the reason MacOS and Windows became popular is that they were *NOT* unix children, or maybe they were, but they weren't unix kids "phenotypically." windows makes things easier for people who don't want or need to tinker with and understand an OS (read: everyone but you reading this)...hell, most linux users don't *really* play with the kernel, memory manager, file system, etc -- they pick a window manager and choose a background, in effect, mimicking the functionality of "evil" windows...
office won't be popular if ported to linux -- linux will be popular if ported to microsoft.
[start ranting tangent:] the whole linux "movement" comes off as a communist rebellion, where the poor communist supporters don't need food, water, or medical care, just a reason to whine and to be cool...you know it's true.
considering that office depends on win32 API, et cetera, *what if* microsoft creates a shell (like win 3.*) to run on top of linux, which includes stuff like the win32 API, OLE, et cetera...
so, to run anything from the microsoft family, you need this shell, which would, of course, cost $99.99 or whatever the current version of windows costs...what do you think?
Slashdot Mirror
Wow this guy is a fucking tool.
What was he saying in the article about how unfortunate it was that many of the technical discussions on usenet degrade into flamewars?
22. Walk the walk, indeed.
Don't complain about such crap when you end every post with an insult directed at the guy to whom your are replying. '
This is great, a troll getting caught red-handed on Slashdot, the hub of dorkery everywhere! Albeit, a knowledgeable troll, but a troll nonetheless.
Somebody interview me!
Get a fucking sense of humor, Data.
Word.
Similar experience here. And it did wonders to boost my confidence as a programmer, to feel the zen of "Jebus, that's ugly!" and know exactly why.
the reason MacOS and Windows became popular is that they were *NOT* unix children, or maybe they were, but they weren't unix kids "phenotypically."
windows makes things easier for people who don't want or need to tinker with and understand an OS (read: everyone but you reading this)...hell, most linux users don't *really* play with the kernel, memory manager, file system, etc -- they pick a window manager and choose a background, in effect, mimicking the functionality of "evil" windows...
office won't be popular if ported to linux -- linux will be popular if ported to microsoft.
[start ranting tangent:] the whole linux "movement" comes off as a communist rebellion, where the poor communist supporters don't need food, water, or medical care, just a reason to whine and to be cool...you know it's true.
considering that office depends on win32 API, et cetera, *what if* microsoft creates a shell (like win 3.*) to run on top of linux, which includes stuff like the win32 API, OLE, et cetera...
so, to run anything from the microsoft family, you need this shell, which would, of course, cost $99.99 or whatever the current version of windows costs...what do you think?