I wonder whats going through these peoples heads... "Yeah, we've been putting crap together for Linux for too damn long. Now that it's reliable, hitting the edge of mainstream, and is readily being accepted by individuals outside of the opensource community, we can release our own different kernel!" wtf...
Makes me think alot of FreeDOS. Sure, theres a base of applications, but why create an existing environment?
1) More Windows developers means more optimizations in platform-specific code on windows
I agree with you there... a majority of the world is Windows.
2) MSVC is a better C++ compiler than gcc and produces smaller and faster code
Isn't that a bit hard to really prove? I mean, when was the last time you saw a binary created by GCC for Windows, or a MSVC binary created for Linux/Unix? The two are mutually exclusive...
I've created QT applications under both a couple of times, and depending on the situation, MSVC almost always created more bloat in that situation. (with all debugging off, pretty much bare everything.. Just QT libraries linked.)
-- quote -- 6% marketshare and declining -- don't expect to see many clueful NS4 compatible sites coming on line in the future. -- end quote --
If it doesn't render under Netscape 4, then pretty much it isn't html compliant. (unless it's some wierd javascript stuff)
The point of netscape originally was a standards based web browser. It's evolved over the years with LAYER and different proprietary items because there wasn't anything to fit that niche. Now, there is. CSS was brought about in the war between Netscape & Microsoft, so naturally there was some kind of a conflict. CSS is standards based now. NS4.x ignores CSS the last I checked...
I donno, personally when I read that I thought about George Orwell's book "1984":) That, and the catchy anthem thats available on the soundtrack of the movie. (ironically, the 1984 version of 1984.)
This definition of success... through whose eyes is this measured? In my eyes, Linux is very successful because it does exactly what I need. If you are a graphics artist who designs web pages and music scores, then Macintosh would definately be your "success story"... not Microsoft. I've done graphics and music work on Wintel hardware, and the downfalls of the architecture in general makes me wonder why I ever did it on that hardware and not a Mac... besides the fact that I had a commodity computer with a commodity video capture/render card.
You see... the "success"as you put it is not bestowed upon Linux because you do a very specialized task. Sure, Linux does not have the niche of video and graphics manipulation in the palm of the opensource hand... but that is *hardly* the only thing a computer can do, much less the OS. Of course, if your job is to monitor and troubleshoot a intra/internet while using scan probes to figure out a perpetrators whereabouts and port openings in order to disable them and remain secure all the while and being able to take those statistics, run a few commands and manipulate them into a usable comma-delimited file which can be read into a plotter utility in order to make them readable by upper management... then Linux is for you.
You said:
Look at MS. It is successful because it provides what people want, and Linux is not because it doesn't. I myself am a web designer and graphic artist, and I use
photoshop, cakewalk for music, and expect good drivers for my synthesisers, graphics tablets, and so on. I don't see them, or the software, on linux. MS provides me
with what I want.
Slashdot Mirror
no, i don't think you understand, he's doesn't really think that he's in a tower talking to you in outer space...
:)
*outreached finger* hellooooo
sorry, had to.. zoolander kicked in
i think it should be al gore simply because of his excellent work on the IP stack...
Evidentally, yeah.. LOL...
I develop under VC and GCC, so I guess I missed the ability to run GCC under Windows with Cygwin. I never could get that thing to work right, anyway.
That's all we need is another operating system.
I wonder whats going through these peoples heads... "Yeah, we've been putting crap together for Linux for too damn long. Now that it's reliable, hitting the edge of mainstream, and is readily being accepted by individuals outside of the opensource community, we can release our own different kernel!" wtf...
Makes me think alot of FreeDOS. Sure, theres a base of applications, but why create an existing environment?
1) More Windows developers means more optimizations in platform-specific code on windows
I agree with you there... a majority of the world is Windows.
2) MSVC is a better C++ compiler than gcc and produces smaller and faster code
Isn't that a bit hard to really prove? I mean, when was the last time you saw a binary created by GCC for Windows, or a MSVC binary created for Linux/Unix? The two are mutually exclusive...
I've created QT applications under both a couple of times, and depending on the situation, MSVC almost always created more bloat in that situation. (with all debugging off, pretty much bare everything.. Just QT libraries linked.)
-- quote --
6% marketshare and declining -- don't expect to see many clueful NS4 compatible sites coming on line in the future.
-- end quote --
If it doesn't render under Netscape 4, then pretty much it isn't html compliant. (unless it's some wierd javascript stuff)
The point of netscape originally was a standards based web browser. It's evolved over the years with LAYER and different proprietary items because there wasn't anything to fit that niche. Now, there is. CSS was brought about in the war between Netscape & Microsoft, so naturally there was some kind of a conflict. CSS is standards based now. NS4.x ignores CSS the last I checked...
I donno, personally when I read that I thought about George Orwell's book "1984" :) That, and the catchy anthem thats available on the soundtrack of the movie. (ironically, the 1984 version of 1984.)
That was very scary. I didn't even know this existed until you pointed it out....
Microsoft doesn't offer a downloadable version of Word/Excel/Access/Powerpoint for you to try out before you buy it....
This definition of success... through whose eyes is this measured? In my eyes, Linux is very successful because it does exactly what I need. If you are a graphics artist who designs web pages and music scores, then Macintosh would definately be your "success story"... not Microsoft. I've done graphics and music work on Wintel hardware, and the downfalls of the architecture in general makes me wonder why I ever did it on that hardware and not a Mac... besides the fact that I had a commodity computer with a commodity video capture/render card.
You see... the "success"as you put it is not bestowed upon Linux because you do a very specialized task. Sure, Linux does not have the niche of video and graphics manipulation in the palm of the opensource hand... but that is *hardly* the only thing a computer can do, much less the OS. Of course, if your job is to monitor and troubleshoot a intra/internet while using scan probes to figure out a perpetrators whereabouts and port openings in order to disable them and remain secure all the while and being able to take those statistics, run a few commands and manipulate them into a usable comma-delimited file which can be read into a plotter utility in order to make them readable by upper management... then Linux is for you.
You said:
Look at MS. It is successful because it provides what people want, and Linux is not because it doesn't. I myself am a web designer and graphic artist, and I use
photoshop, cakewalk for music, and expect good drivers for my synthesisers, graphics tablets, and so on. I don't see them, or the software, on linux. MS provides me
with what I want.