All I have to say is that you need to read what I said, not what you think I said. Unix has bugs, as does all software. That's why I said Unix was "less buggy" than Windows. Which it is. Also you replied to things I said with nonsensical remarks. I said "I didn't say that not having a common API isn't a bad thing." Let me rephrase. I didn't say that having a common API is a bad thing. So... maybe you should read more carefully? I'm not disagreeing with you, save on the point that having many different Unix variants is bad.
First, you misunderstand me. I didn't say that not having a common API isn't a bad thing. I said that UNIX not being a unified project wasn't a bad thing. The reason I say this is having multiple projects allows people to work on whatever project rings true to them. IE OpenBSD users/developers tend to use it because its main goal is security. This is a good thing for them because they are security fanatics. Their work can then be ported to other operating systems (mostly the other BSDs). I think the same principle is true of Linux.
As to not having a common API, first off... a common API for what? Graphics? UNIX isn't a graphical monster. That's what X is for. And now that nearly everyone runs some variant of X there is a common API (and if you don't like that, there is always GTK+ or QT or umpteen others).
If the API is for interacting with the system... POSIX is all I can say. And that's been around more or less since 1985. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX)
See, I do think it is what kept us ALL from using some form of UNIX on our desktops today, personally.
Who do you mean by "ALL"? Because this "API incompatibilities between various vendor models" has obviously not stopped you (probably), me, and others from using UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like on their desktops.
If "ALL" is Joe-Blow-Windows-User, who is proud that he can use MS Word, then I don't care if they use UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like. Ultimately, he would probably be happier with UNIX or some UNIX variant. If he still wants to use buggy software then, whatever. If he wants to use less buggy software then, Good Job!
If "ALL" means SysAdmins, then I think they are foolish not to use UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like. But, if they want someone else to control their network, that's their choice I suppose.
This is where UNIX dropped the ball in fact - API incompatibilities between various vendor models (e.g.-> BSD/Solaris/AIX/Xenix/SCO, etc./et all)...
That's because the different UNIX versions... are different Operating Systems with different kernels. Different versions of Linux are the same kernel with stuff slapped on top of it. You point out that Torvalds and Gates both (though this is not strictly true of either of them) "These gents BOTH are a single stewardship of what goes into various builds" The difference again is that UNIX wasn't/isn't a unified project in the way that the Linux Kernel is. And I don't think that's a necessarily a bad thing.
The only thing I disagree with is that a 4GHz box can handle 10% slowdown. This is not to say that your idea is bad, or that it should not be done, because I think it should be. I think what you should have said, is that any slowdown that the user will see is acceptable for the added security. However, I doubt anyone will do this simply because the "1337 h4x0rz" will say "Omg! sl0w!" without understanding the reasons behind said slowness.
I have to agree with the parent post. Linux is ready for the desktop. The problem is that people like Ed Haletky want it to be just like Windows, when surprise, surprise! it's not Windows. It will/should never behave like Windows. The reason more people won't use Linux on the desktop has less to do with support for Program X than with the fact that people are unwilling to learn something new. I, honestly, could care less if "Linux is ready for the desktop" according to people like Haletky. If you can use it on the desktop, then use it. Otherwise, go back to Windows, because that is obviously what you are looking for. Evidently other people agree. Windows is entrenched in the desktop market and may stay there. I don't care. If people want buggy software, let them have it. Otherwise, let free software speak for itself. I don't think anyone needs to campaign to "Destroy Microsoft." They are doing a good enough job of that on their own.
But I doubt that IIS coders are allowed to arrogantly pass the responsibility for its GUI functions off to the GDI or Forms people (which would be totally inappropriate).
Why don't you try reading so that you then understand the reasons the GUIs should be separate from core programs in many programs.
Slashdot Mirror
"Coding is about the best tool for the job."
Ok... With you so far.
"I call them powerful"
Java? There are many things I would call Java and powerful is not one of them. Especially not when compared to say... LISP?
"Java can do almost anything you need it to"
How about pointer math?
" and since the late 1990s it has been nearly as fast as C or C++:"
Wow. That is possibly the single most blatantly wrong thing I have ever read on Slashdot. I'm stunned.
Damn you preview! You win again!
You're not the onlyone who is attached to his psuedonym. I'd be mad too. I'd prolly quit playing.
All I have to say is that you need to read what I said, not what you think I said. Unix has bugs, as does all software. That's why I said Unix was "less buggy" than Windows. Which it is. Also you replied to things I said with nonsensical remarks. I said "I didn't say that not having a common API isn't a bad thing." Let me rephrase. I didn't say that having a common API is a bad thing. So... maybe you should read more carefully? I'm not disagreeing with you, save on the point that having many different Unix variants is bad.
As to not having a common API, first off... a common API for what? Graphics? UNIX isn't a graphical monster. That's what X is for. And now that nearly everyone runs some variant of X there is a common API (and if you don't like that, there is always GTK+ or QT or umpteen others).
If the API is for interacting with the system... POSIX is all I can say. And that's been around more or less since 1985. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX)
Who do you mean by "ALL"? Because this "API incompatibilities between various vendor models" has obviously not stopped you (probably), me, and others from using UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like on their desktops.
If "ALL" is Joe-Blow-Windows-User, who is proud that he can use MS Word, then I don't care if they use UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like. Ultimately, he would probably be happier with UNIX or some UNIX variant. If he still wants to use buggy software then, whatever. If he wants to use less buggy software then, Good Job!
If "ALL" means SysAdmins, then I think they are foolish not to use UNIX or a UNIX work-a-like. But, if they want someone else to control their network, that's their choice I suppose.
That's because the different UNIX versions... are different Operating Systems with different kernels. Different versions of Linux are the same kernel with stuff slapped on top of it. You point out that Torvalds and Gates both (though this is not strictly true of either of them) "These gents BOTH are a single stewardship of what goes into various builds" The difference again is that UNIX wasn't/isn't a unified project in the way that the Linux Kernel is. And I don't think that's a necessarily a bad thing.
The only thing I disagree with is that a 4GHz box can handle 10% slowdown. This is not to say that your idea is bad, or that it should not be done, because I think it should be. I think what you should have said, is that any slowdown that the user will see is acceptable for the added security. However, I doubt anyone will do this simply because the "1337 h4x0rz" will say "Omg! sl0w!" without understanding the reasons behind said slowness.
I have to agree with the parent post. Linux is ready for the desktop. The problem is that people like Ed Haletky want it to be just like Windows, when surprise, surprise! it's not Windows. It will/should never behave like Windows. The reason more people won't use Linux on the desktop has less to do with support for Program X than with the fact that people are unwilling to learn something new. I, honestly, could care less if "Linux is ready for the desktop" according to people like Haletky. If you can use it on the desktop, then use it. Otherwise, go back to Windows, because that is obviously what you are looking for. Evidently other people agree. Windows is entrenched in the desktop market and may stay there. I don't care. If people want buggy software, let them have it. Otherwise, let free software speak for itself. I don't think anyone needs to campaign to "Destroy Microsoft." They are doing a good enough job of that on their own.
"If you want it to be possessive, it's just i-t-s. But if its supposed to be a contraction, then it's i-t-apostrophe-s... scalawag." - Strong Bad
Preach on brother!