Re:Can't do without either
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 2
I guess I should clarify my one statement.
Win2k is much more than just adequate for a home network, it's complete overkill but it is what I use.
WinXP Pro would make a more than adequate file and web server for a home user. Actually with XP's built in firewall and internet connection sharing you wouldn't have a problem with that route either.
Re:Can't do without either
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 2
"I also wouldn't do without Linux. I use it as a firewall/proxy/Samba server and occasionally run a webserver on it with DHCP."
Wow, that's some heavy duty processing!
"Windows doesn't come close to being as capable for these services on my home network."
Hmm, I bought a Linksys firewall/router last year for $80 which pretty much covers half your use. I don't see why you think WinXP can't handle an occasional web server or file sharing. Maybe you need the Pro version, but other than that.
I use Win2k server at home for these services and much more. It's more than adequate for a home network.
"Got to automatically crop a bunch of pictures to a specific file size, hard to beat Imagemagik from the command line on Linux."
Yeah, Imagemagick is pretty cool for some things.
"Please don't ask me to get it working on XP. "
Why? It works the same on XP as it does on Linux.
"I've long since given up or even looking forward to the day when Windows can."
Weird, because Windows does everything you've talked about in this article and a whole lot more.
Being modular is part of the problem. The entire help system, the file system explorer, large parts of applications and so on are all reliant upon the HTML rendering engine of Internet Explorer.
Honestly, Microsoft should just remove iexplore.exe from the system and say "There we've removed IE." and leave it at that. Instead they are arguing semantics with people who are technically incompetent.
I also don't see an argument for why we need a diversity of operating systems. Or rather, why you feel we don't already today have a diversity of operating systems. Linux is available, so is various forms of MacOS, BSD and so on. Fact is there is probably a wider variety of operating systems available today than at any other time in the history of personal computing.
The fact that not all of these operating systems are on equal footing in terms of hardware and software support is a result of effeciences of scale. The scale argument is the reason against diverse operating environments.(I include the hardware in along with the OS)
Buying shelf space, and preventing competing products from being visible are not mutually exclusive.
The primary tactic in sales is to buy the endcap displays, which are the areas with the highest visibility. Now obviously if Coke has the endcaps, Pepsi isn't going to have the visibility, etc.
So are you suggesting we making buying product positioning illegal? Across the board? I'll bet you get quite a bit of push back on that not from the product producers, but rather from the retailers.
Honestly, I wish more people would take the time to think.
"So, dumbfuck, you might want to get a clue before insulting people."
Big words from a Coward.
Re:The kicker's in the tail
on
SuSE 7.3 vs XP
·
· Score: 2
Anyone who was moving from WinNT/2k experience to WinXP would find it trivial.
"By trying to hide the inescapable fact that you do need to know what you're doing with WinXP (as you need to know with Linux), Microsoft has actually made it harder for those who do actually have a clue to drive it. How curious."
I question whether you have a clue if your only previous experience with Windows is Win98.
Huh? Buying shelf space is business as usual in the United States.
Oh but wait! It get's worse than that. Can you believe that companies often given money to retailers so that they will *SHOCK* advertise their products?
I'm actually becoming sick to my stomach thinking that there are people in this nation as naive and stupid as yourself.:(
"What can happen, though, is that rather than both of these sides adding together to find solutions, is rather that they cancel out and the party end up doing virtually nothing for their entire term. "
That is the situation we have in the United States. We have terribly ineffecient use of tax dollars in this nation because our two parties can't figure out how to compromise and come up with programs that work.
Instead every two years we switch directions and do the exact opposite just to prove the other guy was wrong.
The only people who claim the Democrats are pure Liberals is Rush Limbaugh dittoheads. Weren't you paying attention to Ralph Nader in the 2000 election?
"The Democratic Party is trying to expand government power at an ever increasing rate."
And the Republican Party is different in what way?
"they deny the individual the opportunity to decide for themselves how their hard-earned money is spent."
The people already decided. Were you not around for September 11th? The people decided that they wanted their hard-earned money spent on increased security. Get rid of morons guarding our airports and install qualified personnel. That's why the National Guard is there today, and guess who pays for their presence?
"This is a limitation of their freedom."
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
We also have border patrols preventing the freedom of movement of non-US citizens. Is that wrong as well? We could sure save everybody a lot of money by not paying those people.
The Declaration of Independence starts out with a phrase "We the people..." and goes from there. Any government is a collective whereby the people give up certain rights and freedom in order to attain economic and physical security.
The principles inherent in the United States is that "We the people..." have a say in defining how our collective operates. That was a very Liberal concept at the time of it's creation, in a world where most people were ruled by king or some other authoratarian.
It's ridiculous for you to argue that we should not have discussions about federalizing airport security because it limits freedoms. It is most obviously clear that all laws and decisions of the government limits freedoms. Do you want to eliminate all laws? I doubt it, even most Libertarians aren't that bad.
This is again the problem when people do not think for themselves but instead suck up the bullshit fed to them on talk radio.
The other poster already pointed out that sometimes the greater good of the populace is upheld by laws that limit freedom. There is a burden of proof required to pass such a law, and that is why we have political debate.
Is your freedom worth ten's of thousands of lives? I don't know, maybe. Would gun control laws do any good? I don't know, maybe. That's all part of the debate.
But that debate cannot happen in an intelligent fashion when you try to polarize the issues involved.
It's weird. You know how to use a dictionary, and even looked up the definition of socialism and yet you still continue to confuse the term.
One of the unfortunate problems with the political system in the United States right now is people like you who have no critical thinking skills. You listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you, and believe every word of it.
I just can't imagine how your original bullshit got modded up. More dittoheads I guess.
Agreed. Honestly that's always been sort of this issue in the back of people's minds but I am not aware of any court cases that have decided the issue.
I believe UCITA has language in it which makes shrinkwrap licenses legally binding... sort of a "well just in case, we'll put this in there."
This software licensing area has gotten quite ridiculous. I don't have a license when I buy a CD, book or any other copyrighted material off the shelf... why software?
It's time we start applying copyright law to software and move away from this nebulous in between copyright and trade secret. One or the other, but not both.
There are people in this world so devoted to a religion that any attempt to point out how ludicruous it is is met with a blank stare.
But what I wonder is when software development became a religion? And who appointed RMS as God?
As far as personal attacks go, if you go to gnu.org you will see that most of the arguments there are emotional in nature rather than technical or logical. Most of the refutation is simply to explain what the GNU motives are.(such as eliminating salaries for programmers, etc.)
VB would be most comparable to using CNC tools in a machine shop... not legos.
For most development tasks done in house there is simply no need to waste your precious time screwing around with C++.
It's clear you don't know much about VB... Which is unfortunately pretty typical.:(
This is not to say that I intend on using VB.Net. I'm a C programmer myself, and find C# to be appealing. But the point is, it is there if someone does want to use it. If Microsoft abandoned the language syntax completely, they'd lose the majority of their development community.
How do you write a switch statement in VB? Now how about VB.Net?
What about a For...Next loop?
Maybe you aren't aware, but the syntax changes made to VB.Net aren't as substantial as you think. The main differences was the deprication of primitives that are no longer meaningful and haven't been for years. They also improved symmetry and orthogonality, and the syntax for procedure declarations has changed to reflect the new capabilities.
It continues to amaze me over and over how often Richard Stallman is refuted substantively, and yet people such as this poster continue to ignore this and focus solely on the personal attacks.
What would be the point of responding to you if you don't read the arguments?
"I'm talking from the point of view of a business manager who doesn't want to spend a huge salary on COBOL consultants when they could spend much less money on a java programmer if they re-write the software in a more commonly known language. "
Uhh, yeah... whatever.
Look, you don't know what you are talking about. That's clear because you've taken a problem that is really quite complex and tried to simplify it down to "people are just lazy."
Obviously you've never worked in a largescale IT environment.
As I said, you have a very naive view of software development.
Most software is built within companies for use in day to day internal business. It is not shipped out the door, there are no 8am deadlines where you are working by yourself.
"I bet that almost every company has source in more than one language, but most don't expect that code to be able to talk to each other. "
Yes, because it's never worked well in the past. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't work well.
"How do you get news that is not biased? Name one place (besides first hand) to get unbiased news."
There are a variety of websites which simply link to interesting articles. Slashdot is very selective in which stories they link to... they have to keep the troll content up somehow.
"But I fail to see how all of this shows that this = language neutrality and therefore this = a very easy transition/upgrade for many developers out there? "
That's because you started with a flawed premise...
"The old VB is, for all intents and purposes, GONE. In its place is a language that has almost a completely different syntax and environment, but is called VB. "
Sorry but the differences are not that substantial. Yes, it'll be difficult to take existing code and drop it right into place. But on the other hand for someone already familiar with the VB syntax it's a trivial transition.
You seem to have a very naive view of software development.
Most companies already have at least a half dozen or so different languages deployed throughout the enterprise. (VB, C++, Uniface, Java, Delphi, COBOL, etc. etc.)
I don't know anyone ignorant enough to think that they will ever be able to replace all software with a single language/platform as you suggest.
VB.Net does remove some of the cruft that was left over from interpreted BASIC, and makes some of the syntax more consistent and orthogonal. VB.Net now offers more OOP functionality, as well as the ability to do multi-threaded apps, services, console apps and so on.
But primitives such as For...Next and so on all operate the same way, which is sort of the point.
To clarify, most of the developers I work with are doing COM middle tier work. Your experience with VB apparently is limited to version 3.0 under Win3.1.:(
Slashdot Mirror
I guess I should clarify my one statement.
Win2k is much more than just adequate for a home network, it's complete overkill but it is what I use.
WinXP Pro would make a more than adequate file and web server for a home user. Actually with XP's built in firewall and internet connection sharing you wouldn't have a problem with that route either.
"I also wouldn't do without Linux. I use it as a firewall/proxy/Samba server and occasionally run a webserver on it with DHCP."
Wow, that's some heavy duty processing!
"Windows doesn't come close to being as capable for these services on my home network."
Hmm, I bought a Linksys firewall/router last year for $80 which pretty much covers half your use. I don't see why you think WinXP can't handle an occasional web server or file sharing. Maybe you need the Pro version, but other than that.
I use Win2k server at home for these services and much more. It's more than adequate for a home network.
"Got to automatically crop a bunch of pictures to a specific file size, hard to beat Imagemagik from the command line on Linux."
Yeah, Imagemagick is pretty cool for some things.
"Please don't ask me to get it working on XP. "
Why? It works the same on XP as it does on Linux.
"I've long since given up or even looking forward to the day when Windows can."
Weird, because Windows does everything you've talked about in this article and a whole lot more.
Being modular is part of the problem. The entire help system, the file system explorer, large parts of applications and so on are all reliant upon the HTML rendering engine of Internet Explorer.
Honestly, Microsoft should just remove iexplore.exe from the system and say "There we've removed IE." and leave it at that. Instead they are arguing semantics with people who are technically incompetent.
I also don't see an argument for why we need a diversity of operating systems. Or rather, why you feel we don't already today have a diversity of operating systems. Linux is available, so is various forms of MacOS, BSD and so on. Fact is there is probably a wider variety of operating systems available today than at any other time in the history of personal computing.
The fact that not all of these operating systems are on equal footing in terms of hardware and software support is a result of effeciences of scale. The scale argument is the reason against diverse operating environments.(I include the hardware in along with the OS)
Weird. I didn't make any specific claims, yet all of you troglodytes went off and attacked me.
Buying shelf space, and preventing competing products from being visible are not mutually exclusive.
The primary tactic in sales is to buy the endcap displays, which are the areas with the highest visibility. Now obviously if Coke has the endcaps, Pepsi isn't going to have the visibility, etc.
So are you suggesting we making buying product positioning illegal? Across the board? I'll bet you get quite a bit of push back on that not from the product producers, but rather from the retailers.
Honestly, I wish more people would take the time to think.
"So, dumbfuck, you might want to get a clue before insulting people."
Big words from a Coward.
Anyone who was moving from WinNT/2k experience to WinXP would find it trivial.
"By trying to hide the inescapable fact that you do need to know what you're doing with WinXP (as you need to know with Linux), Microsoft has actually made it harder for those who do actually have a clue to drive it. How curious."
I question whether you have a clue if your only previous experience with Windows is Win98.
Huh? Buying shelf space is business as usual in the United States.
:(
Oh but wait! It get's worse than that. Can you believe that companies often given money to retailers so that they will *SHOCK* advertise their products?
I'm actually becoming sick to my stomach thinking that there are people in this nation as naive and stupid as yourself.
"What can happen, though, is that rather than both of these sides adding together to find solutions, is rather that they cancel out and the party end up doing virtually nothing for their entire term. "
That is the situation we have in the United States. We have terribly ineffecient use of tax dollars in this nation because our two parties can't figure out how to compromise and come up with programs that work.
Instead every two years we switch directions and do the exact opposite just to prove the other guy was wrong.
"the Democratic Party is not a liberal party."
The only people who claim the Democrats are pure Liberals is Rush Limbaugh dittoheads. Weren't you paying attention to Ralph Nader in the 2000 election?
"The Democratic Party is trying to expand government power at an ever increasing rate."
And the Republican Party is different in what way?
"they deny the individual the opportunity to decide for themselves how their hard-earned money is spent."
The people already decided. Were you not around for September 11th? The people decided that they wanted their hard-earned money spent on increased security. Get rid of morons guarding our airports and install qualified personnel. That's why the National Guard is there today, and guess who pays for their presence?
"This is a limitation of their freedom."
The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few.
We also have border patrols preventing the freedom of movement of non-US citizens. Is that wrong as well? We could sure save everybody a lot of money by not paying those people.
The Declaration of Independence starts out with a phrase "We the people..." and goes from there. Any government is a collective whereby the people give up certain rights and freedom in order to attain economic and physical security.
The principles inherent in the United States is that "We the people..." have a say in defining how our collective operates. That was a very Liberal concept at the time of it's creation, in a world where most people were ruled by king or some other authoratarian.
It's ridiculous for you to argue that we should not have discussions about federalizing airport security because it limits freedoms. It is most obviously clear that all laws and decisions of the government limits freedoms. Do you want to eliminate all laws? I doubt it, even most Libertarians aren't that bad.
This is again the problem when people do not think for themselves but instead suck up the bullshit fed to them on talk radio.
No, see you have polarized the argument.
The other poster already pointed out that sometimes the greater good of the populace is upheld by laws that limit freedom. There is a burden of proof required to pass such a law, and that is why we have political debate.
Is your freedom worth ten's of thousands of lives? I don't know, maybe. Would gun control laws do any good? I don't know, maybe. That's all part of the debate.
But that debate cannot happen in an intelligent fashion when you try to polarize the issues involved.
It's weird. You know how to use a dictionary, and even looked up the definition of socialism and yet you still continue to confuse the term.
One of the unfortunate problems with the political system in the United States right now is people like you who have no critical thinking skills. You listen to what Rush Limbaugh tells you, and believe every word of it.
I just can't imagine how your original bullshit got modded up. More dittoheads I guess.
"Liberalism (at least here in the USA) calls for the creation of a socialist state "for the good of the citizen". "
Huh?
You are thinking of the Christian Coalition/Moral Majority conservative Republicans there, bucko my boy.
"I tend to run on the conservative side, because I think that government should not be allowed to invade privacy on a whim. "
Oh you mean you are liberal, like myself.
You've really got your terms confused.
"But I think the definitions are fairly unbiased and true. (I'm sure many will disagree with that, too)"
Well at least you admit to your biased misrepresentation of the facts.
Agreed. Honestly that's always been sort of this issue in the back of people's minds but I am not aware of any court cases that have decided the issue.
I believe UCITA has language in it which makes shrinkwrap licenses legally binding... sort of a "well just in case, we'll put this in there."
This software licensing area has gotten quite ridiculous. I don't have a license when I buy a CD, book or any other copyrighted material off the shelf... why software?
It's time we start applying copyright law to software and move away from this nebulous in between copyright and trade secret. One or the other, but not both.
There are people in this world so devoted to a religion that any attempt to point out how ludicruous it is is met with a blank stare.
But what I wonder is when software development became a religion? And who appointed RMS as God?
As far as personal attacks go, if you go to gnu.org you will see that most of the arguments there are emotional in nature rather than technical or logical. Most of the refutation is simply to explain what the GNU motives are.(such as eliminating salaries for programmers, etc.)
VB would be most comparable to using CNC tools in a machine shop... not legos.
:(
For most development tasks done in house there is simply no need to waste your precious time screwing around with C++.
It's clear you don't know much about VB... Which is unfortunately pretty typical.
This is not to say that I intend on using VB.Net. I'm a C programmer myself, and find C# to be appealing. But the point is, it is there if someone does want to use it. If Microsoft abandoned the language syntax completely, they'd lose the majority of their development community.
How do you write a switch statement in VB? Now how about VB.Net?
What about a For...Next loop?
Maybe you aren't aware, but the syntax changes made to VB.Net aren't as substantial as you think. The main differences was the deprication of primitives that are no longer meaningful and haven't been for years. They also improved symmetry and orthogonality, and the syntax for procedure declarations has changed to reflect the new capabilities.
It continues to amaze me over and over how often Richard Stallman is refuted substantively, and yet people such as this poster continue to ignore this and focus solely on the personal attacks.
What would be the point of responding to you if you don't read the arguments?
"I'm talking from the point of view of a business manager who doesn't want to spend a huge salary on COBOL consultants when they could spend much less money on a java programmer if they re-write the software in a more commonly known language. "
Uhh, yeah... whatever.
Look, you don't know what you are talking about. That's clear because you've taken a problem that is really quite complex and tried to simplify it down to "people are just lazy."
Obviously you've never worked in a largescale IT environment.
"But those teams DON'T WORK TOGETHER. "
As I said, you have a very naive view of software development.
Most software is built within companies for use in day to day internal business. It is not shipped out the door, there are no 8am deadlines where you are working by yourself.
"I bet that almost every company has source in more than one language, but most don't expect that code to be able to talk to each other. "
Yes, because it's never worked well in the past. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't work well.
"How do you get news that is not biased? Name one place (besides first hand) to get unbiased news."
There are a variety of websites which simply link to interesting articles. Slashdot is very selective in which stories they link to... they have to keep the troll content up somehow.
"But I fail to see how all of this shows that this = language neutrality and therefore this = a very easy transition/upgrade for many developers out there? "
That's because you started with a flawed premise...
"The old VB is, for all intents and purposes, GONE. In its place is a language that has almost a completely different syntax and environment, but is called VB. "
Sorry but the differences are not that substantial. Yes, it'll be difficult to take existing code and drop it right into place. But on the other hand for someone already familiar with the VB syntax it's a trivial transition.
You seem to have a very naive view of software development.
Most companies already have at least a half dozen or so different languages deployed throughout the enterprise. (VB, C++, Uniface, Java, Delphi, COBOL, etc. etc.)
I don't know anyone ignorant enough to think that they will ever be able to replace all software with a single language/platform as you suggest.
VB.Net does remove some of the cruft that was left over from interpreted BASIC, and makes some of the syntax more consistent and orthogonal. VB.Net now offers more OOP functionality, as well as the ability to do multi-threaded apps, services, console apps and so on.
But primitives such as For...Next and so on all operate the same way, which is sort of the point.
Sigh.
:(
To clarify, most of the developers I work with are doing COM middle tier work. Your experience with VB apparently is limited to version 3.0 under Win3.1.