finally it makes sense why Linux is free (the cheapest it can get).:) (joke)
I disagree on your point - your analogy with 'cars' doesn't really hold true. Software - development costs, but the process of creating 'copies' of it almost cost-free. So, development cost can be recovered easily without overpricing. On the otehr hand, manufactoring the individual cars costs a great deal, also the process leading to it. So, good car always costs more. I hope i'm making sense.
Ya, compared to MS, then fix vulnerabilities much faster. But patch delivery is pathetic in Firefox, still requires a complete download of the latest Firefox binary.
Well, I always found FF startup to be very slow. Also, I have heard of an issue of memory-problem ( open multiple-tabs/close 'em - memory is not freed) that hasn't been really taken care of. For a system with moderate amount of RAM, FF definitely looks like a 'bloated' application.
IE defintely starts faster, Opera [for me] being the fastest. But what i hate about Opera is how it renders the page, IE and FF scores well in that area.
yes, exponential growth is very hard to maintain.. but then i personally feel as 'popularity' increase, so will it be scrutunized more by the 'security community' for vulnerabilties. In short, I feel that as it gets more 'popular', it will start being more like how IE is now. Ya, the "patches" [full-new-version-download] would come out somewhat faster..
-
btw, your sig - it should read '10' and not '11'.
I had started off with Windows 95 running on a 233MHz Celeron with 16MB RAM, it worked perfectly well.. giving me enough visual appeal to keep me satisfied. Around that time, i tried RHL (latest at that time), and i could barely get GUI working with a preferably resolution.
I always felt Microsoft offered the best OS/User-Experience (or Friendliness) any day, compared to Linux.
I love Linux for its power and 'openness', but it still remains a 'Geek OS'. For a desktop/home user - Windows still remains the default choice; I'm not quoting from any statistic, just from what i see around me.
So, I like Microsoft/Windows for making computers more friendly, and approachable for the Novice users. And I love Linux for its power, flexibilty etc.
And just an opinion -- I don't think Linux would have got so popular if it wasn't for its anti-microsoft/windows (replacement) approach.
Lastly.. I'm not on the M$ payroll list!:)
I'm not much of a fan of Yahoo! IM for a variety of reasons, one of 'em is because "invisible mode" doesn't really serves the purpose.
Check http://www.buddy-spy.com/
MSN Messenger used to have a snag in their protocol that revealed the 'online' status of people who blocked others. They seems to have patched that now.
So, personally, I prefer MSN Messenger to Yahoo! IM.
nice link (informative!).
anyway, now google has short-sweet-code. i prefer it that way. i don't think any of their product is 'bloated' in nature, compared to its competitors.
FYI, he also said...
"Microsoft has done pioneering work in providing a cost effective operating system for the Personal computer segment, which is indeed user friendly"
http://www.presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventsl atest1.jsp?id=848
Maybe CBSE in India.. will change their syllabus removing all mathematical proofs/derivations. Ah, yes, who said, we can't score a 100/100 in the exams!!
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you talk to John Carmack ? he think its slow..
t %20Updates ..
Quote from his blog http://www.armadilloaerospace.com/n.x/johnc/Recen
"The biggest problem is that Java is really slow."
"Write-once-run-anywhere. Ha. Hahahahaha."
etc..
finally it makes sense why Linux is free (the cheapest it can get). :) (joke)
I disagree on your point - your analogy with 'cars' doesn't really hold true. Software - development costs, but the process of creating 'copies' of it almost cost-free. So, development cost can be recovered easily without overpricing. On the otehr hand, manufactoring the individual cars costs a great deal, also the process leading to it. So, good car always costs more. I hope i'm making sense.
First of all, Firefox is not exactly "secure" as its widely publicized. It has its share of vulnerabilities.
l nerabilities.html#Firefox
http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/known-vu
Ya, compared to MS, then fix vulnerabilities much faster. But patch delivery is pathetic in Firefox, still requires a complete download of the latest Firefox binary.
I kinda have to agree with you. Sometimes I think if your doing an innovative program, its better you don't give out the source code.
Otheriwse, some big crap firm would come along.. rip off the source-code to incorporate into their 'commercial product'.. and make $$$.
Well, I always found FF startup to be very slow. Also, I have heard of an issue of memory-problem ( open multiple-tabs/close 'em - memory is not freed) that hasn't been really taken care of. For a system with moderate amount of RAM, FF definitely looks like a 'bloated' application.
IE defintely starts faster, Opera [for me] being the fastest. But what i hate about Opera is how it renders the page, IE and FF scores well in that area.
yes, exponential growth is very hard to maintain.. but then i personally feel as 'popularity' increase, so will it be scrutunized more by the 'security community' for vulnerabilties. In short, I feel that as it gets more 'popular', it will start being more like how IE is now. Ya, the "patches" [full-new-version-download] would come out somewhat faster.. - btw, your sig - it should read '10' and not '11'.
I had started off with Windows 95 running on a 233MHz Celeron with 16MB RAM, it worked perfectly well.. giving me enough visual appeal to keep me satisfied. Around that time, i tried RHL (latest at that time), and i could barely get GUI working with a preferably resolution. :)
I always felt Microsoft offered the best OS/User-Experience (or Friendliness) any day, compared to Linux.
I love Linux for its power and 'openness', but it still remains a 'Geek OS'. For a desktop/home user - Windows still remains the default choice; I'm not quoting from any statistic, just from what i see around me.
So, I like Microsoft/Windows for making computers more friendly, and approachable for the Novice users. And I love Linux for its power, flexibilty etc.
And just an opinion -- I don't think Linux would have got so popular if it wasn't for its anti-microsoft/windows (replacement) approach.
Lastly.. I'm not on the M$ payroll list!
I'm not much of a fan of Yahoo! IM for a variety of reasons, one of 'em is because "invisible mode" doesn't really serves the purpose. Check http://www.buddy-spy.com/ MSN Messenger used to have a snag in their protocol that revealed the 'online' status of people who blocked others. They seems to have patched that now. So, personally, I prefer MSN Messenger to Yahoo! IM.
nice link (informative!). anyway, now google has short-sweet-code. i prefer it that way. i don't think any of their product is 'bloated' in nature, compared to its competitors.
FYI, he also said... "Microsoft has done pioneering work in providing a cost effective operating system for the Personal computer segment, which is indeed user friendly" http://www.presidentofindia.nic.in/scripts/eventsl atest1.jsp?id=848
ah, yes... now, i just hope someone just doesn't say firefox "secures" you from dns-poisoning.
Maybe CBSE in India.. will change their syllabus removing all mathematical proofs/derivations. Ah, yes, who said, we can't score a 100/100 in the exams!!