You can't compare Microsoft with Unix. You might compare Microsoft with Sun or with HP but if all Unix boxes were Sun boxes your argument goes out the window (no pun intended). Windows 95 & NT have different API's just like different Unix's might.
My gripe is that Microsoft have engineered an environment where everything is supposed to be the same. Every desktop looks alike and every application looks/works alike and innovation in design can't happen any more. Microsoft is on nearly every business desktop (can you say "single point of failure"?) and the whole IT world is in danger of becoming just one huge pile of dead clones. Reminds me of the book/film 1994.
It's called Earth, and it's big and it has one hell of a lot of testers. Microsoft could use the same testing lab but unfortunately they have no line of communication between this planet and whatever planet they happen to be living on.
Isn't this exactly what the QPL does? I've been thinking that great though the GPL is, it's starting to come at too high a price. Maybe it would be good to change to a new license even it is a practical impossibility.
In my view, sales is not the best place from which to understand business.
The point you miss is that any largish organisation will employ a VAR or possibly a Linux distributor (who are ultimately just glorified VARS) direct or even a hardware manufacturer when considering a new project.
The business will enter into a contract with the supplier in order to plan, implement and support the project.
At this point, the business has someone who is accountable. The model is exactly the same as with any other operating system. You can not sue the OEM, you can only sue your supplier and if you use a supplier for a major project without a solid contract then you definately eat quiche.
The "Linux is not accountable" argument is pure fiction.
Any large and successful movement has a small group who hijack it for their own obsession. Much as I respect RMS, I feel it's time to let the amazing amount of lawyers the GPL has created go back to working on the Hurd. Leave Linux to the vast majority, who just want a good Unix-like operating system that does the job and allows us to play with the code. Seems the GPL comes with too much baggage and perhaps Linux should be QPL'd/NPL'd or just plain LPL'd.
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the QE2 was a boat!
You can't compare Microsoft with Unix. You might compare Microsoft with Sun or with HP but if all Unix boxes were Sun boxes your argument goes out the window (no pun intended). Windows 95 & NT have different API's just like different Unix's might.
My gripe is that Microsoft have engineered an environment where everything is supposed to be the same. Every desktop looks alike and every application looks/works alike and innovation in design can't happen any more. Microsoft is on nearly every business desktop (can you say "single point of failure"?) and the whole IT world is in danger of becoming just one huge pile of dead clones. Reminds me of the book/film 1994.
Regards
It's called Earth, and it's big and it has one hell of a lot of testers. Microsoft could use the same testing lab but unfortunately they have no line of communication between this planet and whatever planet they happen to be living on.
Now if only I'd get my web page sorted out properly, I could put it on there too.
Isn't this exactly what the QPL does? I've been thinking that great though the GPL is, it's starting to come at too high a price. Maybe it would be good to change to a new license even it is a practical impossibility.
Regards
In my view, sales is not the best place from which to understand business.
The point you miss is that any largish organisation will employ a VAR or possibly a Linux distributor (who are ultimately just glorified VARS) direct or even a hardware manufacturer when considering a new project.
The business will enter into a contract with the supplier in order to plan, implement and support the project.
At this point, the business has someone who is accountable. The model is exactly the same as with any other operating system. You can not sue the OEM, you can only sue your supplier and if you use a supplier for a major project without a solid contract then you definately eat quiche.
The "Linux is not accountable" argument is pure fiction.
Best regards
Mark
Having used all three, I'd have to say the optimum location for these three DE's are
KDE - At the Office, on the desktop.
GNOME - At home so you can play with themes.
CDE - in the bin.
Remember, it's "KDE at the office & Gnome at home"
Regards
Any large and successful movement has a small group who hijack it for their own obsession. Much as I respect RMS, I feel it's time to let the amazing amount of lawyers the GPL has created go back to working on the Hurd. Leave Linux to the vast majority, who just want a good Unix-like operating system that does the job and allows us to play with the code. Seems the GPL comes with too much baggage and perhaps Linux should be QPL'd/NPL'd or just plain LPL'd.