DOS isn't an original MS product either, guess where that went. Come to think of it.. the GUI isn't a MS innovation.. neither is networking, email, ftp, telnet, gopher, http.. the list goes on and on. Yet who holds the market?
1) There is no way in hell Microsoft would document their API to the level necessary to allow Apple to duplicate it.
You of course knowing everything about every one of Microsoft's internal policies (even the 'top secret' ones) and external contract and agreement in existance verbatim.
2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.
Ever notice how WINE geeks have to keep saying that wine is not an emulator? Especially when wine started as one. (WINdows Emulator)
This is not a "major reason not to", Mac can tap into a portion of the OS market that Windows has more than 95% of. For example one may like Mac OS but can't really use it because his/her games only run on Windows (because not all windows games have been ported). Now Apple can tap into Bill's Billions. The profit gained can and most likely will outweight the profits from application ports by a sizable amount.
OS/2 was never at the same level of competition as Apple is.. nor were they ever as popular with end users. This fact may be a key issue to success.
Personally I'm sick of Windows, but many of the applications I use do not run on Mac or *nix (lack of ports), thus I'm stuck. If Apple run win32 apps natively, I'd switch right now!
If Linus sees something that he thinks is bad, coming from FreeBSD and into Linux.. he can always say "NO!".. There is no need to call anyone names or even mention beyond a simple reference any product name.
There is a HUGE difference between the phrases "I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots." and "don't use that crap in the linux kernel!"
It's hardly a myth. A "myth" is a story based on no provable facts.Some people may over glorify the "facts" about stability and uptimes, but it's not a myth.
I've continually bested my windows uptimes with my *nix servers. I have no doubt that Windows has been stable for you. However, lets face it. "stable" is an objective word that is greatly based on ones opinion and experiences. for example, what's stable for me may not be for you. FreeBSD may be rock solid for me and have 600+ day uptimes and readily perform every assigned task that it's given whereas you may have difficulties simply installing it. That would play a significant role in our individual definitions of "stable".
I repeatedly go past 400+ days on my freebsd servers whereas my Windows servers have difficulty with 300+ days. Granted, utilization plays a very active part in stability however my experience has been that *nix is better at avoiding reboots.
"Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."
I think they were refering to stability, since DVD authoring/ripping or any other "feature" can easily be done 3rd party. Granted it would be nice to have a stable OS that can natively rip DVD's however once you look at the pricetag... nice has a different definition.
It's also been my experience that "pirates" take what they can get and are more interested in distributing than actually using the software they pirate. It's also more of the thrill to have something illegal than what the capabilities are. How many pirates do you know that distribute FreeBSD?
I think it would be nice that Windows could readily run 400+ days uptime like some of their Unix based competitors that are free. Instead one pays $1000+ US for Windows Server farming abilities (again can be done for free). I've lost count how many "Windows Preachers" I've told "*nix can do that to and it's free". Why not ditch windows and give that $1000+ to a *nix programmer. You get exactlly what you want and do something about the worlds unemployment rate at the same time.
It goes to show that not all MS users are borg drones. Some people actually see that paying a few hundred bucks when you can get the same thing for free is just plain stupid.
Capitalism is closer to Communism that you think.
Slashdot Mirror
DOS isn't an original MS product either, guess where that went. Come to think of it .. the GUI isn't a MS innovation .. neither is networking, email, ftp, telnet, gopher, http .. the list goes on and on. Yet who holds the market?
Any coders tolerance for sloppy coding has no right outside his/her own project(s).
1) There is no way in hell Microsoft would document their API to the level necessary to allow Apple to duplicate it.
You of course knowing everything about every one of Microsoft's internal policies (even the 'top secret' ones) and external contract and agreement in existance verbatim.
2) It's blatantly obvious he doesn't understand precisely what Wine is. Remember: Wine Is Not an Emulator. It's a built-from-scratch implementation of the Windows API.
Ever notice how WINE geeks have to keep saying that wine is not an emulator? Especially when wine started as one. (WINdows Emulator)
"Idiot."
Yes, some people are idiots.
This is not a "major reason not to", Mac can tap into a portion of the OS market that Windows has more than 95% of. For example one may like Mac OS but can't really use it because his/her games only run on Windows (because not all windows games have been ported). Now Apple can tap into Bill's Billions. The profit gained can and most likely will outweight the profits from application ports by a sizable amount.
.. nor were they ever as popular with end users. This fact may be a key issue to success.
OS/2 was never at the same level of competition as Apple is
Personally I'm sick of Windows, but many of the applications I use do not run on Mac or *nix (lack of ports), thus I'm stuck. If Apple run win32 apps natively, I'd switch right now!
If Linus sees something that he thinks is bad, coming from FreeBSD and into Linux .. he can always say "NO!" .. There is no need to call anyone names or even mention beyond a simple reference any product name.
There is a HUGE difference between the phrases "I claim that Mach people (and apparently FreeBSD) are incompetent idiots." and "don't use that crap in the linux kernel!"
Advocation is not the same as obligation.
I agree completely. FreeBSD is *NOT* Linux. Therefore he should loose nothing if FreeBSD/OSX/Windows or any other non-Linux OS fails in anyway.
It's hardly a myth. A "myth" is a story based on no provable facts.Some people may over glorify the "facts" about stability and uptimes, but it's not a myth.
I've continually bested my windows uptimes with my *nix servers. I have no doubt that Windows has been stable for you. However, lets face it. "stable" is an objective word that is greatly based on ones opinion and experiences. for example, what's stable for me may not be for you. FreeBSD may be rock solid for me and have 600+ day uptimes and readily perform every assigned task that it's given whereas you may have difficulties simply installing it. That would play a significant role in our individual definitions of "stable".
I repeatedly go past 400+ days on my freebsd servers whereas my Windows servers have difficulty with 300+ days. Granted, utilization plays a very active part in stability however my experience has been that *nix is better at avoiding reboots.
"Microsoft has removed most of the features that most pirates would want from those OSes. You won't see corporate licensing versions of Ultimate Edition."
... nice has a different definition.
I think they were refering to stability, since DVD authoring/ripping or any other "feature" can easily be done 3rd party. Granted it would be nice to have a stable OS that can natively rip DVD's however once you look at the pricetag
It's also been my experience that "pirates" take what they can get and are more interested in distributing than actually using the software they pirate. It's also more of the thrill to have something illegal than what the capabilities are. How many pirates do you know that distribute FreeBSD?
I think it would be nice that Windows could readily run 400+ days uptime like some of their Unix based competitors that are free. Instead one pays $1000+ US for Windows Server farming abilities (again can be done for free). I've lost count how many "Windows Preachers" I've told "*nix can do that to and it's free". Why not ditch windows and give that $1000+ to a *nix programmer. You get exactlly what you want and do something about the worlds unemployment rate at the same time.
It goes to show that not all MS users are borg drones. Some people actually see that paying a few hundred bucks when you can get the same thing for free is just plain stupid. Capitalism is closer to Communism that you think.