In what insane world do you spend $17 on a gallon of sugar water and a feedbag of popcorn for a probably-less-than-two-hour movie? Are you planetoidal?
(Setting aside the complete stupidity of his statement, of course.)
A buddy of mine was working for Microsoft and as I recall, he said that a lot of Logitech drivers sucked ass, to the point of Microsoft writing a set of drivers for them. But I could be misremembering the company he mentioned.
And who's going to cover the costs of broken NDAs, exactly? Because the "way they want" is generally open-source, and whether you or I like it or not, there are legal hurdles to making that work.
Calling X on Linux an "application," in terms of the modern desktop paradigm, is just plain incorrect. It's the graphics server. How I would do it (and Wayland may; the details are a little fuzzy) is having X as a separate process, an application, that does the wizardry of drawing X windows. But the primary desktop metaphor would trend, as fast as I could shove it, away from X.
X was great, as you said, for what it's written to do. It's sure as hell not good for what it's being pushed into service for now.
Were I to do it, X wouldn't be the server. X would be an application, as it is on OS X. The massive unpopularity of and certain backlash against such is one reason (along with time, necessary skill, interest, and laziness) I've not done it. That, and, y'know--I'm personally content with a Windows desktop, though I love Linux on my server boxes.
If you're a professional, then you can afford the Visual Studio Professional kits. It's $689. Extremely reasonable and in line with the cost of other professional tools like Photoshop for graphics, Ableton for audio (once you pick up their live packs, anyway), whatever. If you can't afford $689 and can't score a legal free copy (which they hand out like candy at events), you are obviously not a professional.
If you're an enthusiast, Visual Studio Standard is $250. Still reasonable. A little pricier than, say, Ableton without its live packs, but not by much. Not a huge sum. They give this away a ton at events, too.
If you're a newbie, you can download Visual Studio Express, which is a very full-featured IDE lacking only a few options that are primarily used in large-scale development efforts, for free.
Or, if you're a student, you can get a free version of VS2005 Professional, VS2008 Professional, and Server 2003 through DreamSpark.
Theo is considerably nicer to deal with than the majority of GNUlots. Personally, I like the guy. Like Linus, he takes no shit and dishes it when he feels it's warranted. I've had more issues with Ted Unangst than Theo...
Right, which means that it's a stupid toolkit to use when your primary platform is Windows and you are developing proprietary applications. The post I was replying to was saying that you should do that *anyway* for your proprietary applications, and I'm saying that he's dumb for suggesting it because it's increased cost for no real benefit.
Yeah, that's gonna really work. Perhaps people prefer XP? Has that thought permeated the cotton swabbing around that small brain of yours? Hell, I work on Linux software and I prefer XP.
Problem is, most cross-platform toolkits kind of suck ass (though there are individual libraries on a smaller scale that are quite nice). The only really worthwhile C++ cross-platform toolkit I can think of is Qt, and that's not free to develop with. GTK sucks on Windows, wxWindows sucks everywhere, and while I personally love working with.NET and Mono, WinForms on Mono is not there yet.
Targeting a specific platform is generally significantly easier to accomplish and has the benefit of working within its specific paradigm, so to speak. And frankly, there's very little reason to target Linux, and only slightly more reason to target OS X.
Slashdot Mirror
17$ more for pop and popcorn ( now we at 27$ )
In what insane world do you spend $17 on a gallon of sugar water and a feedbag of popcorn for a probably-less-than-two-hour movie? Are you planetoidal?
(Setting aside the complete stupidity of his statement, of course.)
You'd think, but on occasion I've lost .doc's I've exported to PDF, but still had the PDF I emailed to someplace (thanks, GMail!).
Handy feature, and I'm not paying through the nose to get it from Adobe.
Thank you. :)
He said "professional," not "freetard."
OpenOffice 3.0 has one feature I like: PDF import.
It sucks very, very hard compared to Office 2003 for quite literally everything else I have tried to use it for.
One word: chavs.
Wrong. The correct answer is mu, and you are a moron.
* by the creators who do it because they love it. E.g. Star Trek: New Voyages. [startreknewvoyages.com]
You...do realize that that completely fucking sucks, right? If that's one of your examples, you are in serious trouble.
Bullshit. You might (I doubt it), but people, in general, simply will fucking not.
Hell, go look at the Radiohead album release. They made relatively shit for money, and this was for a product that already existed.
What you describe is called the "gorilla arm problem", in some circles.
http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html
A buddy of mine was working for Microsoft and as I recall, he said that a lot of Logitech drivers sucked ass, to the point of Microsoft writing a set of drivers for them. But I could be misremembering the company he mentioned.
I was referring specifically to the desktop with that 0.91%, as that's where most of the driver problems are.
How's Linux's 0.91% market share feeling?
Christ. You make the rest of us who use Linux look bad.
And who's going to cover the costs of broken NDAs, exactly? Because the "way they want" is generally open-source, and whether you or I like it or not, there are legal hurdles to making that work.
A stable ABI is a damn good thing.
When XP came out, didn't Microsoft end up writing drivers for a boatload of Logitech hardware?
Calling X on Linux an "application," in terms of the modern desktop paradigm, is just plain incorrect. It's the graphics server. How I would do it (and Wayland may; the details are a little fuzzy) is having X as a separate process, an application, that does the wizardry of drawing X windows. But the primary desktop metaphor would trend, as fast as I could shove it, away from X.
X was great, as you said, for what it's written to do. It's sure as hell not good for what it's being pushed into service for now.
Were I to do it, X wouldn't be the server. X would be an application, as it is on OS X. The massive unpopularity of and certain backlash against such is one reason (along with time, necessary skill, interest, and laziness) I've not done it. That, and, y'know--I'm personally content with a Windows desktop, though I love Linux on my server boxes.
If you're a professional, then you can afford the Visual Studio Professional kits. It's $689. Extremely reasonable and in line with the cost of other professional tools like Photoshop for graphics, Ableton for audio (once you pick up their live packs, anyway), whatever. If you can't afford $689 and can't score a legal free copy (which they hand out like candy at events), you are obviously not a professional.
If you're an enthusiast, Visual Studio Standard is $250. Still reasonable. A little pricier than, say, Ableton without its live packs, but not by much. Not a huge sum. They give this away a ton at events, too.
If you're a newbie, you can download Visual Studio Express, which is a very full-featured IDE lacking only a few options that are primarily used in large-scale development efforts, for free.
Or, if you're a student, you can get a free version of VS2005 Professional, VS2008 Professional, and Server 2003 through DreamSpark.
In conclusion: you are a fucking moron.
I can't think of any significant, remotely-close-to-good-practices .NET code that breaks in subsequent .NET versions.
Of course, I'm also not a freetard, so I won't FUD that they'll stop adhering to this behavior.
I'm not the other guy, whoever he is.
And don't get me wrong, I appreciate what you do and think you're pretty cool. I'm just saying I ran into you more than Theo. ;)
Theo is considerably nicer to deal with than the majority of GNUlots. Personally, I like the guy. Like Linus, he takes no shit and dishes it when he feels it's warranted. I've had more issues with Ted Unangst than Theo...
Right, which means that it's a stupid toolkit to use when your primary platform is Windows and you are developing proprietary applications. The post I was replying to was saying that you should do that *anyway* for your proprietary applications, and I'm saying that he's dumb for suggesting it because it's increased cost for no real benefit.
Yeah, that's gonna really work. Perhaps people prefer XP? Has that thought permeated the cotton swabbing around that small brain of yours? Hell, I work on Linux software and I prefer XP.
Freetard, go home.
Problem is, most cross-platform toolkits kind of suck ass (though there are individual libraries on a smaller scale that are quite nice). The only really worthwhile C++ cross-platform toolkit I can think of is Qt, and that's not free to develop with. GTK sucks on Windows, wxWindows sucks everywhere, and while I personally love working with .NET and Mono, WinForms on Mono is not there yet.
Targeting a specific platform is generally significantly easier to accomplish and has the benefit of working within its specific paradigm, so to speak. And frankly, there's very little reason to target Linux, and only slightly more reason to target OS X.
Not when Sprint is actively blackholing and pretending that the data went through, as they are now.