Where I think everyone is missing this argument is in the TCO. Yes, Linux is cheaper.
However, converting apps from Windows to Linux takes developers and $$$$$$.
The cure is easy: don't convert, then. Use those that were originally designed to operate on *nix.
Based on my experience, train someone from the very start is faster then converting someone whose mindset is already locked into anything. Pity I had to convert myself.
The same stands for the applications.
Side note: the applications that were designed right wouldn't be a pain to port, either. So if you see something that doesn't port easily, drop it. It's a telltale sign of a bad product.
Not to mention the cost of training users to navigate a new OS.
Why do you have train users? I guess, we're all talking about the impact of the pricing scheme on the server side, not on the client. Server is invisible to the clients, they couldn't care less.
In short, to be very precise, the C++ specification includes most of C (there is very little of the original C language that is unsupported). C is a subset of C++, C++ is a superset of C. So, in essence, they are the same language.
Exactly, as the Java and Fortran are the same language because you can still write code using Java syntax and Fortran mentality and semantics.
C is a functional programming language, C++ wanted to be object-oriented, but failed because it allows people to think that, quote, C and C++ are the same language, end quote, and not enforce the object oriented thinking, which results in a terrible mess.
Java, on the other hand, doesn't allow that, and though you still can get away with programming using Java syntax and (name-it) functional mentality, it's much more difficult than to grok what OO is and do it the right way.
What have you been smoking? Microsoft is the epitemy of capitalism you retard. It's all of you people that would rather change the market by force (i.e. force of the government) rather than by voting with your dollars, that are closing in on communism!
What do you know about the communism? Have you been there? Have you seen a world of One True Way, One Party, One Car, One TV, One Everything? No? Then keep quiet. You don't have a clue on what a communism is.
I've been there, many years too long, and I'm telling you that if Microsoft resembles me something, than it would be a Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In a lot of ways.
As a side note, if the people here just start thinking about the Open Source, the people there have grasped the concept long ago - look at the Netcraft stats on Apache - about 56% worldwide and up to 90% in some former SU republics.
Let me quote what I consider to be a brilliant passage from Fred Brooks:
"Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct, because no two parts are alike... In this respect software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound.
... scaling-up of a software entity is not merely a repetition of the same elements in larger size; it is necessarily an increase in the number of different elements. In most cases, the elements interact with each other in some nonlinear fashion, and the complexity of the whole increases much more than linearly."
Well, the quote above seems to be terribly outdated. Ever heard of reusability? Ever heard of design patterns? Ever heard of the fractal design?
In the essence, you want to keep the simplicity (or complexity, for that matter) level about the same at any given level of abstraction, and the result is a perfectly understandable arbitrarily complex project design and implementation.
Yes, this is a communication problem between us and them, but it's not exactly clear what is primary - the thinking skills or the English skills.
I heard a good joke recently: "never excuse for your poor English, make others feel handicapped because all they know is just one language"...
On the other hand, you have a perfectly valid point - yes, the communication _is_ vital, and I personally know some people who don't even care to fix their pronunciation after being here in US for 10 years and more. I take this attitude as a direct offense (and English is not my first language either, in case you haven't noticed).
Yes, but what about the case when noone (flexibly defined) CARES to break it? Serious people have more important work to do rather than break the thing which is broken by design...
I don't think that the person who doesn't know that the proper name for "MS VC++ project management system" is "MS Visual Source Safe" is qualified enough to make claims about the quality of CVS.
Do you notice your heart? Not until it starts hurting. That's the way the CVS is being used - seamlessly. Securely. Reliably. Configurably. Anywhere with C compiler. Without hype. Without wasting time clicking buttons and wondering "why the hell !!!!"
It's all about open vs. close - does MS Source Safe work with ANYTHING except MS (n/n)?
Slashdot Mirror
Based on my experience, train someone from the very start is faster then converting someone whose mindset is already locked into anything. Pity I had to convert myself.
The same stands for the applications.
Side note: the applications that were designed right wouldn't be a pain to port, either. So if you see something that doesn't port easily, drop it. It's a telltale sign of a bad product.
Why do you have train users? I guess, we're all talking about the impact of the pricing scheme on the server side, not on the client. Server is invisible to the clients, they couldn't care less.C is a functional programming language, C++ wanted to be object-oriented, but failed because it allows people to think that, quote, C and C++ are the same language, end quote, and not enforce the object oriented thinking, which results in a terrible mess.
Java, on the other hand, doesn't allow that, and though you still can get away with programming using Java syntax and (name-it) functional mentality, it's much more difficult than to grok what OO is and do it the right way.
I've been there, many years too long, and I'm telling you that if Microsoft resembles me something, than it would be a Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In a lot of ways.
As a side note, if the people here just start thinking about the Open Source, the people there have grasped the concept long ago - look at the Netcraft stats on Apache - about 56% worldwide and up to 90% in some former SU republics.
In the essence, you want to keep the simplicity (or complexity, for that matter) level about the same at any given level of abstraction, and the result is a perfectly understandable arbitrarily complex project design and implementation.
Yes, this is a communication problem between us and them, but it's not exactly clear what is primary - the thinking skills or the English skills.
I heard a good joke recently: "never excuse for your poor English, make others feel handicapped because all they know is just one language"...
On the other hand, you have a perfectly valid point - yes, the communication _is_ vital, and I personally know some people who don't even care to fix their pronunciation after being here in US for 10 years and more. I take this attitude as a direct offense (and English is not my first language either, in case you haven't noticed).
Yes, but what about the case when noone (flexibly defined) CARES to break it? Serious people have more important work to do rather than break the thing which is broken by design...
I don't think that the person who doesn't know that the proper name for "MS VC++ project management system" is "MS Visual Source Safe" is qualified enough to make claims about the quality of CVS.
Do you notice your heart? Not until it starts hurting. That's the way the CVS is being used - seamlessly. Securely. Reliably. Configurably. Anywhere with C compiler. Without hype. Without wasting time clicking buttons and wondering "why the hell !!!!"
It's all about open vs. close - does MS Source Safe work with ANYTHING except MS (n/n)?