haw can you explain to me the fact, that bad MS' technologies (bad technologicaly, bad in usability, bad in price) have suceeds?
technologies like: - MS windows 3.1 - MS DOS GUI priced as whole OS - MS windows 95 - 32 bin GUI over 16 bit OS - MS windows 98 - more bloated w95; someone can also point out "overpriced win95 bug-fix" - MS windows NT - 32 bit OS still mostly functioning using FAT from good old DOS (see recent CNET's article - sorry, do not have URL) which is not very secure and/or stable even on native NTFS - MS windows 2000: some branches are just more bloated windows9X, some branches are just more bloated windows NT with far more "features" which masquerades underlaying bugs (like automatic repair); not mentioning licensing issues (does not we alredy pay them enought for BETA software to at least receive just w2k at some more reasonable price?) - new MS' digital music file format - cracked few days after release - MS Office - interoperability with other office packages at almost 0 level (not 0 mostly thanks to support of proprietary MS office format in other offices (and mostly reverse engineered)) -...
the only explanation to me is: MS have monopoly in computer market.
you argued about "which market": well, i think the whole computer market. why? people are making markets (they are key elements of them; when there are no people, there is no market). thus if almost all people think that MS windows + office = computer i consider it MS has monopoly in computer market. (did you ever try for example to explain to "comon user" the diference between PC and windows? did you ever convince such "common user" to use something else to just turn lights on/off in his office than PC+windows if the lights have label "can be controled by computer"?...)
... in case they found M$ guilty (as IMHO they are):
force M$ to publish and document any API and file format which relates to something they have monopoly in (i.e. windows API, office suite file formats,...).
such solution should be far easier to control and also did not deny M$' "right to inovate".
on the other hand, breaking M$ can make havoc above their customers and can result in making the situation no better than now.
once upon a time i was reading some pages at www.microsoft.com with my netscape on my linux box. pages were related to DOJ vs. MS law-suit. there were (on MS' pages) also possibility to write my opinion about the case.
so i wrote it and submitted.
but submission failed. it failed more than once. to be more precise, i tried 4 times and it failed 4 times. (error: Microsoft VBScript runtime error 'XXXXXXXX')
so i take action based on info from error page: go to another page and fill error report.
error report asked about lots of things but two of them were OS and BROWSER. i happily fill them with "linux" and "netscape".
error form submission failed too. i tried 3 times.
then i "corrected" those two fields to "windows" and "explorer" and - surprise - error form worked!
after some time some person from MS tech-support contacted me. so i repeated my original reports about errors in their forms. i received reply: linux is not supported by us
i tried 3 times to make argument that such errors are not related to my machine or browser (only in case theire scripts are handling such info and are handling it with less success - which is again not my fault). i failed.
what's the point? maybe the only legitimate and truly meant "response" from microsoft is "runtime_error-we_do_not_support_that-internal_ser ver_eror-server_is_busy-...
while i'm big friend of open source (or at least software provided with source) i'm not paying big attention to binary portability. i'm caring more about source portability. that's why i'm not that unhappy about linux's xterm binary not running on solaris. but i'm very happy that i can compile (and then run) one xterm source under both linux and solaris.
while a lot of people sees java's speed (slowness) as problem, there are projects based on compiling java source into native binary (if i'm right egcs got something like that). thus we have advantages of java (quick and untrobled development, platform independent) and advantages of native binary (quick, optimised for specific OS) at the same time.
with such solutions i'm not trading any speed but i'm taking adtvantages of both speed of native binary and java's portability.
that's why i'm now that content with UNIX systems: source for a lot of applications are portable without a lot of trouble (+ i'm not fully dependent on manufacturer). java moves that just slightly further.:)
business of making money: like with democracy: it tooks us time to achieve democracy from stone age. it also takes us another time to achieve bussines where making money is not equal to hurting anybody. it just requires some tolerance and good will. i'm maybe too optimistic but i think it'll be like that some time. (problem lays mostly in companies using very bad practises: like MS destroying anything (even good) which competes with them, Sun acting almost exactly like MS in some situations (java,...))
p.s.: i think that even character-based apps got look-and-feel issue
i want such installer to be "native". i.e. if i'm using red hat linux i want to be able to use RPM to install such application.
so what "we" need is some common package management software which will install packages, runs their custom install scripts and eeps note of which files are from which package and which package need another package so we need something like RPM on all platforms. i'm not saying it have to be RPM. i'm saying something like RPM.
AFAIK windows do not have such packaging system thus it's time to make some. (same for other systems). and if done good we can have system able to install both native and java (then maybe perl, python,... apps too) not forcing admin to use many packaging and/or install systems.
install-shield and alike products are just delivery and install scripts - not package management systems.
i heard that GNU tools are much better than company specific ones. so i'm curious if you have them on your solaris. if so, isn't it prove that application designed for lover denominator (this time GNU utils designed for POSIX compliant UNIX systems) are successfull and usefull too?
also i want ask how much similar (or diferent) are those two Xterms (one from linux, one from solaris) to you? and how diferent they are in comparison to cmd.exe? isn't this similarity of xterms just another example (IMHO good example) that lower denominator is good and isn't this diferency example (IMHO good example) of disadvantages of mainaining incomatibility without usefull purpose?
did you ever think about world where MS got just about 40% of market share? how will ISV choice looks like in such situation?
in present situation (90% market share - as you write it) ISV "chooses" to ignore 10% just to satisfy 90% (which IMO furthers MS dominance) - you write us why. it clearly demonstrates, that in OS market for PC (which are dominant platform on earth), there is no competition and that this monopoly is hurting customers.
it is maybe hurting just 10% of them but even when "only" 10% are hurted it's enought to do something to avoid such damage.
that's why i think we have to fight to keep java cross-platform because otherwise it will be just another programming language.
with cross-platform java we CAN satisfy 100% of customers. it just requires some knowlege and some courage. you have to design and then implement core functionality properly and than think about how it "feels". but if you want just make your customers to "oah-it's-cute. wow-it's-animated! uhhh-it-is-popping-up." than you happily use any library which provides you with such tricks no matter which disadvantages it has.
who's interested in animated menus when aplication clearly can't perform task it was designed for? a lot of people. but it's just temporarily status (like mode). soon, computers will be comodity and then majority will seek functionality, not look-and-feel. by that time "designed-exclusively-for-MS-windows" wont be important anymore. and java is one of things which help to bring such times here soon.
i think you are talking about 2.2.11-preX - there was one note about FS corruption under 2.2.11-pre4 (AFAIR) and also i personaly got FS corruption under 2.2.11-pre7 (after 40 minutes).
now i'm running on 2.2.11 for about 5 hours and nothing like FS corruption yet.
when using such remote access tools, windows got big problems running apps (for concurently logged users) because of same reason i mentioned (as you wrote: stupidly made applications): apps compete for files/resources/... assuming they are runing in only one instance (this relates to 3rd party products but to MS' own Office suit too IMHO)
having remote access (text or GUI based) is ONE thing and having whole system (not just kernel and some services) multiuser is SECOND thing
those PHB's arguments are not just "slightly misunderstood" but irrational!
if you (engeneer) did bad decisiona about software, you/your boss/your firm/... loose: 1) cost of software (not usable thus lost) 2) damages caused by bad decision (lost income, etc.)
"2nd" can't be changed (i'm talking about situation after damage) but when you (engeneer) did use free software, "1st" is $0 (or cost of CD or internet connection). and "1st" can be pretty big bunch of money when using some commercial solution!
AFAIK there's nothing stopping you writing your own multiuser shell onto the existing multiuser kernel and running it as user mode code (the NT4 windowing stuff runs in kernel mode).
does it mean i have to write new windowing stuff too? (to avoid conflicts between users) or whole kernel?
i looks to me like win3.X hase same level of "multiuserness" as win NT. because for me "multiuser-OS" means that each user have everything separated, not just login name, password and some desktop settings. by everything i mean also every existing app preferencies to be stored separately for each user. also i mean (if remote access is possible) to be able to work with system at the same time as another user. etc.
example: i'm still "fighting" with my colegue on photoshop pelettes positions and some other preferences because adobe takes same "multiuser" policy as microsoft.
once i was making some wheather-parameters displaying application for win95. while i did not have 32bit development tool, i did it using TurboPascal for Windows (16bit compiler not aware of win32 API).
i was developing on win95 and the main task was to setup (for example) 100x100 pixels window and redraw all of it (i.e. no titles, borders etc.). i did use some API calls to determine title width and height, border width etc. but when i run resulting app (which works well under win95) on win3.1, windows did not have correct sizes thus result was "damaged" byt gray areas around each window. when run on winNT 4, there were problems mostly with properly displaying 256 color bitmaps and from time to time with fonts/texts (not good alignment, positioning and/or clipping)
i'm not saying it's all fault of windows, maybe i did something wrong but all info about APIs i get from TP help (which i consider good).
maybe RH's employees which made support are all hard-core linux hackers (or whatever) which just are not accustomed to answer question to completely-dumb (not educated, not knowing what they are talking about) users.
such users are the key to M$ success (just leave them dumb and happy and take a lot of money from them for it).
i think a lot of such complaints about RH's support such as yours comes from hardcore windows users which hate to learn anything thus they feel under attack when someone sugest them to read 10 lines from some HOWTO.
i also have to say that i never called MS support but a friend of mine worked for such and i had a chance to hear some answers: those answers were not helping you with your problem. they were just helping you with the actual incarnation of problem. such answer did not provide you with "how it works" so you do not know why it did not works. and such answers i'm not counting as "good support".
(i also understand, that "good" support do not makes the supporter a lot of money. same as "stable and fully featured windows": no one will upgrade them thus M$ is not producing them)
... Microsoft, FUD, El Nino, et cetera claim the chances of budding pre-geeks to learn.
... which will lead us to society where dumb people will be big majority and they "happily" give their [vote/power/influence/...] to some [person/interest group/commpany] and all "other" people will be forced to "play the game" with "their rules" (no freedom).
looks like common sci-fi society but sci-fi authors think about what they write (mostly:) so it will probably happen.
thus i'm fighting such attitudes mentioned in article. (how? mostly by spreading knowledge i can and talking about "knowledge is important. so learn something and do not let someone else think for you.")
merced as competition to aplha will lead alpha to be better and better thus i'm very happy intel is working on it (even when they are (for now) far worse than alpha).
just encourage competition so we can get better products at better prices and with a lot of choises.
both merced and w2k faces uncertain future (will NT4 users upgrade to w2k soon? will enterprise pentium users upgrade to merced?).
and if you merge those two (while they are still trying to make a duo/coalition) their future is even more uncertain.
but anyway, whether they both will suceed ot not (or both fail) it can be good: it'll show the people that past years of "inovation" as performed by wintel coalition has been mostly result of marketing (because real inovation is done in laboratories, not on papers containing press releases).
it can also cost us (or them? or some other users? ot some other developer?...) lot.
BadlandZ did not said "everybody have to optimize".
he said, that with open-source software we can optimize for specific hardware we have.
if someone is satisfied with working system, it's OK. if someone else is satisfied only with optimised system, it's OK too if he can do such optimisation.
it's about possibilities not about what you have to do.
so to be more precise: with proprietary software without sources you get only those binary forms supplied by manufacturer (thus if code optimised for K6 is not available, than you as owner of K6 can't do anything). but if you have source code and compiler capable of optimising for K6, that you are happy owner of K6. (note: K6 is just example - Alpha, PPC, PIII,... are issues too)
Stop bashing and start looking for the best solution to your IT problems... don't use a product simply because of who does, or does not make it.
the only group i know about which is very frequently using arguments and decisions based on "who [does/does not] make this product" are the ones which deploy MS products (notably NT on servers).
...features that customers want, not just what we want.
i think that "customer's features" are (at least now) conflicting with "our" features thus implementing them means poluting system.
i'm not against "linux for dummies" or "linux for exWindozers" but i think that better solution is to leave BE, MacOS or whatever to "windozers" and linux, FreeBSD, ULTRIX, Solaris or whatever to "techies".
i prefer set of optimised tools rather than one universal tool (for everything but not doing anything good).
Slashdot Mirror
technologies like: ...
- MS windows 3.1 - MS DOS GUI priced as whole OS
- MS windows 95 - 32 bin GUI over 16 bit OS - MS windows 98 - more bloated w95; someone can also point out "overpriced win95 bug-fix"
- MS windows NT - 32 bit OS still mostly functioning using FAT from good old DOS (see recent CNET's article - sorry, do not have URL) which is not very secure and/or stable even on native NTFS
- MS windows 2000: some branches are just more bloated windows9X, some branches are just more bloated windows NT with far more "features" which masquerades underlaying bugs (like automatic repair); not mentioning licensing issues (does not we alredy pay them enought for BETA software to at least receive just w2k at some more reasonable price?)
- new MS' digital music file format - cracked few days after release - MS Office - interoperability with other office packages at almost 0 level (not 0 mostly thanks to support of proprietary MS office format in other offices (and mostly reverse engineered))
-
the only explanation to me is: MS have monopoly in computer market.
you argued about "which market": well, i think the whole computer market. why? people are making markets (they are key elements of them; when there are no people, there is no market). thus if almost all people think that MS windows + office = computer i consider it MS has monopoly in computer market. ...)
(did you ever try for example to explain to "comon user" the diference between PC and windows? did you ever convince such "common user" to use something else to just turn lights on/off in his office than PC+windows if the lights have label "can be controled by computer"?
force M$ to publish and document any API and file format which relates to something they have monopoly in (i.e. windows API, office suite file formats, ...).
such solution should be far easier to control and also did not deny M$' "right to inovate".
on the other hand, breaking M$ can make havoc above their customers and can result in making the situation no better than now.
imagine disabling your competitor's server/network/... just for The Right Moment(tm) ...
:)
so i wrote it and submitted.
but submission failed. it failed more than once. to be more precise, i tried 4 times and it failed 4 times. (error: Microsoft VBScript runtime error 'XXXXXXXX')
so i take action based on info from error page: go to another page and fill error report.
error report asked about lots of things but two of them were OS and BROWSER.
i happily fill them with "linux" and "netscape".
error form submission failed too. i tried 3 times.
then i "corrected" those two fields to "windows" and "explorer" and - surprise - error form worked!
after some time some person from MS tech-support contacted me. so i repeated my original reports about errors in their forms.
i received reply: linux is not supported by us
i tried 3 times to make argument that such errors are not related to my machine or browser (only in case theire scripts are handling such info and are handling it with less success - which is again not my fault).
i failed.
what's the point?r ver_eror-server_is_busy-...
maybe the only legitimate and truly meant "response" from microsoft is "runtime_error-we_do_not_support_that-internal_se
while a lot of people sees java's speed (slowness) as problem, there are projects based on compiling java source into native binary (if i'm right egcs got something like that). thus we have advantages of java (quick and untrobled development, platform independent) and advantages of native binary (quick, optimised for specific OS) at the same time.
with such solutions i'm not trading any speed but i'm taking adtvantages of both speed of native binary and java's portability.
that's why i'm now that content with UNIX systems: source for a lot of applications are portable without a lot of trouble (+ i'm not fully dependent on manufacturer). :)
java moves that just slightly further.
business of making money: like with democracy: it tooks us time to achieve democracy from stone age. it also takes us another time to achieve bussines where making money is not equal to hurting anybody. it just requires some tolerance and good will. ...))
i'm maybe too optimistic but i think it'll be like that some time.
(problem lays mostly in companies using very bad practises: like MS destroying anything (even good) which competes with them, Sun acting almost exactly like MS in some situations (java,
p.s.: i think that even character-based apps got look-and-feel issue
so what "we" need is some common package management software which will install packages, runs their custom install scripts and eeps note of which files are from which package and which package need another package
so we need something like RPM on all platforms.
i'm not saying it have to be RPM. i'm saying something like RPM.
AFAIK windows do not have such packaging system thus it's time to make some. (same for other systems). ... apps too) not forcing admin to use many packaging and/or install systems.
and if done good we can have system able to install both native and java (then maybe perl, python,
install-shield and alike products are just delivery and install scripts - not package management systems.
if so, isn't it prove that application designed for lover denominator (this time GNU utils designed for POSIX compliant UNIX systems) are successfull and usefull too?
also i want ask how much similar (or diferent) are those two Xterms (one from linux, one from solaris) to you? and how diferent they are in comparison to cmd.exe?
isn't this similarity of xterms just another example (IMHO good example) that lower denominator is good and isn't this diferency example (IMHO good example) of disadvantages of mainaining incomatibility without usefull purpose?
for some customers (especialy the ones which at least know that there are also other systems not just windows) such feature is very important!
how will ISV choice looks like in such situation?
in present situation (90% market share - as you write it) ISV "chooses" to ignore 10% just to satisfy 90% (which IMO furthers MS dominance) - you write us why.
it clearly demonstrates, that in OS market for PC (which are dominant platform on earth), there is no competition and that this monopoly is hurting customers.
it is maybe hurting just 10% of them but even when "only" 10% are hurted it's enought to do something to avoid such damage.
that's why i think we have to fight to keep java cross-platform because otherwise it will be just another programming language.
with cross-platform java we CAN satisfy 100% of customers. it just requires some knowlege and some courage.
you have to design and then implement core functionality properly and than think about how it "feels". but if you want just make your customers to "oah-it's-cute. wow-it's-animated! uhhh-it-is-popping-up." than you happily use any library which provides you with such tricks no matter which disadvantages it has.
who's interested in animated menus when aplication clearly can't perform task it was designed for?
a lot of people.
but it's just temporarily status (like mode). soon, computers will be comodity and then majority will seek functionality, not look-and-feel. by that time "designed-exclusively-for-MS-windows" wont be important anymore. and java is one of things which help to bring such times here soon.
a man or bunch of people can be evil.
thus company can be evil.
and i think MS acts like evil (which means MS is evil).
now i'm running on 2.2.11 for about 5 hours and nothing like FS corruption yet.
when using such remote access tools, windows got big problems running apps (for concurently logged users) because of same reason i mentioned (as you wrote: stupidly made applications): apps compete for files/resources/... assuming they are runing in only one instance (this relates to 3rd party products but to MS' own Office suit too IMHO)
having remote access (text or GUI based) is ONE thing and having whole system (not just kernel and some services) multiuser is SECOND thing
and only "second" is usable
if you (engeneer) did bad decisiona about software, you/your boss/your firm/... loose:
1) cost of software (not usable thus lost)
2) damages caused by bad decision (lost income, etc.)
"2nd" can't be changed (i'm talking about situation after damage) but when you (engeneer) did use free software, "1st" is $0 (or cost of CD or internet connection). and "1st" can be pretty big bunch of money when using some commercial solution!
does it mean i have to write new windowing stuff too? (to avoid conflicts between users)
or whole kernel?
because for me "multiuser-OS" means that each user have everything separated, not just login name, password and some desktop settings. by everything i mean also every existing app preferencies to be stored separately for each user. also i mean (if remote access is possible) to be able to work with system at the same time as another user. etc.
example: i'm still "fighting" with my colegue on photoshop pelettes positions and some other preferences because adobe takes same "multiuser" policy as microsoft.
i was developing on win95 and the main task was to setup (for example) 100x100 pixels window and redraw all of it (i.e. no titles, borders etc.). i did use some API calls to determine title width and height, border width etc.
but
when i run resulting app (which works well under win95) on win3.1, windows did not have correct sizes thus result was "damaged" byt gray areas around each window.
when run on winNT 4, there were problems mostly with properly displaying 256 color bitmaps and from time to time with fonts/texts (not good alignment, positioning and/or clipping)
i'm not saying it's all fault of windows, maybe i did something wrong but all info about APIs i get from TP help (which i consider good).
i'm sorry. i'm taking it back.
(my post is wrong as related to yours)
such users are the key to M$ success (just leave them dumb and happy and take a lot of money from them for it).
i think a lot of such complaints about RH's support such as yours comes from hardcore windows users which hate to learn anything thus they feel under attack when someone sugest them to read 10 lines from some HOWTO.
i also have to say that i never called MS support but a friend of mine worked for such and i had a chance to hear some answers: those answers were not helping you with your problem. they were just helping you with the actual incarnation of problem. such answer did not provide you with "how it works" so you do not know why it did not works. and such answers i'm not counting as "good support".
(i also understand, that "good" support do not makes the supporter a lot of money. same as "stable and fully featured windows": no one will upgrade them thus M$ is not producing them)
... which will lead us to society where dumb people will be big majority and they "happily" give their [vote/power/influence/...] to some [person/interest group/commpany] and all "other" people will be forced to "play the game" with "their rules" (no freedom).
looks like common sci-fi society but sci-fi authors think about what they write (mostly :) so it will probably happen.
thus i'm fighting such attitudes mentioned in article.
(how? mostly by spreading knowledge i can and talking about "knowledge is important. so learn something and do not let someone else think for you.")
just encourage competition so we can get better products at better prices and with a lot of choises.
and if you merge those two (while they are still trying to make a duo/coalition) their future is even more uncertain.
but anyway, whether they both will suceed ot not (or both fail) it can be good: it'll show the people that past years of "inovation" as performed by wintel coalition has been mostly result of marketing (because real inovation is done in laboratories, not on papers containing press releases).
it can also cost us (or them? or some other users? ot some other developer? ...) lot.
such answers you mentioned are very similar to extortion.
he said, that with open-source software we can optimize for specific hardware we have.
if someone is satisfied with working system, it's OK. if someone else is satisfied only with optimised system, it's OK too if he can do such optimisation.
it's about possibilities not about what you have to do.
so to be more precise: with proprietary software without sources you get only those binary forms supplied by manufacturer (thus if code optimised for K6 is not available, than you as owner of K6 can't do anything). but if you have source code and compiler capable of optimising for K6, that you are happy owner of K6. ... are issues too)
(note: K6 is just example - Alpha, PPC, PIII,
the only group i know about which is very frequently using arguments and decisions based on "who [does/does not] make this product" are the ones which deploy MS products (notably NT on servers).
i think that "customer's features" are (at least now) conflicting with "our" features thus implementing them means poluting system.
i'm not against "linux for dummies" or "linux for exWindozers" but i think that better solution is to leave BE, MacOS or whatever to "windozers" and linux, FreeBSD, ULTRIX, Solaris or whatever to "techies".
i prefer set of optimised tools rather than one universal tool (for everything but not doing anything good).