the sweet thing about linux is that it is (and always will be) a choice. very few linux vendors are trying to force themselves on customers; they are simply presenting linux as an alternative to windows and other unix systems (with certain cost advantages, of course). linux does have its disadvantages, but those will be addressed in time, and by people who care about the system and not the dollars it may generate.
with everything going open source, there won't be enough nerds to work on it. don't get me wrong, any software is better when source is available but every article you read emphasizes that open source software is successful because of thousands of nerds contributing time and effort. with more and more software opening up, the source:nerd ratio is getting worse. will this not hamper the open source effect?
i never had a problem with office. it's a decent suite. 95 and nt on the other hand, well, those stink. why not let everyone choose for themselves. me, i'd choose linux and html.
i remember thinking i was cool when i wrote those windows programs using devstudio and its helpful wizards.
soon after, i found myself developing x-based apps. i never understood my windows programs (even while i was writing them) as well as i did after writing x-based code. that is, it became very clear that windows was struggling to do what x had been designed to do from the start.
those helpful wizards were just leading me blindly past all of the ugly hacks in the windows api, sparing me headaches and, unfortunately, understanding.
now i find myself back doing windows programming , daydreaming of those x libraries that set me free.
i have been toying with a business model that includes open source software, something along the lines of deutsch's developing additional functionality for ghostscript for money. i'm having a difficult time (more difficult than i anticipated) figuring out how to make a profit (much less get rich). what made it feasible for deutsch?
i'd take a closer look at the nitwits in redmond before laying the blame on c++. true, c++ extends c to facilitate object oriented programming. a simulation? alright, i'll give you that; but it's quick and backward compatible and that ain't bad.
Slashdot Mirror
the sweet thing about linux is that it is (and always will be) a choice. very few linux vendors are trying to force themselves on customers; they are simply presenting linux as an alternative to windows and other unix systems (with certain cost advantages, of course). linux does have its disadvantages, but those will be addressed in time, and by people who care about the system and not the dollars it may generate.
rdf' that. sgml and its derivatives (i.e., xml) are well on their way to fulfilling those very requirements. the last thing we need is a new standard.
with everything going open source, there won't be enough nerds to work on it. don't get me wrong, any software is better when source is available but every article you read emphasizes that open source software is successful because of thousands of nerds contributing time and effort. with more and more software opening up, the source:nerd ratio is getting worse. will this not hamper the open source effect?
i never had a problem with office. it's a decent suite. 95 and nt on the other hand, well, those stink. why not let everyone choose for themselves. me, i'd choose linux and html.
uuuuuh, no.
i dig the series but every paragraph is starting to sound the same. calm down jon, it's an operating system, not a religion.
where's the page that shows how many chicks dumped him?
i remember thinking i was cool when i wrote those windows programs using devstudio and its helpful wizards.
soon after, i found myself developing x-based apps. i never understood my windows programs (even while i was writing them) as well as i did after writing x-based code. that is, it became very clear that windows was struggling to do what x had been designed to do from the start.
those helpful wizards were just leading me blindly past all of the ugly hacks in the windows api, sparing me headaches and, unfortunately, understanding.
now i find myself back doing windows programming , daydreaming of those x libraries that set me free.i'm not sure i've ever read a more vapid response.
i have been toying with a business model that includes open source software, something along the lines of deutsch's developing additional functionality for ghostscript for money. i'm having a difficult time (more difficult than i anticipated) figuring out how to make a profit (much less get rich). what made it feasible for deutsch?
i'd take a closer look at the nitwits in redmond before laying the blame on c++. true, c++ extends c to facilitate object oriented programming. a simulation? alright, i'll give you that; but it's quick and backward compatible and that ain't bad.