Hello, Linux may have been started by Linus in Finland, but he by no means wrote the whole thing. Micrsoft has been unable to duplicate it for many reasons. One of which is the lack of motivation needed, they already have their market cornered. The other one is once an OS gets to a certain point, its basically how many people look at the code, not the man-hours put in. If you have 10,000 people looking at code each for 1 hour a day in their spare time, you will find more bugs than if you have 1,000 people looking for 10 hours a day. Every person can find different bugs and holes. EVERY coder makes mistakes, and usually they learn from them, but in such a large project as an OS, it becomes VERY hard to spot your own mistakes.
As for the uptimes, it really is a matter of how you use it, I can never seem to actually use my desktop for what I do, lots of programming and running many things at one, and keep it running for more than a couple days, no matter what Microsoft version I use. However, using Mandrake 9.2, I have a system that installed very smoothly, and have had running for 36 days 11 hours 5 minutes and counting. The only reason for that last reboot was the power went out during a really bad storm. However, my laptop, which has some technology that currently is unsupported in Linux, CAN run Windows XP for days on end without problems, though it is a laptop, so it gets very little chance to actually do it.
Windows doesn't need a UNIX core
Can you imagine if it did have one? How fast would the most important software packages, such as CAD software and other packages only available for Windows, be available via ports for Linux and OS X? I know that my dad's company (civil engineering) only uses Windows computers because there is no version of AutoCAD for Linux.
Well, it's still an easier time than I had transferring stuff from my old Win 98 machine to my new Win 2000 machine. The only medium I had available to transfer was floppies (being rather computer inept at the time, and not having an effective way of networking them), so my hours of audio clips took me days to transfer. Nowadays with CD-Rs the burden is slightly less, but there still is all the burden of reinstalls.
OH, but what about the world's tallest freestanding bell tower, 160 ft. (49 m), in good old West Lafayette, Indiana. You can't forget about that. Just forget about who has the largest, who has the biggest. Worry about the things that matter, such as incompetent leadership. Yes, I am a citizen of the US, until I finally get away from this shit-hole, and no we didn't choose that asshole, we chose the other one.
Well, the computer I actually use for normal tasks doesn't have anything too old in it, only a few years each, however, my web server is my original, undisturbed except to be opened up every 5-6 years to be dusted, IBM 486/DX2, running in perfect condition with its state of the art Quad speed CD-ROM, 8 MB of RAM, and 3.5" floppy drive, and an external 33.6 serial port modem. What could be better for a very very very low traffic webserver?
Remember, that the toaster only costs about $25 to build, but the liscensing and registration costs inflate that to $500, so repairing that toaster now becomes a very good strategy.
Well, actually, all that you have there are a couple PLDs and a microcontroller, nothing too complex, made something similar in my first digital circuits class. No OS needed in microwaves. BTW, I use a toaster that was made in the 50s (possibly before, don't know when my grandma bought it), and it makes damn good toast. Why do you have to be going and trying to screw it up by putting MS crap on it when toasters were making perfectly good toast before a digital computer was even conceived?
Just one question, isn't an office suite a rather simple application? I mean, does installing an office suite really necesitate restarting the OS for the program to work? I didn't think so, especially since OO.o doesn't require a restart after install. However, now onto the whole "its a hack" thing. MS integrated their office suite so heavily into their OS, that they require a restart after install? Now, that sounds to me like someone is trying to really cheat at something, or maybe make it so hard to uninstall that no one will want to, I mean really, who would want to uninstall such a nice product, so we just won't make that option available to the user. 3 years later, they offer an uninstaller bundled with their new office suite, so you have to drop the hundreds of dollars, or reformat to dispose of the piece of crap you've been stuck with. MS, great marketing strategy, mediocre products.
Wow, look, someone who thinks that if you change the format you save a document into and adding 5 new features (which no one uses anyways) is worthy of a whole new release! OO.o actually works on IMPROVING their code, rather than continually making it so older versions are completely incompatible to force people to upgrade. The MS office suite has had NO significant updates, other than obsoleting "older, worse" versions which are still fully functional, and quite frankly faster running than the new crap. I personally would like an optimized code, OO.o is actually working on theirs, MS is making theirs look pretty, and less stable. I could take a crap in a box, sell it, and then eat some corn, and take another crap in a newer box, and call it a newer better version, but that doesn't make it so. If I had to use MS office, I would go back to 97, from when it was fast and stable enough to actually be usable for a good part of the day. Note: OO.o (1.0) and Office XP take almost exactly the same time to start up on my comp., and OO.o doesn't have that long ass waiting time but the first time. However, my personal choice is the *.rtf format, it allows the basic text with different fonts, colors, and other basics, which is ALL YOU REALLY NEED. Anything more than that is just a distraction from the info on the page.
Unfortunately for an X-Y bridge to be built, the toolkit used for X would have to be imported into Y, and kind of defeat the purpose of Y having a standardized toolkit, since developers would then be able to use the same toolkit they were using before and have the program then work for both X and Y. It is the best way to get people to think about switching to Y, but it isn't the best way to keep Y with one standardized toolkit.
Slashdot Mirror
Hello, Linux may have been started by Linus in Finland, but he by no means wrote the whole thing. Micrsoft has been unable to duplicate it for many reasons. One of which is the lack of motivation needed, they already have their market cornered. The other one is once an OS gets to a certain point, its basically how many people look at the code, not the man-hours put in. If you have 10,000 people looking at code each for 1 hour a day in their spare time, you will find more bugs than if you have 1,000 people looking for 10 hours a day. Every person can find different bugs and holes. EVERY coder makes mistakes, and usually they learn from them, but in such a large project as an OS, it becomes VERY hard to spot your own mistakes. As for the uptimes, it really is a matter of how you use it, I can never seem to actually use my desktop for what I do, lots of programming and running many things at one, and keep it running for more than a couple days, no matter what Microsoft version I use. However, using Mandrake 9.2, I have a system that installed very smoothly, and have had running for 36 days 11 hours 5 minutes and counting. The only reason for that last reboot was the power went out during a really bad storm. However, my laptop, which has some technology that currently is unsupported in Linux, CAN run Windows XP for days on end without problems, though it is a laptop, so it gets very little chance to actually do it.
Windows doesn't need a UNIX core
Can you imagine if it did have one? How fast would the most important software packages, such as CAD software and other packages only available for Windows, be available via ports for Linux and OS X? I know that my dad's company (civil engineering) only uses Windows computers because there is no version of AutoCAD for Linux.
Well, it's still an easier time than I had transferring stuff from my old Win 98 machine to my new Win 2000 machine. The only medium I had available to transfer was floppies (being rather computer inept at the time, and not having an effective way of networking them), so my hours of audio clips took me days to transfer. Nowadays with CD-Rs the burden is slightly less, but there still is all the burden of reinstalls.
OH, but what about the world's tallest freestanding bell tower, 160 ft. (49 m), in good old West Lafayette, Indiana. You can't forget about that. Just forget about who has the largest, who has the biggest. Worry about the things that matter, such as incompetent leadership. Yes, I am a citizen of the US, until I finally get away from this shit-hole, and no we didn't choose that asshole, we chose the other one.
Well, the computer I actually use for normal tasks doesn't have anything too old in it, only a few years each, however, my web server is my original, undisturbed except to be opened up every 5-6 years to be dusted, IBM 486/DX2, running in perfect condition with its state of the art Quad speed CD-ROM, 8 MB of RAM, and 3.5" floppy drive, and an external 33.6 serial port modem. What could be better for a very very very low traffic webserver?
Remember, that the toaster only costs about $25 to build, but the liscensing and registration costs inflate that to $500, so repairing that toaster now becomes a very good strategy.
Well, actually, all that you have there are a couple PLDs and a microcontroller, nothing too complex, made something similar in my first digital circuits class. No OS needed in microwaves. BTW, I use a toaster that was made in the 50s (possibly before, don't know when my grandma bought it), and it makes damn good toast. Why do you have to be going and trying to screw it up by putting MS crap on it when toasters were making perfectly good toast before a digital computer was even conceived?
Just one question, isn't an office suite a rather simple application? I mean, does installing an office suite really necesitate restarting the OS for the program to work? I didn't think so, especially since OO.o doesn't require a restart after install. However, now onto the whole "its a hack" thing. MS integrated their office suite so heavily into their OS, that they require a restart after install? Now, that sounds to me like someone is trying to really cheat at something, or maybe make it so hard to uninstall that no one will want to, I mean really, who would want to uninstall such a nice product, so we just won't make that option available to the user. 3 years later, they offer an uninstaller bundled with their new office suite, so you have to drop the hundreds of dollars, or reformat to dispose of the piece of crap you've been stuck with. MS, great marketing strategy, mediocre products.
Wow, look, someone who thinks that if you change the format you save a document into and adding 5 new features (which no one uses anyways) is worthy of a whole new release! OO.o actually works on IMPROVING their code, rather than continually making it so older versions are completely incompatible to force people to upgrade. The MS office suite has had NO significant updates, other than obsoleting "older, worse" versions which are still fully functional, and quite frankly faster running than the new crap. I personally would like an optimized code, OO.o is actually working on theirs, MS is making theirs look pretty, and less stable. I could take a crap in a box, sell it, and then eat some corn, and take another crap in a newer box, and call it a newer better version, but that doesn't make it so. If I had to use MS office, I would go back to 97, from when it was fast and stable enough to actually be usable for a good part of the day. Note: OO.o (1.0) and Office XP take almost exactly the same time to start up on my comp., and OO.o doesn't have that long ass waiting time but the first time. However, my personal choice is the *.rtf format, it allows the basic text with different fonts, colors, and other basics, which is ALL YOU REALLY NEED. Anything more than that is just a distraction from the info on the page.
Unfortunately for an X-Y bridge to be built, the toolkit used for X would have to be imported into Y, and kind of defeat the purpose of Y having a standardized toolkit, since developers would then be able to use the same toolkit they were using before and have the program then work for both X and Y. It is the best way to get people to think about switching to Y, but it isn't the best way to keep Y with one standardized toolkit.