Hum. You might want to read my post a little more closely.
What I said was that you misunderstood who's side Apple is really on.
What I mean is that, regardless of what they do at their conferences and in their ads, they will do what benefits MS where it counts. I'm not suggesting anything sinister: those moves will also benefit themselves and they are a business, but they sure won't benefit the OSS movement.
In particular, they will license the technologies that allow them to support MS's direction on the web client. Their support for the standard, as deployed on the ~5% of desktops that don't use IE (correct me if this is wrong) doesn't matter. What matters is will they support MS's web client technologies (the graphics portion of which we are referring to as Avalon).
So, again, to remind you. When Apple went to OSX they had many options. One was to build OSX on Linux (but still on PPC if so desired) and thereby throw their lot in with the OSS community with Apple targetting consumers and the other Linux distro's targetting businesses. Another was to build it on a BSD and re-energize the fragmentation of the OSS community (it is well known that MS much prefers BSD to GPL).
Remember that, by law, Apple must do what is best for their shareholders, not what is best for their users or the OSS community.
It uses MFC, which is fine for Windows apps, but makes it a poor candidate for cross-platform.
The fact that it is now OS means it should be very easy to make it work with Winelib (if it doesn't already), but that should be the extent of the effort.
If people want a cross-platform file sharing app (that is native to all platforms) then the best choice is probably something written with wxWidgets or GTK2.
Can anyone tell me what half decent, file sharing apps there are that use one of these cross-platform widget sets?
The people you mentioned at Apple don't get to decide strategic direction. The techies recommend one thing, the bean counters recommend something else, and management listens to the bean counters.
I think that Apple WILL implement any new standards based web technologies that Mozilla and Opera develop. And they will do so quite loudly. MS won't mind because if you add Safari market share to Mozilla and Opera it is still tiny. But then Apple will later license Avalon.
When I said that Apple wasn't allowed to 'misbehave' I wasn't suggesting that they weren't allowed to support standards and talk the open-source talk. That is their role. An example of real misbehaving would have been to have built OSX on top of Linux.
Please do hold me to it. Qwavel is not my real name, of course, but I use it quite consistently. (Actually, I assume that anyone with too much free time on their hands could figure out my real name if they wanted.)
For the record, the issue on which we disagree seems to be whether Apple will license the Avalon technologies for inclusion in OSX.
>> If Mozilla, Opera, and Apple get in on the act, that will be enough.
You seem a little confused about who's side Apple is on.
Apple is allowed to fight MS in digital media, but when it comes to OSX they toe the line. If they don't then MS threatens to stop making Office for the Mac. When the time comes, assuming Apple is still behaving, MS will license Avalon to Apple.
I'm happy to stake my personal credibility on the prediction that Apple will behave and MS will license Avalon to them.
OSX is one of the best things ever to happen to MS. OSX's role is to provide a safe, corporate, alternative for all the anti-MS, unix, open-source, or psuedo-rebel users. MS and Apple will get along fine.
This is not to say that OSX isn't very good.
If you want to nit-pick, let me clarify a couple of details. If MS licenses Avalon to Apple then they have to license it to the Linux companies as well (legally). But this is OK for them: they believe that it will be safer politically to exercise their monopoly over client software and the web via technology licenses. This will allow for the appearance of diversity while maintaining the monopoly that translates into huge profit margins.
Similarly, if they license Avalon to, say, Novell, they have to license it to Apple, so it isn't quite as fine grained a tool of control as MS Office is.
Is there a good reason for this? I mean, is it distinct or better than Vorbis in some meaningful way?
Cause otherwise it isn't really helping. The issue for many of us is whether a good, free codec catches on. I want to use something that will be widely supported.
There is an opportunity now for a free codec to do quite well, since the commercial players are still fighting with each other. But fragmentation within the open-source world will not help. If a device manufacturer decides to include a free codec, but then discovers that there are multiple, competing, free codecs, then they just won't bother. Eventually, if history is any indication, MS and Apple will make peace and start supporting each other's technologies.
I think the MPC website should contain a FAQ that explains how it is significantly distinct from Vorbis. Does MPC fill a different need? Is Vorbis not free? Is MPC significantly better at the core task? Did the Vorbis people refuse to cooperate with you?
I'm using Vonage in Toronto, Canada, on the Rogers cable internet service. I've had it for about 2 months in two different locations. I got rid of my POTS line, but I still have a cell phone. On the whole I'm satisfied with the service, but I'll be more satisfied when the reliability of my internet service improves.
The sound quality is very good - much better than GSM cellular. The person on the other end usually thinks I'm calling from a regular analog line.
The reliability is also very good - again better than my cellular - but definitely worse than my old land line. After 1500 minutes I've had 2 drops, a couple of calls in which the other person complained of my voice disappearing, and one call which seemed a bit off. I haven't noticed any problems with latency.
I've encountered a couple of phone numbers that can't be accessed from this line but can be accessed from my cell phone. These are irregular numbers like some 1-800 numbers and the number for calling the phone company. This wouldn't be so bad if there was a message informing you of the problem, but instead the number appears to be always busy so you won't know what is going on.
The features are great. For example, when somebody leaves a message on my voice mail a copy of the message arrives in my E-mail inbox immediately so I get it even if I'm at work. In the past, my wife would listen to the msg when she got home from work and she would save it and then forget to tell me. Managing my account, my preferences, and my mailbox via a web site is great, or at least it could be if the site wasn't so painfully slow.
I'm saving about $25 per month. In the past I paid $7 for the voice mailbox and $8 for call name display, and these are free with the Vonage service.
Some other, less important, comments:
There is no call name display, just call display.
I have to prefix every number I dial with a 1. This is a nuisance and can cause some minor problems, eg. my phone's call-back feature doesn't work because it doesn't emit the 1.
I'd like to get a 2nd phone number (with a distinctive ring) and voice mail box for my wife so she can have her own greeting for professional calls, but this can't be done. The only way to do this is to get a 2nd account and separate phones.
I understand that this distro is not meant to be bug free and is not geared towards newbies, but I'd like to try it anyway.
I am an inexperienced Linux user and I'd like to upgrade my FC1 to FC2, but I'd like to avoid some of the bigger bugs. I'd like to wait for something like FC2.1 in order to avoid some of these big bugs. Will there be an FC2.1? I don't remember there ever being a FC1.1 - just lots of patches. Patches are good, but not sufficient for the WinXP bug since the bug will come into play before the patches can be installed.
Perhaps someone else will create an FC2 compatible distro that includes the major bug fixes and adds a few usability items (like mp3).
I'm sorry but the answer seems totally obvious to me.
What percentage of desktops use Linux? And how about OO?
Windows and MSOffice are the default. Even open-source advocates have to use them sometimes. My friends send me Word documents as if they were text. It's called a monopoly.
So when UofT is deciding what software to support for their conference fascilities, what do you think they are going to choose? Yes, perhaps they could make an exception for one conference, but that would be an extra cost (breaking a monopoly is very hard).
But if you want to complain about the facilities, how about this? It was bloody hot in there on Monday afternoon! I realize that it was an unusually hot day, but this is a modern building and hot days happen. And why were there only outlets in the first two rows, given that this is the (new) computer science building. Notebook batteries don't last all day.
But, in spite of these minor quibles, I learned a lot, and I plan to re-watch some of the better presentations later (the whole thing was taped).
Canadians are much left of Americans politically. Polls consistently show that only 10% of Canadians would vote Republican. This is reflected in their views on many social and political issues. If you are republican you should move to Alberta which is the most 'American' of the Canadian provinces. I've heard that this is true in all Western countries: most of the population would vote Democrat if they could. (This probably pleases the Democrats, but doesn't bother the Republicans at all.)
Canadians are less religious than Americans. Well, they are still religious but in a quieter and political way. Religion is a much less politically and geographically focussed in Canada. For example, being strongly religious in the US makes you vastly more likely to vote Republic and to live in certain parts of the country. This is not true in Canada. (BTW, I think that Canada is more Catholic and the US is more protestant).
The media is also much different. I compared the Canadian, American, and British media during the recent war in Iraq (and much of its aftermath). The American coverage was totally different than that in the other two countries.
Here's an example of two of these that caught my attention recently. I heard that Fox news is having a spat with the Globe and Mail. Fox is accusing the G&M of being too left wing. What's bizarre about this is that the G&M has been the voice of the business community in Canada for as long as I can remember. No one in Canada would ever accuse it of being to left wing.
The purpose and value of WINE seem quite clear to me. In particular, I believe that WINE is of great assistance in helping Windows users who want to move to Linux (or who are trying to convince others to do so).
I think it would be particularly valuable for large organizations that want to move a large number of desktops to Linux, but who have a couple of obscure or custom Windows apps that are holding them back. Since the corporate desktop is Linux's next frontier, WINE is particularly relevant now.
I do not feel the same way about ReactOS. Though some good things have already come from it (proper NTFS support for Linux) I think that it helps MS, while Wine helps Linux.
Also, it appears to me (am I wrong?) that CodeWeavers is a responsible member of the open source community. They appear to care about the success of Linux and OSS, as well as their bottom line. Of course, though, it is the developers who have contributed to WINE without any pay who deserve my appreciation the most.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with CodeWeaver or WINE or anyone involved with them.
But the new UI in Win95 was geared towards creating a better experience for new users (and competing with Mac and OS/2).
If they had just wanted to please migrating Win31 users they would have created a GUI more like that in Win31.
The problem these days is that almost everyone is like the proverbial 'existing Win31 customer' who wants 90% familiarity + 10% improvement.
And I'm not just talking about the users who I try to help, I'm including myself in that too though I'm an advanced user. I want to use Linux more and Windows less, but I want it to be a simple, quick, and painless transition. That's not very adventurous of me, I know, but I got things I need to get done on top of that OS and change slows me down.
Many of the posts here are slagging Xandros for trying to look like Windows and are questioning the idea that this makes it intuitive.
Maybe you are all just trolling, because I find it hard to believe that you haven't seen the desktop numbers (or at least heard about them). Almost everyone uses Windows on the desktop, except a few who use the Mac (with MS's full blessing).
The purpose of the Xandros distribution is to appeal to Windows users. It is supposed to be intuitive to Windows users, not Linux users. 'Lock-in' really exists and it is really important: it is very difficult to switch to another OS if you've only ever used Windows. It's not a matter of which is better, it's a question of familiarity.
I personally would like to see more Windows users using Linux (in any form), and I would especially like to see a small dent made in the MS monopolies so I'm glad to see Xandros working on this.
Now, if you want to slag Xandros, there are lots of better ways to do this. Most importantly to me, they don't seem to contribute much back. People are attacking Red Hat a lot these days, but take a loook at the amount that Red Hat contributes to important OSS projects (eg. GCC). Xandros does not. But that is their right - they are not breaking the GPL or anything (to the best of my knowledge). By the way, Dream Weavers (which is included in Xandros and shares some ownership) is also an excellent contributor (to Wine).
It also seems to me that their product is way over priced, but I guess I don't know what their strategy is.
If the OSS community and companies are going to develop an Avalon (or Avalon-like) implementation, they should write it for Linux, not for Mono.
If they write it for Mono (ie. in C#) then it will be portable to Windows and the Mac. But Windows will already have it and MS will license it to Apple, so that will be meaningless.
If they write it for Linux (ie. in a GCC language) then it will be usable from all Linux development platforms.
As a C++ developer, I can accept that they didn't think C++ was a good language for Gnome, but if they wanted something better they could have just helped with GCJ or ObjectC for GCC. That would have been much quicker and easier than starting from scratch on Mono.
I think they saw Mono as a business opportunity, as well as a useful tool for Linux. And it seems that time has proved them right.
Even if it were politically possible to choose one language, it probably would not be a good thing.
Instead, we should focus on making it easier for people to use different languages.
For example, where "C" is currently recommended, allow any GCC language. This can already be done to a certain, very limited, extent (ie. most languages can consume C), but it could be much bettter, eg. if all these languages produced object files that could be linked together. I'm suggesting a compiler option that would produce object files according to this cross-platform GCC/Gnome standard.
It seems that Troll Tech is dealing with the deficiencies of C++ by creating their own proprietary version of the language. This is a bad approach. The GTK approach of allowing the library consumers to move to newer, better, languages is much preferable. Let's keep doing that.
(It would be nice to be equally open to Python, Java, and Mono, but I don't think I would want to have all three of these running on my machine at once.)
Re:Qt is almost a like a language
on
A Taste of Qt 4
·
· Score: 1
Yes, it is it's own language - a proprietary fork of C++.
What would/. be saying if MS did this?
This is not just a political issue, this is a real practical issue. It splits the C++ community and deprives us of a great library. With the end of active development of MFC, Qt could have become the standard C++ library (built on top of the STL).
But the way things are going, I can't even share a snippet of code with a Qt C++ developer.
I don't doubt that what TT is doing makes sense financially, and that Qt is an excellent library/language/toolset, but it is bad for Linux and bad for C++.
Any amount of money is large at a time when all the alternatives are free: Python, C# with Mono or DotNet, Java, or C++. Even MS has now made their C/C++ compiler free (and it's v7.1, the first good one).
It seems like you had something interesting to say, and you went to the trouble of writing it, so why wrap it in insults and promotion (ruby). I was looking for something with valid criticisms to moderate up, but you are not it. (Now that I've posted I can't moderate anything here.)
Bluetooth is about low power consumption
on
USB Going Wireless
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
People seem to be missing the point regarding bluetooth: it's most important characteristic (in my opinion) is it's low power consumption. This is what makes it so suitable for cell phones, pda's, headsets, etc.
In deciding whether WUSB will replace bluetooth, you need to compare the power consumption of the two, not just the bandwidth.
I know that some people are against having Windows versions of OSS software, but I don't agree. It is important to get Windows users to use cross-platform stuff like OOo and Mozilla. This will help prepare them to switch to another OS when the time is right for them.
The same could be said for developers. If Qt was a viable option for Windows developers then many would use it and they would be better prepared for, and more likely to switch to, another OS.
This seems like a fairly straight-forward argument, which is why many important OSS projects make a big effort to work on Windows as well as Linux. I realize though, that none of this is within TT's mandate. They are a company, not a project, so their job is to make money. Sometimes this coincides with doing what is best for the OSS and Linux communities, but I am amazed at how often this is not the case.
So, though I am a C++ developer, and I believe that Qt is much better than GTK, I'll have to side with GTK for Linux.
There are many good reasons to choose OO, eg. - it is free - it uses open file formats - it is cross-platform
BUT it is not "better" than MSOffice in the way that most users would understand that word. And when an average user tries OO with expectations that it be better than MSO, they become sorely dissapointed, and this affects their attitude towards FLOSS software in general. So please be realistic when you try to sell people on OO.
I am hopeful that OO will become quite good, but that won't be for a while. The next 1.x release is going to attempt to imitate the look of native GUI's. People more more experience than me in these issues have assured me that this is a terrible solution, so I won't start recommending OO to end-users until they have implemented a true native GUI (probably version 2.0).
C++ is very portable if you choose compilers and libraries that are standards compliant and portable, which is now easy.
VC 7.1 (finally), GCC 3.2, the new Intel compiler - these are all very compliant with the standard. And remember that GCC, though not yet well optimized, runs almost everywhere.
The C++ Standard Library, the boost libraries, wxWindows, Qt, + 100 other libraries are all cross-platform.
Now compare this to the huge amount of work required to 'port' #develop from Windows to Mono.
All that's missing with C++ is a processor independent intermediate code, and that's coming in GCC 4. It's called LLVM.
The article says "For Microsoft's part, they're nervous onlookers..."
What, is this some sort of delusion that is necessary to allow Linux folks to use MS technology?
MS is letting this happen. Actually, they are thrilled. Do you think MS doesn't have enough money to hire lawyers, or to plan their legal strategies? No, Novell and Miguel, like Apple, have found a way to make money without offending MS.
On the other hand, dotNet is good technology. I'm a hardcore C/C++ programmer, but I'm not stupid: I'd rather write a GTK app using Mono rather than C.
But if they really wanted to use the dotNet technology to the best advantage of the OSS community, and w/o benefitting MS, they would: - not be working so hard to implement MS proprietary API's, - would have accepted the idea of a cross-gui api (SWT#) instead of insisting on GTK# and thereby setting back all alternatives to WinForms. - they would have added support to Mono for dynamic language (pyton, ruby, etc), favoured by the OSS and Linux communities. This would not be difficult.
In other words, they should have taken the best from dotNet, but tried to create a viable alternative set of API's for the OSS community, rather than focussing on compatibility.
Compatibility is for the shareholders, not the community. It is the shareholders that own Novell/Ximian, so it is their right. But don't try to pretend that you are scaring MS and thinking only of Linux/OSS.
By being more flexible and powerful Mozilla makes anything easier. That includes surfing for porn and preventing porn.
For example, I have mozilla configured to only show me simple HTML: no images, no flash, etc. (unless I specifically request it). Not only does this save me from most ads, it also saves me from pornographic images.
Note that even many non-pornographic sites use semi-pornographic images. With IE there is no way for me to avoid these.
Slashdot Mirror
Hum. You might want to read my post a little more closely.
What I said was that you misunderstood who's side Apple is really on.
What I mean is that, regardless of what they do at their conferences and in their ads, they will do what benefits MS where it counts. I'm not suggesting anything sinister: those moves will also benefit themselves and they are a business, but they sure won't benefit the OSS movement.
In particular, they will license the technologies that allow them to support MS's direction on the web client. Their support for the standard, as deployed on the ~5% of desktops that don't use IE (correct me if this is wrong) doesn't matter. What matters is will they support MS's web client technologies (the graphics portion of which we are referring to as Avalon).
So, again, to remind you. When Apple went to OSX they had many options. One was to build OSX on Linux (but still on PPC if so desired) and thereby throw their lot in with the OSS community with Apple targetting consumers and the other Linux distro's targetting businesses. Another was to build it on a BSD and re-energize the fragmentation of the OSS community (it is well known that MS much prefers BSD to GPL).
Remember that, by law, Apple must do what is best for their shareholders, not what is best for their users or the OSS community.
It uses MFC, which is fine for Windows apps, but makes it a poor candidate for cross-platform.
The fact that it is now OS means it should be very easy to make it work with Winelib (if it doesn't already), but that should be the extent of the effort.
If people want a cross-platform file sharing app (that is native to all platforms) then the best choice is probably something written with wxWidgets or GTK2.
Can anyone tell me what half decent, file sharing apps there are that use one of these cross-platform widget sets?
Yup.
The people you mentioned at Apple don't get to decide strategic direction. The techies recommend one thing, the bean counters recommend something else, and management listens to the bean counters.
I think that Apple WILL implement any new standards based web technologies that Mozilla and Opera develop. And they will do so quite loudly. MS won't mind because if you add Safari market share to Mozilla and Opera it is still tiny. But then Apple will later license Avalon.
When I said that Apple wasn't allowed to 'misbehave' I wasn't suggesting that they weren't allowed to support standards and talk the open-source talk. That is their role. An example of real misbehaving would have been to have built OSX on top of Linux.
Please do hold me to it. Qwavel is not my real name, of course, but I use it quite consistently. (Actually, I assume that anyone with too much free time on their hands could figure out my real name if they wanted.)
For the record, the issue on which we disagree seems to be whether Apple will license the Avalon technologies for inclusion in OSX.
Tom.
>> If Mozilla, Opera, and Apple get in on the act, that will be enough.
You seem a little confused about who's side Apple is on.
Apple is allowed to fight MS in digital media, but when it comes to OSX they toe the line. If they don't then MS threatens to stop making Office for the Mac. When the time comes, assuming Apple is still behaving, MS will license Avalon to Apple.
I'm happy to stake my personal credibility on the prediction that Apple will behave and MS will license Avalon to them.
OSX is one of the best things ever to happen to MS. OSX's role is to provide a safe, corporate, alternative for all the anti-MS, unix, open-source, or psuedo-rebel users. MS and Apple will get along fine.
This is not to say that OSX isn't very good.
If you want to nit-pick, let me clarify a couple of details. If MS licenses Avalon to Apple then they have to license it to the Linux companies as well (legally). But this is OK for them: they believe that it will be safer politically to exercise their monopoly over client software and the web via technology licenses. This will allow for the appearance of diversity while maintaining the monopoly that translates into huge profit margins.
Similarly, if they license Avalon to, say, Novell, they have to license it to Apple, so it isn't quite as fine grained a tool of control as MS Office is.
Tom.
Is there a good reason for this? I mean, is it distinct or better than Vorbis in some meaningful way?
Cause otherwise it isn't really helping. The issue for many of us is whether a good, free codec catches on. I want to use something that will be widely supported.
There is an opportunity now for a free codec to do quite well, since the commercial players are still fighting with each other. But fragmentation within the open-source world will not help. If a device manufacturer decides to include a free codec, but then discovers that there are multiple, competing, free codecs, then they just won't bother. Eventually, if history is any indication, MS and Apple will make peace and start supporting each other's technologies.
I think the MPC website should contain a FAQ that explains how it is significantly distinct from Vorbis. Does MPC fill a different need? Is Vorbis not free? Is MPC significantly better at the core task? Did the Vorbis people refuse to cooperate with you?
Tom.
I'm using Vonage in Toronto, Canada, on the Rogers cable internet service. I've had it for about 2 months in two different locations. I got rid of my POTS line, but I still have a cell phone. On the whole I'm satisfied with the service, but I'll be more satisfied when the reliability of my internet service improves.
The sound quality is very good - much better than GSM cellular. The person on the other end usually thinks I'm calling from a regular analog line.
The reliability is also very good - again better than my cellular - but definitely worse than my old land line. After 1500 minutes I've had 2 drops, a couple of calls in which the other person complained of my voice disappearing, and one call which seemed a bit off. I haven't noticed any problems with latency.
I've encountered a couple of phone numbers that can't be accessed from this line but can be accessed from my cell phone. These are irregular numbers like some 1-800 numbers and the number for calling the phone company. This wouldn't be so bad if there was a message informing you of the problem, but instead the number appears to be always busy so you won't know what is going on.
The features are great. For example, when somebody leaves a message on my voice mail a copy of the message arrives in my E-mail inbox immediately so I get it even if I'm at work. In the past, my wife would listen to the msg when she got home from work and she would save it and then forget to tell me. Managing my account, my preferences, and my mailbox via a web site is great, or at least it could be if the site wasn't so painfully slow.
I'm saving about $25 per month. In the past I paid $7 for the voice mailbox and $8 for call name display, and these are free with the Vonage service.
Some other, less important, comments:
There is no call name display, just call display.
I have to prefix every number I dial with a 1. This is a nuisance and can cause some minor problems, eg. my phone's call-back feature doesn't work because it doesn't emit the 1.
I'd like to get a 2nd phone number (with a distinctive ring) and voice mail box for my wife so she can have her own greeting for professional calls, but this can't be done. The only way to do this is to get a 2nd account and separate phones.
I understand that this distro is not meant to be bug free and is not geared towards newbies, but I'd like to try it anyway.
I am an inexperienced Linux user and I'd like to upgrade my FC1 to FC2, but I'd like to avoid some of the bigger bugs. I'd like to wait for something like FC2.1 in order to avoid some of these big bugs. Will there be an FC2.1? I don't remember there ever being a FC1.1 - just lots of patches. Patches are good, but not sufficient for the WinXP bug since the bug will come into play before the patches can be installed.
Perhaps someone else will create an FC2 compatible distro that includes the major bug fixes and adds a few usability items (like mp3).
I'm sorry but the answer seems totally obvious to me.
What percentage of desktops use Linux? And how about OO?
Windows and MSOffice are the default. Even open-source advocates have to use them sometimes. My friends send me Word documents as if they were text. It's called a monopoly.
So when UofT is deciding what software to support for their conference fascilities, what do you think they are going to choose? Yes, perhaps they could make an exception for one conference, but that would be an extra cost (breaking a monopoly is very hard).
But if you want to complain about the facilities, how about this? It was bloody hot in there on Monday afternoon! I realize that it was an unusually hot day, but this is a modern building and hot days happen. And why were there only outlets in the first two rows, given that this is the (new) computer science building. Notebook batteries don't last all day.
But, in spite of these minor quibles, I learned a lot, and I plan to re-watch some of the better presentations later (the whole thing was taped).
I haven't really seen these issues addressed yet.
Canadians are much left of Americans politically. Polls consistently show that only 10% of Canadians would vote Republican. This is reflected in their views on many social and political issues. If you are republican you should move to Alberta which is the most 'American' of the Canadian provinces. I've heard that this is true in all Western countries: most of the population would vote Democrat if they could. (This probably pleases the Democrats, but doesn't bother the Republicans at all.)
Canadians are less religious than Americans. Well, they are still religious but in a quieter and political way. Religion is a much less politically and geographically focussed in Canada. For example, being strongly religious in the US makes you vastly more likely to vote Republic and to live in certain parts of the country. This is not true in Canada. (BTW, I think that Canada is more Catholic and the US is more protestant).
The media is also much different. I compared the Canadian, American, and British media during the recent war in Iraq (and much of its aftermath). The American coverage was totally different than that in the other two countries.
Here's an example of two of these that caught my attention recently. I heard that Fox news is having a spat with the Globe and Mail. Fox is accusing the G&M of being too left wing. What's bizarre about this is that the G&M has been the voice of the business community in Canada for as long as I can remember. No one in Canada would ever accuse it of being to left wing.
The purpose and value of WINE seem quite clear to me. In particular, I believe that WINE is of great assistance in helping Windows users who want to move to Linux (or who are trying to convince others to do so).
I think it would be particularly valuable for large organizations that want to move a large number of desktops to Linux, but who have a couple of obscure or custom Windows apps that are holding them back. Since the corporate desktop is Linux's next frontier, WINE is particularly relevant now.
I do not feel the same way about ReactOS. Though some good things have already come from it (proper NTFS support for Linux) I think that it helps MS, while Wine helps Linux.
Also, it appears to me (am I wrong?) that CodeWeavers is a responsible member of the open source community. They appear to care about the success of Linux and OSS, as well as their bottom line. Of course, though, it is the developers who have contributed to WINE without any pay who deserve my appreciation the most.
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with CodeWeaver or WINE or anyone involved with them.
But the new UI in Win95 was geared towards creating a better experience for new users (and competing with Mac and OS/2).
If they had just wanted to please migrating Win31 users they would have created a GUI more like that in Win31.
The problem these days is that almost everyone is like the proverbial 'existing Win31 customer' who wants 90% familiarity + 10% improvement.
And I'm not just talking about the users who I try to help, I'm including myself in that too though I'm an advanced user. I want to use Linux more and Windows less, but I want it to be a simple, quick, and painless transition. That's not very adventurous of me, I know, but I got things I need to get done on top of that OS and change slows me down.
Many of the posts here are slagging Xandros for trying to look like Windows and are questioning the idea that this makes it intuitive.
Maybe you are all just trolling, because I find it hard to believe that you haven't seen the desktop numbers (or at least heard about them). Almost everyone uses Windows on the desktop, except a few who use the Mac (with MS's full blessing).
The purpose of the Xandros distribution is to appeal to Windows users. It is supposed to be intuitive to Windows users, not Linux users. 'Lock-in' really exists and it is really important: it is very difficult to switch to another OS if you've only ever used Windows. It's not a matter of which is better, it's a question of familiarity.
I personally would like to see more Windows users using Linux (in any form), and I would especially like to see a small dent made in the MS monopolies so I'm glad to see Xandros working on this.
Now, if you want to slag Xandros, there are lots of better ways to do this. Most importantly to me, they don't seem to contribute much back. People are attacking Red Hat a lot these days, but take a loook at the amount that Red Hat contributes to important OSS projects (eg. GCC). Xandros does not. But that is their right - they are not breaking the GPL or anything (to the best of my knowledge). By the way, Dream Weavers (which is included in Xandros and shares some ownership) is also an excellent contributor (to Wine).
It also seems to me that their product is way over priced, but I guess I don't know what their strategy is.
Ok Novell, but one thing.
If the OSS community and companies are going to develop an Avalon (or Avalon-like) implementation, they should write it for Linux, not for Mono.
If they write it for Mono (ie. in C#) then it will be portable to Windows and the Mac. But Windows will already have it and MS will license it to Apple, so that will be meaningless.
If they write it for Linux (ie. in a GCC language) then it will be usable from all Linux development platforms.
Tom.
You're missing something.
As a C++ developer, I can accept that they didn't think C++ was a good language for Gnome, but if they wanted something better they could have just helped with GCJ or ObjectC for GCC. That would have been much quicker and easier than starting from scratch on Mono.
I think they saw Mono as a business opportunity, as well as a useful tool for Linux. And it seems that time has proved them right.
Even if it were politically possible to choose one language, it probably would not be a good thing.
Instead, we should focus on making it easier for people to use different languages.
For example, where "C" is currently recommended, allow any GCC language. This can already be done to a certain, very limited, extent (ie. most languages can consume C), but it could be much bettter, eg. if all these languages produced object files that could be linked together. I'm suggesting a compiler option that would produce object files according to this cross-platform GCC/Gnome standard.
It seems that Troll Tech is dealing with the deficiencies of C++ by creating their own proprietary version of the language. This is a bad approach. The GTK approach of allowing the library consumers to move to newer, better, languages is much preferable. Let's keep doing that.
(It would be nice to be equally open to Python, Java, and Mono, but I don't think I would want to have all three of these running on my machine at once.)
Yes, it is it's own language - a proprietary fork of C++.
/. be saying if MS did this?
What would
This is not just a political issue, this is a real practical issue. It splits the C++ community and deprives us of a great library. With the end of active development of MFC, Qt could have become the standard C++ library (built on top of the STL).
But the way things are going, I can't even share a snippet of code with a Qt C++ developer.
I don't doubt that what TT is doing makes sense financially, and that Qt is an excellent library/language/toolset, but it is bad for Linux and bad for C++.
Any amount of money is large at a time when all the alternatives are free: Python, C# with Mono or DotNet, Java, or C++. Even MS has now made their C/C++ compiler free (and it's v7.1, the first good one).
It seems like you had something interesting to say, and you went to the trouble of writing it, so why wrap it in insults and promotion (ruby). I was looking for something with valid criticisms to moderate up, but you are not it. (Now that I've posted I can't moderate anything here.)
People seem to be missing the point regarding bluetooth: it's most important characteristic (in my opinion) is it's low power consumption. This is what makes it so suitable for cell phones, pda's, headsets, etc.
In deciding whether WUSB will replace bluetooth, you need to compare the power consumption of the two, not just the bandwidth.
I know that some people are against having Windows versions of OSS software, but I don't agree. It is important to get Windows users to use cross-platform stuff like OOo and Mozilla. This will help prepare them to switch to another OS when the time is right for them.
The same could be said for developers. If Qt was a viable option for Windows developers then many would use it and they would be better prepared for, and more likely to switch to, another OS.
This seems like a fairly straight-forward argument, which is why many important OSS projects make a big effort to work on Windows as well as Linux. I realize though, that none of this is within TT's mandate. They are a company, not a project, so their job is to make money. Sometimes this coincides with doing what is best for the OSS and Linux communities, but I am amazed at how often this is not the case.
So, though I am a C++ developer, and I believe that Qt is much better than GTK, I'll have to side with GTK for Linux.
There are many good reasons to choose OO, eg.
- it is free
- it uses open file formats
- it is cross-platform
BUT it is not "better" than MSOffice in the way that most users would understand that word. And when an average user tries OO with expectations that it be better than MSO, they become sorely dissapointed, and this affects their attitude towards FLOSS software in general. So please be realistic when you try to sell people on OO.
I am hopeful that OO will become quite good, but that won't be for a while. The next 1.x release is going to attempt to imitate the look of native GUI's. People more more experience than me in these issues have assured me that this is a terrible solution, so I won't start recommending OO to end-users until they have implemented a true native GUI (probably version 2.0).
C++ is very portable if you choose compilers and libraries that are standards compliant and portable, which is now easy.
VC 7.1 (finally), GCC 3.2, the new Intel compiler - these are all very compliant with the standard. And remember that GCC, though not yet well optimized, runs almost everywhere.
The C++ Standard Library, the boost libraries, wxWindows, Qt, + 100 other libraries are all cross-platform.
Now compare this to the huge amount of work required to 'port' #develop from Windows to Mono.
All that's missing with C++ is a processor independent intermediate code, and that's coming in GCC 4. It's called LLVM.
Tom.
The article says "For Microsoft's part, they're nervous onlookers..."
What, is this some sort of delusion that is necessary to allow Linux folks to use MS technology?
MS is letting this happen. Actually, they are thrilled. Do you think MS doesn't have enough money to hire lawyers, or to plan their legal strategies? No, Novell and Miguel, like Apple, have found a way to make money without offending MS.
On the other hand, dotNet is good technology. I'm a hardcore C/C++ programmer, but I'm not stupid: I'd rather write a GTK app using Mono rather than C.
But if they really wanted to use the dotNet technology to the best advantage of the OSS community, and w/o benefitting MS, they would:
- not be working so hard to implement MS proprietary API's,
- would have accepted the idea of a cross-gui api (SWT#) instead of insisting on GTK# and thereby setting back all alternatives to WinForms.
- they would have added support to Mono for dynamic language (pyton, ruby, etc), favoured by the OSS and Linux communities. This would not be difficult.
In other words, they should have taken the best from dotNet, but tried to create a viable alternative set of API's for the OSS community, rather than focussing on compatibility.
Compatibility is for the shareholders, not the community. It is the shareholders that own Novell/Ximian, so it is their right. But don't try to pretend that you are scaring MS and thinking only of Linux/OSS.
Tom.
By being more flexible and powerful Mozilla makes anything easier. That includes surfing for porn and preventing porn.
For example, I have mozilla configured to only show me simple HTML: no images, no flash, etc. (unless I specifically request it). Not only does this save me from most ads, it also saves me from pornographic images.
Note that even many non-pornographic sites use semi-pornographic images. With IE there is no way for me to avoid these.