I could not agree more. I find that the documentation I produce for my company is always much better after a couple pints of Guinness. If the beer is paid for by the marketing group, my HOW-TOs really can't be beat.
OK, so a lot of their functionality relies on having an HTML renderer available. Why not make which HTML renderer to use configurable (use an environment variable, or whatever Windows' equivalent is).
I really like *BSD, and it is often the better choice for a server, but it depends on what you are running. For example, my company chose linux over *BSD because currently java programs tend to run faster on linux.
I think that it is interesting that you use FreeBSD's stability and speed as an example of why open source is not for business use. The last time I checked, FreeBSD is open source.
I think that your concept of XML is exactly backwards. Instead of being equivalent to binary data, I would say that XML can be used like text data used to be.
One of the great things about the Unix philosophy is the notion that programs should use text for their input and output. This allows for programs to be piped together, and large problems can be solved by combining many small solutions.
As data becomes more complex and is shared among many different machines and architectures, straight text files are no longer sufficient. This is where XML comes in. Not only is it compatible and universal across machine types and OS's, but it is also able to be shared across any program.
Slashdot Mirror
I could not agree more. I find that the documentation I produce for my company is always much better after a couple pints of Guinness. If the beer is paid for by the marketing group, my HOW-TOs really can't be beat.
OK, so a lot of their functionality relies on having an HTML renderer available. Why not make which HTML renderer to use configurable (use an environment variable, or whatever Windows' equivalent is).
I really like *BSD, and it is often the better choice for a server, but it depends on what you are running. For example, my company chose linux over *BSD because currently java programs tend to run faster on linux.
The article was talking about running 2.4 on server machines, not on desktops. Most servers don't care about USB or sound cards.
I think that it is interesting that you use FreeBSD's stability and speed as an example of why open source is not for business use. The last time I checked, FreeBSD is open source.
I think that your concept of XML is exactly backwards. Instead of being equivalent to binary data, I would say that XML can be used like text data used to be.
One of the great things about the Unix philosophy is the notion that programs should use text for their input and output. This allows for programs to be piped together, and large problems can be solved by combining many small solutions.
As data becomes more complex and is shared among many different machines and architectures, straight text files are no longer sufficient. This is where XML comes in. Not only is it compatible and universal across machine types and OS's, but it is also able to be shared across any program.