gaim-vv may not be ported to windows but gaim is. So long as they don't drastically [or at all] change the protocols you're set for MSN and YM on windows with Gaim.
Besides, the users can CHOOSE to use whatever the fuck they want. the goal of Gaim isn't to control the IM market. It doesn't even have its own protocol!!!
I'm over 20 years old, have used both Debian and Knoppix and hate both. I moved to Gentoo solely because of USE flags [well that and I like the idea of building my own source].
The problem with Debian is that they really have to participate more on the bleeding edge. Think about it. As an OSS developer you have some distro call you "unstable" and makes a default policy to ignore you. How likely are you to keep working on your tool that nobody wants to use? Sure sometimes you get stuck with a broken tool but more often than not reverting is trivial and the "unstable tools" usually work just as well [if not better].
Imagine if Windows disallowed "beta" software. There would be a lot of tools out there that would probably not exist [including a score of video games] due to lack of interest.
Given the choice I'd do my 2nd book in LaTeX. My question was targetted at the hundreds of thousands of authors who use Word for books... Sure maybe it's fine for a fiction novel or something. But software books [or math/sciences in general] where you have to include working algorithms/routines and math... Word is just all wrong.
For example, in my first book I bashed perl and latex together [mostly because I was new to latex] to give me commands that allow ripping source code directly into the document. This means if I change a routine [e.g. fix a bug in the C code] I can just recompile the book and boom new source. Compare that to Word. You have to modify your source and energy willing also fix the problem in the right spot of the book. Often though modifying source and working on a book are not done in the same time frame [specially if there is more than one file to fix].
I wouldn't say using Word has put up many barriers so far for my 2nd book but then again it hasn't been typesetted yet [or indexed]. I have had to wrestle with numbering and other oddities that I never had to do so in latex. Not only that but I have to run Windows to work on the damn book. That alone is a crying shame.
Any time a professional author spends worrying about what the final product is going to look like is wasted time. As an author you should be concentrating on what you're writing. You're not paid to be a book designer.
That just means you write too much and don't sit back and look at the impact it has. It means what you write has no substance. Or that you have a dedicated team of dozens of people working to support your work.
When you are a small group working on a book if you wait till the last minute to get the layout done it may not really do the work justice. There is more to the value of the book then just the words on the page. If your figures are all over the place, margins messed up and paragraphs not placed properly the thing can be a bitch to read. Sure there are a score of tools to do this job. But using a text editor + LaTeX is rather straightforward way of doing the job in a small group.
I don't see anything you guys have said as invalidating the merits of TeX. You say InDesign/FrameMaker can do layouts. Great. So what? TeX does them too. Does a good job at it and the tool is virtually universal. It's available for Linux, BSD, Windows and MacOS. It's free. It's standard. It's well documented [albeit the tools are not as pretty], etc, etc, etc.
My point of starting this thread was to make people think about the tasks Word is used for, for which it was not meant. Mostly to avoid the whole MSFT bashing theme common to these threads.
Hehehe that's cute. No. Your school pays to be part of the MSFT academic network. Yes, it's part of hooking them while their young but MSFT also scores money out of it.
While it's not a sizeable chunk it's still there and creeps up. I recall paying $100s in "technology" fees and all we were using were out dated 486s [in 2001] with 10Mbit networking, etc. $50 for lab fees, $50 for "technology fees", etc, etc, etc.
I'm certain it wasn't going to make sure the infrastructure was capable of being useful [often login time could be counted in minutes]. Granted in the comp.sci labs the boxes were a bit newer they were still fairly slow by comparisons. The average student had a more powerful laptop [that they bought usually because the labs were useless for doing lab work] than the workstations.
I wrote my first book before the publisher was around [hint: their is an older public domain copy of it out there]. They decided [wisely] that re-writing the book in word would be stupid. My 2nd book started after I met the publisher who "requires" me to write in it.
Believe me, it's not my choice.
Another thing I didn't mention is source code. My books have tons of real code in them. In my first book I wrote a perl script that inserts [nicely] source code in the TeX source. So I can regenerate the book any time I update the source instantly. With Word I have to copy/paste the code in there and make sure I keep things in sync. Basically now I have to fully test the code [and verify] before I can put it in the book. Which is a bit annoying if you are trying to avoid mental road blocks and want to keep the flow going.
Agreed. That's why when people ask you about your documents you say "I used LaTeX, want to see?" and start that way. Not all non-nerds are totally against progress. The problem is the ones in control tend to be that way and it's disheartening.
I think the trick is to have a good technical case and a good business case. You won't switch the world in an instance but you can certainly move things in the right direction.:-)... oh who am I kiddin, I use Word for everything at my work. Like F!@# they would use anything else hehehehe
Never used Pages or WordPerfect [I was a claris works fan back in the day... of course I was also 10 yrs old so what did I know].
Glad to hear there are proper editors out there. I've dabbled briefly in FrameMaker and it's decent too for layout. I dunno, my affinity for TeX comes from the fact that it's free and once you get over the initial learning curve, really easy to use.
I'll grant you that the error reporting in TeX totally sucks balls. Usually though my trick is to compile soon compile often. So when I get a bug I know it's in something I just recently added. The equations in LaTeX get easier with time. Once you know the jist of the \over \sqrt \lbrace whatever you can readily express pretty much anything in it.
I suppose if you are willing to spend the time you can get properly laid out document in Word as well. just from what I've seen the typical user doesn't spend the time. So they might as well learn TeX and let it do that work for them:-)
This is typical anti-OSS flamebait but I'll respond anyways.
TeX is a 30 yr old system still used today for a reason. Not saying the commercial side is bad but if you're working on a budget and need precision nothing beats TeX. Not only that but TeX is CVS friendly which comes in handy if you work in a team.
Besides, academia is moving towards Word for the very reason I cited. "oh it can do anything". Look at the recent LLNCS call for papers. They used to only accept photo-ready postscripts. Now they accept.doc files straight for the submitters.
And to add to that, writing a book in Word is cruel. You never get to see the final product and the flow/layout is just awful. When I was working on my first book I could easily make a modification then see what the final product would look like. Regenerating the entire 320 page book takes a mere minute [less really]. As an author it's encouraging to know what your presentation will look like as you work on it.
With my second book I will know what my pages look like a mere week or two before it hits the printers. That gives me very little time to review the layout and submit feedback. So I may get stuck with a book that really doesn't reflect what I wanted to accomplish.
Well sometimes you have to write a quick project summary or some such. You want it to LOOK decent but don't want to spend a lot of time on it. So you copy/paste some charts, throw in a few paragraphs and voila, an executive summary. Sure you can do that in Tex but for the value of the document and time spent you're wasting time [like mgmt reads them anyways].
For really quick things [e.g. emails, usenet posts, etc] I agree that plain ol' simple text is the best.
To be fair, OpenOffice will let you save in HTML and PDF as well [so will AbiWord] and with extensions so will Word.
Though I do admire the geek-pride of using TeX for that. I used to Blog in TeX, often because I didn't like MathML and was talking about math.:-)
What I'm talking about moreso are books [even non-math books] and papers. It's so much cleaner to write them in LaTeX with the book class macros then in Word. For one thing, TeX handles all the layout for you, so the even/odd margins [e.g. where the fold goes], starting chapters on the right page, headers/footers. Then not to mention the easy to auto-number [and list] figures and other goodies.
Most of which [except the layout] you can do in Word, just it's a royal pain in the ass. For example, I routinely have to tell Word to "restart counting" because it thinks all number lists are joined some how. In TeX, it's just \begin{enumerate} and you're off to the races.
My first book [BUY IT!!!] was done purely in LaTeX and in my opinion looks classy. My second book [not out yet] is being written with Word and while I pray the final product looks good [and reads well] it's hard to get all jazzed about a non-laid out document which I can only picture what will look like...
I'll avoid the typical MSFT bashing and move on to a tangent.
When will "professionals" realize that Word is not meant for all documents? It's great for short documents, posters, etc. But for real professional looking documents it's hard to beat a typesetter like TeX [or LaTeX].
This has nothing to do with bashing MSFT and everything to do with bashing the "one size fits all" mentality.
Tom - Who hates writing a book in Word but will do it anyways because its good for the resume.
Re:Help me ! - with my work situation and IE
on
Firefox Usage Climbing
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do one better, organize the students against MSFT by highlighting how much of their tuition goes to MSFT licensing bullshit.
Because the customers pay for the OS. The OS is a tool to control your computer [e.g. load tasks, provide files, networking, etc].
When Microsoft hides the OS API so that they can use it and others can't they're effectively selling you half a tool. By not letting competitors use the entire OS that MSFT sells you they're taking away YOUR CHOICE to choose the tools you want. The question is who knows how good the competition can get, because MSFT won't properly document the product they sell you won't know.
That's what I don't get about monopolyogists [people who apologize for monopolies], these anti-monopoly cases are about giving YOU choice. Not about making money [well indirectly] but it's really about YOU. I mean literally YOU, mr. joe sixpack who uses the computer to read emails and whatever. Not Mr. millionaire running Oracle but YOU. The government wants everyone to have a chance to compete and with that competition you get to choose the better product.
Sure MSFT may have better tools/servers today [though I question that] but that's only because they hold back the competition by hiding parts of the OS and misdocumenting other assets.
That's the beauty of the Microsoft culture. Had they used GTK+ or QT or god forid ported GDI to Linux they'd be set. But because they use their platform dependent system and user libraries they lock themselves into their own damn OS.
And note, they wouldn't have to port all the.net crap and what not, at least not at first. I'd pay a decent coin just for the IDE and integration with GCC/GDB. The editor [and the RAD tools] are actually very well put together (at least for VC6, the later VSes are less and less friendly IMHO) and useful.
Kdevelop sucks because it makes horrible looking projects by default and requires KDE libs (I hate KDE in general).
Jedit is about the best thing down [in OSS land]. It requires Java and ANT but runs pretty much anywhere and has decent source editing tricks.
The trick is MSFT would have to work with others. I mean GCC and GDB already exist, why not profit from that?
Because unless you're on the same network there is considerable lag for remote controlling system (Windows or Linux). You say your desktop is overpowered an underutilized, but if you turn your laptop into a dumb terminal, than you're laptop will be overpowered and underutilized, will it not? The fact is that most people don't WANT anyone else use the computer at the same time they are. Remember, you are the EXCEPTION not the rule.
It used to be quite the opposite. It's the exception now because DOS [and most of windows] was single-user and became so damn wide spread. If the IBM-PC shipped with UNIX instead of MS-DOS we'd be telling a different story today.
Most people don't even KNOW they can run multiple users at a time on their computer let alone are motivated enough to do it. This is because Windows culture breeds contempt for choice and ignorance all around. It's apparently "better" to be naive and controlled then knowledgeable and decisive.
Again, you're an exception case here. 99% of home user's DON'T CARE about remote shells.
Again people just don't know the power of it.
I agree, quite a few probably, but probably not enough to make it economically viable; that is, sales wouldn't cover the cost to port, test, maintain and support the Linux version. I'm not sure how kdevelop is a clone of VS, as it didn't seem to function anything like VS. Kdevelop was one of those frustrations I talked about in another story.
You'll never know unless they actually try. I think it would be sellable and there would be enough of a market. The trick is they actually have to make it and support it. Of course the irony of it is that the cost of porting it is higher because they use platform dependent GUI widgets and other elements [threads, etc].
So the very thing that locks customers into Windows, locks Microsoft into Windows as well. It hinders their ability to take their independent products and branch them out. VS shouldn't exist to prop windows up, it should exist to make software development easier.
I dunno how true this is. You can split it into two thoughts
1. The ABI changes 2. The ABI changes with every kernel release.
I think #1 is true but #2 is not. And even still it changes FOR THE BETTER. Where the win32 kernel doesn't change and you have to work around one failure after another the Linux kernel is more agile and these things can be planned for.
And in particular, camera drivers don't have to be part of the kernel. USB devices can be accessed through userspace ioctl's and file commands.
If your device is popular enough and the interface public, people will write FREE drivers. What is the value in the camera? The CCD, processing, size, shutter, battery life, etc. Or the USB interface that connects to the PC?
Better yet, just make the damn thing act like a USB disk and be done with.
Slashdot Mirror
All bullshit. The RTC requires root to setup ... ONCE [ideally at startup]... then any user can use it.
/dev/dvd] it's called group management.
I routinely play DVDs as my user [you need read access to
I routinely play full screen video games as my user not root, etc, etc, etc.
Your information is out of date and just plain incorrect.
Tom
All valid points.
I seem to recall Word [used to?] writing files in the \windows\system32 dir....
Tom
Well it wouldn't happen in other OSes because NTFS is closed proprietary standard. :-)
That and people, listen, stop running windows as root. Make yourself a less privileged user and learn to work in a non-root environment!!!
Tom
gaim-vv may not be ported to windows but gaim is. So long as they don't drastically [or at all] change the protocols you're set for MSN and YM on windows with Gaim.
Besides, the users can CHOOSE to use whatever the fuck they want. the goal of Gaim isn't to control the IM market. It doesn't even have its own protocol!!!
Tom
I'm over 20 years old, have used both Debian and Knoppix and hate both. I moved to Gentoo solely because of USE flags [well that and I like the idea of building my own source].
The problem with Debian is that they really have to participate more on the bleeding edge. Think about it. As an OSS developer you have some distro call you "unstable" and makes a default policy to ignore you. How likely are you to keep working on your tool that nobody wants to use? Sure sometimes you get stuck with a broken tool but more often than not reverting is trivial and the "unstable tools" usually work just as well [if not better].
Imagine if Windows disallowed "beta" software. There would be a lot of tools out there that would probably not exist [including a score of video games] due to lack of interest.
Tom
Given the choice I'd do my 2nd book in LaTeX. My question was targetted at the hundreds of thousands of authors who use Word for books... Sure maybe it's fine for a fiction novel or something. But software books [or math/sciences in general] where you have to include working algorithms/routines and math ... Word is just all wrong.
For example, in my first book I bashed perl and latex together [mostly because I was new to latex] to give me commands that allow ripping source code directly into the document. This means if I change a routine [e.g. fix a bug in the C code] I can just recompile the book and boom new source. Compare that to Word. You have to modify your source and energy willing also fix the problem in the right spot of the book. Often though modifying source and working on a book are not done in the same time frame [specially if there is more than one file to fix].
I wouldn't say using Word has put up many barriers so far for my 2nd book but then again it hasn't been typesetted yet [or indexed]. I have had to wrestle with numbering and other oddities that I never had to do so in latex. Not only that but I have to run Windows to work on the damn book. That alone is a crying shame.
Tom
Any time a professional author spends worrying about what the final product is going to look like is wasted time. As an author you should be concentrating on what you're writing. You're not paid to be a book designer.
That just means you write too much and don't sit back and look at the impact it has. It means what you write has no substance. Or that you have a dedicated team of dozens of people working to support your work.
When you are a small group working on a book if you wait till the last minute to get the layout done it may not really do the work justice. There is more to the value of the book then just the words on the page. If your figures are all over the place, margins messed up and paragraphs not placed properly the thing can be a bitch to read. Sure there are a score of tools to do this job. But using a text editor + LaTeX is rather straightforward way of doing the job in a small group.
I don't see anything you guys have said as invalidating the merits of TeX. You say InDesign/FrameMaker can do layouts. Great. So what? TeX does them too. Does a good job at it and the tool is virtually universal. It's available for Linux, BSD, Windows and MacOS. It's free. It's standard. It's well documented [albeit the tools are not as pretty], etc, etc, etc.
My point of starting this thread was to make people think about the tasks Word is used for, for which it was not meant. Mostly to avoid the whole MSFT bashing theme common to these threads.
Tom
Hehehe, that's cute. Now if only MSFT would treat its customers as paying customers....
:-)
Besides I think it's well established that Debian is woefully behind the curve. Use Gentoo. Be done with
Tom
Hehehe that's cute. No. Your school pays to be part of the MSFT academic network. Yes, it's part of hooking them while their young but MSFT also scores money out of it.
While it's not a sizeable chunk it's still there and creeps up. I recall paying $100s in "technology" fees and all we were using were out dated 486s [in 2001] with 10Mbit networking, etc. $50 for lab fees, $50 for "technology fees", etc, etc, etc.
I'm certain it wasn't going to make sure the infrastructure was capable of being useful [often login time could be counted in minutes]. Granted in the comp.sci labs the boxes were a bit newer they were still fairly slow by comparisons. The average student had a more powerful laptop [that they bought usually because the labs were useless for doing lab work] than the workstations.
Tom
I wrote my first book before the publisher was around [hint: their is an older public domain copy of it out there]. They decided [wisely] that re-writing the book in word would be stupid. My 2nd book started after I met the publisher who "requires" me to write in it.
Believe me, it's not my choice.
Another thing I didn't mention is source code. My books have tons of real code in them. In my first book I wrote a perl script that inserts [nicely] source code in the TeX source. So I can regenerate the book any time I update the source instantly. With Word I have to copy/paste the code in there and make sure I keep things in sync. Basically now I have to fully test the code [and verify] before I can put it in the book. Which is a bit annoying if you are trying to avoid mental road blocks and want to keep the flow going.
Tom
Agreed. That's why when people ask you about your documents you say "I used LaTeX, want to see?" and start that way. Not all non-nerds are totally against progress. The problem is the ones in control tend to be that way and it's disheartening.
:-) ... oh who am I kiddin, I use Word for everything at my work. Like F!@# they would use anything else hehehehe
I think the trick is to have a good technical case and a good business case. You won't switch the world in an instance but you can certainly move things in the right direction.
Never used Pages or WordPerfect [I was a claris works fan back in the day ... of course I was also 10 yrs old so what did I know].
:-)
Glad to hear there are proper editors out there. I've dabbled briefly in FrameMaker and it's decent too for layout. I dunno, my affinity for TeX comes from the fact that it's free and once you get over the initial learning curve, really easy to use.
I wonder if Pages will be ported to Linux?
Tom
I'll grant you that the error reporting in TeX totally sucks balls. Usually though my trick is to compile soon compile often. So when I get a bug I know it's in something I just recently added. The equations in LaTeX get easier with time. Once you know the jist of the \over \sqrt \lbrace whatever you can readily express pretty much anything in it.
:-)
I suppose if you are willing to spend the time you can get properly laid out document in Word as well. just from what I've seen the typical user doesn't spend the time. So they might as well learn TeX and let it do that work for them
Tom
This is typical anti-OSS flamebait but I'll respond anyways.
.doc files straight for the submitters.
TeX is a 30 yr old system still used today for a reason. Not saying the commercial side is bad but if you're working on a budget and need precision nothing beats TeX. Not only that but TeX is CVS friendly which comes in handy if you work in a team.
Besides, academia is moving towards Word for the very reason I cited. "oh it can do anything". Look at the recent LLNCS call for papers. They used to only accept photo-ready postscripts. Now they accept
And to add to that, writing a book in Word is cruel. You never get to see the final product and the flow/layout is just awful. When I was working on my first book I could easily make a modification then see what the final product would look like. Regenerating the entire 320 page book takes a mere minute [less really]. As an author it's encouraging to know what your presentation will look like as you work on it.
With my second book I will know what my pages look like a mere week or two before it hits the printers. That gives me very little time to review the layout and submit feedback. So I may get stuck with a book that really doesn't reflect what I wanted to accomplish.
Tom
Well sometimes you have to write a quick project summary or some such. You want it to LOOK decent but don't want to spend a lot of time on it. So you copy/paste some charts, throw in a few paragraphs and voila, an executive summary. Sure you can do that in Tex but for the value of the document and time spent you're wasting time [like mgmt reads them anyways].
For really quick things [e.g. emails, usenet posts, etc] I agree that plain ol' simple text is the best.
Tom
ClarisWorks format!
To be fair, OpenOffice will let you save in HTML and PDF as well [so will AbiWord] and with extensions so will Word.
:-)
Though I do admire the geek-pride of using TeX for that. I used to Blog in TeX, often because I didn't like MathML and was talking about math.
What I'm talking about moreso are books [even non-math books] and papers. It's so much cleaner to write them in LaTeX with the book class macros then in Word. For one thing, TeX handles all the layout for you, so the even/odd margins [e.g. where the fold goes], starting chapters on the right page, headers/footers. Then not to mention the easy to auto-number [and list] figures and other goodies.
Most of which [except the layout] you can do in Word, just it's a royal pain in the ass. For example, I routinely have to tell Word to "restart counting" because it thinks all number lists are joined some how. In TeX, it's just \begin{enumerate} and you're off to the races.
My first book [BUY IT!!!] was done purely in LaTeX and in my opinion looks classy. My second book [not out yet] is being written with Word and while I pray the final product looks good [and reads well] it's hard to get all jazzed about a non-laid out document which I can only picture what will look like...
Tom
Write your C.V. in HTML and hand out the URL. Much more fun and saves on the bandwidth.
Tom
I'll avoid the typical MSFT bashing and move on to a tangent.
When will "professionals" realize that Word is not meant for all documents? It's great for short documents, posters, etc. But for real professional looking documents it's hard to beat a typesetter like TeX [or LaTeX].
This has nothing to do with bashing MSFT and everything to do with bashing the "one size fits all" mentality.
Tom - Who hates writing a book in Word but will do it anyways because its good for the resume.
Do one better, organize the students against MSFT by highlighting how much of their tuition goes to MSFT licensing bullshit.
Tom
Because the customers pay for the OS. The OS is a tool to control your computer [e.g. load tasks, provide files, networking, etc].
When Microsoft hides the OS API so that they can use it and others can't they're effectively selling you half a tool. By not letting competitors use the entire OS that MSFT sells you they're taking away YOUR CHOICE to choose the tools you want. The question is who knows how good the competition can get, because MSFT won't properly document the product they sell you won't know.
That's what I don't get about monopolyogists [people who apologize for monopolies], these anti-monopoly cases are about giving YOU choice. Not about making money [well indirectly] but it's really about YOU. I mean literally YOU, mr. joe sixpack who uses the computer to read emails and whatever. Not Mr. millionaire running Oracle but YOU. The government wants everyone to have a chance to compete and with that competition you get to choose the better product.
Sure MSFT may have better tools/servers today [though I question that] but that's only because they hold back the competition by hiding parts of the OS and misdocumenting other assets.
Tom
That's the beauty of the Microsoft culture. Had they used GTK+ or QT or god forid ported GDI to Linux they'd be set. But because they use their platform dependent system and user libraries they lock themselves into their own damn OS.
.net crap and what not, at least not at first. I'd pay a decent coin just for the IDE and integration with GCC/GDB. The editor [and the RAD tools] are actually very well put together (at least for VC6, the later VSes are less and less friendly IMHO) and useful.
And note, they wouldn't have to port all the
Kdevelop sucks because it makes horrible looking projects by default and requires KDE libs (I hate KDE in general).
Jedit is about the best thing down [in OSS land]. It requires Java and ANT but runs pretty much anywhere and has decent source editing tricks.
The trick is MSFT would have to work with others. I mean GCC and GDB already exist, why not profit from that?
Tom
Because unless you're on the same network there is considerable lag for remote controlling system (Windows or Linux). You say your desktop is overpowered an underutilized, but if you turn your laptop into a dumb terminal, than you're laptop will be overpowered and underutilized, will it not? The fact is that most people don't WANT anyone else use the computer at the same time they are. Remember, you are the EXCEPTION not the rule.
It used to be quite the opposite. It's the exception now because DOS [and most of windows] was single-user and became so damn wide spread. If the IBM-PC shipped with UNIX instead of MS-DOS we'd be telling a different story today.
Most people don't even KNOW they can run multiple users at a time on their computer let alone are motivated enough to do it. This is because Windows culture breeds contempt for choice and ignorance all around. It's apparently "better" to be naive and controlled then knowledgeable and decisive.
Again, you're an exception case here. 99% of home user's DON'T CARE about remote shells.
Again people just don't know the power of it.
I agree, quite a few probably, but probably not enough to make it economically viable; that is, sales wouldn't cover the cost to port, test, maintain and support the Linux version. I'm not sure how kdevelop is a clone of VS, as it didn't seem to function anything like VS. Kdevelop was one of those frustrations I talked about in another story.
You'll never know unless they actually try. I think it would be sellable and there would be enough of a market. The trick is they actually have to make it and support it. Of course the irony of it is that the cost of porting it is higher because they use platform dependent GUI widgets and other elements [threads, etc].
So the very thing that locks customers into Windows, locks Microsoft into Windows as well. It hinders their ability to take their independent products and branch them out. VS shouldn't exist to prop windows up, it should exist to make software development easier.
Tom
I dunno how true this is. You can split it into two thoughts
1. The ABI changes
2. The ABI changes with every kernel release.
I think #1 is true but #2 is not. And even still it changes FOR THE BETTER. Where the win32 kernel doesn't change and you have to work around one failure after another the Linux kernel is more agile and these things can be planned for.
And in particular, camera drivers don't have to be part of the kernel. USB devices can be accessed through userspace ioctl's and file commands.
Tom
OPEN YOUR INTERFACE.
If your device is popular enough and the interface public, people will write FREE drivers. What is the value in the camera? The CCD, processing, size, shutter, battery life, etc. Or the USB interface that connects to the PC?
Better yet, just make the damn thing act like a USB disk and be done with.
Tom