I will have to agree with this individual, even if he/she is using the Anonymous Coward moniker.
The fact is that your original post came off dripping with the acid commonly associated with the common cracker/pirate culture.
I myself make pizza dough for a living, and so am hardly financially well-to-do enough to get my system out of the original Pentium line of processors, and certainly not stable enough to be spending $20 for any distro (quite simply the main reason I use debian -- I have a friend with a CD burner and a Road Runner connection).
However, upon the need for a reinstall, a CD is extremely preferable to using the only phone line I possess to install Linux.
And I'm no simpleminded hacker wannabe... I survived the Atari and Commodore Computers, and their BASIC interpreters (ugh, the memories!), Spent a lot of time on a floppy-bound PS/2 Model 60, ran Minix on a 386 for the longest time, spent some of my time on my previous 486DX2 using Slackware, and finally graduated to Debian, during Bo. (Meaning I had to upgrade to HAMM manually... I would have committed murder several times if I had only a net connection to pull THAT off!)
So, while you are entitled to your opinions (as am I to mine), I would suggest more respectful wording, or at least less ridicule.
-- Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
IBM = Intel-based PC, PC-DOS (Ininitely better than MS-DOS), OS/2 (Infinitely better than Windows... marketing notwithstanding), etc. out the yin-yang.
IBM Has been around for over a century. It out-lasted smaller companies (And yes, Microsoft is still a smaller company), and has kept itself in front of the larger ones. It was producing FULL TILT during the depression in the 30's, and it survived just about every market shift since it's inception, without so much as a lost breath.
It even survived Antitrust Litigation (even if Microsoft DID assist it in that direction).
In short I would say that if Big Blue is backing Linux this much, it's almost guaranteed that Linux will be the winner in the race against Microsoft, even without Thomas J. Watson (Jr. or Sr.) at the helm.
-- Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
This is the problem with pure academics. I can fully understand the need to understand how things work.
However, you must understand, there is a concept involved, all right, but there is also utility. Understanding how the energy stored within atoms can be put to use is one thing, but there is the fact that there are uses to that research that scientists have actually killed themselves upon discovering that it was being used to make high-yield warheads.
The academic hunt for knowledge is only half the equation; utility of that knowledge is the other half.
In the same nature, you must understand that emulators main function is to emulate. Cartridges are impossible to copy, since they are hardware, and CD-ROM burners are not yet installed in every computer in the US, much less the rest of the world.
Emulators, however, go around those physical boundaries to piracy by allowing images of the main hardware, and the data roms/disc to be placed in software, removing the physical limitations to piracy.
In this respect, could you please tell me, in terms I can understand, what other utility an emulator might have that I am not conceiving of?
Until you can describe this accurately enough that not only I, but anyone, can understand other possible uses for emulation, this will be very much seen as a pirate's tool, and for good reason.
-- Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
Back when OS/2 was able to emulate Windows software, you must know one fact that seems to be left out quite often; OS/2 required a copy of Windows to perform it's emulation. Also, OS/2 emulated Windows 3.xx, about the same time that Windows 95 came out.
The resulting lack of Windows 95 tools (especially DirectX) made OS/2's emulation practically useless for current apps, and the dependance on the Windows software itself further reduced it's strength.
WINE, however, is built from the ground up as a set of Windows-compatible APIs and Libraries, with the ability to translate Windows calls to UNIX calls. The stability factor upon completion of WINE will be every bit as stable as Linux itself, since all Wine does is make Linux/X calls out of Windows calls.
Also, because the APIs are aiming to be exactly like the Windows API calls, programmers won't have to entirely re-write their code to make the software compliant with some form of UNIX API... simply change a few things,and recompile.
Think win32.so as opposed to win32.dll
-- Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
Slashdot Mirror
GNOME has stability problems... It can't keep itself up, and is incapable of doing much of anything quickly.
:-)
KDE is more stable, but is not quite as good when it comes to good old-fashioned WM-agnosticism.
And my pick of the litter:
DFM+FVWM2!
(Okay, so I am going to get roasted over an open spit from both camps... but hey, at least I get my choice in.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
I will have to agree with this individual, even if he/she is using the Anonymous Coward moniker.
The fact is that your original post came off dripping with the acid commonly associated with the common cracker/pirate culture.
I myself make pizza dough for a living, and so am hardly financially well-to-do enough to get my system out of the original Pentium line of processors, and certainly not stable enough to be spending $20 for any distro (quite simply the main reason I use debian -- I have a friend with a CD burner and a Road Runner connection).
However, upon the need for a reinstall, a CD is extremely preferable to using the only phone line I possess to install Linux.
And I'm no simpleminded hacker wannabe... I survived the Atari and Commodore Computers, and their BASIC interpreters (ugh, the memories!), Spent a lot of time on a floppy-bound PS/2 Model 60, ran Minix on a 386 for the longest time, spent some of my time on my previous 486DX2 using Slackware, and finally graduated to Debian, during Bo. (Meaning I had to upgrade to HAMM manually... I would have committed murder several times if I had only a net connection to pull THAT off!)
So, while you are entitled to your opinions (as am I to mine), I would suggest more respectful wording, or at least less ridicule.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
As to what egcc might stand for - I am at loss...
EGCC basically stands for "Experimental Gnu C Compiler."
I will have to agree that egcc has been more... capable than it's pure gnu counterpart.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
HINT:
Glibc2 was introduced in HAMM... a.k.a. Debian 2.0
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
IBM = Intel-based PC, PC-DOS (Ininitely better than MS-DOS), OS/2 (Infinitely better than Windows... marketing notwithstanding), etc. out the yin-yang.
IBM Has been around for over a century. It out-lasted smaller companies (And yes, Microsoft is still a smaller company), and has kept itself in front of the larger ones. It was producing FULL TILT during the depression in the 30's, and it survived just about every market shift since it's inception, without so much as a lost breath.
It even survived Antitrust Litigation (even if Microsoft DID assist it in that direction).
In short I would say that if Big Blue is backing Linux this much, it's almost guaranteed that Linux will be the winner in the race against Microsoft, even without Thomas J. Watson (Jr. or Sr.) at the helm.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
This is the problem with pure academics. I can fully understand the need to understand how things work.
However, you must understand, there is a concept involved, all right, but there is also utility. Understanding how the energy stored within atoms can be put to use is one thing, but there is the fact that there are uses to that research that scientists have actually killed themselves upon discovering that it was being used to make high-yield warheads.
The academic hunt for knowledge is only half the equation; utility of that knowledge is the other half.
In the same nature, you must understand that emulators main function is to emulate. Cartridges are impossible to copy, since they are hardware, and CD-ROM burners are not yet installed in every computer in the US, much less the rest of the world.
Emulators, however, go around those physical boundaries to piracy by allowing images of the main hardware, and the data roms/disc to be placed in software, removing the physical limitations to piracy.
In this respect, could you please tell me, in terms I can understand, what other utility an emulator might have that I am not conceiving of?
Until you can describe this accurately enough that not only I, but anyone, can understand other possible uses for emulation, this will be very much seen as a pirate's tool, and for good reason.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
I have placed something similar to my views on Microsoft, and their products. If you would like to read it, go to the page at http://www.geocities. com/SiliconValley/Network/5389/tech.html.
I have prepared that account of how I see Microsoft, the Anti-MS movement, and their software and even political tactics.
Take with a grain of salt, however, this is merely a view.
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.
Back when OS/2 was able to emulate Windows software, you must know one fact that seems to be left out quite often; OS/2 required a copy of Windows to perform it's emulation. Also, OS/2 emulated Windows 3.xx, about the same time that Windows 95 came out.
/X calls out of Windows calls.
The resulting lack of Windows 95 tools (especially DirectX) made OS/2's emulation practically useless for current apps, and the dependance on the Windows software itself further reduced it's strength.
WINE, however, is built from the ground up as a set of Windows-compatible APIs and Libraries, with the ability to translate Windows calls to UNIX calls. The stability factor upon completion of WINE will be every bit as stable as Linux itself, since all Wine does is make Linux
Also, because the APIs are aiming to be exactly like the Windows API calls, programmers won't have to entirely re-write their code to make the software compliant with some form of UNIX API... simply change a few things,and recompile.
Think win32.so as opposed to win32.dll
--
Keep working at it... you will either succeed, or become an expert.