seemingly every 6 months. That's enough to keep my business far, far away from Linux.
You don't _have_ to upgrade when the new version comes out. Do you complain that your car manufacturer puts out a new model of your car every year?
They're boned as far as operating systems go. They can't break backwards compatibility, but that same backwards compatibility is killing them as they try to improve the system.
They could always run two OS lines for a while, like they did when it was Win98/ME on the desktop and 2000 on the server. Specifically I can see them making a small, fast, modular OS to replace XP on netbooks, maybe building off of WinCE or XP Embedded, while continuing with Vista on the desktop. If .Net becomes the common API between both platforms, it will drive more development to that and away from the aging Win32 API. Eventually, Microsoft will be able to merge the two line once they can safely drop the older API.
Hmmm, good point, let's use a white board instead. Write the contents of one page on the board, ship it to viacom who reviews it, erases it, and sends it back for the next page.
"[the judge] ordered Google to turn over the logs on a set of four tera-byte hard drives."
I don't really care if they put the pages on a table, stool, or on top of 4 tera-btye drives. Though I'm guessing the weight won't be good for the drives.
Hopefully Google will print out the information, one record per page, single sided, on heavy card stock, then charge Viacom for shipping.
The 802.11 N spec isn't even final yet.
For minor-version updates yes. But does it do that for the jump from 2.x to 3.0? I ran 2.x on one computer for over a week after the 3.0 release and never saw it prompt me to update. I even ran the "check for updates" and wasn't prompted to update to 3.
His early stuff wasn't bad.
Santa's already outsourced his development to China and Taiwan. Don't beleive me? Just check the bottom of last year's gifts.
Uh... not at all. People upgrade IE all the time, and you could probably get a lot of people to join you in shouting that IE hasn't had any innovation in ages.
I haven't know many people to upgrade IE specifically, either it comes with their new computer, or it came a part of the SP2 update from Microsoft. Either way it wasn't a choice made by the usesr.
Upgrading your browser version doesn't mean you aren't using that browser due to inertia.
My point was that it takes user effort _not_ to upgrade to IE7, but it does take user effort to upgrade to FF3. Inertia would result in whichever outcome took the least amount of user action to achieve. In this case, we're seeing the opposite much more in the case of Firefox than with IE.
Honestly.. whose brilliant idea was it to screw up the theme system? Used to be, I could use FF and TB on any of my Linux boxes or any of my Windows boxes, and the browser was consistent. That was a valuable feature. Now it's gone, and for what? Everything that was gained could have been realized with a few standard themes.
Um, can't you just use the same theme on different platforms?
Doesn't the article's conclusion, that FF2 users are switching to FF3, disprove the assumption that your argument is based on?
For useful functionality I have LiveClick, AgingTabs, Fission (Address bar) and Download StatusBar.
What is the status of Wine's implementation of ntoskrnl.dll? Is there a possibility of Wine being able to run Windows drivers, like ndiswrapper does for wireless NICs?
I believe you can install different Windows XP themes on wine. So I guess a better question would be, is it possible to create a Windows XP theme specifically for Wine that would use the current GTK and/or QT theme settings?
No, that's a VNC client.
The difference arises in that there is one official Windows Media Player, but significantly more than one unofficial Linux Media Players. On Linux, we need unique names to distinguish the different options, they can't all be called "Media Player". Now Ubuntu stakes out a middle ground, it selects one specific app, and adds it's description after the app's unique name, like "Firefox Web Browser".
Most of the perceived "slowness" of Java desktop apps was a combination of loading the contents of the JVM into memory, and GUI programmers putting long processes on the AWT update thread. Neither is necessarily the fault of Java, but it is somewhat responsible for making it hard to do things the right way.
But they don't know what those apps are for because of their name, they learned their function first, and then they learned their name. Ask somebody who doesn't know what Excel is what they think it does, and you won't get anything close to a spreadsheet.
A better example would be to ask 100 random people what Visio does, probably less than half could tell you.
You must not be form the USA. Here, just about every phone will only work on the carrier who sold it to you.
I second that. We need a "-1 Nobody cares that you hate twitter" mod.
Do these companies shut down for a month in the middle of the year?
That would be [beginning of] July 2008 through [end of] June 2009, not July 8th through June 9th.Because you need something running in the CPU's language, and Linux is the best option out there.
Java was chosen because it is easier for developing and maintaining applications that don't need to care about the OS or hardware.
Hopefully this will make Sun re-consider licensing ZFS under the GPLv2.