Stop Microsoft
All Things Microsoft => Microsoft Software => Topic started by: Aloone_Jonez on 30 March 2005, 19:18
-
You might want to start it in another thread, because I am curious what Windows has that Linux does not.
Well the only good thing about Windows is most hadware and software is designed for Windows.
-
Oh my. I was afraid of starting this thread myself because no matter how you put it, such a thread on these forums would smell too much of a troll. Anyway, now that the thread is here I might just as well answer.
You say that most hardware and software is designed for windows, and that's indeed a good thing. However, there is a reason to this other than windows merely being so popular. Windows is a good platform. The fact that so much software is made for windows is because so many developers use windows. There are many reasons for developers choosing the platform, but technical issues are among them. The ease of doing things, everything the platform provides, and the mechanisms it offers.
Some of the strong points are Asynchronous I/O design for server apps, DirectX for multimedia abstraction, audio compression manager, COM objects and how they can be used by third parties, heck even the Clipboard. Lately, the .NET is becoming another strong point, but that's more interesting one because it's only loosely tied to windows. Anyone is free to implement the whole system which is standardized and documented. Since windows is providing so many standard apis, application development is straightforward and sane.
Windows also has a strong UI system, and mechanisms to seamlessly integrate and interoperate with it. Clipboard, Drag&Drop, Common Controls, the whole window class mechanism for widget management, etc. On *nix platforms, the X11 natively only supports bitmaps and primitives, no widgets whatsoever. As a result, all applications use whatever libraries they want to, and results tend to look different based on what libraries were used.
Since the *nix systems doesn't provide common apis for many important highlevel operations, they tend to end up with multiple different libraries implementing the same things, in different ways, at different levels of conformance to standards. For example, see all the XML libraries out there. For windows, there's MSXML and anyone's free to use it. Ofcourse, nobody's forced to use it, but if someone got the idea of selling an xml library I'm sure we'd have another fight about integration and competition killing practices.
Having all the apis available is what makes the platform nice for developers. See PHP for an example. PHP was already damned popular even before anyone had bothered to write any kind of language specification. All development was rather empirical, with "let's see if this works now" attitude. Yet, developers loved it, because things were so easy and straightforward. With all the libraries bound to the language, everyone could use all those things without hassle. Having to install libraries and especially having to deal with redistributing libraries to users of the software is quite quite troublesome. PHP is widely trusted because when the server supports PHP, you know your applications should work there unless they depend on something unusual. Same applies for windows. When you have a windows system, you know your applications are going to work. With a linux as an application platform, you only have the kernel and whatever libraries the language guarantees to exist. Anything else and the users have to install something new, which is a hassle.
Phew, that was a long post and only addressed some specific things. There are multitude of reasons why windows is such a great OS, and a lot of them have to do with specific tasks at hand. For a generic view, it's tough to point out things because there are always exception cases where another system is better, and people tend to think that finding such exceptions invalidate everything the generic points stand for.
Feel free to ask more specific questions for more specific answers.
-
How about OLE?
Apart from applications suit like OpenOffice I've not seen any evedance of any standard Linux OLE API or it's use in Linux programs.
Do you perfer FreeBSD to Windows NT / Linux as a server OS?
-
About server OS, I don't really have a preferences. NetBSD, Debian GNU/Linux and Solaris are all fine choices, depending on what I want to do with the server exactly. If it has to be a shell box, I'd probably go for Debian since the GNU userland is pretty much "standard" nowadays, people know how to use GNU tools.
About OLE, that's good too, as part of COM technology overall. Gnome is slowly beginning to gain similar functionality afaik, depending on CORBA for the actual work or so I've heard. The in-place editors and viewers that OLE can give you are indeed quite interesting stuff in the win32 land. Since the system has standardized menu system etc for applications, all OLE objects can interact with them too, to merge the activated object menus into the host application. It's a quite powerful UI concept indeed. Since COM is a binary standard, it's language neutral and you can implement the container objects in any language that can implement the COM binary interface.
COM is just a technology, and different applications define interfaces you can implement with COM. Then, these objects can be registered into the system to be used by any application. COM object types include DirectX image/audio filters, Widgets such as buttons and gauges, Application extensions such as toolbars and plugins, Embeddable objects (OLE) such as bitmaps and midi sequences and video clips, Utility objects such as winsock object and XML parser, and application objects to enable scripting of applications. Blah blah blah. No, I didn't copypaste that from anywhere, but I did "cheat" a little and used OLE/COM Object Viewer (ships with visual studio) to refresh my memory :)
-
You say that most hardware and software is designed for windows, and that's indeed a good thing.
jeeesus fuck!
no.
you know what? i am not even going to go further than this. i'm not even going to read this thread, let alone respond.
any thread that starts with a line like this, really doesn't need or want my input, sadly.
"good thing" !
-
Personally, I don't care anymore what people run. I run Linux because it has the technology that suits me. If you want all the things Muzzy mentioned: a very complex system. Then go right ahead and run Windows. It will also have very complex problems if you don't have a large base of knowledge regarding it like our Muzzy here. That is the problem with complexity on large scales, it can bring in all kinds of stupid people who are not complex at all loving it. It is my personal philosophy that Less is More and thats one of the things I like about Linux. It certainly has its shortfalls, I bitch about them all the time. I don't like how the desktop has QT, GTK, GTK2, etc, etc, and a lot of programs use different libarys that do almost the same job. However I am willing to accept that loss because I have got a pretty firm base of mainly GTK based applications I use on my Gnome Desktop, and a clever KDE user will have the Qt based applications mostly that they use. Thats the other thing I dig about Linux, that people have a little more choise in there system because there are two major desktops that do work together a little. It also allows customisation, a great deal of it. However Windows can do all these as well, it just depends which one you prefer using and whats important to the user.
People have different types of personalitys that define completely different types of thinking and use of resources, and thats what a computer really is, a great resource. With all this in my head, when I really think about it there is no such thing as a superior system. There are just different people and different systems. There are a lot of things I like about Linux I wish Windows had, there are a lot of things about Windows I wish Linux had. However I weigh them out and I get a strong tendancy towards Linux. Muzzy weighs them out and prefers Windows, why is this? Bingo! People are different.
-
Oops about that "and that's indeed a good thing" sentence. When I was writing it, I was being interrupted several times. I definitely didn't mean to write it that way. A better wording would be "and that's indeed good thing for windows users" or something along those words. What I meant was that it's a definite advantage for Windows as a platform to have the developers aiming for it. Thus, it's a good thing for windows, as a platform, that software and hardware is targeted for it.
I definitely didn't mean that it's a good thing that software and hardware gets locked to a single platform. That's not good. Exclusiveness sucks even when there are reasons for it. I didn't mean it's a good thing that the software and hardware doesn't get available to other systems.
Clear?
-
Yea, I figured that comment was a little rushed, also in its typographical properties, so I just didn't comment.
-
I agree I did think it was a bit silly but kintaro & I thought the same as kintaro - I suppose great minds think alike. :D
-
Well, not being native english speaker it's easier for me to screw up my sentences so that even I won't understand them the way I meant them if I read them again after a few minutes. ;)
-
Well muzzy your English seems pretty good to me, and I think Calum was a bit over critical of your communication skills.
-
All non english speakers that know english as a second langauge have better english then most morons, that speak it primarily.
-
No, I can completely see how he would misunderstand that "it's a good thing" sentence. It's really badly formed, and I should've proofread the message before sending it. Well, I never proofread any of my messages, but had I done so I would've noticed it. heh.
-
I know what you mean kintaro, I'm dyslexic so I can't spell very well. I often spelcheck posts in OpenOffice and lookup the odd word with google and there's Calum over there who can't be bothered with capital letters. :D
-
you can all go and fuck yourselves.
and if you think that's overcritical then...
well, you can still go and fuck yourself. :-D
Nothing personal, but if people can't be arsed saying what they mean, then they can't expect me to intuit what they are talking about.
for the record, muzzy explains himself quite clearly in his reply, which is great, but certain other people criticising my misunderstanding of a (clearly, when looking back upon it) misleading statement are perhaps a little overzealous in their judgements too.
now, unless somebody else wants to criticise me, i'm done in this discussion.
-
jeeesus fuck!
no.
you know what? i am not even going to go further than this. i'm not even going to read this thread, let alone respond.
any thread that starts with a line like this, really doesn't need or want my input, sadly.
"good thing" !
I think you meant (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v86/annorax/bigno.gif)
But that's just me.
-
So, you don't want to discuss the actual topic? Aww, ohwell.
Regarding the "saying what they mean" thing, it isn't as easy as you think. My words might perfectly describe what I mean, but the meaning might still not be easily understood from the words. It's like a one way function, much like a hash although making such analogy is slightly pessimistic. Any sentence can mean many different things, and interpreting the meaning differently than it was intended doesn't mean that people didn't say what they meant. People tend to say what they mean, the problem is that the words can be misunderstood.
Here's some fine dilbert strips on the subject:
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050324.html
http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20050326.html
-
The whole thread is screwed because of bad expression. Looks like Eris won this one. :)
HAIL! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL! HAIL!
For the greater glory of dis-cooooooor-dia!
-
looks like it.
but, i still think people should be able to talk about why windows rules here, so go for it.
don't let me stop you, i just didn't think i could start in trying to comprehend a post that seemed to be saying something, that it turns out you didn't even mean to say! :-)
-
Well the only good thing about Windows is most hadware and software is designed for Windows.
Of course it would be better if all hardware was designed to work with Windows/Linux/BSD/BeOS etc. But what muzzy and I meant (well I don't know 100% about muzzy :) but it's what I meant) is because everything's designed for Windows it's a perfectly valid reason to prefer it.
-
I suppose you have to be a windows programmer to understand the rest of the advantages, eh. The thing that shows to user is high availability of software and hardware, and that's an aggregate result of a superior platform. That monkey boy at Microsoft got it right when he said "Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers" and so on. That's what keeps a platform alive, and that's what Windows attracts, and that's what keeps it on the top in software and hardware availability.
-
Yea, talking of "lock in" and Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers. I know so many people, including myself have been brought into programming by Microsoft Basic (ye old' traditional one that ran on my old TI/99/48A back when I was 7), and the newer one QBASIC that I used up till about 13. This is great except they teach really bad habits in programming that do no justice when you learn real languages.
The whole company is cancer to creativity IMO.
-
Yea, talking of "lock in" and Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers. I know so many people, including myself have been brought into programming by Microsoft Basic (ye old' traditional one that ran on my old TI/99/48A back when I was 7), and the newer one QBASIC that I used up till about 13. This is great except they teach really bad habits in programming that do no justice when you learn real languages.
The whole company is cancer to creativity IMO.
Microsoft did not invent BASIC. They did port it to the world's first microcomputer (the Altair).
The TI/994a ran TI Basic, or TI Extended Basic if you bought the cartridge (IMHO a great investment). Wow I miss that computer, even if it was horribly slow.
History of BASIC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A645121)
-
Well kintaro I hope you won't be locked into using Qbasic for much longer as a free clone is now being developed.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fbc/
-
Microsoft did not invent BASIC. They did port it to the world's first microcomputer (the Altair).
The TI/994a ran TI Basic, or TI Extended Basic if you bought the cartridge (IMHO a great investment). Wow I miss that computer, even if it was horribly slow.
History of BASIC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A645121)
I never said they did, and it was microsoft that invented the BASIC interpreter, but the langauge was never something of theirs. The basic interpreter is their only innovation. It is also the one that made them rich... the american dream.
Well kintaro I hope you won't be locked into using Qbasic for much longer as a free clone is now being developed.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/fbc/
I was actually talking about the bad habits it teaches in programming, it makes it really difficult for some people to adapt to other languages.
PS: Learn to read.
-
I never said they did, and it was microsoft that invented the BASIC interpreter, but the langauge was never something of theirs. The basic interpreter is their only innovation. It is also the one that made them rich... the american dream.
Yes, basic was a compiler before Microsoft made an interpreter.
I was actually talking about the bad habits it teaches in programming, it makes it really difficult for some people to adapt to other languages.
I started ptogramming in qbasic many years ago, I then had a go at C but I've never fully leaned it and I've personally found assembly lot easier than C. I lost interest in programming and computers in general when I was about 18, when I discovered there were more interesting things in life.
PS: Learn to read.
Sorry I am severly dyslexic, :nothappy: and have been trying to learn to read all my life with limited sucess and I currently have a reading age of only 12, but I do my best. :( You can't tell me that you've never misread a post before.
-
Fair enough with the whole dyslexia thing, however you do a lot better with writing compared to some people I know with it, and without.
I feel guilty I was in a grade four reading level within three months of starting school, I just learn fast.
-
Fair enough with the whole dyslexia thing, however you do a lot better with writing compared to some people I know with it, and without.
Yes, I do my best with every post.
My problem with writing is speed more than anything my typing is slow and my handwriting is even slower and illedgible too (I often struggle reading it!). I had to have an amanuensis for all of my exams except for English (because spelling and handwriting is a major part or the mark) I did managed to scrape an E even though they thought I would completely fail.
Reading is also hard, I never read any fiction books because I can't take in to the story as I'm concentrating too much on reading the text. I often find myself reading posts several times before I understand them fully, this is worse for longer posts, and you're right I should have read your post a bit more carefully, perhaps because I find longer posts harder to read tend I concentrate more (some of muzzy's posts take nearly hour to read!) but I should also give short posts equal attention.
I feel guilty I was in a grade four reading level within three months of starting school, I just learn fast.
Good for you!
-
Well I have a friend, I was in class with him last year when I was going to a "specialist school" which was filled with kids with no other school to goto, or just in need of more basic education. Mostly kids with no other school to goto however. I was there because of, well I was just sick of school and it was only part time. (Worst mistake ive ever made). Nonetheless the work was so damn easy I found myself helping my friend learn to read better (he was dyslexic as well), however he was a lot worse then you are.
-
Hey hey, don't diss BASIC. I don't care what Dijkstra says, I started with C64 basic myself and it's a wonderful language. Regarding any "bad habits" it teaches, just learn some more languages (not just one) and you're fine.
If you disagree, what exactly do you consider to be bad in BASIC, specifically? And what are these "bad habits" you speak of?
-
Qbasic was and still is a good newb language. I find it funney how everyone says assembly is so hard when I found it easier than C. perhaps Qbasic got me into lots of bad habits then when I tried C Qbasic had fucked with my brain! But as I'd been using assembly (MS-DOS debug.com) for some time in conjunction with Qbasic I didn't have that problem with assembly.
Well I have a friend, I was in class with him last year when I was going to a "specialist school" which was filled with kids with no other school to goto, or just in need of more basic education. Mostly kids with no other school to goto however. I was there because of, well I was just sick of school and it was only part time. (Worst mistake ive ever made). Nonetheless the work was so damn easy I found myself helping my friend learn to read better (he was dyslexic as well), however he was a lot worse then you are.
I didn't go to a special school but I went to the reading centre on a daily basis, (a place in our town dedicated to helping children with dyslexia), and I had to have a classroom support. I did suffer some bullying though because this made me different to the other children.
-
Qbasic was and still is a good newb language.
An even better one is Python (http://www.python.org). Python has some advantages: it's object oriented, doesn't teach bad habits, can be learned quickly, like BASIC, it's interpreted so that you can see your mistakes right away. Furthermore, it's useful in its own right, not just something you learn on before moving onto something better.
I find it funney how everyone says assembly is so hard when I found it easier than C.
Good for you! Learning C/C++ is a real bitch if you aren't familiar with assembly. The big sticking point with C/C++ is pointers and references. It makes no sense if you have no idea what goes on "under the hood" when you do something like: int a= 10; Using indirection and aliases is done quite commonly in assembly, and becomes second nature, so that C isn't really that big of a deal.
perhaps Qbasic got me into lots of bad habits then when I tried C Qbasic had fucked with my brain!
It sure won't do much to prepare you for C. Again, Python does better in that regard, as its syntax is quite like that of C.
-
I personally find python to be an unholy language, not least because it uses indentation for flow control. Yea, and lisp constructs too. Some guys just can't learn a new language but have to submit patches to make it look like their favourite, and then some jerks don't have a vision over their language so they'll apply the said patches. Hmmmpphhhhh! Ohwell, at least we got python 3000, which will set things straight with expense of backwards compatibility.
Regarding C and C++, while pointers can be tough, they can be understood in the abstract sense without need to understand the lowlevel implementation. However, for debugging reasons it's always a good idea to understand how things are implemented, so strange bugs will make more sense. Anyway, in C++ you can code using only very little amount of pointers, so that's not quite a big as a stumbling block for a C++ programmer than it is to a C programmer.
I can't agree that python and C would be similar in any damn way. If you think the syntax is similar, you're smoking some stuff I'd like to try, too. Or perhaps you're writing your python code in strictly procedural fashion and referring to the paradigm? And ignoring very strongly present functional programming ideology that can "fuck with" the programmer's brain as well...
Anyway, I believe that every language that makes you think about programming differently is a good language, and as of such that includes QBasic as well.
-
I often find myself reading posts several times before I understand them fully, this is worse for longer posts, and you're right I should have read your post a bit more carefully, perhaps because I find longer posts harder to read tend I concentrate more (some of muzzy's posts take nearly hour to read!) but I should also give short posts equal attention.
Ouch, I feel a little guilty about writing long posts now. Perhaps I should concentrate more to keep my posts short ;)
-
I personally find python to be an unholy language, not least because it uses indentation for flow control.
Python's use of white space for flow control has been controversial from day one. However, there is a plus side for the raw newbie. After using Python, he's more likely to write something like this:
for (int i= 0; i < SomeInt; i++)
{
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
}
as opposed to something like this:
for (int i= 0; i < SomeInt; i++) {
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */
/* Do Something */}
Having gotten use to using sane indentation, he'll be more likely to produce more easily readable code.
Regarding C and C++, while pointers can be tough, they can be understood in the abstract sense without need to understand the lowlevel implementation. However, for debugging reasons it's always a good idea to understand how things are implemented, so strange bugs will make more sense. Anyway, in C++ you can code using only very little amount of pointers, so that's not quite a big as a stumbling block for a C++ programmer than it is to a C programmer.
Anything can be understood in an "abstract sense" if you work at it hard enough. However, every book on C/C++ has always introduced the subject of pointers and references with an apology, and an admonition to keep at it with the promise that he'll eventually "get it". It's a helluvalot easier if you've had some experience with assembly, and know how the various addressing modes work.
Still, there are plenty of occasions to use pointers in C++. That's especially true concerning objects and the infamous "this" pointer. Another good thing about Python is that Python class methods make explicit use of self referential pointers.
I can't agree that python and C would be similar in any damn way. If you think the syntax is similar, you're smoking some stuff I'd like to try, too.
Oh really? I'd say that this:
print "%s\n" % ("Hey there, dude!")
is quite similar to this:
printf("%s\n", "Hey there, dude!");
At least if one has seen the former, the latter won't look completely unfamiliar. Start with Python, and it will be easier to pick up C/C++. Jumping straight into C is not a good idea. It can be done, but not easily.
Or perhaps you're writing your python code in strictly procedural fashion and referring to the paradigm? And ignoring very strongly present functional programming ideology that can "fuck with" the programmer's brain as well...
I've used it both ways. Done the same with C++ as well. So?
-
Enforcing newbies to do "the right thing" is not always good idea. They might learn the habit, but they won't know why it's a good thing. The newbie will hate having to use { and } there, and there'll be plenty of quality time debugging badly indented code with stuff like "if (a) b; c;", as opposed to "if (a) { b; c; }"
Also, regarding "syntax similarity", the example of format strings has nothing to do with syntax, it has to do with the standard library. The syntax of the examples you gave is radically different, and the only common point is the semantics of the function used. Once the programmer has gotten used to python's lists, he'll be a fish out of water with C.
-
You're assuming an awful lot there, nobody said we were "forcing" newbies to learn this per se. Indeed, they should know this offhand when learning to code, but that's not exclusive of the fact that they need to comprehend the virtues of clarity in coding. You also seem to see a degradation of coding practices when a newbie is told what to do, as well as when they're left in the dark. I refuse to discuss the matter further until you resolve this conflicting logic. :p
-
Once the programmer has gotten used to python's lists, he'll be a fish out of water with C.
Here are a couple of code fragments from a couple of apps I coded. Here's the one I did with Ruby (not Python, but Ruby uses the same type of lists and dictionaries)
# Create a Ruby hash for master list of all option menus, list boxes and
# spin buttons. (Use hash instead of array as the values for window
# IDs don't start with 0, and may change from one FOX release to another)
# Use the window IDs (FOX defined) as keys.
#
# Organize as 6X6 matrix.
@hshOptMenuList= {THEMES => [cbSpecies, omThemes, sbFurRate, omRelations, nil, nil],
PARTICIPATION => [omArt, omCons, omFursuiting, omContact, omMucking, nil],
REALISM => [omPlushies, omRealism, omTrans, omFanfic, omFanzines, nil],
PREFERENCES => [omFurryGender, omYiffRating, cbOccu, omRLAge, omTechSavvy, omOpSys],
REALLIFE => [omGames, omEduc, omRLFurriness, omHousing, nil, nil],
INTERESTS => [omTheNet, omAnime, omPets, omRLGender, omRLSex, nil]}
I also did a C++ version of the same app, as C++ is a bit snappier on running it. Here's the same problem solved in C++:
/*
Initialize the Option Menu master list.
Note: This becomes necessary as the option menu buttons themselves
do not have a handle to receive messages. Must enable/disable
by calling the ancestor methods directly.
Store the pointers as FXObject*, and cast to type as needed.
*/
Index= THEMES - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= FurrySpeciesCB;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= Themes;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= FurRateSB;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= Relations;
Index= PARTICIPATION - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= Art;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= Cons;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= Fursuiting;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= Contact;
OptMenuList[Index][4]= Mucking;
Index= REALISM - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= Plushies;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= Realism;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= Transform;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= Fanfic;
OptMenuList[Index][4]= Fanzines;
Index= PREFERENCES - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= FurryGender;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= YiffRating;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= FurryJobsCB;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= RLAge;
OptMenuList[Index][4]= TechSavvy;
OptMenuList[Index][5]= OpSys;
Index= REALLIFE - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= Games;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= Education;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= RLFurriness;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= Housing;
Index= INTERESTS - THEMES;
OptMenuList[Index][0]= Internet;
OptMenuList[Index][1]= Anime;
OptMenuList[Index][2]= Pets;
OptMenuList[Index][3]= RLGender;
OptMenuList[Index][4]= RLSexlife;
Simply declare: FXObject *OptMenuList[6][6];
Then fill it with zeros while initializing. Fish out of water? Not hardly! In both cases, it's simply a 6X6 matrix. The main difference is that you don't have to declare the Ruby (or Python) list, with the Ruby hash, you don't have to subtract off the "THEMES" bias every time you want to use it (which is why I went with the hash, and not the list).
I don't see a problem here.
-
You're assuming an awful lot there, nobody said we were "forcing" newbies to learn this per se. Indeed, they should know this offhand when learning to code, but that's not exclusive of the fact that they need to comprehend the virtues of clarity in coding. You also seem to see a degradation of coding practices when a newbie is told what to do, as well as when they're left in the dark. I refuse to discuss the matter further until you resolve this conflicting logic. :p
another apparent contradiction is that newbies will somehow resent being told how to do things correctly and legibly, and will turn out poorly formatted code in retaliation (!) The alternative would be not to tell them how to do this, which would certainly result in poorly formatted code anyway, yes?
i think (personally) that telling people how to do something in an easily understandable way is a *good idea* (TM) because if they are determined to code in an obfuscated fashion, they will do so anyway, regardless.
-
Aren't interpreters very slow?
What would be cool if they could compile the code and then store it in memory then execute immediately. Then the only delay would be the start up time, and if this is a problem most of the code could be interpreted and the programmer could just have an option to pre-compile any routines that need more speed. This would dive you the best of both worlds.
-
This would dive you the best of both worlds.
Actually Python (but not Ruby) does have an option much like that. Python source can be compiled to byte code that runs faster. Usually, the interpreter takes care of doing this with the modules the program loads. You can also override that behaviour and byte compile whatever Python source you want.
Both Python and Ruby make provisions for using add-ons made from compiled C/C++ code. After all, this is how these interpreted languages are able to make use of GUI toolkits written in C/C++.
-
That kinda reminds me of the old "scene" productions, the ones that took up about 500KB of space initially and used nothing but DirectDraw instruction files in ultra-compressed archives (that were unpacked on-the-fly) to create beautiful landscapes. Whatever happened to those?
-
That kinda reminds me of the old "scene" productions, the ones that took up about 500KB of space initially and used nothing but DirectDraw instruction files in ultra-compressed archives (that were unpacked on-the-fly) to create beautiful landscapes. Whatever happened to those?
Runtime texture generation and stuff isn't same as compression. With compression, you have the result data and try to represent it through a compression algorithm. Procedural generation of stuff is different, as the data is generated on the fly. And 500kB is large by some standards, there are 64K and 4K intros out there that look quite quite amazing.
-
Anyway, jtpenrod, when I was talking about python's lists I was thinking about the ease of manipulating them and doing stuff with them. For example:
s = "some squares:"
for i in [x*x for x in range(1,15)]:
s = "%s %d" % (s, i)
print s
Go ahead, move to C after getting used to doing things like that. And that's an example from the simple end. Let's take another one, with a little more trickery, still basic stuff:
s = "this is a silly stupid test sentence"
print ' '.join([x.capitalize() for x in s.split(' ') if len(x)>4])
This example outputs "Silly Stupid Sentence", i.e. capitalized words from the string, for which length of word is greater than 4. Got it? Moving to C after having power like this, it's going to be excessively frustrating.
-
Look, Muzzy, I'm not interested in your little pissing contest. Sure, Python includes lots of features that aren't included in C/C++, such as reg ex support. That isn't the point. That first example is obviously contrived as there's a simpler way to get the job done:
s= "Some squares: "
for i in range(1, 15) : print "%s %d\n" % (s, i * i)
As for the second, sure, it's nice to have built-in reg ex support and string manipulation methods. However, there is nothing to prevent anyone from installing equally capable string class and reg ex libs that will work with any C++ program. If you're talking about C programs, the GTK libs also include these string "objects".
You can contrive all sorts of weird examples and peculiar situations, however, how often do these situations occur in most programming situations? Or is it your contention that programming n00bs are to st00pid to make whatever adjustments are needed in going from an introduction to Python to some other language?
Now you want to consider this a concession of defeat, go ahead and knock yourself out. I don't care. However, I will reiterate that I would encourage anyone who wants to pick up programming, having never done it before, to start with Python, and not C/C++ for the reasons I have already stated. :p
-
Well, your example doesn't do the same thing my example does.
Anyway, python as a language contains some funny approaches to stuff which are just way different from C or C++, or any procedural/OO languages. Lambda (or nested functions) come in mind first. It's not a bad approach to things, and C++ allows local class definitions and stuff, but good luck trying anything like that in C.
All languages teach you habits which you have to break when you learn to think in a new language. Be it python or Basic, the programmer will have to learn a new way to think about programming, and IMO this isn't a bad thing. I think I was originally trying to say that every language teaches you habits which won't apply to other to other languages, not just Basic.
-
I agree with Muzzy here.
I myself have started to learn C Sharp, I am learning it on a Microsoft Platform and Environment at the moment however I plan to move my efforts in future to GNU Mono.
I think .NET has some major innovations, read these...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/0900/Framework/
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/1000/Framework2/
-
:fu: Kintaro for agreeing with Muzzy and liking something Microsoft's done!
No but seriously, I think this .NET shit does look rather cool and the fact it could be multi-platform is rather unuseral for Microsoft, and it maybe their first true innovation. It addresses many things we bitch about Winbloze like the registry and DLL crap, it might rule.
-
C# is pretty damn good and .NET has the potential to be, I just think MS will kill the multi-platform capability of .NET by adding lots of ancillary extras that end up breaking practical compatibility.
-
Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform. Also, nobody says developers have to use what microsoft provides, there are already free implementations of all sorts of useful stuff out there. You can already, today, write gui apps in C# and GTK# so that the stuff works perfectly on both platforms... as long as Mono's implementations aren't fucked, which they often are. Just because documentation is available doesn't mean the developers reimplementing the apis get it right at first try :P
-
As long as they're properly documented
I like your humour.
-
Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform.
Yes, like a DirectX or ActiveX API perhaps :)
-
Well, if things aren't properly documented, how are developers supposed to develop against them? Thus, no problem, unless you want to run microsoft's products on linux, in which case you might have issues with undocumented crap.
Regarding ActiveX, microsoft has no reason to implement any of it on top of .NET, as .NET can provide superior functionality.
And what comes to DirectX, I think the current windows emulators already run directx apps as well? Doesn't this mean opensource world already has implementations for them? Shouldn't be too tough to fit them to reimplement anything that microsoft provides.
Why not develop OpenGL apis or even something new for .NET instead? That way developers would again have the choice, and there'd be no lock-in issue. If you let microsoft dictate the pace even in open and standardized execution platform, it's your own damn fault of they dictate how things go. It's not Microsoft's fault if everyone else are being complete wimps and unable to implement anything worthwhile.
-
Well, any extras they might add, would have to be in form of assemblies (i.e. APIs). As long as they're properly documented, they can be reimplemented on any platform. Also, nobody says developers have to use what microsoft provides, there are already free implementations of all sorts of useful stuff out there. You can already, today, write gui apps in C# and GTK# so that the stuff works perfectly on both platforms... as long as Mono's implementations aren't fucked, which they often are. Just because documentation is available doesn't mean the developers reimplementing the apis get it right at first try :P
I have been learning C# and it is the best language ever. I have been learning it with Visual Studio .NET 2003 and Windows 2003 Server, both run flawlessly. I hope Mono continues to get better and bigger, I have installed it on my Linux Laptop and found some of its features quite medicore, MonoDevelop lacks features that Visual Studio .NET 2003 has, yet all they do is try to emulate it.
If your interested get oriellys Programming C#, you can aqquire them on certain networks in ebook form quite free of charge ;).
-
This is un-fucking-believable...
Here goes nothing:
I suspect windows is just too complex OS for you guys, so linux and such systems might be a better choice for your needs.
Maybe Windows is too damn complex. Since when is complexity a good thing? NEVER!
I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable"). Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.
Conclusion: Windows is shit.
Average linux users know how to manage files, but how many windows users know how to manage objects?
I guess just because feck all people understands Windows, it somehow makes it better? Maybe, but only for the one in a million (you and some others) that somehow does understand it's increadible "complexity". For everyone else, including myself (even after using the OS for about five years), Windows is an unstable piece of shit.
Indeed. The default windows configuration is quite braindead, and the users who are ignorant of how the system works will typically have a bad system as the result. If Microsoft made it easy to create installers for custom configurations, and made it legit to distribute these to whoever wants them, we could have a totally different windows world out there.
Tough shit! "Oh, if Linux supported ACLs by default, we'd have a completely different Linux out there" TOUGH!
Yes, the default Windows configuration is pretty damn shite, and only very few users (namely you, obviously) can fix it up for themselves. I've never ever used a version of Windows fit to call "stable". Ever! You obviously have, we're on a different boat. If windows were free software, you'd be able to fix whatever ya don't like, and I rekon you'd probably do a pretty good job too. Well... ya can't.
BUT: say, approx. 70% of Windows boxes suck balls (using mostly default configs), and the remaining 30% (I'm being very generous here IMO) (like your box that you had to do alot of config'in to get it run smooth) are about as stable as the average GNU/Linux box (dream on!)...
Conclusion: Windows is shit.
I think windows haters are just ignorant, and want to see if this hypothesis holds true.
Muhahaha. Windows haters (moi) are ignorant (and I might be). Well the average Windows user is ignorant too. You're just not normal muzzy...
If you asked every computer user in the world which Operating System is their favourite, I have this mad-"hypothesis", that if anyone says "I dunno" or "What the fuck is an Operating System?!", you can guran-damn-tee that they use Windows. Would you agree, muzzy?
Tech-savvy or not, I've found that most windows haters simply do not understand how windows works.
What percentage of Windows users would you say do understand how Windows works?
I've found windows to be fairly stable, quite secure, and many parts are well designed. Unfortunately, microsoft values backwards compatibility more than security, so there are some total braindead things around left from single user win16 times. I wish they'd go away, however the problem only relates to win32 apis and the concerned executive subsystem. If some day we can throw that away and move completely to .NET, a lot of the problems will just simply disappear.
Again, tough shit.
And so what if the source isn't available? There is documentation, and the binaries are still there to be analyzed. What, can't read disassembly? Well, not everyone can read C.
HOLY FUCK! Muzzy, I know for a fact that you are not stupit.
News just in: there are significantly less people that understand disassembly than understand C. Surprising isn't it? Dumbass.
In ideal OS design, the scope of access would be minimized in all ways.
Oh no! Well I guess MS made a huge mistake by giving the default user root privileges. So much for such an excellent OS design. Heh.
Linux isn't more secure by design, linux is totally braindead when it comes to design. No ACLs by default, everything's a one big hack, it's a wonder the OS works at all. With processes having to be suid for things to work, everything's pretty damn messy. Also, I laugh at your view that openbsd would be a champion of security. That's just ridiculous.
You aren't as smart as you initially came accross as... This is disappointing...
You're very powerful when it comes to reducing gold to nothing though. Just like MS is damn good when it comes to defeating competition.
I'm not saying this is gold or anything, but I can't wait to see what you do with it...
I know linux, and it's a horrible mess. Just because the source is available doesn't make it any better technically, it's just a matter of freedom. Yeah, I value freedom and that's good stuff about linux, and I hope all of the computing industry will head to move free direction. Some of the things I dislike about proprietary software is that I'm not supposed to fix them, and I'm not supposed to ask the authors about their design and implementation decisions. If I do, they'll likely threaten to sue. This however isn't just a Microsoft issue, it's got to do with the whole industry.
The freedom is nice, and I value it greatly, but I must disagree that free software is only an extra freedom. It's a freedom to do something! Surely I shouldn't have to explain this. A freedom is more than something to add to your list of freedoms.
Do you think that Linux would have gotten this far if it was not free software?
Also, muzzy, would you care to explain why my GNU/Linux box has never suffered a hard lock-down in the ten months I've been using it? And why Windows has locked down hundreds of times (on different boxes) in the five years I've used it? 'Cause I'm dying to know. The Linux kernel might well be one big hack, but it sure is a damn good hack.
I'm gonna close here 'cause I needa sleep...
-
This is un-fucking-believable...
Here goes nothing:
Maybe Windows is too damn complex. Since when is complexity a good thing? NEVER!
If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable. Vehicles of today versus vehicles from 20 years ago are a prime exmaple of ever increasing complexity of design not hampering quality.
I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable").
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.
So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.
I guess just because feck all people understands Windows, it somehow makes it better? Maybe, but only for the one in a million (you and some others) that somehow does understand it's increadible "complexity". For everyone else, including myself (even after using the OS for about five years), Windows is an unstable piece of shit.
So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!
BUT: say, approx. 70% of Windows boxes suck balls (using mostly default configs), and the remaining 30% (I'm being very generous here IMO) (like your box that you had to do alot of config'in to get it run smooth) are about as stable as the average GNU/Linux box (dream on!)...
Conclusion: Windows is shit.
I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.
Muhahaha. Windows haters (moi) are ignorant (and I might be). Well the average Windows user is ignorant too. You're just not normal muzzy...
If you asked every computer user in the world which Operating System is their favourite, I have this mad-"hypothesis", that if anyone says "I dunno" or "What the fuck is an Operating System?!", you can guran-damn-tee that they use Windows. Would you agree, muzzy?
Quite correct, which is why I think there is no operating system that will do signifigantly better than Windows if deployed to the masses. The fact is people are ignorant about how their computer works, and they will find a way to screw it up.
Oh no! Well I guess MS made a huge mistake by giving the default user root privileges. So much for such an excellent OS design. Heh.
The overall security model of Windows is quite adequate. The install defaults are unfortunate, but Microsoft really had little choice in the matter. They wanted things to just work - and unfortunately they did.
The freedom is nice, and I value it greatly, but I must disagree that free software is only an extra freedom. It's a freedom to do something! Surely I shouldn't have to explain this. A freedom is more than something to add to your list of freedoms.
Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".
Also, muzzy, would you care to explain why my GNU/Linux box has never suffered a hard lock-down in the ten months I've been using it? And why Windows has locked down hundreds of times (on different boxes) in the five years I've used it? 'Cause I'm dying to know. The Linux kernel might well be one big hack, but it sure is a damn good hack.
Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.
-
If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable. Vehicles of today versus vehicles from 20 years ago are a prime exmaple of ever increasing complexity of design not hampering quality.
Design quality doesn't factor into it at the barest level. The more complex it is, the easier it is to fuck it up, in spite of the best user-relation attempts. After all, we all know how GREAT XP is straight from retail. To be fair, it's more of a "damned if you do..." philosophy - it's just as easy to fuck up Linux when it's improperly configured.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.
Sounds like someone doesn't consider core stability a serious issue to me. Don't ignore the message because you don't agree with the author.
I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.
So wait, you're trying to extricate X from the terminal now? Or are you implying that an amateur should attempt a kernel recompile? I wouldn't ask you to add Reiser support to Kernel32 to prove to me that you know your way around a Windows box, though I doubt you could given the utter lack of sufficient implementation code.
So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!
I didn't see that, you must be hallucinating. Knock off the peace-pipe, then note that you're not the only one that can understand the complexities of Windows. Also note that this does NOT mean that you can magically fix every BSoD you encounter. However, given that making Windows completely stable (I have yet to breach a 30-day uptime with it) is quite the feat, you would be certainly in the upper .000001% of Windows users were you to make it happen. But that BSoD can't happen, and you can't have any malfunctioning drivers that can't be recoded. Ah, now the FUN sets in, doesn't it? :D
I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.
If you really believe that, I have it under strict orders to inform you that infection probability based on proportional popularity is shit. I never saw any of the older (brick) Nokia phones get infected by mobile virii, especially at the height of their popularity. Certainly someone could have exploited text messaging to do this?
The fact is people are ignorant about how their computer works, and they will find a way to screw it up.
Ever lock a user out of all but their documents directory? It's simple enough to do, both in Windows and in Linux. I still maintain that no adduser command should result in a user with root privs unless root dually authorises it, something that I've yet to see as a precaution in Windows.
The overall security model of Windows is quite adequate. The install defaults are unfortunate, but Microsoft really had little choice in the matter. They wanted things to just work - and unfortunately they did.
If I'm the only one who sees a HUGE problem with what you just said, then we need a serious reconsideration of the issue. So the security is adequate, but it defaults to an "unfortunate" (euphamising "unsecured" is a clever twist, I'll give you that) state. Then things "just work." Superficial functionality has surprisingly little to do with actual security and actual stability, and it's quotes like that that convince me you're really Muzzy in disguise.
Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".
It's admittedly better than acting like software patents are a good idea (cheapshot, I'll admit it).
Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.
Nice answer. Now explain why the first-party company feels that it's a good idea to continue producing shoddy drivers for their major OS share, rather than simply requesting the optimised code from the third-party. That's right: they're locked into NDAs with Microsoft, and wouldn't want to disclose previously disclosed code to potential competitors, God forbid. Colour me crazy, but this is one of the times where open trumps proprietary.
-
The main security issue of common Windows boxes (Windows 2003 not included) is that you have no real control over execute permissions. If one thing is just a damn mess, its the way executables are handled on their workstation series of operating systems. Windows 2003 is quite sweet to run nonetheless.
(Maybe other "Server" versions of the operating system have these issues either, and you can control execute permissions)
-
So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.
um. I've recompiled the kernel loadsa times. And I said GNU/Linux, being the operating system of GNU tools and the Linux kernel. I could survive on the console if I needed to.
So you're saying that only, and elite bunch of us are able to make Windows stable? Thanks!
Ignore the fact that this is a bad thing for Windows.
I have a question for you. If, instead of Windows, everyone used Linux, do you not think many people would have problems with it? Do you not think there would be worms and viruses floating around infecting Linux boxes. If you think not, I would be happy to explain why you're wrong.
Well actually, seeing as my system doesn't suffer hard lock-ups at all, and it did back on Windows, and GNU/Linux is running perfectly here, I'd say GNU/Linux would do far better than Windows. Prove me wrong.
Let me guess. You think free software is a "fundamental freedom".
Yes, actually, I do.
Easy. You use cheap hardware and the poorly written drivers that the hardware manufacturer wrote are taking your system down. The drivers for your hardware for Linux are not written by the company that makes the hardware, but by a third party who actually gives a shit about driver stability.
"cheap hardware", I doubt it. Anyhow, I guess that means GNU/Linux is better here?
-
If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable.
The question, though, is the design better? Now I can show you lots of highly complex circuits for audio amplifiers which are quite complex. Indeed, it looks like the end result of a competition for the "fanciest" design. However, not a single one has the performance of a simple design that originated in 1964 (which, in turn, was adapted from a far older design from the "glass FET" days) when it is implemented correctly. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a marketing ploy, nothing more.
piratePenguin: I used Windows for around about five years and I learned sweet fuck all (sure I could use the "OS", but I sure as hell couldn't make it "stable").
toadlife: Sounds like a personal problem to me.
No! This is not a "personal problem" for piratePenguin or anyone else. The documentation for Win-Doesn't is horrible. Just this morning, I saw yet another advert from someone calling himself the "Video Professor". He was advertising his latest version of Windows training CDs. This guy has been in business for at least five years now, doing the very same thing. Furthermore, these adverts do not appear on your run-of-the-mill "prime time" TV stations, but rather on specialized stations whose audience is presumeably above average in intelligence, and professional folks. Once again, the Windows user has no choice but to turn to yet another third party provider to compensate for the manifest inadequacies of this "operating" system. It is unacceptable that there is nothing comparable to the Linux Documenation Project (http://www.tldp.org). It is doubly unacceptable that the documentation for Winderz remains so piss-poor that the Video Professor could still be in business. The attitude at Microsoft is the customer be damned. "We're Microsoft: we don't care because we don't have to."
piratePenguin: Then, I eventually saw the light, and started using GNU/Linux, which I now love to bits (really). Ten months later, and I rekon I've learned magnitudes more about GNU/Linux than I learned about Windows in my five years or so with Windows.
toadlife: So you joined the herd. Good for you. I bet you really havn't learned much about Linux. You've probaly learn what a bunch of syntax for command line programs. That doesn't mean you know anything about Linux.
This is rich: accusing someone who leaves the Redmond fold to join the Linux users community of following a "herd". What's the market share of Win vs. Linux? How the hell would you know what piratePenguin did -- or did not -- learn about Linux? Or is it that you presume that all computer users are as clueless as your typical Win-luser?
Two days ago, I had occasion to use the neighbor's XP rig (a Sony VAIO -- OEM installed Win XP Home) to download a Linux ISO, as the landlord here won't install cable, and I don't want to tie up my ISP for two days to download it over dial-up. During the time I did this download, the following occured:
- Coming out of the screensaver, I found myself logged into the wrong account, that of her third-grader. Upon finding a file "Einstein.doc" I decided to do some snooping to see what a third grader had to say about Einstein. It took MS Word so long to load that I was beginning to suspect that it had crashed before the Word welcome screen appeared. It took another ten seconds or so before the actual document opened. (The kid writes quite well for his age, BTW.) I could have opened the thing two -- three times with Abiword in Linux. So much for the myth that Win is faster.
I have never had any Linux system log me into a different account upon exiting a screensaver.
- Using "Explorer" to burn the ISO to CD, the damn thing never asked what I wanted to do with the file. It just burned the raw ISO to disk. I had to re-burn with cdrecord to produce an actual bootable CD.
- Upon logging out of the Linux mirror site, Internut Expl-Horror popped up windows faster than I could mouse them away. These looked like "official" XP dialogs, but were not as I had seen the same things before getting Firefox. This caused IE to crash, with a "Windows needs to shut down now. Sorry for the inconvenience" message, followed by a "Report error" dialog that refused to take "No." for an answer. Trying to mouse that one away a few times finally resulted in a hard lock, requiring a reboot.
That was less than ten minutes' worth of XP useage, and the damn thing went down hard. I'm quite glad that I chose Linux, as I don't have to put up with that bullshit every day.
In conclusion: Windows does, indeed, suck mightily. :p
-
If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable. Vehicles of today versus vehicles from 20 years ago are a prime exmaple of ever increasing complexity of design not hampering quality.
Fair enough.
BUT: nobody (I hope) needs to understand the complexities of their vehicle to make it run stable without crashing, do they?
-
First of all, piratepenquin, my apologies for the 'herd' comment, and the assumtion that you don't know anything about Linux. Those were low blows.
I'll be quoting a few different people here, so bear with me....
The question, though, is the design better? Now I can show you lots of highly complex circuits for audio amplifiers which are quite complex. Indeed, it looks like the end result of a competition for the "fanciest" design. However, not a single one has the performance of a simple design that originated in 1964 (which, in turn, was adapted from a far older design from the "glass FET" days) when it is implemented correctly. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a marketing ploy, nothing more.
The superior design of german weaponry during during WWII is a prime example which actually makes your point. Germany designed weaponry that was too expensive and time consuming to build, and their weapons suffered from reliability issue which American and Russian weapory didn't. That said, I won't (and didn't) say the Window's more complicated design makes it better. My experience is that WIdnows more complicated design can definitely lead to issues, but they are not at all insurmountable.
No! This is not a "personal problem" for piratePenguin or anyone else.
I'd have to respectfully disagree here. I think is was a personal problem, and mr piratepenquin solved it by switching to Linux. Good for him.
The documentation for Win-Doesn't is horrible. Just this morning, I saw yet another advert from someone calling himself the "Video Professor". He was advertising his latest version of Windows training CDs. This guy has been in business for at least five years now, doing the very same thing. Furthermore, these adverts do not appear on your run-of-the-mill "prime time" TV stations, but rather on specialized stations whose audience is presumeably above average in intelligence, and professional folks. Once again, the Windows user has no choice but to turn to yet another third party provider to compensate for the manifest inadequacies of this "operating" system. It is unacceptable that there is nothing comparable to the Linux Documenation Project (http://www.tldp.org/).
Ha! I laugh at your assumtion that the Linux Documetation Project would help out your average computer user who doesn't even know what an "Operating System" is.
It is doubly unacceptable that the documentation for Winderz remains so piss-poor that the Video Professor could still be in business.
The problem is not about the quality of the documetation at all. I've found the built in help facilities of XP/2000/2003 to be quite helpful over the years. The problem is that the average use simply refuses to "RTFM". People want to be told and shown how to do things with minimal effort on their part. This is why the Video Professor series is a viable product. I will concede that when you get into the more advanced documetation Microsoft provides a lot of it can be inadequate. Sometimes their higer level docs can read like PHD thesis papers - they assume you already know a ton of things. Also, at times, their documentation is incomplete and little things are left out. These little things they don't bother to mention can cause big headaches. I had this experience most recently with Microsoft's documentation of RIS. Microoft's SQL server documentation is also really tough. It basically assumes that you are alredy a guru a transact SQL, and you fully understand every advanced concept related to SQL database systems. On the other side of things, I've not seen documentation for Linux or BSD that is any more user friendly than the documentation available for Windows. Many times, fully understanding what man _x says requires you to also read man page _y, and man page _z, and man page _r, and so on. The biggest issue I've even had with Microsoft documetation was FINDING the relevant articles. Microsoft's internal web site search is pure CRAP. Thank god you can use Google to search their site.
Well actually, seeing as my system doesn't suffer hard lock-ups at all, and it did back on Windows, and GNU/Linux is running perfectly here, I'd say GNU/Linux would do far better than Windows. Prove me wrong.
That's a rather unreasonable request o make, unless you want to send me your system via airmail with return postage. ;)
"cheap hardware", I doubt it. Anyhow, I guess that means GNU/Linux is better here?
Yep. I agree that, in general, overall driver stability in Linux and BSD is superior to Windows. That said, a quality hardware setup in Windows can be just as stable as any Linux box.
However, given that making Windows completely stable (I have yet to breach a 30-day uptime with it) is quite the feat, you would be certainly in the upper .000001%
It's not quite the feat if your hardware is adequate. Have alook at my uptime stats (http://uptimes.hostingwired.com/stats.php?op=all&user=toadlife). You'll notice two Windows machines on there which have very high loads, and uptimes that are much longer than 30 days. These Windows machines have NEVER crashed. The IIS5 box has been deployed for three years now. I also urge you to take a look at the uptimes for other people's Windows machines. I guess that upper .0000001% must ALL use this site? Note - the uptime site seems to be broke at this moment.
But that BSoD can't happen, and you can't have any malfunctioning drivers that can't be recoded. Ah, now the FUN sets in, doesn't it?
Fun? Is that fun in an S&M way? I'm well aware of the issues that can arise out of close source drivers. It took Creative around three years to write a stable driver for their SB Live! series. THey finally did manage to pump out a stable driver a couple of years ago and the issues that came with it finally stopped for good. I did have my FreeBSD box lock up a few times while playing AAO using that damn SB Live card, so I sometimes wonder if the hardware is just poorly designed and the stable Windows driver that creative finally came out with had a very large number of hacks written into it to compensate for the hardware's problems. I ended up canning that card and using the integraded audio on my MB.
-
If the design is better then more complexity can be acceptable.
The question, though, is the design better? Now I can show you lots of highly complex circuits for audio amplifiers which are quite complex. Indeed, it looks like the end result of a competition for the "fanciest" design. However, not a single one has the performance of a simple design that originated in 1964 (which, in turn, was adapted from a far older design from the "glass FET" days) when it is implemented correctly. Complexity for the sake of complexity is a marketing ploy, nothing more.
Well we don't call them glass FETs any more we now call them vacuum tubes or valves, their real name it thermionic tubes. They are the the best amplifiers around, yes even today the modern op-amp has yet to match their performance (although we're pretty damn close). Valves aren't used much these days because transistors are cheaper lighter and will do the same job in just about every application where valves were previously used. Today valves are only used in very high quality audio amplifiers because they're less noisy than transistors and high power transmitters (the magnetron in a microwave oven is a vacuum tube) because transistors are very poor at high frequencyies and power levels.
Oh, sorry for boring you all as a rambled on about electronics for long enough. Yes it is true that some of the simpler designs are the best but this isn't always the case. If you build the simplest FM transmitter possible consisting of a 1 transistor colpitts oscillator it will be very unstable compared to a high quality stereo transmitter built with a special purpose IC containing I don't know how many 100s possibly 1000s of transistors. Having said this the simpler design is far easier to troubleshoot and cheaper in general so which one you use will depend on the application.
Oh and vacuum tube circuits aren't that simple to build apart from being big and bulky there're high voltages and other hazards. I could show you a simple reasonable quality amplifier design with 5 transisters that would be far easier to build than any design using valves.
-
Fair enough.
BUT: nobody (I hope) needs to understand the complexities of their vehicle to make it run stable without crashing, do they?
:D Good damn point. Finally someone with my views and more to back them up with. Go Pirate!
-
Yes the same with your audio amplifier. :D
-
Today valves are only used in very high quality audio amplifiers because they're less noisy than transistors...
I strongly suspect fad appeal here. As they say, "First impressions are lasting impressions", and the first solid state audio amps blew chunks. That hasn't been true for a very long time now.
One of these "very high quality" audio amps is the Cary CAD-300SEI triode amplifier. This has a 2A3 power triode connected as a Class A(1) amp. Being asymetrical, it lets through even as well as odd order harmonics. That's not a good design as it has 3% THD at 9 Watts, at a cost of $3400. It is easy to get the THD down to 0.001% with solid state at a fraction of that cost. I'll bet they're still laughing all the way to the bank on that one. :D
While the valves themselves may have outstanding linearity, you then ruin it by connecting them to a very non-linear silicon steel core transformer. As these are low gain devices, there isn't enough open loop gain for sufficient inverse feedback to linearize that transformer. Nor is the necessary construction (big steel core and lots of wire) for good low frequency response good for high frequency response where the core losses really build up, and the stray capacitance of all that wire interferes with high frequency operation. Given that, solid state clearly is better. The clueless audiophile who gets ripped off to the tune of $3400 for inferior tech isn't going to do anything other than rave on about how much "better" his "valve" amp is. It's too painful to admit the obvious: He wuz had. (Yeah, he's a lot like the typical Windows XP user in that regard. ;) )
If you build the simplest FM transmitter possible consisting of a 1 transistor colpitts oscillator it will be very unstable compared to a high quality stereo transmitter built with a special purpose IC containing I don't know how many 100s possibly 1000s of transistors. Having said this the simpler design is far easier to troubleshoot and cheaper in general so which one you use will depend on the application.
That isn't what I was referring to. In this case, additional complexity solves a problem: frequency stability and base band sound quality at the receiver. It's not the same thing as adding more and more bullshit "features" that the vast majority of users won't use, or which serve no real purpose, to an op-sys, for no other reason than to point to the "latest and greatest" in order to get the customer to buy something he doesn't need. Given the typical computer useage, Win 95 is more than sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Ha! I laugh at your assumtion that the Linux Documetation Project would help out your average computer user who doesn't even know what an "Operating System" is.
Then they shouldn't be using computers. After all, is it reasonable to expect to buy a set of clubs, a sleeve of balls, and shoot par if you've never held a golf club before? Is it reasonable to expect to fly your new Cessna off the show-room floor if you've never spent any time with a flight instructor? Why in the HELL should it be any different when it comes to computers? Again, this was a marketing ploy: convince folks out there that they did not have to "pay their dues" before joining the computer "revolution" by learning even a little something about it first. We're all paying for it as these are the yutzes who click on those "p0rn pics" in peculiar E-Mails from strangers. The folks who continue to support companies that make billions off the clueless who think that it's perfectly normal to have to reboot every half-hour, or that it's normal to expect to lose your hard work every now and then. Ford, GM, Crysler, etc. would have been sued out of existance a long time ago if their products were even 1.0% as defective as the Windows "operating" system.
-
Who would/wouldn't agree with the following statement:
There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
?
-
I'd have to respectfully disagree here. I think is was a personal problem, and mr piratepenquin solved it by switching to Linux. Good for him.
It might well be a personal problem, and I see where you're coming from.
BUT: Microsoft is also partially to blame (http://www.over-yonder.net/%7Efullermd/rants/winstupid/winstupid1.php) (BTW, the rants on that site are pure class IMO).
Now, I used Windows for approx. five years. I'm still (undoubtably) the best Windows user for miles (well.. I do live in the country, heh). I know alot about the OS (well, actually, it seems I don't. But I know hundreds of times more than some ppl that've had me over to fix their retarded OS), but I've barely ever (if ever) used a Windows system that a sane, half-educated computer user could call stable.
By contrast, I've never (ever!) used a GNU/Linux system that a sane, half-educated computer user could call unstable.
-
I've seen that site before. Read his piece on BSD (http://www.over-yonder.net/%7Efullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php), and you'll see why I like it so much.
-
I've seen that site before. Read his piece on BSD (http://www.over-yonder.net/%7Efullermd/rants/bsd4linux/bsd4linux1.php), and you'll see why I like it so much.
I read that piece on BSD when I switched from GNU/Linux to FreeBSD not so long ago (that's how I discovered the site).
Didn't stay on FreeBSD for too long tho, couldn't get ISDN working (even tho I know it is possible, just not for me, yet).
I'll more than likely give it another go soon enough (during the Summer holidays).
I'd still like to know some ppls (especially Windows users) reactions to this:
There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
'Cause I think it's almost time to draw up a conclusion.
We can do it quick, and pray that muzzy never returns, and live happily ever after :thumbup:
-
[OFFTOPIC]@toadlife: thats the sweetest fucking avatar I have ever seen[/OFFTOPIC]
-
Today valves are only used in very high quality audio amplifiers because they're less noisy than transistors...
I strongly suspect fad appeal here. As they say, "First impressions are lasting impressions", and the first solid state audio amps blew chunks. That hasn't been true for a very long time now.
One of these "very high quality" audio amps is the Cary CAD-300SEI triode amplifier. This has a 2A3 power triode connected as a Class A(1) amp. Being asymetrical, it lets through even as well as odd order harmonics. That's not a good design as it has 3% THD at 9 Watts, at a cost of $3400. It is easy to get the THD down to 0.001% with solid state at a fraction of that cost. I'll bet they're still laughing all the way to the bank on that one. :D
While the valves themselves may have outstanding linearity, you then ruin it by connecting them to a very non-linear silicon steel core transformer. As these are low gain devices, there isn't enough open loop gain for sufficient inverse feedback to linearize that transformer. Nor is the necessary construction (big steel core and lots of wire) for good low frequency response good for high frequency response where the core losses really build up, and the stray capacitance of all that wire interferes with high frequency operation. Given that, solid state clearly is better. The clueless audiophile who gets ripped off to the tune of $3400 for inferior tech isn't going to do anything other than rave on about how much "better" his "valve" amp is. It's too painful to admit the obvious: He wuz had. (Yeah, he's a lot like the typical Windows XP user in that regard. ;) )
Do you know what? I've never really thought about it, I just acepted that valves are more linear than transistors. Having said that nothing beats traveling wave tubes, klystrons and magnetrons in low noise high powered VHF and microwave amplifier and oscilator applications.
If you build the simplest FM transmitter possible consisting of a 1 transistor colpitts oscillator it will be very unstable compared to a high quality stereo transmitter built with a special purpose IC containing I don't know how many 100s possibly 1000s of transistors. Having said this the simpler design is far easier to troubleshoot and cheaper in general so which one you use will depend on the application.
That isn't what I was referring to. In this case, additional complexity solves a problem: frequency stability and base band sound quality at the receiver. It's not the same thing as adding more and more bullshit "features" that the vast majority of users won't use, or which serve no real purpose, to an op-sys, for no other reason than to point to the "latest and greatest" in order to get the customer to buy something he doesn't need. Given the typical computer useage, Win 95 is more than sufficient for the vast majority of users.
Fair enough, but I wouldn't say Windows 95, maybe they'd put up with some NT Windows 95 is just far too unstable. :D
-
[OFFTOPIC]@toadlife: thats the sweetest fucking avatar I have ever seen[/OFFTOPIC]
YEah. It's funny, but very offensive to some people at the same time. I don't normally like to use it, because it can really offend people, and I really don't dislike Linux - I just really like the BSDs.
Here is the source. I don't know who the original author is.
(http://www.linuxisforbitches.com/imgs/takeittux.jpg)
-
YEah. It's funny, but very offensive to some people at the same time. I don't normally like to use it, because it can really offend people, and I really don't dislike Linux - I just really like the BSDs.
Here is the source. I don't know who the original author is.
Thats great, yea, I'm the same way, I love BSD. I dunno if you like it or not but here is a background I got from a Russian site that I use on all my BSD boxes http://img51.echo.cx/img51/7808/bpimg018yj.jpg
The site has mostly BSD backgrounds but it has some linux and Mac OS as well. http://usunet.ru/ug/thumbnails.php?album=11 they also have a background featuring the BSD convention girl, whom I know alot of you are partial to :D
-
You mean my BSD convention girl? :bsd:
-
Do you know what? I've never really thought about it, I just acepted that valves are more linear than transistors.
That is perfectly true: valves are more linear than transistors. However, all too many folks latch onto that one fact and forget all about that output transformer. Linear valve + Nonlinear transformer= Nonlinear output. Valves also are low gain devices, so that there is insufficient open loop gain to linearize the transformer with inverse feedback. So a whole folklore grows up around these misconceptions, the marketing guys get hold of that, and the hype is lapped up like antifreeze at a petting zoo.
A little learning is a dang'rous thing; Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, And drinking largely sobers us again.
-- Alexander Pope (1688-1744)
Nonlinear BJT + Inverse feedback + No output transformer= Linear output. It's really that simple.
Having said that nothing beats traveling wave tubes, klystrons and magnetrons in low noise high powered VHF and microwave amplifier and oscilator applications.
True: that's where "hollow state" beats solid state: RF applications.
-
I think it's time to get back on topic.
Windows is shit.
-
Do you know what? I've never really thought about it, I just acepted that valves are more linear than transistors.
That is perfectly true: valves are more linear than transistors. However, all too many folks latch onto that one fact and forget all about that output transformer. Linear valve + Nonlinear transformer= Nonlinear output. Valves also are low gain devices, so that there is insufficient open loop gain to linearize the transformer with inverse feedback. So a whole folklore grows up around these misconceptions, the marketing guys get hold of that, and the hype is lapped up like antifreeze at a petting zoo.
It's ok I understand I meant valve amplifiers in general, Valves alone are very linear, like you said it's lack of negative feedback due to their low gain and the output transformer being very non-linear that generally increases the distortion of valve amplifiers. Modern solid state amplifiers have a very high open gain despite the transistors are less linear than valves, the negitive feedback caused by the high open loop gain reduces the distortion, and there's no output transformer to mess things up.
I'm sure a class B valve amplifier (correct me if I'm wrong but valves lack crosover distortion so class AB isn't required) driving a high impedance loudspeaker for a load will have very low distortion, but it'd be bloody expensive and I bet you a cheaper modern solid state design could achieve similar performance.
Nonlinear BJT + Inverse feedback + No output transformer= Linear output. It's really that simple.
In fact the bigest non-linear element in modern audio systems is the loud speaker system, but these have improved a lot too.
Having said that nothing beats traveling wave tubes, klystrons and magnetrons in low noise high powered VHF and microwave amplifier and oscilator applications.
True: that's where "hollow state" beats solid state: RF applications.
I'd like to get my hands on some of these devices one day. :D
-
I'm sure a class B valve amplifier (correct me if I'm wrong but valves lack crosover distortion so class AB isn't required) driving a high impedance loudspeaker for a load will have very low distortion, but it'd be bloody expensive and I bet you a cheaper modern solid state design could achieve similar performance.
That's another unfortunate misconception. All active amplifiers show considerable nonlinearity at low currents, so all Class B amps have crossover distortion. They did try high impedance speakers in the late 1930s, however, I don't know what ever became of that.
-
As I'm only 23 I've only covered transistor and op-amp amplifers in the courses I've taken so far - apart from RF vacuum tubes are considered to be obsolete. I've obviously also picked up many myths about valves and valve amplifiers in general.
Is there anywhere I can read about valves and valve amplifiers that will debunk the most common myths?
-
I never learned how to spell or think for myself.
-
Once again, I'm having trouble understanding what I assume is your native tongue. Which grade did you fail?
-
I think its more "How ever did he pass?"
-
I blame the schools.
-
muzzy is a dick$uicing M$-WHORIiGb FUCKWatrd!
FuCk yOu kInnTarriO$ annnnDDDD $iMon i Aggree$ wiV fReFOX4me MUz$zY i$ a Di$cK$uck M$-HoReIDF$.
$oo r$ u$ Both Lik$ FuCk$ BiL$ GaayTe$ DiK$ u FuK$ MoRon$ FucK$ U$$ alL$$! :fu:
-
FuCk yOu kInnTarriO$ annnnDDDD $iMon i Aggree$ wiV fReFOX4me MUz$zY i$ a Di$cK$uck M$-HoReIDF$.
$oo r$ u$ Both Lik$ FuCk$ BiL$ GaayTe$ DiK$ u FuK$ MoRon$ FucK$ U$$ alL$$! :fu:
Oh noes, attack of the killer nooblercakes:scared:
-
i need a wank
-
i need a wank
That woman in ur sig looks ready and willing for some hand on cock action. Go for it man, let her light up ur life:thumbup:
-
Is there anywhere I can read about valves and valve amplifiers that will debunk the most common myths?
Design of Power Amps (http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/ampdept.htm). He takes a very good, no bullshit approach to the subject.
Also, pay close attention to: Science and Subjectivism in Audio. (http://www.dself.dsl.pipex.com/ampins/pseudo/subjectv.htm). Here, he really gets to the core of the matter: cutting through all the hype and ignorance and misunderstanding.
-
Thanks jtpenrod, I'll have a read.:thumbup:
-
Can we pleeeeeease get back on topic?
Complexity: Complexity doesn't matter. It's the advantages that this "complexity" brings that matters.
If A is more complex than B, then I'd guess B's better, unless A (because it's more complex) is faster, more stable, more secure etc...
Windows might be more complex, but complexity doesn't matter. It's the advantages that this "complexity" brings that matters.
I know of no such advantages. Humor me.
-
Even Windows does have advantages you know.
Even though Windows isn't as stable or secure as UNIX it has a better desktop and I'm not talking about the user interface either, KDE and Gnome are both easy to use. I'm talking about the the way different Windows programs can interoperate with each other. For example OLE is consistent across the Windows platform this isn't the case with UNIX, and the clipboard is another example, let's not forget drag and drop. Yes I know KDE/GNOME might solve some of these problems but KDE applications don't communicate with the GNOME desktop very well and vice versa, dependences also aren't a problem with Windows.
As I've mentioned before Windows XP boots faster than most OSs.
Not to mention (this isn't so much of an advantage of Windows more of crippleing of other OSs by MS' dominance) most software and hardware is designed for Windows but I'd rather this not be the case, I'd rather everthing be multi-platform.
These are the only advantages of Windows, personally I'd rather use a more secure and stable operating system.
-
Even Windows does have advantages you know.
Even though Windows isn't as stable or secure as UNIX it has a better desktop and I'm not talking about the user interface either, KDE and Gnome are both easy to use. I'm talking about the the way different Windows programs can interoperate with each other. For example OLE is consistent across the Windows platform this isn't the case with UNIX, and the clipboard is another example, let's not forget drag and drop. Yes I know KDE/GNOME might solve some of these problems but KDE applications don't communicate with the GNOME desktop very well and vice versa, dependences also aren't a problem with Windows.
As I've mentioned before Windows XP boots faster than most OSs.
Not to mention (this isn't so much of an advantage of Windows more of crippleing of other OSs by MS' dominance) most software and hardware is designed for Windows but I'd rather this not be the case, I'd rather everthing be multi-platform.
That it?
And because X (where X is either software or hardware; I'm not talking about X11) wasn't designed/built for GNU/Linux, that is not a valid reson to believe that GNU/Linux is any worse than the OS (Windows/Mac OS X/whatever) that X was designed/built for. GNU/Linux can handle everything that was designed/built for it (within reason).
"GNU/Linux is shit 'cause I can't use (my) X on it" TOUGH SHIT! The vendors of X obviously (assuming you did a bit of research before complaining) didn't design/build X for GNU/Linux. You're just trapped on Windows/Mac OS X/whatever because that's what the vendors of X designed/built it for.
I agree with everything else in your post, and some of those issues about the UI, clipboard, etc. will have to (somehow) be addressed (could have been already, but I dunno). But they're only minor issues, and should never put anyone off.
I'm still not convinced that Windows (XP) boots faster... Maybe technically it does, but in practice, I would seriously doubt it. I've had Windows systems boot fast (but I never thought of timing my boot speeds), and I've had Windows systems boot sloooooooow, and I've had Windows systems fail to boot (far too often).
-
Oh my. I go away and there's lots of talk here all suddenly. With so many posts, I don't think I can answer everything. When messages get too long, all signal tends to disappear in the noise.
Mr. piratePenguin seems to have issues with windows being unstable. I honestly have to say that I'd love to have unstable windows system. Why? Because then I could fscking understand what everyone's talking about! I know win9x was unstable. However, I simply can't get my NT-based installations to misbehave in the way that I hear people talk about. Not even in the way that my mom's windows installation behaves like. I have no idea what she did, although I suspect even not running antivirus/firewall helps my situation significantly.
In my experience, windows is stable. I've had few crashes lately, but they haven't been because of windows. How can I tell? Well, after I hit reset button, the system doesn't go through bios. If I do a quick powercycle, it goes through bios and freezes during startup. If I keep power down for over 10 seconds and then restart, it'll boot up fine. I'm not sure what's broken, exactly, but it's definitely not a software issue. The above mentioned behaviour happens everytime the system crashes, it has crashed 4 times so far. My best guess is PSU or motherboard, but could be anything. I wonder how large portion of unstable windows systems are really hardware flaws? You know, users won't be able to tell the difference.
Also, as I've mentioned earlier, I believe that computer is a tool and not a multimedia center. I find it completely ridiculous that kids learn computer by merely using it. Their parents buy them a computer, and then they poke around and see what happens. Back when I was young and had C-64, the damn thing shipped with a manual. I don't know about average users, but I actually read it. Alright, so it was simpler than the modern systems, but it really seems like that people these days learn to use computers without any reference material whatsoever. Why can't computers ship with a manual that explains what a computer is, and what operating system is, and how these things work? I suspect that even if someone made such a manual, people wouldn't read it because they think they already know enough. Nobody ever wants to learn basics :(
-
I have no idea how the hell your system could possibly be so stable.
I know for a fact that I'm not the only person that finds Windows unstable.
Anyhow, how come my system crashed alot on Windows and not on GNU/Linux? It's the exact same hardware.
I was already told (way up there, can't be bothered to check it atm) that it's the drivers fault. If the manufacturers drivers are no good, what the hell can be done?
-
piratePenguin,
Which Windows version did you find unstable?
Windows XP has only locked once in a year, and I've left my Windows 2000 box at work running for months with out a fuck up. So in my opinion Windows is very stable, going back more than 5 years to Windows ME was unstable the same goes for 3.x, 95, 95.
Why has Windows gone more stable you might think?
Because they've finally ditched theie shitty excuse for an operating system called MS-DOS. This was notoriously insecure and unstable and formed the base of all Windows desktop versions previous to 2000. They've replaced it with NT which Microsoft didn't initially develop, David Cutler and the VMS team from VAX systems were drafted in, but they did it to MS' specification hence NT isn't as secure or stable as VMS.
That it?
And because X (where X is either software or hardware; I'm not talking about X11) wasn't designed/built for GNU/Linux, that is not a valid reson to believe that GNU/Linux is any worse than the OS (Windows/Mac OS X/whatever) that X was designed/built for. GNU/Linux can handle everything that was designed/built for it (within reason).
"GNU/Linux is shit 'cause I can't use (my) X on it" TOUGH SHIT! The vendors of X obviously (assuming you did a bit of research before complaining) didn't design/build X for GNU/Linux. You're just trapped on Windows/Mac OS X/whatever because that's what the vendors of X designed/built it for.
:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I saw Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
I'm still not convinced that Windows (XP) boots faster... Maybe technically it does, but in practice, I would seriously doubt it. I've had Windows systems boot fast (but I never thought of timing my boot speeds), and I've had Windows systems boot sloooooooow, and I've had Windows systems fail to boot (far too often).
This does still depend on which Windows version you use and how it's configured, the same goes for Linux. The Windows version I'm refering to as far as boot speed is concerned is Windows XP, and I'm comparing this to Vector Linux and Redhat Linux. It's just my personal experiance and might be different to yours, anyway here are my results:
Windows
Time from when the boot selection screen disappeared to when the login screen apeared was 35 seconds.
Time from selecting my user area until the desktop appeared and the system became responsive was 15 seconds.
Vector Linux
38 seconds to boot to the menu.
Only 5 seconds to stard Xfce.
Knoppix
1 miniute 41 seconds
Yes Vector Linux is faster, but this is one of the lighter distros and it's running Xfce and not KDE
I remember waiting fucking ages for Redhat Linux to boot, it was noticeably longer than Windows. I'm not going to go to the bother of installing that shitty OS again just to do benchmarks on so I won't be able to give you the boot up time.
Vector Linux uses up very little recources compared to the modern full bloat distros like Mandrake, Linspire and Fedora etc. Knoppix is also a good example of a light distro.
In my opinion Knoppix wins this test, it was the longest to boot, but it was booting from a CD and having to detect all of my hardware, so 1:43 is a verry good time to do all this in.
This proves my point that Linux can very a lot, I could probably even get Windows XP to boot faster if I tweak it a little.
-
Alright.
Muzzy, why don't you like GNU/Linux?
Also, would you agree with this statement:
There are stable and secure Windows systems, but this is rare. Most Windows systems are unstable and insecure.
There are unstable and insecure GNU/Linux systems, but this is rare. Most GNU/Linux systems are stable and secure.
?
Note that your secure, stable Windows system, and your bad experiences with GNU/Linux are accounted for in that statement. Do you agree that your experiences are rare?
-
Which Windows version did you find unstable?
Almost all of them. Windows 95, 98, 2000, ME, XP (and yes, with and without SP2).
Windows XP has only locked once in a year, and I've left my Windows 2000 box at work running for months with out a fuck up. So in my opinion Windows is very stable, going back more than 5 years to Windows ME was unstable the same goes for 3.x, 95, 95.
My systems never suffered a lock up. Well, ever since I started using GNU/Linux anyhow. Congrats, to both you and muzzy (and anyone else who finds Windows stable), on making Windows "stable" (I'm trusting you that your systems are stable).
:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I saw Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
:rolleyes: Please read my post a bit more carefully.
Where did I say that you said that Linux is shit because most vendors don't support it?
Where did I say that you said that Windows is good becuse all vendors support it?
This does still depend on which Windows version you use and how it's configured, the same goes for Linux. The Windows version I'm refering to as far as boot speed is concerned is Windows XP, and I'm comparing this to Vector Linux and Redhat Linux. It's just my personal experiance and might be different to yours, anyway here are my results:
[snip]
In my opinion Knoppix wins this test, it was the longest to boot, but it was booting from a CD and having to detect all of my hardware, so 1:43 is a verry good time to do all this in.
This proves my point that Linux can very a lot, I could probably even get Windows XP to boot faster if I tweak it a little.
Sorry, did you say Knoppix wins in your opinion? Incase you didn't know, Knoppix uses the Linux kernel. Oh no! Knoppix is a GNU/Linux distro!
Like I said, I've seen Windows XP (and I was referring to XP, that's why I put it in brackets) take ages to boot. EDIT: My Slackware system is faster booting that Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting, so no wonder I never noticed how fast XP "sometimes" was at booting.
:thumbup:
-
My friends tend to have well behaving windows systems, too. Then again, most of my real life friends are programmers/or and hackers.
I have to agree that most windows systems are insecure and badly maintained, however this is only a correlation, do you know what that means? It means that even if there's a link, it doesn't mean windows sucks, although it means that most systems that suck are windows. I believe that if linux gains some significant share of the desktop systems, we'll be seeing a strong amount of insecure linux systems as well. This will have nothing to do with the system itself, and everything to do with the users.
Anyway, it's getting late and I don't feel like explaining my reasons to dislike the evil empire of GNU. Let's just state that it breaks backwards compatibility, even for programming languages, and says it's ok because "GNU's Not Unix", and that means it doesn't have to work the same way. Ultimately, this means that anything written for the GNU system will have hard time working on non-GNU systems, especially if developers aren't careful about GNU-specific functionality. Sounds a lot like why some people hate Microsoft, doesn't it? Even Microsoft didn't go as far as breaking programming languages, the java deal was about APIs. GNU happily breaks m4 and smiles all the way through it. Fine, GNU version might be more usable, but I pity anyone who has to port GNU m4 scripts to original m4 language.
-
My friends tend to have well behaving windows systems, too. Then again, most of my real life friends are programmers/or and hackers.
My friends tend to have badly behaving Windows systems. Then again, most of my real life friends are typical Windows users.
I have to agree that most windows systems are insecure and badly maintained, however this is only a correlation, do you know what that means? It means that even if there's a link, it doesn't mean windows sucks, although it means that most systems that suck are windows. I believe that if linux gains some significant share of the desktop systems, we'll be seeing a strong amount of insecure linux systems as well. This will have nothing to do with the system itself, and everything to do with the users.
Are there any other non-Windows users present who have a nice stable system (be it GNU/Linux, *BSD, or Mac OS X, etc.), but previously owned an unstable, insecure, crap Windows system? 'Cause your saying that there aren't too many. I believe that you are wrong, but I can't prove it, unless more people own up!
I pity anyone who has to port GNU m4 scripts to original m4 language.
Pity them all ya want. Which is better, GNU m4 or the original m4?
Is GNU UNIX? No, it is not. Is Windows GNU/Linux? No, it is not.
They're different OSes, incase you didn't know.
As for the whole bootup speed issue, I just timed my system booting up for the first time ever. I'm using Slackware 10.1 and here are the results:
Time from pressing enter at lilo, to login: 20.7s (almost exactly)
Time it took to get X11 + fluxbox (which is what I've used for 'bout a month now) up and running, after running 'startx': approx. 6 seconds.
Total time: approx. 26.7s
OWNED!
And I'm sure I could optimise it if I wanted to. But why would I want to? :p
It does vary between systems, and my system happens to be faster than Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting.
EDIT: I never noticed how fast it sometimes was.
I take that back.
-
I couldn't care less about startup times and other irrelevancies. Back in the old days some systems took half an hour to boot up and it was ok. I keep my computer running 24/7 so bootup times aren't an issue of any kind.
And you apparently didn't get my point about m4, but then again you're not a programmer. Any programmer would realize what it means that the software you wrote will no longer run due to source incompatibilities, and that any software you write will not run elsewhere because of the same thing. So, it's a different OS and I think that can justify all the fluffy flags for ls, ps and other user tools. However, intentionally redesigning a programming language and still calling it with the original name, now that's nasty. Most people don't realize there's any difference, as they expect that the system mostly conforms to POSIX behaviour... yeah, right.
Then there are a lot of GNU annoyances that are only annoyances because there are stupid users. People who write bash scripts and use /bin/sh as an interpreter to them, for example. If it's a bash script, why can't they fscking name it so? Oh yeah, they have no idea what bash featureset it uses. You could say that this is because of bash, too. It should fscking enforce strict sh compatibility when executed as sh, so people wouldn't do this kind of things. This is basically equivalent to the Internet Explorer broken HTML rendering issue, where IE renders stuff fine but no other browser does, and thus users write horrible crap. The difference however, is that in context of HTML you just get visual issues, while with the shell you get functional issues. The shell issue is thus significantly worse.
Then, the quality of a lot of GPL-licensed software sucks. There's no excuse for this, a lot of the source has apparently been written by some kind of monkeys on crack. Source code so horrible that the whole world explodes because it's so bad. Then again, I suppose this could be seen as a good thing, too. Since GPL practically acts as "you have to be at least this good to make money" indicator, commercial software ends up being significantly better than GPL'd. Well, if it doesn't, it means it didn't deserve to make money anyway. However, typical GNU systems are full of crappy software, which is somewhat practical at times, yet greatly annoying when it does stupid things. Significant portion of the code is something I could write better myself, and so could half of the people I know, if they cared. As of such, the only real value of free software is freedom, not the price tag.
Oh my, this post is getting long already, I better stop here :)
-
Actually, for the most part, I agree with Muzzy on his last post. There is, however, one comparison that I must call into question: Messy v. /bin/sh. Seriously, where do you come up with this crap? Internet Explorer is a mass-distributed web browser. /bin/sh is an individualised command line interpreter (certainly better than a mass-produced one, for efficiency reasons). Really, I have no problem with people writing horrid page code with one provision: KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. Publishing that shit is just flat out irresponsible, and it seems a disproportionate number of "professional publishers" are using false standards to maintain compatibility. BASH scripts are quite another story. I have yet to see an implementation of BASH scripting so consistent across distributions that someone could use a non-standard subset of commands on one machine and expect them to come across with the same result on another. The straw man you slipped in so eloquently there falls apart under the same rationale: KEEP MALFORMED CODE TO YOURSELF. I don't see techs going out of their way, all willy-nilly, to enforce non-standard BASH scripts, so why does Microsoft feel the need to enforce non-standard HTML?
-
muzzy,
While boot speed might not be important to you it is for me because I don't waste power by having my PC on 24/7.
My friends tend to have badly behaving Windows systems. Then again, most of my real life friends are typical Windows users.
Are there any other non-Windows users present who have a nice stable system (be it GNU/Linux, *BSD, or Mac OS X, etc.), but previously owned an unstable, insecure, crap Windows system? 'Cause your saying that there aren't too many. I believe that you are wrong, but I can't prove it, unless more people own up!
Pity them all ya want. Which is better, GNU m4 or the original m4?
Is GNU UNIX? No, it is not. Is Windows GNU/Linux? No, it is not.
They're different OSes, incase you didn't know.
Let's just agree to disagree on this our personal experiance will vary. I may have not had a problem with Windows NT but you obviosly have. I've had more problems with Redhat Linux being unstable than Windows XP, but Vector Linux is very stable.
As for the whole bootup speed issue, I just timed my system booting up for the first time ever. I'm using Slackware 10.1 and here are the results:
Time from pressing enter at lilo, to login: 20.7s (almost exactly)
Time it took to get X11 + fluxbox (which is what I've used for 'bout a month now) up and running, after running 'startx': approx. 6 seconds.
Total time: approx. 26.7s
OWNED!
I wasn't dissagreeing with you on this, you run Slackware with Fluxbox, that's my point exactly. Now try Fedora core's default configureation and compare it with Windows XP's default configureation on both resource usage and boot speed, I can assure you Windows XP will win!
And I'm sure I could optimise it if I wanted to. But why would I want to? :p
It does vary between systems, and my system happens to be faster than Aloone_Jonez' XP system at booting.
Of course it will be, Vector Linux is slackware based and is faster booting and uses less resources than my Windows XP system. I know I could optimise both Windows XP and Vector Linux if I wanted to but I'm happy with the boot speed of them both. Redhat Linux on the other hand was very slow which is why I no longer use it. Hence my original point stands true, Linux varies a lot form distribution to distribution and how it's configured.
As far as GPL is concerned here is my point of view:
GPL software isn't better or worse in general.
The quality of software depends on who writes it.
If a company writes software they employ professional programmers who are trained to write software well and have had many years of experience.
If a group of amateur programmers on the internet get together while some of them may be very skilled on average they won't be as skilled as the professionals.
Companies often write software and then GPL and this is often where the best GPL software appears from like OpenOffice for example.
The arguement that the Licence a piece of software is released under greatly affects its quality is flawed.
This is also true with electronics.
I've seen many bad circuits on various internet sites, but at work when we design a circuit we ensure its designed to a very high standard, it has to be tested and tested again before its approved for manufacture.
-
I wasn't dissagreeing with you on this, you run Slackware with Fluxbox, that's my point exactly. Now try Fedora core's default configureation and compare it with Windows XP's default configureation on both resource usage and boot speed, I can assure you Windows XP will win!
Why would I do that? You just said, and we all know, that it all varies between distros. Are you seriously asking me to install the distro that you seem to believe is the slowest-of-all-distros, and compare it to Windows XP?
Well guess what? It's not gonna happen. Slackware boots faster than Windows XP.
I've used Slackware for the most of my time on GNU/Linux, and I'm very, very happy with it. Each distro has it's advantages, and each distro has it's disadvantages (the worst thing about Slackware IMO is that it installs lilo by default and doesn't ask the user what he/she wants (I prefer GRUB)). There's so many distros, there's infinite choice (slight exageration).
Why would I compare what you seem to believe is the crappest of GNU/Linux distros to Windows? OKAY then, I'll do the test. As long as you allow me to corrupt the shit outta the XP system first. Do we have a deal? Didn't think so.
Of course it will be, Vector Linux is slackware based and is faster booting and uses less resources than my Windows XP system.
Umm.. Why the Vector Linux specific? Windows XP wastes (or uses inefficiently, if you prefer) lots of resources. It's a well known fact (but, again, not known enough).
I have yet to find a GNU/Linux distro more wastefull (when it comes to resources) than Windows. And don't lie, fedora is not more wastefull than Windows. Else, I dunno how anybody would be fit to use it.
EDIT:
@muzzy: GNU is not UNIX. If it was, it would've vanished some time ago (probably). But it's still alive. Since 1980 something. It's still alive.
Sometimes, you gotta move on to survive. Leaving the old, and now, crap stuff behind.
-
Why would I do that? You just said, and we all know, that it all varies between distros. Are you seriously asking me to install the distro that you seem to believe is the slowest-of-all-distros, and compare it to Windows XP?
Well guess what? It's not gonna happen. Slackware boots faster than Windows XP.
I've used Slackware for the most of my time on GNU/Linux, and I'm very, very happy with it. Each distro has it's advantages, and each distro has it's disadvantages (the worst thing about Slackware IMO is that it installs lilo by default and doesn't ask the user what he/she wants (I prefer GRUB)). There's so many distros, there's infinite choice (slight exageration).
Why would I compare what you seem to believe is the crappest of GNU/Linux distros to Windows? OKAY then, I'll do the test. As long as you allow me to corrupt the shit outta the XP system first. Do we have a deal? Didn't think so.
Well I would say Linspire is the shittest distro in my opinion. I agree with you about slackware though after all Vector Linux is just a more newb friendly versoin of slackware.
Umm.. Why the Vector Linux specific? Windows XP wastes (or uses inefficiently, if you prefer) lots of resources. It's a well known fact (but, again, not known enough).
I have yet to find a GNU/Linux distro more wastefull (when it comes to resources) than Windows. And don't lie, fedora is not more wastefull than Windows. Else, I dunno how anybody would be fit to use it.
Iried Fedora and it was the most bloated piece of crap I've ever seen. Yes I know you might be able to make it fast by recompiling the kernel and removing half the shitty services but I'd rather stick with Vector Linux or even Windows for that matter. I'm glad other people find Fedora fast but many people find Windows stable too people's experiancies vary.
Minimum hardware requirements for XP (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx)
Windows XP only requires 64MB of RAM bare minimum. I've run it with the recommended 128MB and I found the speed is more than acceptable.
Minimium hardware requirements for Fedora (http://fedora.redhat.com/docs/release-notes/fc3/x86/)
Fedora core requires 64MB of RAM just to run in text mode, and 192MB for the full GUI. I've run it with the recomended 256MB and it was about the same speed as XP run with just 128MB of RAM. On my machine with 256MB of ram XP is quite fast and I very rarely have a problem with it.
-
I've had Windows XP on this machine and it was aload of shite. Slackware runs like a dream on it, as has Mandrake (now Mandrivia), SuSE (which I hate), and a few other distros. I haven't used Fedora, but from what I hear, it's deadly.
You shouldn't have to recompile the kernel in Fedora (I would assume) to make it run fast. Your setup could have had numerous services loaded that _you_ mightn't need. They're not hard to stop. Same in Windows, but I (used to) always disable stuff I don't use in it.
I would doubt that Fedora is more bloated than Windows, XP especially.
BTW, did you try using the manufacturer (graphics card, mainly) drivers in Fedora? I know they make a huge difference in Windows (Windows was always barely usable before I installed graphics card drivers etc.), maybe not so much in GNU/Linux (I don't even use nvidias drivers, 'cause they're not free software), but if you don't mind giving up the freedom that you obviously don't value-
EDIT: Fedora isn't exactly a distro for not-so-modern computers. Why are we even having this conversation?
-
I've had Windows XP on this machine and it was aload of shite. Slackware runs like a dream on it, as has Mandrake (now Mandrivia), SuSE (which I hate), and a few other distros. I haven't used Fedora, but from what I hear, it's deadly.
You shouldn't have to recompile the kernel in Fedora (I would assume) to make it run fast. Your setup could have had numerous services loaded that _you_ mightn't need. They're not hard to stop. Same in Windows, but I (used to) always disable stuff I don't use in it.
Your personal experiance vs mine - it's not worth argueing about don't you think?
I would doubt that Fedora is more bloated than Windows, XP especially.
Well Fedora's default configuretion requireing more resources than Windows XP would suggest this.
BTW, did you try using the manufacturer (graphics card, mainly) drivers in Fedora? I know they make a huge difference in Windows (Windows was always barely usable before I installed graphics card drivers etc.), maybe not so much in GNU/Linux (I don't even use nvidias drivers, 'cause they're not free software), but if you don't mind giving up the freedom that you obviously don't value-
I did have a graphics card driver problem that caused the graphics to be slow. I'm reffering to boot time and how long it takes to launch big programs like OpenOffice and even how long it takes to copy a damn flopy disk. Windows XP beat Fedora hands down for all of these tasks, Vector Linux has been the fastest though.
EDIT: Fedora isn't exactly a distro for not-so-modern computers.
1800MHz, 256MB RAM isn't that old.
Why are we even having this conversation?
You tell me.
My point is that I've found if you want to get a fast stable operating system to run on your PC without fucking, a light Linux distrobution is the best way to go personally I'd stear clear of Fedora, Mandrake, Linspire ect. in my opinion even Windows XP would be a better choice. But I accept your opinion is different lets agree to dissagree.
-
If Fedora is slow, bloated, and unstable, you can't make the assumption that all GNU/Linux distributions are slow, bloated, and unstable. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros out there. I haven't used any that are slow, bloated, and unstable. Then again I haven't used Fedora.
So why bother comparing Windows with Fedora? If Windows beats Fedora, does that mean Windows is better than GNU/Linux? It can't.
Just like if I compared my current system to a friends unstable Windows system, it's not fair to say that GNU/Linux is better than Windows.
I haven't ever used a "stable" Windows system. Even in school, we use Windows 2000 and it ocassionally goes into "slugish" mode (you know what I'm talking about!), taking ages to load up applications, clicking on "start" and nothing happens... Then, CRASH! Hold down the power button, and if that doesn't work pull the plug from the back.
That's why I formed the conclusion that Windows is rarely stable! Isn't that perfectly fair? I think it is.
You've used Fedora, one of the many GNU/Linux distros, and you found it unstable. Obviously it's fair for you to say Fedora is unstable, you CANNOT say GNU/Linux is unstable (for I would eat you alive).
You've also used Vector Linux, which you say is very stable (does it beat your Windows system?). Now, your more-educated conclusion can be "some GNU/Linux distros are stable, and some are unstable". And I'd agree with ya (wasn't that part of my part-of-the-conclusion above (when I asked who'd agree with the statement...)?).
I've already said some Windows systems are stable (which I do find hard to believe, but I have to believe it).
-
If Fedora is slow, bloated, and unstable, you can't make the assumption that all GNU/Linux distributions are slow, bloated, and unstable. There are hundreds of GNU/Linux distros out there. I haven't used any that are slow, bloated, and unstable. Then again I haven't used Fedora.
I didn't say all Linux distros are slow and bloated, Vector Linux isn't Knoppix isn't and neither is slackware, and I'm sure there're lots of good distros out there.
So why bother comparing Windows with Fedora? If Windows beats Fedora, does that mean Windows is better than GNU/Linux? It can't.
Just like if I compared my current system to a friends unstable Windows system, it's not fair to say that GNU/Linux is better than Windows.
I haven't ever used a "stable" Windows system. Even in school, we use Windows 2000 and it ocassionally goes into "slugish" mode (you know what I'm talking about!), taking ages to load up applications, clicking on "start" and nothing happens... Then, CRASH! Hold down the power button, and if that doesn't work pull the plug from the back.
That's why I formed the conclusion that Windows is rarely stable! Isn't that perfectly fair? I think it is.
You've used Fedora, one of the many GNU/Linux distros, and you found it unstable. Obviously it's fair for you to say Fedora is unstable, you CANNOT say GNU/Linux is unstable (for I would eat you alive).
I've never said that GNU/Linux is unstable, just because I slag off one Linux distrobution it doesn't mean I don't like Linux.
You've also used Vector Linux, which you say is very stable (does it beat your Windows system?). Now, your more-educated conclusion can be "some GNU/Linux distros are stable, and some are unstable". And I'd agree with ya (wasn't that part of my part-of-the-conclusion above (when I asked who'd agree with the statement...)?).
This was my arguement all a long, and I'm sure you could make Fedora run well if I can make Windows XP run well then I'm sure you could get Fedora to work well. I was reffering to the default configureations for both OS's
I've already said some Windows systems are stable (which I do find hard to believe, but I have to believe it).
If Windows was really that bad do you seriously think it would be still popular? If it went down every day and lost people's work costing companies millions of pounds a year people just wouldn't put up with it. Even Windows 95 was very unstable but with just a little work it could be made more stable.
-
Vector Linux uses up very little recources compared to the modern full bloat distros like Mandrake, Linspire and Fedora etc. Knoppix is also a good example of a light distro.
That comment could've passed by me only that you had to mention Mandrake (which is now called Mandriva btw).
Mandrake 10.0 was the first GNU/Linux distro I installed, and if it was any more bloat than Windows, I might not be here (on the microsuck forums that is). Explain, how in the hell is Mandriva, of all GNU/Linux distros "full bloat"?
Bear in mind that the first GNU/Linux distro I used was MandrakeMove (Mandrakes livecd). And that was on my old piece of shit (128mb ram, 233mhz cpu) PC that ran (and struggled with) Windows 98 (I remember I tried to install Windows XP on that system. Didn't even install (I think it was my CD-ROM drive, too slow). I consider myself damn lucky that it didn't install.).
Guess what? With the MandrakeMove CD in the drive, suddenly my system was MORE usable!
I got my brother to download Mandrake 10.0 (I'm on dialup), which ran too well on my piece of shit PC, and when I eventually got round to building a new one... Phew.
-
I haven't run Mandrake or Mandriva myself I was just going on a friend's opinion, sorry you're right on this one I was wrong to mention Mandrake as I haven't tested it myself.
Nothing to do with Mandrake, oh sorry Mandriva I know but this archived thread (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/5/2002/07/2/22919) on linuxquestions.org makes very good reading.
-
Nothing to do with Mandrake, oh sorry Mandriva I know but this archived thread (http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/archive/5/2002/07/2/22919) on linuxquestions.org makes very good reading.
LMFAO! Some day I'm gonna buy an old power supply and plug a decent CD-ROM drive into my old computer. And tell someone in the house to install Windows XP on it (I wouldn't wanna give up my freedom now, would I? ;)). Should be fun.
I could also turn it into a usable infinitum Slackware system.
-
I plan to resurrect my old computer by trash picking a mother board and installing Vector Linux, or I'll see if I can install knoppix on the hard disk, which I might do anyway as I do have a spare 2.1GB hard drive lying around.
-
I'm surprised a thread asking this question is this long. The reason is basically summed up with 1 statement: MS tries to woo developers.
MS vs Apple
In the 80's, MS and IBM were very focused on getting outside developers to support them whereas Apple was concerned about inside projects; Apple lost sight about what people cared about. Forget how the computer looks or feels, what can it do? Can it do spreadsheets? Can it do word processing? Can it do database? DOS/IBM computers could do that; Apple computers could not. Apple shrank so much that it's now mostly a niche market. In the 90's, MS has been involved in almost all projects imaginable. As a result, MS supports a lot of things well before Apple does. Examples: PCI, PCIe, AGP, IDE/ATA/UDMA, USB, PC100/PC133 RAM, DDR RAM, and now SLI. That's just the hardware end of things. On the software end, MS keeps very close ties with developers, and each version of Windows is very backwards compatible. Apple does the opposite - they change standards over and over, and all it does is annoy the hell out of software developers. Here's spl's (http://spl.haxial.net/mac-programming.html) take on Mac programming.
MS vs Linux
First off, Linux has a lot of problems. Linux has a lot of stupidly named things that make it imcompatible with Unix; things like different named var and bin folders as well as differently named binaries. Bash on Unix is "bash", on Linux it's "sh". Gmake on Unix is "gmake", on Linux it's "make". What the hell?
More of a problem is having a billion different types of Linux that aren't 100% compatible with each other. Sometimes you'll find an RPM that is for RedHat, but it doesn't work on your Mandrake install. Why not? Not all versions are the same.
An even worse problem with Linux is that it doesn't really have anybody guiding it to gain support from developers. How can Linux get support from developers? What is Linux? It's not 1 group or 1 company, it's many groups with many companies and each group is going a different way. It's hard to get support when Linux isn't exactly a unified group.
The absolute worst problem with Linux is the mentality of Linux users. Windows users use Windows because they want to get desktop work done, BSD users use BSD because they want to get server work done, Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows and they refuse to use BSD because "omg BSD is too closed source" (open to read, not as open to contribute to).
Although Linux is very popular, the qustion remains: What kind of company would actually want to support Linux when it's an ununified and somewhat incompatible clone of Unix with a user base that hates closed sourced (read:proprietary) software? It's just not worth it.
MS vs BSD
BSD is amazing for servers. It really has no place in the desktop market.
MS vs BeOS, YellowTab, etc
BeOS and YellowTab are great operating systems. The problem is that they lack an enthusiast market, and that leads to a lack of software. Linux and Mac OS may not have close ties with software developers, and the majority of the users are fanatical nutcases (not all users), but they still get support simply because they're popular (actually Linux is the popular one, it's just a strange twist that you can compile Linux stuff on a Mac). If YellowTab had support from software developers, there's no doubt in my mind that its popularity would just explode.
-
Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows
I use GNU/Linux 'cause I think it's better than Windows.
I suppose I'd regreat if I asked you about GNU/Hurd?
-
Woah, Shawn here has some issues.
Can it do spreadsheets? Can it do word processing? Can it do database? DOS/IBM computers could do that; Apple computers could not.
Wtf? Microsoft Word and Excel started on the Macintosh platform.
In the 90's, MS has been involved in almost all projects imaginable. As a result, MS supports a lot of things well before Apple does.
If they did, then they had a good reason. As I shall explain:
Examples: PCI
x86 moved off ISA at about the same time Apple moved off of NuBus, roughly.
PCIe,
Currently, PCIe has no benefit. AGP 8x still has a lot of power left...why would they bother designing a new board if it wouldn't help? And before you say other than video cards, Apple has had 64-bit PCI and PCI-X for a long time, which works well.
AGP,
When AGP 2x was out, Apple used a 64-bit, 66MHz PCI slot for video. This had about the same speed. When AGP 4x came out and changed that, Apple saw no reason to not change to it, and did.
IDE/ATA/UDMA,
Apple didn't switch to IDE for a long time because it sucked. SCSI was much faster and less CPU-dependent than IDE/PIO. In '97, PIO mode 4 IDE compared somewhat well to the current 10MBps SCSI bus Apple had been using, so they put it in the beige G3. DMA came out soon after, and they put it in their very next machine.
USB,
Uh...USB hadn't gotten anywhere before Apple put it in the iMac as the primary expansion port.
PC100/PC133 RAM,
Apple's first PC100 machine came out in 1998. This was comparable to the PC.
DDR RAM,
August 2002. Again, no big difference.
and now SLI.
See the part about PCIe.
On the software end, MS keeps very close ties with developers, and each version of Windows is very backwards compatible.
Stuff still breaks on every release...and all that compatiblity leads to a lot of hacks put in place where they could be fixing the OS.
Apple does the opposite - they change standards over and over, and all it does is annoy the hell out of software developers.
They changed standards once - OS X. Software made for System 6 (1987) work on OS 9 (1999).
Bash on Unix is "bash", on Linux it's "sh".
No, it's "bash". "sh" is a symlink for scripts written for Unix's sh.
Gmake on Unix is "gmake", on Linux it's "make". What the hell?
"make" on Linux is Automake, not Gmake.
More of a problem is having a billion different types of Linux that aren't 100% compatible with each other.
A bit overhyped, I say. VMware has ONE Linux package, and it works on everything with GTK installed. Sometimes you have to compile the kernel modules, but that's not hard - the installer automates that. OpenOffice, same thing. I could go on.
Sometimes you'll find an RPM that is for RedHat, but it doesn't work on your Mandrake install. Why not? Not all versions are the same.
Then get the Mandrake RPM. They have no lack of RPMs.
An even worse problem with Linux is that it doesn't really have anybody guiding it to gain support from developers. How can Linux get support from developers? What is Linux? It's not 1 group or 1 company, it's many groups with many companies and each group is going a different way. It's hard to get support when Linux isn't exactly a unified group.
All the current developers (even the commercial ones) haven't had too big a problem.
The absolute worst problem with Linux is the mentality of Linux users.
:rolleyes: I needn't go further with this one.
Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows and they refuse to use BSD because "omg BSD is too closed source" (open to read, not as open to contribute to)
Yep, see what I roll my eyes at?
Although Linux is very popular, the qustion remains: What kind of company would actually want to support Linux when it's an ununified and somewhat incompatible clone of Unix with a user base that hates closed sourced (read: proprietary) software? It's just not worth it.
There are some companies already. And I use closed-source software on Linux without issue...my favorite has been VMware, which I've mentioned before. The whole "hates closed-source" thing comes from RMS and few others who would like to really use the HURD, not Linux. I prefer free software, but don't mind using closed-source on Linux if it's benefical.
BSD is amazing for servers. It really has no place in the desktop market.
Didn't we just get done describing how "ununified" Linux was, and how that would stop it on the desktop? And then you dismiss a more unified system? Cripe, get a hold of yourself. ;)
BeOS and YellowTab are great operating systems. The problem is that they lack an enthusiast market, and that leads to a lack of software. Linux and Mac OS may not have close ties with software developers, and the majority of the users are fanatical nutcases (not all users), but they still get support simply because they're popular (actually Linux is the popular one, it's just a strange twist that you can compile Linux stuff on a Mac). If YellowTab had support from software developers, there's no doubt in my mind that its popularity would just explode.
This I can pretty much agree with.
-
A few points....
FreeBSD makes for a kick-ass desktop. It just takes a bit more elbow grease to get it working.
Linux users use Linux because they hate Windows and they refuse to use BSD because "omg BSD is too closed source" (open to read, not as open to contribute to)
You have it backwards and are confuzzled a bit about how BSD development works. The linux users you are talking about do not like BSD because they think the BSD license is too open - not too closed. Esentially, they value freedom as long as it doesn't include freedoms that they don't approve of.
As for people not being able to contribute, AFAIK, anyone can submit a patch for their favorite flavor of BSD. Whether or not it gets implimented is up to the core team of developers.
-
Esentially, they value freedom as long as it doesn't include freedoms that they don't approve of.
The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to remove freedom. I don't see what the fuss is about. :confused:
-
The only freedom the GPL takes away is the freedom to remove freedom. I don't see what the fuss is about. :confused:
That's a huge oversimplification there.
I never said I had a problem with the license. I have a problem with the extremist fringe group of GPL-fanboys who think think that no one should be allowed to keep source code to themselves.
-
I have a problem with the extremist fringe group of GPL-fanboys who think think that no one should be allowed to keep source code to themselves.
Those guys must not know their own license. You don't have to release the source code if you don't distribute the software. ;)
-
Those guys must not know their own license...
Yeah. Usually the people that annoy me the most fit into that category. I ran across the epitome of ignorance in this area awhile ago. Here is an actual quote from some internet forum...
Here is the actual post (http://www.cybertechhelp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=256026#post171655).
"First of all, by 'free' they mean you can copy, edit, recompile, or give out your code and recompiled programs. It has nothing to do with price, although most of the time you can get software because someone else will have given it out for free to you.
Second of all, FreeBSD is a different flavor of Unix. If you want rock-solid security, you need Open Source. It's that simple. Windows XP is simply too vulnerable to attacks, and even if tonight we all got a patch for them, we'd still be vulnerable because new holes could be discovered - closed source means only Billy Boy can patch them up, Open Source means you can, or you can beg your friends to if you don't know C/C++.
Third of all, BSD and Linux run two different liscenses. Linux is GNU, meanning completely free. Under the BSD liscense, you can mess with the code, so long as you don't claim your rights to it. It's kind of like this: GNU is completely and totally anarchist, and the BSD liscense has some kind of predefined order. They both have ups and downs.
Since linux is more popular at the time, more people have gotten around to make their own variants of it. Check out www.linuxiso.org (http://www.linuxiso.org/) and see what I mean."
I've seen others like this too. :(
-
that's kind of like the truth, but using all the wrong words!
-
ill put my bit in here. i use both windows and linux systems and linux has only crashed once, when i put the hdd in a new machine and it couldn't cope with a change off all the hardware. my 2000/2000 serer/ XP Pro servers have crashed, failed, been attacked. i even got my server 2000 attacked through a closed firewall before i had fully logged in. i never use a firewall on linux, never been attacked. my server is mostly open and i will happily leave it running, unattanded and know i will not have popups for XXX.com/hyperporn when i get back. just my input as i have used several windows versions and linux distributions.
-
i'd still recommend using a firewall, a system is only as secure as it's administrator can make it, my problem with windows is that it only allows the administrator to go so far along that road.
-
ya i like firewalls somtimes, but as it's not a known server, its no prob yet.
-
I think, in certain scenarios, the benefits of firewalls can be overrated. For example, putting a firewall in front of a server that has no daemons listening. It's like giving a deaf person ear plugs.
There is the possibilty of a strict firewall setup limiting a worm's ability to communicate - but if a worm infects your system, you have more problems to deal with than how your firewall is set up.
-
Typically people still run SSH, which at one point in time gained a name of "Super Security Hole". By merely having ssh daemon running, the system could've been taken over, and lots and lots of systems indeed were. It could happen again.
I never ran firewall on Windows NT based systems. I only used to run it on 9x, where the network stack was so royally fucked that you needed a firewall to filter out packets that the system couldn't handle without crashing. Linux had a few of such issues in the past, too. That, too, could happen again. And we're definitely going to see it happen again once we get into ipv6. Then, it might not be quite so silly to have a hardware firewall sitting in front of a network that has no daemons running.
My primary annoyance on WinNT without firewall was the RPC service which simply could not be closed from the network. It would always listen, unless you hacked it. That royally sucked, however I left it open just to dare all the hackers out there. I took some precautions, though, such a disabling DCOM and other fun stuff... years before the DCOM vulnerabilities became known :)
Overall, firewalls are good stuff, however I couldn't sleep at night if I knew my system could be taken over if the firewall were somehow to disappear. You never know what kind of implementation issues even the hardware firewalls might have...
-
i won't run windows without a firewall. too risky, considering i have college work on it hosted to the world.