Linux is obsolete. So is ix86. They're popular because they work for everything there users want to do, not because CS thinkers can't come up with genuinely better possibilities.
1. MS started doing Basic, still does Basic, and will always do Basic.
2. We constantly hear about macro packages (especially in Excel), databases, that don't work in Linux. If MS dropped Basic from.NET, I doubt they'd work there either. A Bad Thing.
3. In any case, I can't see using (or advocating) a C-derivative as a macro language. C is just to hacker-oriented, even syntacticaly, C# certainly picks that up.
(Btw., even RMS understands users need a user language; in the post announcing Guile he said GNU would have an algebraic language, as well. If RMS gets this, I'm sure MS does.)
a.) They still have no idea how to be user friendly. That point's been made before here on/.
b.) MS made computers lots more popular, and at the same time implanted the idea that they were unstable. If anything, GNU could have swept in and closed that gap. It wasn't ready for that, it still isn't ready for that. MS isn't hindering them, instead they gave them an opportunity.
Well, free software lives off of programmers. And you can't expect very many (relatively speaking) of those programmers to code for a minority platform. So, once Windows became an overwhelming majority platform, any hope GNU/Linux had of attracting the developers it would have needed to ``sweep in'' vanished. That's how MS got in the way --- by soaking up the lifeblood of free software to program for Windows.
GNU/Linux --- the GNU part was always intended to be user-friendly; the GNU people were simply distracted by the mess known as HURD. IOW, they got unlucky (and possibly didn't know when to quit). As for Linux, Linux 1.0 wasn't even released until 1994. MS Dos 1.0 was released in 1981. With a head start like that, any wonder MS got to the mass market first?
(Although I'm not complaining; I firmly believe GNU/Linux will hit the mass market eventually. However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.)
You really don't think any other system (GNU/Linux, Apple without M$, OS/2, etc.) + Internet wouldn't have produced the same result? Microsoft was lucky to grab 90% market share after 95, not smart.
(For those of you who doubt it, ping the two sites, thesource.ofallevil.com and www.microsoft.com. Enough tries and you'll get the same ip address for either!)
Perhaps I'm mis-informed. I was simply going off what nagarjun said. If I'm wrong, I'm glad I'm wrong. I hate to see a people incapable of freedom (like nagarjun basically said the Asians were). If the Asians prefer freedom, more power to them, I say.
I think this is a question for the FSF---they wrote the GPL, and section 7:
7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
That looks like it says that if you are under a patent law that says you can't really provide the freedom guaranteed by the GPL, you can't distribute. I may be reading it wrong though.
That's what I meant. As I understand it, that's about the only realistic defense against software patents, so I think companies should be allowed as many of those patents as they want---because they're really a sort of anti-patent.
Slashdot Mirror
Linux is obsolete. So is ix86. They're popular because they work for everything there users want to do, not because CS thinkers can't come up with genuinely better possibilities.
I don't think MS was ever what people wanted. It was closest to what they wanted.
Because it's the same issue on the 'net and in real life.
Unfortunately not...
Btw., you have now uttered the first Liberal joke I thought was funny. Good job!
I hate to break it to you, but Torvalds is not God, and his word is not gospel.
Wait a second... You `jokingly' threaten to throw Ann Coulter in jail... becase she `jokingly' threatened to execute liberals? I'm confused.
Well, they were both designed around .NET. VB.NET simply happens to descend from a prior language (unlike C# :)
I doubt it.
.NET, I doubt they'd work there either. A Bad Thing.
1. MS started doing Basic, still does Basic, and will always do Basic.
2. We constantly hear about macro packages (especially in Excel), databases, that don't work in Linux. If MS dropped Basic from
3. In any case, I can't see using (or advocating) a C-derivative as a macro language. C is just to hacker-oriented, even syntacticaly, C# certainly picks that up.
(Btw., even RMS understands users need a user language; in the post announcing Guile he said GNU would have an algebraic language, as well. If RMS gets this, I'm sure MS does.)
Well, free software lives off of programmers. And you can't expect very many (relatively speaking) of those programmers to code for a minority platform. So, once Windows became an overwhelming majority platform, any hope GNU/Linux had of attracting the developers it would have needed to ``sweep in'' vanished. That's how MS got in the way --- by soaking up the lifeblood of free software to program for Windows.
GNU/Linux --- the GNU part was always intended to be user-friendly; the GNU people were simply distracted by the mess known as HURD. IOW, they got unlucky (and possibly didn't know when to quit). As for Linux, Linux 1.0 wasn't even released until 1994. MS Dos 1.0 was released in 1981. With a head start like that, any wonder MS got to the mass market first?
(Although I'm not complaining; I firmly believe GNU/Linux will hit the mass market eventually. However: we would have gotten there faster had MS not gotten in the way, and we had no chance of getting there before MS --- regardless of smarts or technical merit.)
You really don't think any other system (GNU/Linux, Apple without M$, OS/2, etc.) + Internet wouldn't have produced the same result? Microsoft was lucky to grab 90% market share after 95, not smart.
Wow, that is amazing!
(For those of you who doubt it, ping the two sites, thesource.ofallevil.com and www.microsoft.com. Enough tries and you'll get the same ip address for either!)
Well, pure SF is mostly libertarian, so you may have a point there
Whales eat baby seals?!?! Now I don't know who to save!
Moderators: do not moderate if you have no sense of sarcasm.
Perhaps I'm mis-informed. I was simply going off what nagarjun said. If I'm wrong, I'm glad I'm wrong. I hate to see a people incapable of freedom (like nagarjun basically said the Asians were). If the Asians prefer freedom, more power to them, I say.
That's why y'all got colonized by Europe in the 19th century. Seriously. This kind of subservient attitude does nothing good for a country.
Tell that to 19th century abolitionists.
Do you reall think we'd win against China?
Ooh, I'm a citizen of the same country as Cisco's president. I guess that makes me as bad as them...
What the hell does China care about the good of humanity? They're a communist dictatorship...
It's section 7.
That looks like it says that if you are under a patent law that says you can't really provide the freedom guaranteed by the GPL, you can't distribute. I may be reading it wrong though.
That's what I meant. As I understand it, that's about the only realistic defense against software patents, so I think companies should be allowed as many of those patents as they want---because they're really a sort of anti-patent.
Um, I reckon this project was started ~ 40 years before Quake was released?