To boil it down, without any of my attitude (which was a little fierce last post. Sorry, must've had a bad morning): No problem. Any attitude I give you, don't take it too seriously, I just babble along without really taking the time to clean it up.
I actually agree with you this time. The GUI is much easier to use because the lower learning curve. Lower learning curve=less intimidating=more broader consumers=more money. It's all about what the majority of consumers want and where the money is at. Unfortunately, I outgrew that stage some time ago and needed something that fits my needs better. For the rest of the world, it might be better for them. In all practical theory, the GUI shouldn't be the basis of the OS(simplicity design, debugging, etc.). Modern OSes require a GUI for their operations if they want to be anything more then a box collecting dust on a shelf.
I've used win2k, it really isn't that bad, it isn't that great either. From my point of view, it is a single user(in the most sense) multitasking Operating System with an Exagerated Price Tag(Win2k or a VCR/DVD player), a GUI that can not be easily changed without hacking the OS, and is maintained by a company who makes more money on Upgrades and fixing their OS then by actually making product *gasp* correct the first time around. I will give you that it is easier to train people on Win2k and is AS easy to develop for as any other OS. As for Database programs, its still probably cheaper to buy from Oracle or IBM and you'll get more bang for your buck. Microsoft is in too many markets, preventing it from making everything as high quality as other companies. What ticks me off is when people bad-mouth a platform that I've been actually using to feed my kids for over 6 years, because of some esoterica like API elegance, or non-existant performance myths like filesystem performance. I've never met you're kids and If I've offended you, take no offense, I just say whatever my fingers start typing. As for the FS, I never said NTFS was slow, I said it was slower then EXT2. Basic reasons: NTFS is a partial journal FS where EXT2 is not. The ReiserFS is a journal FS but is extremely slow(do not recommend.) NTFS is certainly faster then FAT32 and is a modern FS, to say the least. It does what it is suppose to do and does that good enough for its purposes.
Unix isn't for everyone, agreed. This is a given. I'm still trying to teach my mom how to use her computer running Win98. Besides playing Pysol, some simple games(tetris, scrabble, etc.), and making greeting cards, she could care less about how to use a computer. People are diverse and we want to keep them that way. For as long as they are illiterate in that area, if their are a limited people who understand it, they can make huge amounts of cash off of them, just like doctors do.
Actually, Microsoft didn't become the company it is by being easy to use and powerful, it got it by darker means. Microsoft would be nowhere if IBM hadn't released the firmware for the x86. You know the story, it allowed foreign companies to enter the market who all needed a standard OS, they looked toward MS licensing, Microsoft got more money and became a company that everybody wanted what they offered. Microsoft doesn't actually produce most of its own ideas, they get borrowed from other companies. Amazingly, win95 looks extremely similiar to Mac OS. Although it was different enough not to be an infringement, it was still borrowed. It borrowed IE. Most, but not all, originated as an idea from a source outside of Microsoft. This is not uncommon in business but that is the reason why it is so "powerful." Not because it is original but because it makes products for the masses that are easier by integrating ideas(which can be a good thing) from other sources and calling them their own
When all is said and done, I have a specific hatred of Microsoft that is business related. A local software company that I've shopped at a few times was sued by Microsoft for selling "pirated" copies of MS-Windows(MS had no proof of this and the company denied it.) Any ways, as the story goes, Microsoft sued them for around $100,000(not very much but for a small company it is) they couldn't afford to pay a lawyer to defend against Microsoft's so they declared Bankruptcy, went out of business, and that was that. All on an unproven accusation. ----
NTFS in DOS-based because it is in the DOS family of Filesystems, not because it is POSIX compliant. Ext2 isn't Journaling but it is blazing fast and I have a UPS so I don't care. Ext3 is journaling but takes mores CPU cycles then I wish to care to use and so, I use Ext2. BeOS FS is journaling and I've had almost no problems. NTFS is not a true Journaling FS and is not as fast as Ext2. Ext2 is a unix FS, like ReiserFS, BeOS fs, Minix FS, etc. ISO9660 is mostly considered in the DOS FSes although it supports non-standard DOS fs characteristics such as the ability to link files usually found on Unix FS. HFS is/was a DOS fs based on its basic structure. Their are other families of FSes but most of them aren't in common use anymore.
I never said NT was open source, I just said it could fit on a floppy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Happens to me all the time (just
not yet today). Besides, I never even said fitting on a floppy was any sort of benchmark for an OS' goodness. You did. And I still came up
with how NT could do it. And you still can't admit you're wrong. Sheesh. I hope you're not married, or anybody's boss. I never said it was any sort of OS benchmark either. Yes it can fit on a floppy. Non-standardly, you can boot to a command shell with LFN support. Whippee, I can do that with the MS-DOS NTFS tsr out their. Who cares. Microsoft does not give it as standard and thus, out of the question for the common user, not for everybody else. If I want to modify NTFS, I could create an NT boot disk. I would rather not(limitations of CMD.exe.) I know the last time I use the Linux port of the fs, it was read-only, so using it is pretty much out of the question. If you want to talk about security, it probably has just about as good of security as any other non-encrypted fs. Nonetheless, it is still not that useful. About the study, it is old and I looked last night for about an hour to find it. It is either no longer on the web or never made it to the web.
Running an integrated GUI is not an opinion, it is a really bad choice for OS design. The original idea of an OS is to make it easier to execute other programs. GUIs are plus in this task but are needed. Extra, unneeded code for something I don't want to waste my memory on unless it is needed. If you want to waste your memory, go right ahead but atleast give the first option standardly available. CLI allows users to be more productive on common tasks. It has a higher learning curve but the increase productivity is great. I can type 80+ wpm, I can drag, drop, pull down menu, click on save as, select.txt, file-open select new-file and repeat the task over again in what, 10 per minute. For secondary tasks like dragging and dropping, people are more productive. This is not what I said but somehow you are assuming that is what I said and makes you even more wrong. It only becomes an Opinion if you have a choice to use it or not. From an economical point of view, OSes don't sell if they don't have a GUI atleast partly integrated.
If you really want to talk about how to create a window in the WIN32 api, we'll do that. Yes, that is one line of code. That is not creating one window. It does create an empty window after initialization, blah blah blah, but after the 20,000 initializations and changing around what you want, you're going to be 30+ lines of code. Slightly different from what you're talking about. We're both right in this situation.
As for a win32 network connection, I haven't had a reason to make a network connection using WIN32 api since *1998?* so I'm probably mistaken their. I mostly program in ANSI C using Comshell and using various other techniques. I'm trying to boycott Microsoft as much as possible and the way I'm doing that is not using their API to do what I want to do. ----
Do I really have to spell it out for you. Do you really have to be wrong on all accounts?
NTFS is a propietery FS that is DOS based in structure(although, it is much more complex then the original fat12 fs)
You're idea is considering you can't take a boot disk and modify the sh*t out of it
Integration sucks on the basis that it gives the possibility of more things going wrong in a set of code space. When you integrate, it makes the computer to have to *theoretically*(unless you have a bunch of for loops) execute more code, increasing boot time. I have to wait for this boot time and it really sucks. Within that 30+ extra seconds, I could probably executed 5+ commands and already start being productive.
GUIs should not be integrated is not an opinion, it is a fact. I wrote a little kernel within my own little OS(in one of my CS classes(talks about hours upon hours of debugging)) and what really plays out is executing the GUI with the OS is not a good thing. It is not practical, can result in too many shortcomings and does not make the users any more productive(less productive in most cases.) This has also been proven by a study done a few years ago(I couldn't find the link on the web). Also, winnt does not boot without a GUI standardly. If it did, we would be in a whole different ballgame.
QT is better, not only on the basis that it is crossplatform, but more on the basis that you can do virtually the same thing in much less fewer lines of code. It takes like 30 lines of code in Win32 just to draw a window, it takes like 3 in QT. In win32, you have to make an "invisible" window in the background just to do a network connection(that is really stupid.) I could go on but you get the point.
I used windows for over an hour. I had IE maximized full screen.
What does that prove how much you know about windows? And this is suppose to mean what to me? IE sucks. I've used MACS forever and have always hated them. I despise them so much that I would like to take all of them to the Moon, set a 100 Kg of Enriched Uranium right next to them and nuke them. I know about Macintosh, I just don't like it. ----
Actually, Linux has excellent Midi Support. Kernel 2.4 doesn't need Firewire. I don't own a single firewire. None of my friends do either. People only put in what's needed. Linux is relatively new OS and most of its users don't give a flying shit about Digital Video. Its unneeded so it lacks support. ----
When did you use a mac last? 1992? Ah, so you have no idea of the professional hardware setup I have. Actually, I used a Mac thursday morning for about 2 hours.
The OS is
far more streamlined for my video/audio editing I do, and I have it customized the way I want it. Streamlined Audio/Video is unneeded and just wastes RAM and HD space. I can customize my Linux Box the way I want with ease. I have a hundred times more choices and I'm not stuck with one company to produce my software. Real computer nerds don't spend hours on end tweaking their desktop. They may spend an hour a month, at most.
Windows of any
kind would take far too long and would only be too aggravating. Actually, that is not true. If you want to customize windows to fit your needs, you have to edit one file. In system.ini change shell=explorer.exe to whatever the hell you want. Write your own WM if you dare(it's easy to download anyone and compile it with cygwin if you have an Xserver around.) It's not hard and is actually, more entertaining and more exciting. The Mac has nothing to offer me. ----
NTFS sucks. The problem with Winnt, the files don't have ownership so anybody with any type of an account can modify them. Although, winnt was designed as a single user OS, really bad designed OSes has this problem.
All OSes should have a command shell of some type, the more advanced the better(cmd.exe is ok, not exactly the end all of all command shells.) I like GUIs but they should never be integrated with the OS(I should be able to boot directly to the command shell and be able to start the GUI as needed.) This is a great memory saver, makes troubleshooting a blessing, and is easier for anybody who is a power user. I don't like the WIN32 api, anything but that. If it was more like an advanced QT api, it would be great. A kernel on a floppy is a good thing. Keep the OS small. If the actual OS is 5 megs, it'll be more useful then something that is 650 megs. OSes must also have seperate configuration files for individual programs. No stupid registry where an accidental crash can lead to all of your configuration being destroyed instead of a few. The OS should be limited to controlling basic physical(HDs, mice, etc.) and logical(FS, memory, DMA control, etc.) devices, executing programs, multitasking and all that comes with that, and making sure programs do not write over each other, including the kernel. That is it. That is all a filesystem should do. If it does more then this, it is inflated with unnecessary features that slow the computer and boot time down.
----
Have you ever used Windows NT. It's basically a command shell and a GUI. A common user can go in, get to a command shell and delete all the files they please, as long as the files aren't in current use. What they can't do is modify the clock, use the Windows install programs(ones that specifically require Admin access(they can still use 32-bit console install programs) and they can't modify the registry. This is not very secure. It is also not a very intelligent design. If you're programs don't use the registry or use the Windows standard GUI install, you should have no problems doing what ever the hell you want. Plain and simple. I deal with these computer on a every day basis. I can log in as a guest account and nearly wipe out the computer and its contents. Win2000 is not Unix. It is not secure(not saying Unix is secure, it is just *more* secure.) If you don't know what you're talking about, don't speak. ----
First of all, a power user wouldn't use either Mac or Winnt, they would use Linux or Unix. Win2000 MacOS suck. Windows 2000 is more versatile and powerful because of that, Linux is even more so. Macintosh is designed for people who don't actually want to learn how to use a computer so it sucks. In other words, you are wrong, not me. ----
First rule of life. Don't state the obvious. Of course the Bourne Again Shell is not Linux. The kernel is Linux, nothing else. Like duh. Next topic, it could probably be used for a smart bomb. I'm sure you could put MS-DOS on an integrated chip, add some additional digital logic, and design a bomb that would have an accuracy of 95%+. The question is, why? The government would have to write most of the logic itself and what ever is included in the Linux kernel is probably just unneeded extras. It could save money in the long-run but the government is not about saving money, it is about keeping the people employed and educated so that they can squeeze more money out of them in the long run. Their is a balance of interest here. Bigger government with more people employed by it or a smaller government with a smaller budget and fewer people employed. It all depends on the current status of the economy and whose in power to which one they choose.
Secondly, their is a problem with the GPL license. Sinced no one "owns" the license, their is no one to sue them. Sure, if some big organization breaks the license, many people of the community could get together enough funds to hire a good lawyer and sue their ass, but that is based on the power of the people to cooperate. Their is no central organization to control the power and thus could result in chaos when people break the license, money is short, or no one wants to sue them. You're not going to spend a million dollars to sue the little guy because he broke the license agreement, it is uneconomical. This is a type of federalism and it can, when times are tough, plain suck.
Third of all, GPL only works as an End User License agreement if everybody cooperates. If only a few are willing to cooperate while others do their thing, it breaks up. Fortunately, so far, groups have cooperated and it has worked. We may not be so lucky forever. ----
Re:Consider the limitations
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
My machine uses 8 megs of ram with X + 2 megs for my WM. Ten megs for an average user with 22 megs for a browser games and everything else is not very much. You can't run X and play Q3 but you can run X and netscape and surf(but who would want to on a TV.) This is not acceptable in the modern age of computers. ----
You might be right. Unfortunately, this is also the government. They have the money and the resources to build customized chips. They certainly wouldn't want your precious money go to waste by not using it, would they? The economics of non-profit governments. Spend as much money as possible so that you can claim that you have insufficient funding(so you can get more.) Ironic, isn't it. ----
OS X is "easier" to install then Win2k(but less versatile. OS X has an industry proven BSD kernel where Win2k has a Unix kernel(what is it, can't remember off the top of my head) but sucks because, well, it is not capable of running all windows programs. OS X is more Unix, for the kind at heart. They both have their list of problems such as, on WIN2k, a normal user nearly has just as much control to edit and delete files as the Administrator. Although normal users can't install using the Windows installer or modify the clock, they can still manually do most things that could possibly corrupt a computer. My experience with Mac OS X is limited in this area so I'm not going to respond to its problems. ----
If their going to drop a guided bomb, they're certainly not going to use Linux. What does a bomb need with a Bash prompt anyways. All it needs is some guided sensors, some basic logic and *maybe* a way to communicate to the mothership about its current situation. This is customized and hardware specific code for the current device. For cost reasons, they probably want to keep this on a small integrated chip, not an internal HD with megs of memory and an Open Source Kernel. It really doesn't make sense to use Linux. ----
Their foreign governments with their own ideas about IP. They can change it if they please. It's not likely that we're going to start WWIII over a stupid, in the weakest sense, GPL license agreement(unless it is used as a scapegoat for something else.) Their is a high probability that they will change agreement if their countries need s change or for whatever reason. Now enquiring minds know. What will enquiring minds ask next? ----
The market justified price is defined as the price justified by the market with competition(like Linux is selling at around $40 where Windows is at $89 to above $200), thus the profit maximizing point of that. The monopoly profit maximizing point is greater then the market justifed point where their is no/little competition but consumers are still only willing to pay so much but much(this is much higher then w/ competition). Econ 55, Macroeconomics, WVU. ----
Re:already done? I think so
on
PS2 As PC
·
· Score: 1
About a month ago, I think. Anyways, it would be cool to have one. It might entice me to actually go out and buy a PS2. ----
No more slavery, no more sucking up to those who exploit us. Real freedom. Their are more then one type of slavery. The first type: chain them up, put them in the cotton field, let them suffer. The second type: Decrease labor demands, increase labor force. In this way, many employees will compete for low wages so they can buy massively inflated common goods controlled by the companies that employ them. Some place, somewhere in the world, someone will always suffer from the second and their hasn't been a single point in history where people haven't suffered from the first(including today.)
The people should inherit the Earth, no doubt. The question is, what happens when the population gets so high and that people that inherit this earth are getting smaller and smaller slices of the World's pie.
I like intellectual property laws. They should, naturally, be limited, say 7-10 years. If I spent $500 million on a research project with intentional profit of $700 million and you download my hard earned research and money for free and distribute it to the world, I am going to be pissed. After a few years, let it run its course, the information(program) should become free or open for secondary development and some freedom of information act should kick in.
As of Brazillians downloading free copies of Windows, their is nothing wrong with that on the basis that Microsoft is purely a monopoly. It makes massive amounts of money on its lacking products(at 40 or more bucks above the market justified price to the profit maximizing point) just so users can spends tons of more money on worthless upgrades. When the government becomes tyrant, it is *MORE* ok to rebel then when it is not or less. ----
It is only legal until someone sues them and tries to prove that it isn't legal or is reviewed by some law-regulating/enforcing organization. Of course, if you did sue, they'll probably hire Johnny Cochran, giving you almost no chance to win. ----
You're an engineer. Engineer in what? Wow, I'm almost one in computers(year and a half left.) Who do you work for? How much do you make? Do you have any recommendations for who not to work for once I graduate? I don't get out much, being a computer nerd and all, but am willing to go nearly anywhere. Thanks.
----
Re:GIMP has it's work cut out for it...
on
GIMP And OS X
·
· Score: 1
It's a metaphor. I'm the mechanic repairing the cars for those who aren't. Please know what you're talking about before you speak. Yes it is that simple. I've been doing it since I was five(ms-dos 3.10, ugh) and have almost no problems. It's not like programming where sometimes you have to understand the problem before you can fix it, this is computing. Completely different. ----
Slashdot Mirror
To boil it down, without any of my attitude (which was a little fierce last post. Sorry, must've had a bad morning): No problem. Any attitude I give you, don't take it too seriously, I just babble along without really taking the time to clean it up.
I actually agree with you this time. The GUI is much easier to use because the lower learning curve. Lower learning curve=less intimidating=more broader consumers=more money. It's all about what the majority of consumers want and where the money is at. Unfortunately, I outgrew that stage some time ago and needed something that fits my needs better. For the rest of the world, it might be better for them. In all practical theory, the GUI shouldn't be the basis of the OS(simplicity design, debugging, etc.). Modern OSes require a GUI for their operations if they want to be anything more then a box collecting dust on a shelf.
I've used win2k, it really isn't that bad, it isn't that great either. From my point of view, it is a single user(in the most sense) multitasking Operating System with an Exagerated Price Tag(Win2k or a VCR/DVD player), a GUI that can not be easily changed without hacking the OS, and is maintained by a company who makes more money on Upgrades and fixing their OS then by actually making product *gasp* correct the first time around. I will give you that it is easier to train people on Win2k and is AS easy to develop for as any other OS. As for Database programs, its still probably cheaper to buy from Oracle or IBM and you'll get more bang for your buck. Microsoft is in too many markets, preventing it from making everything as high quality as other companies. What ticks me off is when people bad-mouth a platform that I've been actually using to feed my kids for over 6 years, because of some esoterica like API elegance, or non-existant performance myths like filesystem performance. I've never met you're kids and If I've offended you, take no offense, I just say whatever my fingers start typing. As for the FS, I never said NTFS was slow, I said it was slower then EXT2. Basic reasons: NTFS is a partial journal FS where EXT2 is not. The ReiserFS is a journal FS but is extremely slow(do not recommend.) NTFS is certainly faster then FAT32 and is a modern FS, to say the least. It does what it is suppose to do and does that good enough for its purposes.
Unix isn't for everyone, agreed. This is a given. I'm still trying to teach my mom how to use her computer running Win98. Besides playing Pysol, some simple games(tetris, scrabble, etc.), and making greeting cards, she could care less about how to use a computer. People are diverse and we want to keep them that way. For as long as they are illiterate in that area, if their are a limited people who understand it, they can make huge amounts of cash off of them, just like doctors do.
Actually, Microsoft didn't become the company it is by being easy to use and powerful, it got it by darker means. Microsoft would be nowhere if IBM hadn't released the firmware for the x86. You know the story, it allowed foreign companies to enter the market who all needed a standard OS, they looked toward MS licensing, Microsoft got more money and became a company that everybody wanted what they offered. Microsoft doesn't actually produce most of its own ideas, they get borrowed from other companies. Amazingly, win95 looks extremely similiar to Mac OS. Although it was different enough not to be an infringement, it was still borrowed. It borrowed IE. Most, but not all, originated as an idea from a source outside of Microsoft. This is not uncommon in business but that is the reason why it is so "powerful." Not because it is original but because it makes products for the masses that are easier by integrating ideas(which can be a good thing) from other sources and calling them their own
When all is said and done, I have a specific hatred of Microsoft that is business related. A local software company that I've shopped at a few times was sued by Microsoft for selling "pirated" copies of MS-Windows(MS had no proof of this and the company denied it.) Any ways, as the story goes, Microsoft sued them for around $100,000(not very much but for a small company it is) they couldn't afford to pay a lawyer to defend against Microsoft's so they declared Bankruptcy, went out of business, and that was that. All on an unproven accusation.
----
NTFS in DOS-based because it is in the DOS family of Filesystems, not because it is POSIX compliant. Ext2 isn't Journaling but it is blazing fast and I have a UPS so I don't care. Ext3 is journaling but takes mores CPU cycles then I wish to care to use and so, I use Ext2. BeOS FS is journaling and I've had almost no problems. NTFS is not a true Journaling FS and is not as fast as Ext2. Ext2 is a unix FS, like ReiserFS, BeOS fs, Minix FS, etc. ISO9660 is mostly considered in the DOS FSes although it supports non-standard DOS fs characteristics such as the ability to link files usually found on Unix FS. HFS is/was a DOS fs based on its basic structure. Their are other families of FSes but most of them aren't in common use anymore.
.txt, file-open select new-file and repeat the task over again in what, 10 per minute. For secondary tasks like dragging and dropping, people are more productive. This is not what I said but somehow you are assuming that is what I said and makes you even more wrong. It only becomes an Opinion if you have a choice to use it or not. From an economical point of view, OSes don't sell if they don't have a GUI atleast partly integrated.
I never said NT was open source, I just said it could fit on a floppy. Being wrong isn't the end of the world. Happens to me all the time (just not yet today). Besides, I never even said fitting on a floppy was any sort of benchmark for an OS' goodness. You did. And I still came up with how NT could do it. And you still can't admit you're wrong. Sheesh. I hope you're not married, or anybody's boss. I never said it was any sort of OS benchmark either. Yes it can fit on a floppy. Non-standardly, you can boot to a command shell with LFN support. Whippee, I can do that with the MS-DOS NTFS tsr out their. Who cares. Microsoft does not give it as standard and thus, out of the question for the common user, not for everybody else. If I want to modify NTFS, I could create an NT boot disk. I would rather not(limitations of CMD.exe.) I know the last time I use the Linux port of the fs, it was read-only, so using it is pretty much out of the question. If you want to talk about security, it probably has just about as good of security as any other non-encrypted fs. Nonetheless, it is still not that useful. About the study, it is old and I looked last night for about an hour to find it. It is either no longer on the web or never made it to the web.
Running an integrated GUI is not an opinion, it is a really bad choice for OS design. The original idea of an OS is to make it easier to execute other programs. GUIs are plus in this task but are needed. Extra, unneeded code for something I don't want to waste my memory on unless it is needed. If you want to waste your memory, go right ahead but atleast give the first option standardly available. CLI allows users to be more productive on common tasks. It has a higher learning curve but the increase productivity is great. I can type 80+ wpm, I can drag, drop, pull down menu, click on save as, select
If you really want to talk about how to create a window in the WIN32 api, we'll do that. Yes, that is one line of code. That is not creating one window. It does create an empty window after initialization, blah blah blah, but after the 20,000 initializations and changing around what you want, you're going to be 30+ lines of code. Slightly different from what you're talking about. We're both right in this situation.
As for a win32 network connection, I haven't had a reason to make a network connection using WIN32 api since *1998?* so I'm probably mistaken their. I mostly program in ANSI C using Comshell and using various other techniques. I'm trying to boycott Microsoft as much as possible and the way I'm doing that is not using their API to do what I want to do.
----
Do I really have to spell it out for you. Do you really have to be wrong on all accounts?
NTFS is a propietery FS that is DOS based in structure(although, it is much more complex then the original fat12 fs)
You're idea is considering you can't take a boot disk and modify the sh*t out of it
Integration sucks on the basis that it gives the possibility of more things going wrong in a set of code space. When you integrate, it makes the computer to have to *theoretically*(unless you have a bunch of for loops) execute more code, increasing boot time. I have to wait for this boot time and it really sucks. Within that 30+ extra seconds, I could probably executed 5+ commands and already start being productive.
GUIs should not be integrated is not an opinion, it is a fact. I wrote a little kernel within my own little OS(in one of my CS classes(talks about hours upon hours of debugging)) and what really plays out is executing the GUI with the OS is not a good thing. It is not practical, can result in too many shortcomings and does not make the users any more productive(less productive in most cases.) This has also been proven by a study done a few years ago(I couldn't find the link on the web). Also, winnt does not boot without a GUI standardly. If it did, we would be in a whole different ballgame.
QT is better, not only on the basis that it is crossplatform, but more on the basis that you can do virtually the same thing in much less fewer lines of code. It takes like 30 lines of code in Win32 just to draw a window, it takes like 3 in QT. In win32, you have to make an "invisible" window in the background just to do a network connection(that is really stupid.) I could go on but you get the point.
It was fun argueing with you, thanks.
----
If you don't understand, you will never understand and my time is too precious to try to explain it to you.
----
I used windows for over an hour. I had IE maximized full screen. What does that prove how much you know about windows? And this is suppose to mean what to me? IE sucks. I've used MACS forever and have always hated them. I despise them so much that I would like to take all of them to the Moon, set a 100 Kg of Enriched Uranium right next to them and nuke them. I know about Macintosh, I just don't like it.
----
Actually, Linux has excellent Midi Support. Kernel 2.4 doesn't need Firewire. I don't own a single firewire. None of my friends do either. People only put in what's needed. Linux is relatively new OS and most of its users don't give a flying shit about Digital Video. Its unneeded so it lacks support.
----
When did you use a mac last? 1992? Ah, so you have no idea of the professional hardware setup I have. Actually, I used a Mac thursday morning for about 2 hours.
The OS is far more streamlined for my video/audio editing I do, and I have it customized the way I want it. Streamlined Audio/Video is unneeded and just wastes RAM and HD space. I can customize my Linux Box the way I want with ease. I have a hundred times more choices and I'm not stuck with one company to produce my software. Real computer nerds don't spend hours on end tweaking their desktop. They may spend an hour a month, at most.
Windows of any kind would take far too long and would only be too aggravating. Actually, that is not true. If you want to customize windows to fit your needs, you have to edit one file. In system.ini change shell=explorer.exe to whatever the hell you want. Write your own WM if you dare(it's easy to download anyone and compile it with cygwin if you have an Xserver around.) It's not hard and is actually, more entertaining and more exciting. The Mac has nothing to offer me.
----
NTFS sucks. The problem with Winnt, the files don't have ownership so anybody with any type of an account can modify them. Although, winnt was designed as a single user OS, really bad designed OSes has this problem.
All OSes should have a command shell of some type, the more advanced the better(cmd.exe is ok, not exactly the end all of all command shells.) I like GUIs but they should never be integrated with the OS(I should be able to boot directly to the command shell and be able to start the GUI as needed.) This is a great memory saver, makes troubleshooting a blessing, and is easier for anybody who is a power user. I don't like the WIN32 api, anything but that. If it was more like an advanced QT api, it would be great. A kernel on a floppy is a good thing. Keep the OS small. If the actual OS is 5 megs, it'll be more useful then something that is 650 megs. OSes must also have seperate configuration files for individual programs. No stupid registry where an accidental crash can lead to all of your configuration being destroyed instead of a few. The OS should be limited to controlling basic physical(HDs, mice, etc.) and logical(FS, memory, DMA control, etc.) devices, executing programs, multitasking and all that comes with that, and making sure programs do not write over each other, including the kernel. That is it. That is all a filesystem should do. If it does more then this, it is inflated with unnecessary features that slow the computer and boot time down.
----
Have you ever used Windows NT. It's basically a command shell and a GUI. A common user can go in, get to a command shell and delete all the files they please, as long as the files aren't in current use. What they can't do is modify the clock, use the Windows install programs(ones that specifically require Admin access(they can still use 32-bit console install programs) and they can't modify the registry. This is not very secure. It is also not a very intelligent design. If you're programs don't use the registry or use the Windows standard GUI install, you should have no problems doing what ever the hell you want. Plain and simple. I deal with these computer on a every day basis. I can log in as a guest account and nearly wipe out the computer and its contents. Win2000 is not Unix. It is not secure(not saying Unix is secure, it is just *more* secure.) If you don't know what you're talking about, don't speak.
----
First of all, a power user wouldn't use either Mac or Winnt, they would use Linux or Unix. Win2000 MacOS suck. Windows 2000 is more versatile and powerful because of that, Linux is even more so. Macintosh is designed for people who don't actually want to learn how to use a computer so it sucks. In other words, you are wrong, not me.
----
First rule of life. Don't state the obvious. Of course the Bourne Again Shell is not Linux. The kernel is Linux, nothing else. Like duh. Next topic, it could probably be used for a smart bomb. I'm sure you could put MS-DOS on an integrated chip, add some additional digital logic, and design a bomb that would have an accuracy of 95%+. The question is, why? The government would have to write most of the logic itself and what ever is included in the Linux kernel is probably just unneeded extras. It could save money in the long-run but the government is not about saving money, it is about keeping the people employed and educated so that they can squeeze more money out of them in the long run. Their is a balance of interest here. Bigger government with more people employed by it or a smaller government with a smaller budget and fewer people employed. It all depends on the current status of the economy and whose in power to which one they choose.
Secondly, their is a problem with the GPL license. Sinced no one "owns" the license, their is no one to sue them. Sure, if some big organization breaks the license, many people of the community could get together enough funds to hire a good lawyer and sue their ass, but that is based on the power of the people to cooperate. Their is no central organization to control the power and thus could result in chaos when people break the license, money is short, or no one wants to sue them. You're not going to spend a million dollars to sue the little guy because he broke the license agreement, it is uneconomical. This is a type of federalism and it can, when times are tough, plain suck.
Third of all, GPL only works as an End User License agreement if everybody cooperates. If only a few are willing to cooperate while others do their thing, it breaks up. Fortunately, so far, groups have cooperated and it has worked. We may not be so lucky forever.
----
My machine uses 8 megs of ram with X + 2 megs for my WM. Ten megs for an average user with 22 megs for a browser games and everything else is not very much. You can't run X and play Q3 but you can run X and netscape and surf(but who would want to on a TV.) This is not acceptable in the modern age of computers.
----
Sorry, Linux is not running the fastest Supercomputers. :(
----
You might be right. Unfortunately, this is also the government. They have the money and the resources to build customized chips. They certainly wouldn't want your precious money go to waste by not using it, would they? The economics of non-profit governments. Spend as much money as possible so that you can claim that you have insufficient funding(so you can get more.) Ironic, isn't it.
----
OS X is "easier" to install then Win2k(but less versatile. OS X has an industry proven BSD kernel where Win2k has a Unix kernel(what is it, can't remember off the top of my head) but sucks because, well, it is not capable of running all windows programs. OS X is more Unix, for the kind at heart. They both have their list of problems such as, on WIN2k, a normal user nearly has just as much control to edit and delete files as the Administrator. Although normal users can't install using the Windows installer or modify the clock, they can still manually do most things that could possibly corrupt a computer. My experience with Mac OS X is limited in this area so I'm not going to respond to its problems.
----
If their going to drop a guided bomb, they're certainly not going to use Linux. What does a bomb need with a Bash prompt anyways. All it needs is some guided sensors, some basic logic and *maybe* a way to communicate to the mothership about its current situation. This is customized and hardware specific code for the current device. For cost reasons, they probably want to keep this on a small integrated chip, not an internal HD with megs of memory and an Open Source Kernel. It really doesn't make sense to use Linux.
----
Their foreign governments with their own ideas about IP. They can change it if they please. It's not likely that we're going to start WWIII over a stupid, in the weakest sense, GPL license agreement(unless it is used as a scapegoat for something else.) Their is a high probability that they will change agreement if their countries need s change or for whatever reason. Now enquiring minds know. What will enquiring minds ask next?
----
Linux is running on the second fastest Supercomputer(via. clusters of parallel computers) in the world. Call Guiness.
----
The market justified price is defined as the price justified by the market with competition(like Linux is selling at around $40 where Windows is at $89 to above $200), thus the profit maximizing point of that. The monopoly profit maximizing point is greater then the market justifed point where their is no/little competition but consumers are still only willing to pay so much but much(this is much higher then w/ competition). Econ 55, Macroeconomics, WVU.
----
About a month ago, I think. Anyways, it would be cool to have one. It might entice me to actually go out and buy a PS2.
----
No more slavery, no more sucking up to those who exploit us. Real freedom. Their are more then one type of slavery. The first type: chain them up, put them in the cotton field, let them suffer. The second type: Decrease labor demands, increase labor force. In this way, many employees will compete for low wages so they can buy massively inflated common goods controlled by the companies that employ them. Some place, somewhere in the world, someone will always suffer from the second and their hasn't been a single point in history where people haven't suffered from the first(including today.)
The people should inherit the Earth, no doubt. The question is, what happens when the population gets so high and that people that inherit this earth are getting smaller and smaller slices of the World's pie.
I like intellectual property laws. They should, naturally, be limited, say 7-10 years. If I spent $500 million on a research project with intentional profit of $700 million and you download my hard earned research and money for free and distribute it to the world, I am going to be pissed. After a few years, let it run its course, the information(program) should become free or open for secondary development and some freedom of information act should kick in.
As of Brazillians downloading free copies of Windows, their is nothing wrong with that on the basis that Microsoft is purely a monopoly. It makes massive amounts of money on its lacking products(at 40 or more bucks above the market justified price to the profit maximizing point) just so users can spends tons of more money on worthless upgrades. When the government becomes tyrant, it is *MORE* ok to rebel then when it is not or less.
----
The butterflies are free, why can't multimedia be?
----
It is only legal until someone sues them and tries to prove that it isn't legal or is reviewed by some law-regulating/enforcing organization. Of course, if you did sue, they'll probably hire Johnny Cochran, giving you almost no chance to win.
----
You're an engineer. Engineer in what? Wow, I'm almost one in computers(year and a half left.) Who do you work for? How much do you make? Do you have any recommendations for who not to work for once I graduate? I don't get out much, being a computer nerd and all, but am willing to go nearly anywhere. Thanks.
----
It's a metaphor. I'm the mechanic repairing the cars for those who aren't. Please know what you're talking about before you speak. Yes it is that simple. I've been doing it since I was five(ms-dos 3.10, ugh) and have almost no problems. It's not like programming where sometimes you have to understand the problem before you can fix it, this is computing. Completely different.
----