Vista Will Exterminate Desktop Linux Once And For All.

[Tim Smith]

Or "Christian Ubuntu". Praise de ludd. Yussir.

Here's a forum for Christian Windows tech support:

<http://osministry.com/forum/index.php?showforum=26>

Here's Christian web hosting:

<http://www.truepath.com/>

And here's web hosting for Muslims:

<http://www.muslimtents.com/>

A quick Google didn't turn Jewish web hosting, atheist web hosting, or
Buddhist web hosting.

 

[7]

Yes, Windows can do that, XP for example, without any trouble, and
while playing a DVD full screen from a second DVD drive and five or 6
AVIs in their own class media player window, all at the same time, but
who gives a f#ck?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!
LIAR!!!
I said windopes can't play multiple videos. Who give a fsck if
other proprietory players you pay for can?
In any case, are you sure its coming from the HD and not RAM cache???
Some dum dum had 2Gb cache to rise to the challenge.
256Mbytes RAM is not enough to cache large 6 DVD videos
to be played at the same time.

Problem is: 96% of the world computer users run Windows, vs. 0.4%
Linux.

Out of date information - Linux has taken bigger chunks out of the
pie becoming ubiquitous embedded devices, servers, and slowly but
relentlessly taking on the desktop.

Keep playing with your live CDs...

Will Do.

 

[7]

But you can't run GuildWars or FarCry or Pharmacy Software, or Many
Medical Applications, or SQL Server or Exchange server....

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!
WHO CARES?
You can now run lots of other med applications free of charge
in medical focused distros.
http://www.livecdlist.com

 

[Ian]

Will Vista ever be free?

Doesn't matter. People don't mind paying for things that they like.

Hobbyists will take photos on film and deveop them themselves. Most
people nowdays use digital camersa.

If people want a computer that just works, they buy windows. If they
want to delve into mysteries of command shells and compilers, they get
linux and play with it.

Mostly, linux is only playing catch-up with windows. New announcements
say things like "Look ! We can now do on Linux what windows has been
doing for years !"

Windows has Plug'n'Play. Linux sort of has it.

Windows has .NET. Linux is trying to get it.

Linux is fairly big and will stay around, but it's not the future.
Nothing new ever comes out of Linux, mainly because it's based on a 30
year old architecture.

Sure, MS pinch things from linux and apple and etc, but marketing is all
in the packaging.

COLA's can rant and rave all they like, but it's not going to solve
anything. BETA tapes had their advocates but they didn't achieve much in
the long run.

 

[Guest]

Doesn't matter. People don't mind paying for things that they like.

Hobbyists will take photos on film and deveop them themselves. Most
people nowdays use digital camersa.

If people want a computer that just works, they buy windows. If they
want to delve into mysteries of command shells and compilers, they get
linux and play with it.

Mostly, linux is only playing catch-up with windows. New announcements
say things like "Look ! We can now do on Linux what windows has been
doing for years !"

Windows has Plug'n'Play. Linux sort of has it.

Windows has .NET. Linux is trying to get it.

Linux is fairly big and will stay around, but it's not the future.
Nothing new ever comes out of Linux, mainly because it's based on a 30
year old architecture.

Sure, MS pinch things from linux and apple and etc, but marketing is all
in the packaging.

COLA's can rant and rave all they like, but it's not going to solve
anything. BETA tapes had their advocates but they didn't achieve much in
the long run.

Good that you don't have the slightest clue what you are blubbering about

 

[Guest]

I have a few points i would like to share in this matter


1.Until Linux unifies into one whole operating system rather then diffrent
companies coming out with different styles of Linux , i think Linux in an
average desktop users home is not possible

2.the other fact of Linux is that the installation of drivers for the
hardware is some what hard for an novice if they are not available in the
linux os he has , even if there are drivers provided by the vendor of the
product its is very hard to integrate them in to the os , this has to be
eradicated for Linux to be seen on home pcs .

3.the sheer power of linux os is the cause of its down fall for an novice or
some one is quite new to linux can't even tell the diffrent between an
executable to a file for he to use linux he has to learn all the jargoan of
linux architecture of files and executables

4.linux desktop is powerful, clean and is very secure compared to vista or
any othe os microsoft boosts of but it can only conquer the dominence of
microsoft in home users if it can shed some of its advantages or may be
integrate them more better user friendly way

until then i don't suppose i will see Linux as a dominant desktop os as
windows

 

[Peter Hayes]

Well I've tried it and I don't. For one thing, as I wrote elsewhere,
it's hard work and it's scary because I know that I am completely
on my own. There was also not a lot of stuff written for Linux at
the time. I am not altogether convinced that that has changed.

I was impressed by its stability. In that respect it was as good
as I had heard. But what else does it have to tempt users away
from the devil they know?

As for diversity==survival - if programmers have to write for
multiple platforms a single app, including its maintenance,
can get very expensive - not to mention messy.

This is one worry about Apple switching to Intel - developers will put
out Windows only apps and expect Mac users to boot XP or use Parallels
to run them. So far there's little evidence of this happening, but it's
early days for MacTel.

Between you
and me, and the privacy of these little ngs, I wouldn't mind if
the world plumped for Linux to the total exclusion of Windows
and other OSes so long as there ultimately remains just the
one. But you and I know that is not going to happen so we
might as well all switch to Windows and enjoy the benefits
of standardisation.

It doesn't really matter which platform becomes the standard, any
momoculture suffers from unique vulnerabilities, which is why we'd need
Windows and OS X in a Linux dominated world, and we'd need Windows and
Linux in an OS X dominated world.

 

[Hadron Quark]

This is one worry about Apple switching to Intel - developers will put
out Windows only apps and expect Mac users to boot XP or use Parallels
to run them. So far there's little evidence of this happening, but it's
early days for MacTel.

Sorry? Just because they use the same processor doesnt mean they speak
to the same APIs.

Its like saying because Linux windows apps should run on Windows without Wine.

It doesn't really matter which platform becomes the standard, any
momoculture suffers from unique vulnerabilities, which is why we'd need
Windows and OS X in a Linux dominated world, and we'd need Windows and
Linux in an OS X dominated world.

--
if (argc > 1 && strcmp(argv[1], "-advice") == 0) {
printf("Don't Panic!\n");
exit(42);
}
(Arnold Robbins in the LJ of February '95, describing RCS)

 

[ed]

Sorry? Just because they use the same processor doesnt mean they speak
to the same APIs.

Its like saying because Linux windows apps should run on Windows
without Wine.

But what about the assembly built programs, at most they use syscalls.
It depends if this is the API you were talking about, it's a bit vague.
I assume you were talking about things like libc that handle printf,
whereas write(0) is the syscall.

 

[Hadron Quark]

But what about the assembly built programs, at most they use syscalls.

Syscalls? That is an API too.

"Assembly built" programs can talk to APIs too you know.

It depends if this is the API you were talking about, it's a bit
vague.

Any API : I am not being vague. Sure, one sequence of Intel instructions
will operate the same, but most programs do things like provide IO,
sound & graphics.

I assume you were talking about things like libc that handle printf,
whereas write(0) is the syscall.

I'm talking about any program whatsoever.

 

[BH2]

Hi,
Strange,
after reading the criteria of Vista, and tried the Beta version, I was not
impressed. I have decided to change to Linux, only played around with it
before, but am impressed by its honesty and innovation
Regards
Bob H

 

[ed]

Syscalls? That is an API too.

"Assembly built" programs can talk to APIs too you know.

Yes I know, thats the whole point of linkage, and why I mentioned
syscalls otherwise userspace ASM wouldn't be capable of much.

Any API : I am not being vague. Sure, one sequence of Intel
instructions will operate the same, but most programs do things like
provide IO, sound & graphics.


I'm talking about any program whatsoever.

--
... of course, this probably only happens for tcsh which uses wait4(),
which is why I never saw it. Serves people who use that abomination
right 8^)
-- Linus Torvalds, about a patch that fixes getrusage for
1.3.26

That's why people write ANSI C code for stuff that does work, and
perl/python/mono frontends, and just build the C backend.

 

[Peter Hayes]

Sorry? Just because they use the same processor doesnt mean they speak
to the same APIs.

That's not what I was referring to. Intel Macs can boot Windows XP using
Apple's BootCamp. Alternatively, they can run Windows apps using an
emulator such as Parallels.

This creates a situation where developers could ignore Mac users,
expecting them to boot XP or run Parallels.

 

[flatfish+++]

Hi,
Strange,
after reading the criteria of Vista, and tried the Beta version, I was not
impressed. I have decided to change to Linux, only played around with it
before, but am impressed by its honesty and innovation
Regards
Bob H

I give you a week and you'll be back to Windows.
You'll never admit it though.

 

[Hadron Quark]

That's not what I was referring to. Intel Macs can boot Windows XP using
Apple's BootCamp. Alternatively, they can run Windows apps using an
emulator such as Parallels.

This creates a situation where developers could ignore Mac users,
expecting them to boot XP or run Parallels.

OK, but that's not what you said. You inferred it was because of the
Intel processor.

Case closed then.

FWIW, I agree : nothing worse than emulated SW - total loss of all "look
and feel" of the host OS. mind you, that happens quite a lot in Linux
anyway because of the lack of standard toolkits between different apps.

 

[Hadron Quark]

Yes I know, thats the whole point of linkage, and why I mentioned

You never mentioned linkage : that is the crux of my point. Once the
program is built it cant "just rub because its done in assembler". It
needs to be linked against the target OS or run in an emulator/wrapper.

syscalls otherwise userspace ASM wouldn't be capable of much.


That's why people write ANSI C code for stuff that does work, and
perl/python/mono frontends, and just build the C backend.

A minority of people.

Most people write to the tookit/native API withing the C program. That
brings snappiness and performance.

You wouldn't write, for instance, a word processor with a perl/python
front end.

Reagrdless : without the XP emulator, "intel code" will not "just run"
on a Mac. The OP was incorrect in the way he phrased it.

 

[ed]

You never mentioned linkage : that is the crux of my point. Once the
program is built it cant "just rub because its done in assembler". It
needs to be linked against the target OS or run in an
emulator/wrapper.

But it doesn't have to be a full emulator. Just has to be a replacement
API, isn't that what WINE is all about?

A minority of people.

Most people write to the tookit/native API withing the C program. That
brings snappiness and performance.

Well, that's not entirely true. The majority of the time applications
are waiting on IO. There's no point having a human interface that's
incredibly snappy, really no point, it's waiting for the user to press a
button, which might happen as little as once an hour. Pointless to spend
2 hours writing an interface in C when a 10 minute perl job gets it
done.

Then put the real work in C code that's easily portable (network and
other IO work using simple libraries where possible).

You wouldn't write, for instance, a word processor with a perl/python
front end.

No but perhaps the smallest of bottle necks is the database, which most
programs will have in one way or another. This is often written in
c/c++. Most perl programs use BDB/DBI in one way or another, that part
can be written in anything one likes. This method is great, I can script
something up, that's rather intensive on the database, give it to
someone else, or run it on another architecture and through the glory of
CPAN we can be sure that the database side of things is efficient.

Similar applies with python, but they don't have such a great resource
as CPAN.

Reagrdless : without the XP emulator, "intel code" will not "just run"
on a Mac. The OP was incorrect in the way he phrased it.

We're not still talking about that though.

 

[Hadron Quark]

But it doesn't have to be a full emulator. Just has to be a replacement
API, isn't that what WINE is all about?

Yes & No. There is a generally a subtle difference between an API and the
emulator/wrapper which provides the API services.

At the end of the day a windows program is compiled & linked. There are
calls to system level interfaces : the API specifies the interface at
compile time. The calls are routed, normally via dynamic linking, to
underlying code which does the work. It is here that backward
compatability issues etc are dealt with.

So I guess we could argue that WINE is an emulator : in fact it is. It
emulates the underlying windows system calls. It allows the same API
call to achieve the same result but using Linux compatible libraries.

Well, that's not entirely true. The majority of the time applications
are waiting on IO. There's no point having a human interface that's

No that's not true. It depends on the app.

incredibly snappy, really no point, it's waiting for the user to press a
button, which might happen as little as once an hour. Pointless to spend
2 hours writing an interface in C when a 10 minute perl job gets it
done.

I agree if its an app which has little to do when there is no
IO. Nothing wrong with that.

Then put the real work in C code that's easily portable (network and
other IO work using simple libraries where possible).


No but perhaps the smallest of bottle necks is the database, which most
programs will have in one way or another. This is often written in
c/c++. Most perl programs use BDB/DBI in one way or another, that part
can be written in anything one likes. This method is great, I can script
something up, that's rather intensive on the database, give it to
someone else, or run it on another architecture and through the glory of
CPAN we can be sure that the database side of things is efficient.

Agreed 100%.

Similar applies with python, but they don't have such a great resource
as CPAN.


We're not still talking about that though.

I know. But someone was. I didn't make it up. Go back and reread the OP.

--
"... being a Linux user is sort of like living in a house inhabited
by a large family of carpenters and architects. Every morning when
you wake up, the house is a little different. Maybe there is a new
turret, or some walls have moved. Or perhaps someone has temporarily
removed the floor under your bed." - Unix for Dummies, 2nd Edition
-- found in the .sig of Rob Riggs, (e-mail address removed)

 

[AZ Nomad]

When Vista hits the streets Linux on the desktop will become a
has-been. The truth is that Linux has had 15 years of Microsoft's
blunders to gain the confidence of enough destkop users to make some

You windows idiots said the same shit when windows 95 was announced
You windows idiots said the same shit when NT was announced
You windows idiots said the same shit when windows XP was announced
and You're still saying the same shit

and it's all shit. Nothing has changed. The shitpile has only grown.

 

[Peter Hayes]

OK, but that's not what you said.

That's exactly what I said, "developers will put out Windows only apps
and expect Mac users to boot XP or use Parallels to run them". Seems
clear enough to me, I'm sorry if it wasn't to you.

You inferred it was because of the Intel processor.

Of course it is. Booting XP isn't possible on a PPC Mac. Also, Parallels
is x86 based and runs only on Intel Macs.

Case closed then.

Yes, it's not worth arguing over...

FWIW, I agree : nothing worse than emulated SW - total loss of all
"look and feel" of the host OS.

Yes, the loss of the OS X look and feel will be a terrible price to pay
if developers confine themselves to Windows only versions of their apps.