Funny.....I've had work systems nuked twice by Ubuntu.

I continue to use Gentoo, and have used it for a number of years. Only complaint I have with Gentoo is that if you keep updating it regularly (and use the cutting edge version....ie: ~x86), there are really bad periods where the machine will not update and things break because the Gentoo developers haven't yet gotten together to make everything play nice with each other because of a 'debatable' change they put in. Usually, though, once I get that sorted, it stays working for a really long time.

I wish the Gentoo Developers would understand that causing the System to 'break' before they work out their software/portage issues really isn't acceptable to their users.

So why is it that the users doing their work on the system that (for which they are blamed when they don't get their work done) cause the significant problems, according to the "God complex" Administrators? Why is it that the only system problems is the work that the users must do?

1. The Patent Office actually does searches on prior software & methods before granting/rubber-stamping that application, and expecting the courts to do the searching for them.
2. Only Software Experts/Engineers, on more than just Microsoft Development Programming minimally, should be doing the patent examinations/patent searches/patent approvals.
3. USPO should have the power to reject an approved patent at any time, for a minimum of 'patent application in bad faith.

These points would be a start for my satisfaction.

I have 40 years experience porting code and Drivers to various OSes and processors...OSes like Freescale MQX, TI DSP Bios, WxWidgets APIs, and/or Linux. Most of my C code is written with the 'write once' philosophy.

I know I shouldn't reply to an obvious troll like this, but this attitude of yours bothers me. I've seen that 'can't be done' attitude fthat you are demonstrating in your post.....quite frankly it sucks.

Saying "easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms" does not imply that the software is easy to write to begin with. I was implying that the 98% more effort to consider your approach was actually more work up-front when writing your code.....like maybe making your code 'Modular' to begin with, and also follow the standards that all compilers follow (C programming following ANSI standards for example) rather than picking those shortcuts that, for example, only MS compilers let you use, or the Qt macros that require the MOC compiler (ie - compiler shortcuts that no other compiler for other platforms understand).

I'm sorry you are working 60 hour weeks....I used to do that too, until I learned how to work more efficiently (Write source once again) which lets me work normal business hours. Maybe you should consider the 'Work smarter, not harder philosophy', instead of this 'It can't be done because I can't imagine it philosophy' you seem to have.

And, with your post, you have proven it is you without any experience. Maybe you should back off and learn something?

"Making software cross platform can be extremely time consuming" BULL! Do your software right, and you'd be surprised how easily and effortlessly it will integrate into cross-platforms. Of course, that would require you to consider well your approach as you start to code, which would be 98% more work than most developers want to do.

I got a notice to upgrade my Skype to add Games for Windows there as well. Anyone else get that notice? So the demise of Skype begins....

This is my only reply to this topic: Anything the MOC (QT metacompiler) understands is a good example of something that doesn't conform to the C++ standard in my view. My point is not that you don't have to use the MOC, but that because it exists, a lot of developers do use it, causing them to not be following C++ standards (ie - not even recognizing that they are not using correct C++ syntax). I have seen myself a few Qt programmers that simply couldn't understand why their moc-based program would not build on embedded hardware that only had a C++ compiler....one of those was an MSVC++ compiler too. It is another subject entirely on how much MSVC++ follows the C++ standard.

That's your opinion, not mine. Let me know when Qt finally starts conforming to the C++ standard instead of hiding where they don't want to conform to the C++ standard... via macros nobody else in the real C++ world uses. Let the rebuttals from upset Qt fans begin......

Obviously you haven't had the joy of using something after MS took it over. I've seen a few programs go down the tubes after MS bought the company. Sure, they didn't go down the tubes immediately, but they did die a long slow painful death. And the customers who stuck with those acquired programs got screwed ultimately.

Hopefully they'll make Qt totally C++ compliant too without all of those extensions to the language they added from day 1. Reminds me of another company we've heard about.

It is impossible to take you seriously when you worship Microsoft above all others....(Heaven forbid someone should abbreviate the name or use symbols).

Has Nobody ever wondered why TV stations aren't broadcasting in h.264? There's something about them having to pay royalties for broadcasting in the format. I'm not sure what the fee schedule is for them, but I know it is a lot more expensive than the ATSC MPEG2 (in the USA) format they are using now.

Gee, another article declaring Linux dead again from a magazine that has years of pushing WIndows on their reading public. I have a feeling that 90% of their readers are exclusively Windows Users....the rest of us find magazines that actually write articles about our preferred OS without comparison to Windows.