Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Kazan on February 21, 2004, 11:33:19 am
-
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/21/1427204
forced wxWindows to change their name to wxWidgets.... LAME ARSES
[note: i have taken to using wxWindo...erg wxWidgets of late because it's extremely useful - you haven't yet seen any of my new programs that use it though]
-
WTF?
How come Lindows can get away with the similarity on a "Generic word" defence but wxWindows can't?
-
Lindows didn't get away with it - even thought technically Lindows isn't infringing even though they're competeing with M$ and wxWindows MOST CERTAINLY doesn't infringe because they're not even competing with M$
M$ Thinks they own the Word windows now - there are many jokes flying that they're going to be suing companies which make tranparently panes of Silicon Dioxide
-
Do you really expect anything otherwise from them?
-
Windex will have to be changed to Widgex
-
Why not just change Windows to 'W*nkers'?
That'll save a lot of lawsuits and put them on more firm ground with the trade descriptions act ;)
And yes, I use it, it's ok, but by God they have their heads shoved so far up their own butts it's unbelievable.
-
They're still suing children for starting up websites with domain names that are phonetically spelled something more or less like "Microsoft". Does this really come as any surprise at all?
-
18-year-olds are hardly children, especially when they turn around and sell the C&D letter from microsoft on ebay
-
Originally posted by Kazan
sell the C&D letter from microsoft on ebay
[color=cc9900]These guys are good.[/color]
-
If you're not careful, they'll starting suing your for using the wor, erm, identifiable-sequence-of-letters, "Word"
-
god, i'd hate to get Word that i can no longer put on my cv that i Excell in Acces sing systems or that there is any Power in a certain Point.
ok, that wasn't funny.
-
That'd be Frontpage news ;)
< Continues to flog Expired Equine >
-
This is all good stuff.
*phones his Publisher*
Oh dear, oh dear
-
Kaz: There's more than the one occasion, actually. And I'm pretty sure one of them was a minor.
-
Widgets is pretty cool actually...pah...Microsoft is going to drown under its own bad PR campaign sooner or later. I'm really waiting for the software behemoth to crumble under its own weight. Maybe split the company up into a bunch of smaller streamlined companies.
One that makes office software, one that writes operating systems, and one thats a publishing/entertainment house.
-
icefire: that would be ineffective - as bill gates would still be the central control and still could swing his operating system around like the brick it is
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Do you really expect anything otherwise from them?
since you despise Microsoft so much, i'm sure you've changed operating systems, and are using Linux, or a similar non-Windows operating system, right?
-
I hate MS more than the next guy, but I use XP.
Just because it sucks doesn't mean it's not the best.
-
Just because it sucks doesn't mean it's not the best
just because you use it doesn't make it the best
it's very far from
-
Sure it does.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
icefire: that would be ineffective - as bill gates would still be the central control and still could swing his operating system around like the brick it is
Not if...as part of the restructuring, the guy takes a retirement from everything.
-
and leaves an equally asshatish goon in control - pretty much anyone billy would trust with running his company is going to be just like billy
-
and this surprises you?
-
Erk. How did that happen? Windows is a generic term for certain GUI objects.
Does this mean I have to import from wxWidgets when using python? Will I have to make subclasses of the wxWidgets class?
-
how did it happen? The current administration
-
Stealth: When did I say I despised Microsoft enough to use Linux?
-
Originally posted by an0n
WTF?
How come Lindows can get away with the similarity on a "Generic word" defence but wxWindows can't?
Easy. Lindows has at least some monetary clout. The wxWindows gang don't have any. They can't even afford to fight a fight they'd win.
As much as I'd like to blame the current administration here for this sort of thing (corporate cheerleaderism, etc), this is down to a British trademark, not an American one. Further, Microsoft did not "force". They did things politely, as the wxwindows.com site explains. This is NOT like the MikeRoweSoft.com thing. At least Microsoft is giving them some payola for their troubles. If it comes down to a choice between paying to fight a battle against the big corporate giant, or getting paid to throw the fight... well, hey, its just an API. Fess up the cash.
I suspect that the package will be renamed 'wxWidgets' and the actual API will remain unchanged.
I like wxWindows. Shame its so hard to get it to play with pygame. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Knight Templar
Stealth: When did I say I despised Microsoft enough to use Linux?
the simple fact is, that while all of us here talk about how we despise Microsoft and Windows and Bill Gates and all the rest of it... all of us are using Windows. It's ironic, we all hate it and talk so much sh1t about it, but we all use it anyway, i know I do, and i know you do, and i'm sure everyone that's posted in this thread does. because as much as we all hate Microsoft/Windows/etc. it's still the most convenient operating system to use... as far as compatitibility, ease of use, and the rest of it goes.
-
Yarr, avast, this be set as my boot screen
(http://koti.mbnet.fi/merediac/kuvat/PiratedEdition.jpg)
-
:lol: :lol: :lol:
When you will understand that improve Windows is easier than replace it?
MS became the dominant standard because they were the first to build software for compatibility and ease of use...
Unless someone will come with a serious system with full compatibility and as easy to use as Windows MS will be the dominant standard...
Before having this place become a flame i will only say a thing...
Would anyone of you buy a non Intel CPU if your software won't run on it?
-
:lol:
NB: I'm switching over to a linux dual boot as soon as I get round to getting a bigger hard drive. Seeing as I currently only program in java, and that I'd rather learn openGL than DirectX, it makes more sense for me.
BTW, how many people here would actually pay for windows?
-
I already have paid for Windows. Before you all blast the decision - I must say that XP has worked almost flawlessly for me. It does everything I want it to, and if there's something missing then there's a program out there that will do the job. I'm not saying it couldn't be faster, better or whatever. But it could be a hell of a lot worse - indeed compared to Win98 it's a huge improvement.
However, just because I use this piece of software doesn't mean I agree with Microsofts way of doing things - I merely fall into the "it's most convenient for me to do things this way" catagory.
-
Paid as in 'shop' sense, or paid as in 'Barras' sens? ;7
-
As in "shop" sense :p I tried "trailing" WinXP with a CD I got from a friend at a LAN (actually I tried 3 different CDs) but none of them worked. At that point it hit me that for the price of approx. two games (at high street prices) I could pick up XP Pro, and that should my system go belly up it'd be better to have the fully legal version to hand.
So I bought it :)
-
Originally posted by Zarax
:lol: :lol: :lol:
When you will understand that improve Windows is easier than replace it?
MS became the dominant standard because they were the first to build software for compatibility and ease of use...
Unless someone will come with a serious system with full compatibility and as easy to use as Windows MS will be the dominant standard...
Before having this place become a flame i will only say a thing...
Would anyone of you buy a non Intel CPU if your software won't run on it?
[color=cc9900]Here we go again.
- Replacing Windows has already been accomplished, many times over, a lot of those times even before Windows existed.
- MS became the dominant standard because they accumulated the most market share. I won't go into the means, you wouldn't listen.
- Define a serious system. I define a serious system as one that works for me. Buh-bye Windows.
- Ease of use? Skin Linux to look like Windows, if you're that fanatic. If anything, Vanilla Linux is often easier to use when it's installed since it cuts the happy-clappy dumb-user interface elements.
- MS will cease being a dominant standard when people start extensively developing for other platforms, i.e. when Windows loses market share. Come back later, it's being worked on.
- Yes, I would buy a non-Intel (presumably you mean non-x86) CPU, provided there was a suitable list of alternatives for programs I used on an x86 architecture. And, considering you can get Linux to run on most-anything, that list is of considerable size. In fact, I already have bought non-x86 CPU's.
[/color]
[color=cc9900]And no, I wouldn't pay for Windows. I have a Windows 98SE install and a CD that I have had since my dad bought it, and I keep it around as last-effort reserve and for trying things people give me that are Windows-only.[/color]
-
DG, that's f***ing awesome! I wants it! :lol:
-
Odyssey just owned Zarax
Zarax - you have your head SO FAR UP BILL GATE'S ASS that I think you should be BANNED - From this bulletin board, from working in the IT field and from breeding.
I've Told you before Zarax - don't rear you stupid sychophant head in my threads
-
Lay off the flaming guys, everyone is entitled to an opinion - agree or disagree you can state your counterarguement without the name calling.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
DG, that's f***ing awesome! I wants it! :lol:
:D :yes:
-
kalfireth - i insult zarax because zarax doesn't listen to any opinion other than bill gates, zarax never has anything constructive of insightful to add to a thread and just iniates flamewars and poisons threads with his vary presence.
-
The "Butt" Pirates of Silicon Valley? The History of Bill Gates, Windows and Apple computer... A most interesting viewing...
-
Kazan: As much as I agree with you, what Zarax is saying is true... All of us here, no matter how much we hate Microsoft/Windows/etc. all use Windows... why? Because it's easy to use, it's easy to find support for, it's compatibility is unmatched, it is the most widely used operating system in the world, and as much as we all hate it, we can't deny it.
Windows XP Professional was the first operating system I actually legally went out and bought, and paid for... because it's an operating system that's worth registering properly to take advantages of its service packs and update modules. It's an extremely powerful operating system, and while it may not be as stable as a Unix system, it's the most stable Microsoft operating system yet.
-
the only reason i use windows is so i can compile my apps so you people can use them and also i can check the compatability
if you think windows XP was worth your money you didn't do much research into the underlying security flaws, the problems with advanced configuration (as in it doesn't let you), etc
Extremely powerful when compared to what? A fisher price toy?
-
Kazan, i know you hate me...
But you are making out a theology question from a tech one...
The core of all the question for me is not that i lick MS ass or whatever you say, but it's the fact that i just don't find viable the proposed alternatives, or if they are viable then the costs outweighs the benefits...
For me it's just way better to improve and build upon MS stuff than trying to do everything from scratch, plus the fact that while open source has its good points i don't believe in free software.
-
to accuse me of creating a theology out of a tech question would be like the pot calling the snowball black
you consider the alternatives and then _post_ your justifications for why: Linux, BSD, Solaris, OSX, AIX, etc are not "viable" alternatives or why their TCO is greater -- cite your sources.
You don't believe in free software? Rotfl - that explains a lot. I will hate to see you in twenty years when _ALL_ software is free and the money is made selling support. You're either going to be A) jobless, B) grudgingly working opensource support or C) have gotten a clue
When did you get your computer science degree? (year), Where? How much did it cost you?
-
[color=cc9900]Zarax: Please outline the problems you have in switching to Linux or another alternative OS, and we'll try to help.[/color]
-
Odyssey: It's Free, read his post - he doesn't believe in free software
-
[color=cc9900]No, but he also mentions the 'cost' of switching, implying some kind of difficulty involved.[/color]
-
The fact that a majority of software is written for Windows at this stage - the average system user does not posess the knowlege or skill to make such a switch smoothly without taking time out to learn about the new system and equip themselves with what is necessary. Windows is intuitive in that respect and that it has more (accessable) support than any other OS on the planet.
The software may be free, the time taken to learn how to use it at its best is not - at least not to the average user.
-
[color=cc9900]I was not, however, expecting Zarax to consider himself an 'average user'.[/color]
-
I don't want to switch anywhere, that's the "problem" for you.
There is a lot of people that are happy with Windows and it does everything they needs.
And your vision of money made through selling support just give me the shivers...
That would put professionals programmers out of service, and all the support stuff will be in third world countries because programmers are cheaper there...
Don't tell that theory around guys or your initiative will find a lot more enemies than you expect...
There are lots of ways to open source, but this one doesn't seem something good to me...
-
people over and over state "the majority" which nobody has yet been able to prove - the majority of _HOME_ software --- but you're going to find more software bundled with a linux distro than most windows users ever need
doesn't take time how to learn the GUI in linux - it's a GUI -- my girlfriend who barely knows anything about computers switched without problem. -- Soon as _Decent_ GUI from end for YUM get's written (wont be long) then once you install the first time you'll never need the CD again.
On the Fedora CDs [that i can htink of, any other software and you just need to ask]
OpenOffice [which is M$ Office compatable]
Mozilla
a Video player [not sure which one, didn't installed it because I always compiled my own Xine for added performance]
Gaim [trillian is a win32 gaim clone]
CD Burning Software, DVD Authoring and Burning Software
thats what i can think of in a few seconds - feel free to ask about the presence of others.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
DG, that's f***ing awesome! I wants it! :lol:
Me too!
-
The costs of switching aren't the efforts required for the users, but the lose of compatibility for a lot of apps, the need of rewriting tons of code and so on...
That will destroy what has been so painfully obtained in the eighties...
Your one is a pretty chaotic vision guys...
Not even a near commie like me would like it...
But here's your future:
Day 1
Linux people: "We destroyed M$ yesss!"
Day 2
5 Corps make 90% of commercial versions of it, their lawyers successfully have GPL declared scrap and not even antitrust would help this time...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
I don't want to switch anywhere, that's the "problem" for you.
You're dodging the issue - you claimed to have considered the alternatives - explain your reasoning or admit that you haven't considered them
Originally posted by Zarax
There is a lot of people that are happy with Windows and it does everything they needs.
Irrevelant to the current discussion
Originally posted by Zarax
And your vision of money made through selling support just give me the shivers...
Only because you don't understand it
Originally posted by Zarax
That would put professionals programmers out of service, and all the support stuff will be in third world countries because programmers are cheaper there...
WRONG - DEAD WRONG -- Each company has a small group of programmers that they pay to contribute to the projects. Each company puts some value into the project - each company get's the value of their contribution combined with the value of all the other companies contributions back out. AMAZING concept - cooperation for profit because it lowers each companies TCO.
when I say "All" software will be free I should qualify that as all essential software - operating systems, office suites, productivity tools, etc.
Games will still cost $ (even if the software at the core is free, which doesn't have to be the case -- the content is not).
Each software firm will have some internal software they don't wish to release (security routines for banks, etc) and programmers will be needed there.
I've been programming for 10 years and I am pursuing a degree and plan to be a professional programmer --- this doesn't scare me one little bit because I understand the nature of the beast.
Originally posted by Zarax
Don't tell that theory around guys or your initiative will find a lot more enemies than you expect...
'around guys'? WTF does that mean? our 'initiative'? There are already millions of programmers on the bandwagon with us. If you actually poked your head out of the microsoft community you will find most of the rest of the software community is extremely hostile to microsoft - and the hostility increases with "loftiness" of the person/group.
Originally posted by Zarax
There are lots of ways to open source, but this one doesn't seem something good to me...
Your statement does not make sense
-
Thats all fine Kazan, but thats the first time I ever learnt that. Which rather implies that Linux' fame gets around by word of mouth alone. The ability to enter into the Linux market must be soley the users decision - which results in the fact that while it might well be better, it relies soley on its users to advertise its existance.
As for the majority of which I spoke earlier - well - of all my years on any computer system anywhere - I've not yet touched a Linux based system... and that includes the homes of myself and others - businesses and offices - schools - you get the idea. Granted that doesn't mean that nobody out there uses it, but it does mean that its sphere of influence has avoided me - and I do take an interest in these things as a user. If I could try it, I would.
-
Oh, my god...
I should really pass this one around...
There is plenty of people that is truly happy by daily dealing with that kind of businesses...
Too bad that they usually defines it as "bottomless money pit".
-
Originally posted by Zarax
The costs of switching aren't the efforts required for the users, but the lose of compatibility for a lot of apps, the need of rewriting tons of code and so on...
Start naming applications and I'll start naming their already written [and often file format compatable] replacements for unix-like operating systems (that would be for: Linux, Solaris, Unix, OSX, BSD]
Originally posted by Zarax
That will destroy what has been so painfully obtained in the eighties...
What did we so "painfully obtain" in the 80s
Originally posted by Zarax
Your one is a pretty chaotic vision guys...
Chaotic? according to you whom doesn't understand it because you're unable to even picturing a paradigm shift
Originally posted by Zarax
Not even a near commie like me would like it...
Riiiight -- again an irrelevant comment
Originally posted by Zarax
But here's your future:
Day 1
Linux people: "We destroyed M$ yesss!"
Day 2
5 Corps make 90% of commercial versions of it, their lawyers successfully have GPL declared scrap and not even antitrust would help this time...
HHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ROTFLMAOPMP
GPL declared scrap... justify your reason for even thinking the GPL could be declared invalid. If you try and spout of "IT's never been tested in court" crap I'll start laughing any harder - since if you ask any real laywer that deals with licenses like that they're answer "Contest the GPL in court? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? You'll loose miserably!"
-
This argument is going to go round, and round, and round, and round.........
Point is, no-ones is going to be convinced to change their mind here, everyone pretty much has decided which side of the fence they sit on.
-
aldo_14: very true, but Zarax may realize that he cannot make any statement that i can destroy by citing the facts
-
[color=cc9900]Personally I'm just trying to help Zarax see that there is in fact an alternative that already exists and is easy to use, with all the compatibility he wants. It's up to him whether he chooses it or not, but we need to try. As it stands, he's not making a very convincing argument against switching.[/color]
-
Odyssey: precisely - he's just spewing the M$ spewed FUD that he's boughten into
AFK for a bit
-
[color=cc9900]"Bought into" is a very appropriate term indeed.[/color]
-
Have you ever thought that typically people can't be insulted into seeing another point of view?
Just a thought...
-
Originally posted by Kazan
You're dodging the issue - you claimed to have considered the alternatives - explain your reasoning or admit that you haven't considered them
I have tried most open source systems, including the various flavours of linux, and i did not find anything worth the loss of most of my old software, including compilers, debuggers and various SDKs.
WRONG - DEAD WRONG -- Each company has a small group of programmers that they pay to contribute to the projects. Each company puts some value into the project - each company get's the value of their contribution combined with the value of all the other companies contributions back out. AMAZING concept - cooperation for profit because it lowers each companies TCO.
Each company has less programmers, so they can pay them scrap because there is less need of them while most of the work is done for free by the community...
Interesting career for people who spent 5 years at university plus at least as much time working.
Project? Which project?
If there will ever be some bigger market you will see them beating each other for market shares, and because almost no money would be made from software itself they will have to enter in a differentiation market, which is something that leads to closed stuff rather than open...
Ask to any economy student how much collaboration is possible in such a market and you will see a :lol: answer.
They will have a more or less common base, but the most advanced custom features will be as closed as MS source, or even more because there would be no antitrust to force them at courtpoint to "share" their stuff.
when I say "All" software will be free I should qualify that as all essential software - operating systems, office suites, productivity tools, etc.
Games will still cost $ (even if the software at the core is free, which doesn't have to be the case -- the content is not).
And what would pay the development for all this "essential software"?
You can milk only so much money from support, which is something much freer than open source in your vision...
Result: Most companies will hire someone to fix their problems (read install patches and reinstall apps) and your bloody costly company support would be pretty much in trouble.
If you want some proof go and ask to most linux based companies.
Each software firm will have some internal software they don't wish to release (security routines for banks, etc) and programmers will be needed there.
And software will grow closed again...
'around guys'? WTF does that mean? our 'initiative'? There are already millions of programmers on the bandwagon with us. If you actually poked your head out of the microsoft community you will find most of the rest of the software community is extremely hostile to microsoft - and the hostility increases with "loftiness" of the person/group.
More than that i heard people scared from the consequence of talking good about MS: a Denial Of Service attack.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Have you ever thought that typically people can't be insulted into seeing another point of view?
Just a thought...
It can be fun, though :)
The fundamental problem with this type of thread is that it gets very boring, very quickly. But if you stop posting, it makes the other guy think he's won.
Hence the 'ariston effect'.
-
Well, i'll let Kazan have the final word then...
It's Evolution against Revolution, and the latter usually appeals more regardless of the effectiveness...
The next decade will tell who is right, i'll just end saying that people is and will always be after money, and i'll rather be a professional programmer proud of the software i sell than being a support guy patching someone else work.
MS will eventually get into open source, as other businesses are doing, and will most likely continue to prosper regardless of these destructive threads...
If people spent their time telling MS what the problems with their software are instead of just keep blaming them we would have a much better final product.
Said that, it's getting later here and i have work to do tomorrow.
-
Zarax continues to dodge my questions
and is showing some inability to connect individual counterpoints into the big picture to to understand
-
[color=cc9900]It strikes me that you have dabbled in Linux just to be able to say you have, Zarax. If you put a little more effort into it, you might start to actually enjoy it - there are plenty of programmes to replace what you 'lost', especially developer tools as development is one of the Linux cornerstones.
If programmers want to earn money on an open source base, they can do exactly the same as a Windows programmer. Keep source closed, and sell the product. There's nothing stopping a good programmer from doing that.
You also don't seem to realise that not everyone is working for money. Look beyond yourself for a moment. Look at almost everything Linux-related. Somebody created that, somebody lovingly crafted the nuances of how it works. Their reward? Recognition. Status. Happiness.
One thing that bolsters my view that you've only dabbled in Linux is the way you boldly ask "And what would pay the development for all this "essential software"?" Nobody, as it's already there. People can now upgrade it themselves if they want to improve it, and submit that to the community. It evolves from then on, and since people are adding to it to fix things and improve the experience, no money need go in.
I'm very surprised you're telling Kazan to go and ask Linux companies for proof that they're in trouble. Have you only heard of the ones in trouble, or have you also come across the ones with a business model that works? Again, how far have you gone into Linux, when all you're reciting is the media?
Why should anyone be afraid of the consequences of talking about a Microsoft DoS attack? I've never heard it. What I have heard is of people afraid to look at the Microsoft source code that was recently leaked, since it will damage their reputation and usefulness to potential employers. Add to that we're dealing with honest people here, who aren't tied to the traits money infers.
Why is open source a "Revolution"? The basis of such a system as Linux has been around longer than Windows, or indeed Microsoft. Neither are revolutions. Open source is most definitely stronger than Windows in the evolution department, however. Witness the speed at which bugs are fixed, the frequent updates, the progression of applications from nothing to something, from something to something even better.
I doubt Microsoft will enter open source. Well, not of their own free will anyway, since leaks happen. May I also point out that you are at once saying that open source companies will and are failing miserably, yet at the mention of Microsoft you turn the tables, saying if Microsoft went open source it would succeed. Your argument is questionable as fair, seeing as we all know perfectly well where your loyalties lie.
"If people spent their time telling Microsoft what the problems were"? Sorry, but don't they? Do you work in Microsoft Tech Support, or any branch of Microsoft dealing with incoming mail? They're no doubt flooded with improvements. Their business model, however, renders implementing the people's wishes a secondary concern behind the market share and profit of the business.
I'm also heading off to sleep. I hope that at some point you read this, and at least try to respond properly this time.[/color]
-
As an aside, Sun is in the process of suing Microsoft for various IPR infringements anmd antitrust, particularly illegal modification of the JVM & Java compilers to make Java programs only run on Windows.
This was after, of course, sun had already won a legal case vs microsoft for illegally bastardising the Java language
What is interesting, is that M$ were attempting to remove the key point of Java - cross-platform compatibility, the same thing that would allow Java apps to work on Linux, Os X, etc. Which aptly describes the cynicism of Microsofts business practices, and also illustrates them holding back the industry as a whole to maintian their monopoly.
-
Originally posted by Odyssey
[color=cc9900]It strikes me that you have dabbled in Linux just to be able to say you have, Zarax. If you put a little more effort into it, you might start to actually enjoy it - there are plenty of programmes to replace what you 'lost', especially developer tools as development is one of the Linux cornerstones.
[/color]
I think this says something actually... who exactly is Linux and other OSs aimed at? Because it's certainly not as accessable as Windows - not in the useability sense but in the "how easy is it to get hold of, support for, advertising for, etc." sense. Linux could well be the greatest OS on the planet and have everything anyone could ever want. But it's all for nothing if nobody knows about it, especially if people have to put effort into it to enjoy it. Your average home or business user can pick Windows out of the box and know pretty much where they stand, and if they don't there's certainly a good chance that a neighbour, workmate or friend does know.
If I chucked Linux on my system for the first time and booted it up, I would have questions and need help. I wouldn't be able to get that support from anywhere but the internet at this stage. Going on the internet for support is typically a long drawn out process that often may not yield the ideal answer. When all an OS really is is a launch pad for your other applications etc that involve what you really want to do with a computer, do you want to spend time getting your OS sorted? Or do you want to be up and running as quickly as possible - playing with the application you wanted in the first place?
Option A may be better and more productive in the long term, but Option B holds most true for your common worker or home user who just wants to book a holiday on the net or compose a letter to their friend.
(Yes, I realise this may dance around what Kazan, Odyssey and Zarax have been discussing - but it's a point nonetheless).
-
Hey thunder - go download a Knoppix ISO, burn the CD and boot up
it used to take a while to get linux up and running - now it takes exactly how long it takes to click your mouse a few times and wait for files to copy
-
Fair enough, I will :)
Untill such a time as I get a clue from this experience, please try and keep the thread clean - thanks!
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
As an aside, Sun is in the process of suing Microsoft for various IPR infringements anmd antitrust, particularly illegal modification of the JVM & Java compilers to make Java programs only run on Windows.
This was after, of course, sun had already won a legal case vs microsoft for illegally bastardising the Java language
What is interesting, is that M$ were attempting to remove the key point of Java - cross-platform compatibility, the same thing that would allow Java apps to work on Linux, Os X, etc. Which aptly describes the cynicism of Microsofts business practices, and also illustrates them holding back the industry as a whole to maintian their monopoly.
The reason why MS was scared of Java is because they were scared it could make the OS the computer is running redundant for a most tasks. Admittedly Java is nowhere near fast enough for that but back when Netscape had come along and completely dominated the internet MS got very scared that one day it might be. They saw a possible future where no one cared which OS was running on their machines because between the internet and Java most tasks care which OS they were running on.
Their response was to strangle Netscape by throwing money at the problem and neuter Java by creating bastard off shoots that would kill the cross-platform abilities of Java (which was pretty much it's main selling point!).
This is a case of MS deliberately trying to screw over the general public and their competitors even when this means breaking the law and the contracts they sign. For all you rant and rave about how IBM want to return us to the days of thin clients it is in fact MS who have held back the pace of progress.
And don't even get me onto the subject of how Microsoft bullied Gateway 2000 into cancelling the work they were doing on the new Amiga. That was one of the most innovative plans for computing I've ever heard and MS killed it stone dead.
-
Bets on how long before MS makes a strange NT/Linux hybrid.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
And don't even get me onto the subject of how Microsoft bullied Gateway 2000 into cancelling the work they were doing on the new Amiga. That was one of the most innovative plans for computing I've ever heard and MS killed it stone dead.
Bastards.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Bets on how long before MS makes a strange NT/Linux hybrid.
Not possible, license issues. :p
-
I overlooked him ranting about thin clients
I just lost what little remaining respect i had for Zarax
I ASK AGAIN - WHAT FIELD ARE YOU TRAINED IN? MIS? ARE YOU AN MCSE?
-
Originally posted by 01010
Bastards.
Doesn't even begin to cover my level of hatred for them. I was actually at the WOA show where Jim Collas showed us what they had planned. It was pretty amazing even if only half of what they planned was likely to happen. Back then they were partered with QNX. The idea was that QNX would build a stable kernal for them and work out the low level stuff and Amiga Inc would build the desktop part of the OS.
A lot of QNX's stuff ended up going into Neutrino but without the desktop layer it got largely ignored. :( Okay it wouldn't be open source but it would have pissed on every proprietary OS from a great height.
-
I see Zarax and Kazan going back and forth and back and forth. Kaz is generally right, but he's not doing such a great job at the diplomacy.
Look, Linux and other open source projects are free. They don't cost the user anything. What's more, generally, they come with free tech support in the form of mailing lists, message boards etc. There's literally thousands of websites full of howto's and FAQs and Wikis and the like. All it takes is a small amount of effort. Heck, if you're really curious, ask a techie. He or she can probably point you in the right direction. I'll apologize in advance for those of us, who (like me at times) are short tempered and asocial and undiplomatic.
They're also free in that you get the source for any program you use, meaning that you get to do whatever you want with the code and the program, including making it do what you, personally want. Do you have to? No. You can use all that software stock, just the way it is and you won't miss a thing. Zarax is frightened of this idea though. He predicts in the future that Linux will be controlled by corporations and be closed source and we'll be back where we are now.
There's just one problem: The cat is out of the bag. The source code is in the wild. I have all the source for FreeBSD sitting on a CD right here. You know what? Microsoft could snatch up FreeBSD, close the source and declare WindowsBSD to be the new paradigm. What exactly would that mean to me or any other BSD user? Exactly nothing. All we have to do is take the source code we have, and work from that. This is a process called 'forking'. As long as we have the code, no matter what IBM or Redhat or Mandrake or SuSE or Microsoft do, we'll still have our OS. We'll still have the tens of thousands of software programs for our OS. They cannot take it away. They can only fork their own versions. We'll still have ours. We'll still have the real deal.
Someone (Zarax or Kazan) mentioned that some people might not want to share their source code. Guess what: you don't have to if you don't want to. There's always the LGPL, if you feel like you need the GPL or the BSD license. You don't have to give away your source code if you really feel that strongly. Of course, this is highly discouraged because its actually got more disadvantages than advantages. Closed source depends on obscurity for security, for example. You have to hope that, since they can't see your code, no one will be able to exploit its flaws. In the history of software, we've seen that this is a pretty foolish way to handle software. We have but to look at the depth and breadth of Microsoft's security deficits to see that this model is fundamentally broken. On the other hand, we can look to OpenBSD and its history for why Open Source is a good way to go. They've only had ONE remotely exploitable root-level compromise in the entire history of the project--a project that's the better part of ten years old. No other organisation producing an operating system in the history of the Earth has a track record as clean as OpenBSD. Windows, for example, had more security patches issued last year than OpenBSD has had in the history of the project.
People continue to talk about compatibility and applications as if they were still a going concern. The fact of the matter is that they are not. With products such as WineX and WINE, *nix users can run those precious Microsoft Office apps and Unreal Tournament and even Freespace on *nix.
Ease of use: I hate to break it to you, but Windows isn't easy to use. My mother--and most likely yours--couldn't install a program on her own if her life depended on it. Installing the OS? Give it up. These are not metrics for determining the transition. The real metric is how easy the PROGRAMS are to use. I have news for you, *nix people and Windows people: there's no difference between the two platforms except cosmetics. If I were to sit my mother or father or sister down in front of a *nix machine running Mozilla, they'd have no problems getting their email and surfing the web. If I showed them StarOffice, Koffice, or OpenOffice.org, they'd be able to do everything they do in Microsoft Office--and they'd be asking me exactly the same questions they'd ask me if it was a Windows box. The user experience isn't terribly distinct in these environments. If it were, it wouldn't be so easy to make a *nix box masquerade as a Windows box and vice versa.
Oh, and back off the MCSEs, Kaz. I'm one of them. Of course, I earned my MCSE through, oh, you know, six years of administering WindowsNT domains. I didn't go through the happy slappy boot camp certification mills that most of the paper certificates went through. ;)
-
"Windows, for example, had more security patches issued last year than OpenBSD has had in the history of the project."
actualy, they've probly had more this afternoon :)
-
mikhael: but you have skills _BEYOND_ your MCSE
-
well since you guys have taken the discussion (argument) to the next level, i won't get involved in it, but i would like to respond to something mikhael said, i assume he was referring to my posts i made earlier:
Ease of use: I hate to break it to you, but Windows isn't easy to use. My mother--and most likely yours--couldn't install a program on her own if her life depended on it. Installing the OS? Give it up. These are not metrics for determining the transition. The real metric is how easy the PROGRAMS are to use.
But mikhael, honestly, you have to admit, that if you compare Windows, to, let's say, the uber-stable Linux, Windows is easier to use. I never said it was easier to install, but for the average user (a person who doesn't know how to program, who doesn't need to know anything other than how to check his email, surf the net, and occasionally play a game of solitaire), Windows IS the dominant product, i'll even say it beats out Linux, because it does, it's an easy GUI where you point and click... I can't see grandma, and most of the kids in school typing in command line to open programs and stuff. Now sure you say "my mother -and most likely yours -- couldn't install a program on her own if her life depended on it"... that's true, but could she install a Linux module? most likely not. And someone mentioned security? Yeah sure XP (particularly) has many security flaws, but for the average user, who gives a damn. I'd take non-Windows operating systems myself, but i'll bet... i'll bet, that everyone so far that posted in this thread, posted from a machine that was running some version of Windows, myself included.
You really can't argue it. Windows is the dominant operating system, simply because of its GUI appeal, ease of use, etc. For advanced users, such as Kazan, mikhael, myself, etc. who realize the flaws and limitations of using any form of Windows, we use other operating systems, some of which Kazan mentioned... and find ways of doing things (such as play Freespace? ;) ) within it, even though it may not be as easy as popping a CD in the drive and double clicking an icon on the desktop... but unfortunately that's the way the computer-illiterate world works... People don't care about security flaws or program limitations, they just want it to be simple, and easy, and familiar, which is why Windows and Mac OS are so popular. i dunno, it's just my opinion. I really have no expectations of the whole world suddenly switching from Windows to Linux (regardless of how good that would be for so many reasons), because it's not going to happen.
-
How can you say anything about ease of use when you don't use Linux? Also, since when was Mandrake not point and click? Redhat? Ark Linux? Suse? Has there been some CLI revolt that I'm not aware of?
It's stubborness and familarity, that's it.
-
The simple fact is that Windows ease of use is a complete lie. Sit down two complete novice users. Teach one Windows and one Linux. After 5 minutes the Windows user would probably be more advanced because you'd have to explain concepts like logging in as a user or as root to the Linux user.
By about a day or two however the Linux user would be able to do everything the windows user could.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The simple fact is that Windows ease of use is a complete lie. Sit down two complete novice users. Teach one Windows and one Linux. After 5 minutes the Windows user would probably be more advanced because you'd have to explain concepts like logging in as a user or as root to the Linux user.
By about a day or two however the Linux user would be able to do everything the windows user could.
I'd be willing to bet the Lniux user would also have a lot better understanding of what was going on, too..... windows is only user friendly until something goes wrong, at which points is equally as obscure as Unix to find the cause.
Oh, and on the topic of qualifications - I've always held the opinion that a qualification isn't really worth that much in terms of proving ability.... it's really proof of the ability to learn and understand concepts - it's the actual experience that counts in the real world (which is, natch, probably the thing I most lack).
and I say that despite the risk of denigrating my own results / degree.
-
Explain again why Windows ease of use is a lie? It might not be the easiest to use out there (my test of Knoppix is still pending, download is at 50pc) but it seems everything is explained.
Put two computer novices together, one with Linux and one with Windows, and if the guy with Linux runs into trouble - I'm willing to bet he'll have a tougher time finding help to solve his problems. As I said earlier it seems that everyone in my area (where I live) runs a Windows system, and so if any of them run into trouble they ask me or someone else near them. If I started running Linux only right now I'd have to come onto the internet to get any support - because I have no knowlege of it myself and nobody I know does either.
Thats the kind of insecurity that home / light users want to avoid.
Power users are another matter entirely - I may well find myself loving Knoppix because of what it lets me that Windows doesn't. However I didn't become a user who wants added control overnight - it took years of computer use for me to need the added control of setting up my BIOS the way I wanted it. Changing Windows boot up settings and so on. If a first-time user came to you and asked about changing their startup settings - I don't think I'd be the only one who'd tell them not to even touch anything.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Explain again why Windows ease of use is a lie? It might not be the easiest to use out there (my test of Knoppix is still pending, download is at 50pc) but it seems everything is explained.
Put two computer novices together, one with Linux and one with Windows, and if the guy with Linux runs into trouble - I'm willing to bet he'll have a tougher time finding help to solve his problems. As I said earlier it seems that everyone in my area (where I live) runs a Windows system, and so if any of them run into trouble they ask me or someone else near them. If I started running Linux only right now I'd have to come onto the internet to get any support - because I have no knowlege of it myself and nobody I know does either.
That's a poor arguement though. It's like saying that a bus is easier to drive than a car because all my friends are bus drivers.
Linux is intrinsically no harder to use than windows. Sure it might take you a little longer to find a tech in the area but that doesn't change how hard the OS is to actually use.
Besides the arguement is intriniscally wrong. Yes it's easier to find someone who knows a little bit about windows but if you have a serious problem the number of people who understand the OS down to the guts is no doubt higher for Linux because most OS Guru's tend to use Unix in preference to windows.
If you end up with a ticky problem with windows you are unlikely to end up having it resolved. More likely you'll just be told to back up and reinstall the entire OS. :rolleyes:
If that was a valid support statement for Linux then you'll probably find that the ease of use of Linux would be viewed as being just as good as for windows :D
-
you don't have to drop to the command line to run your GUI apps *wallops* Stealth
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's a poor arguement though. It's like saying that a bus is easier to drive than a car because all my friends are bus drivers.
Linux is intrinsically no harder to use than windows. Sure it might take you a little longer to find a tech in the area but that doesn't change how hard the OS is to actually use.
So what you're now saying is that Linux is no harder to use than Windows? Quite a change from your "Windows ease of use is a lie" statement earlier... :doubt: Seems there's something to my arguement after all.
-
the "Windows ease of use" is a lie in that it's merely a perception, and opinion, and a biased one at that.
Have you tried our your Knoppix disk yet?
-
As a matter of fact I'm posting this message from it! See, I do give things a go ;)
By the way:
The "Windows ease of use" is a lie in that it's merely a perception, and opinion, and a biased one at that.
While that's true - it's no more true than the statement that Linux is easy to use, or that Windows is hard to use. It's all a perception - it's all a lie. It all depends on who you are, what you do and what you know.
In a way... now that I think about it, it kinda makes this conversation pointless. Anyhow - I'm going to press on with my tinking with Knoppix. As an aside, whats the difference between Knoppix and Linux Redhat or any other edition?
-
A big part (for many, in the scheme of things it can be pretty insignificant) is the GUI. Installing packages will run slightly different, and different packages will be available. :)
-
Kalfireth: very minor differences -- for example Knoppix gives you that configuration menu that automatically sudo's to root without asking you the password
Red hat has a graphical boot screen (after the initial quick dump of kernel messages -- boot screen comes up when it goes to sysV init) and then the GUI has the blue curve theme -- and all the config applets ask for the root password, etc.
-
Fair enough, what's the performance like? Things seemed "alright" considering it was loading from a CD tray, buy much slower than my Windows install (not suprised, Windows is on the HD after all).
I will say one thing, I love the ability to hide the task bar and switch between "desktops".
-
Boot time depends on a lot of things - what services are set to run (I highly recommend you go into the services manage and turn off anything useless when you get a hd install)
the 2.6 kernel has performance boosts of immense proportions so you may want to wait till the end of march and Fedora Core 2 comes out to do any installing.
I routinely get higher frame rates in UT in linux than under windows, etc.
Also when one program seg faults (GPFs) it takes down that process -- not the entire computer. -- and set faults are generally rare
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
So what you're now saying is that Linux is no harder to use than Windows? Quite a change from your "Windows ease of use is a lie" statement earlier... :doubt: Seems there's something to my arguement after all.
I didn't say that windows was harder to use than linux. That's obviously nonsense.
What I was saying is that Windows having an ease of use advantage over linux is a lie (perpetuated by MS mostly). If you've never used a computer before and someone sat you down and taught you how to use both operating systems you'd find Linux is no more difficult to learn than Windows.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
How can you say anything about ease of use when you don't use Linux?
ummm excuse me, just because i don't have Linux installed on this computer doesn't mean i haven't used it, or don't know how to use it. i'm sure the computer you're on at the moment doesn't have Linux installed either, and even if it does, i'm sure i've used linux as much, if not more thanyou
-
In my experience, there is conceptually no difference between running programs in, for example, Solaris and Windows. any sort of useful innovation in Windows or another commercial OS would soon find its way into some version of Linux anyways - and vice versa.
It's still basically a windowed WYSIWYG interface....at least insofar as the 'average' user is concerned.
-
[color=66ff00]You know why I've never liked linux; I know this is a fairly shallow thing but I've just never been able to make it look attractive. I find a computer to be much more satisfying if the experience has asthetic, windows is configurable enough to let me do almost everything I need with little effort. There are skins for almost everything.
I'm sure you'll probably not understand this point of view kazan as I see you're a very practical person but it's something that I find very important.
Ultimately though my rig is built for gaming, why dual boot with linux when I can use open office, firefox, trillian (Which I'm aware works perfectly under winex) and quickly switch to any game I choose in the intervals between real work?
It just works for me.
Lazy? Perhaps. Happy? Definetly.
[/color]
-
VBS ALLA WAY, BABY!!!
Holy hell these threads are silly. And this one started with a fairly decent premise, too...
-
the one thing I wish Linux (ect) had, was a better 'getting started from a windows install' explaination, I've been wanting to try out Linux for a while now, I have a bit of central HD space reserved for it, but I don't realy know were to start.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]You know why I've never liked linux; I know this is a fairly shallow thing but I've just never been able to make it look attractive. I find a computer to be much more satisfying if the experience has asthetic, windows is configurable enough to let me do almost everything I need with little effort. There are skins for almost everything.[/color] [/size]
[color=cc9900]Out of the box, Windows versions up to and including 2000 look fairly utilitarian. Windows XP looks like a kids toy. On the other hand, out-of-the-box Linux often looks sleek, modern, and it's even got all the flashy effects. I can't say I've tried skinning in either Windows or Linux, but from what I've seen on the internet, Linux can end up looking pretty damn good, reference:
http://art.gnome.org/screenshots/index.php
KDE purportedly allows even more control over themes. Then there's all the alternative window managers, such as Enlightenment, IceWM, etc. etc.
Bobboau: the best place to start would be Knoppix (http://www.knoppix.net/). It runs off a CD, and loads its core components into RAM. Your computer is left untouched when you log off. That way you can get a good feel for Linux without actually installing anything. If you like that, then google around for installation tips for whatever Linux distro you choose, or alternatively ask one of us.[/color]
-
WinXP looks like the bastard child of Mac OS X and a Barbie doll.
But I have never had it crash, and it runs MAX with hyperthreading. And can use the drivers for my scanner. And that is all I care about. So HA.
In the end, that's all most anybody's gonna care about. Viruses suck, but most people keep backups. Security just isn't an issue for Joe PC Owner, because since he's got nothing of particular value on his machine he'll only get the most random and hence the weakest of attacks. Windows runs all his peripherals, can use basically all the nice hardware out there today, and it's usually what his computer came with. Sure, fine Linux might be better, but XP does a good enough job for most people that the trouble to install a new OS (with all the inevitable compatibility problems that'd generate with the user's old Windows data, and don't tell me they don't exist at all, that's horse****) is just too much. So, really, going on about how Linux is superior for security and about the same for GUIs comes to naught- all you're really doing is patting yourself on the back for having a very special operating system. Well, good for you. You haven't accomplished anything to speak of.
-
I use XP because I am a heavy computer user, and habitually lazy. Linux is probably faster, cleaner and more efficent than Windows by a long way. But the simple fact of the matter is that I use a mixture of stuff, some of which have Linux ports available, others do not.
It's simply easier for me to stick to Windows.
Anyway, isn't this Lightwave vs 3DSMax all over again?
-
Maeglamor: when is the last time you played with linux? what distro? The Linux GUI is fully skinable - get Fedora, install KDE _NOT_ GNOME for your window manager.
-
Originally posted by Kalfireth
Explain again why Windows ease of use is a lie?
Here's the deal. Ease of use is purely subjective.
Take a complete novice, someone who has never seen a computer before (like, say, my grandmother) and sit them in front of a Linux box running XFree86 and KDE. When you teach them about the using GUI windows and clicking the mouse and running programs and stuff, there's no difference between Unix and Windows. Take that same person over to a Win2k box and let them play with it. They'll be confused and disoriented and find it confusing. Why? Because they've learned how to do things in the way that KDE expects them to be done. Its exactly the same thing as when a Windows user tries to play with Unix.
That's why 'ease of use' is a lie. There's no ease of use, there's only headspace inertia.
Now, let's just say that ease of use concerns are real. For example, I have to setup a Unix machine for my wife. She knows Windows2000, but not Unix. So what do I do? I give here FreeBSD, running XFree86 with KDE for the desktop environment. I select the "Windows" style for the mouse handling (single click selects, double click runs the default action, right click for context menus, etc) and the Redmond theme for the GUI skin. She now has a Unix box that looks remarkably like Windows2000 and acts an awful lot like Windows2000. I set her up with Mozilla for her browser and email. If she really needs Outlook or other Office apps, I setup Crossover Office. In other words, the surface interactions remain the same for her.
That's why 'ease of use' is a lie, Thunder.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Anyway, isn't this Lightwave vs 3DSMax all over again?
[color=cc9900]Not really. Both of those pieces of software evolved from the same principles, do essentially the same thing, and both cost a lot. In this case we have two OS's that have originated from completely different principles (closed source profit, open source hobby (usually)), that can do essentially the same thing but also one offers a little more (Linux offers a command line interface if you need one, whereas Microsoft seems to be working towards the abolition of said), and one costs a lot where the other costs nothing at all.
I just tried to think of a metaphor, but couldn't. Not much is free these days.[/color]
-
I suppose that is the only thing that would certainly make me walk away from Windows, if they removed low-level access altogether. The death of the Floppy Disc isn't all that far away, and has only been delayed by Boot Discs. Once Windows does away with these, you effectively lose all system level control of your computer.
Then you would have another Linux user ;)
I suppose Terrestrial ITV and Cable is a good example. You get so many more channels with Cable, but a lot of them are full of crap, and you have to pay for them ;)
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Now, let's just say that ease of use concerns are real. For example, I have to setup a Unix machine for my wife. She knows Windows2000, but not Unix. So what do I do? I give here FreeBSD, running XFree86 with KDE for the desktop environment. I select the "Windows" style for the mouse handling (single click selects, double click runs the default action, right click for context menus, etc) and the Redmond theme for the GUI skin. She now has a Unix box that looks remarkably like Windows2000 and acts an awful lot like Windows2000.
you can always write a script or something to lock up the computer every 30 minutes or so and she wouldn't be able to tell the difference ;)
-
lol phreak!!!!!
mikhael->score++;
-
Originally posted by Stealth
ummm excuse me, just because i don't have Linux installed on this computer doesn't mean i haven't used it, or don't know how to use it. i'm sure the computer you're on at the moment doesn't have Linux installed either, and even if it does, i'm sure i've used linux as much, if not more thanyou
Actually, the computer I posted it from had Linux running. In fact, all 4 of the computers I use have Linux running on them (the mac2ci doesn't count :p).
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Maeglamor: when is the last time you played with linux? what distro? The Linux GUI is fully skinable - get Fedora, install KDE _NOT_ GNOME for your window manager.
[color=66ff00]Ummm, redhat was the only release I could get my hands on at the time and yes it was gnome I have to admit.
This still doesn't address the gaming issue though, I spent a lot of money on the machine and I really don't want to have to make a new partition, install a new OS, set it up to my liking, get copies of all the apps I use etc. etc.
It just doesn't make sense to me when what I've got now works so well. *shrugs*
On a related note; is there any possibility that linux can have something akin to DirectX, or is any attempt to emulate it an infringement of intellectual property or some such nonsense?
I believe that this is linux's ultimate crippling factor.
[/color]
-
The comment about Windows having the stupid Luna theme? That's relatively easy to fix. Just overwrite the uxtheme.dll with a hacked version, and skin away. Currently using a theme based on the lateset Longhorn release (apparently, unreleased OSes from MS, although hardly working, have fairly nice GUIs.)
But anyway, if it wasn't for the fact that I'd have to go through the pain of repartitioning my drive, I'd probably install a Linux distro in a dual boot setup. But I don't feel like searching for a utility to do it again, and I'm not sure whether I really have enough space to really think about it (my computer has only 28GB of total HD space).
EDIT: On a side note, Torvalds rocks. (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=14301)
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
On a related note; is there any possibility that linux can have something akin to DirectX, or is any attempt to emulate it an infringement of intellectual property or some such nonsense?
I believe that this is linux's ultimate crippling factor.
WineX -- althought is still costs money, eventual;ly codeWeavers will merge the WineX code into the GPLed Wine and it'll become free, that's just how CodeWeavers works
-
Windows runs what I want it to run. Why should I switch to Linux for MIRC, IE, 3DS, word processing and the occasional gaming?
-
well 3ds and gameing are very proccesor intisive, you would need all the power and stability you can get.
as for word procesing, well doesn't it seem silly that we need a computer capable of doing 2.7 BILLION calculations per second to do the same thing we used to do 20 years ago with a computer only posesing 10Mhz (not I said 10, not 100).
even more should you need to pay, what is is $100 for it?
MIRC and IE, well there isn't realy that much of an improvement, here, other than the fact that you'r useing generaly better designed software (less likely to visit a site that your broswer auto-magicaly DL's a virus that clears you HD and ****s you BIOS)
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Originally posted by Maeglamor
On a related note; is there any possibility that linux can have something akin to DirectX, or is any attempt to emulate it an infringement of intellectual property or some such nonsense?
I believe that this is linux's ultimate crippling factor.
WineX -- althought is still costs money, eventual;ly codeWeavers will merge the WineX code into the GPLed Wine and it'll become free, that's just how CodeWeavers works [/B]
I'm going to have to disagree with you here, Kaz. WineX/Wine is a compatibility layer. The proper analog of DirectX is the SDL.
The Simple Direct-media Layer (SDL) gives *nix the kind of framework DirectX provides Win32. Its got the networking framework, graphics framework, sound framework, input framework, etc for creating games and the like. Hell, on a Win32 machine, SDL acts as a go between between the programmer and DirectX, thus insulating the programmer from the horrors of Microsofts abhorrent API. That means that code can bounce between Win32 and *nix fairly easily. I know it works for me when I'm working with Pygame (the SDL bindings for Python).
Kaz already knows this stuff (he's extolled SDLs virtues elsewhere), but I figured the rest of you lot didn't.
And have I trumpetted the virtues of Python lately? If I haven't I really ought to start a thread about it. ;)
-
I Don't have time to read this whole thread, but IIRC the name "Windows" originated from the novel concept of having multiple panes on-screen, each pane capable of showing something different.
Wouldn't that make it, if not illegal, then frowned upon, to sue for something like that? It's like saying that your original car has an ENGINE, so if you nickname the car Engine, then nobody else can say that their cars have engines in them.
Freaking...
-
IIRC, Windows were an Apple concept designed for Lucy (I think that was its name anyway).
-
Actaully, Windows were a Xerox PARC concept that Apple freely ripped off (then complained when Microsoft did it right back).
-
Ah yes, now I remember.
Xerox were all "We don't give a ****" and the designers were all "Why the **** are we letting Jobs come in and steal all our hard work?" then Microsoft were all "Haha, ****-head. We dun stoled your ****, Stevie" and Jobs was all "You ****ing dick, Bill."
*watched Pirates of Silicon Valley*
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Lindows didn't get away with it - even thought technically Lindows isn't infringing even though they're competeing with M$ and wxWindows MOST CERTAINLY doesn't infringe because they're not even competing with M$
M$ Thinks they own the Word windows now - there are many jokes flying that they're going to be suing companies which make tranparently panes of Silicon Dioxide
http://www.gnutella.com/news/10579
-
Isn't there a far east country where Windows is actually a registered trademark of another country?
They should sure MS if MS win this case. They have a much better case after all :)
-
mikhael: i belive he asked if they would be DirectX for unix
but yes SDL is a much better option
-
isn't there an OGL wraper for DX
if not there should be
-
Bobboau: WineX does that IIRC