I support open source 100% but the analysis in the article is very flawed.
If I have an application for any os, I have the same set of worries no matter what. If its windows yes I do have to worry about microsoft developing their own and giving it away. However how many times has microsoft decided to give away stuff ? If its linux I have to worry about someone reverse engineering my product and making an open source knockoff. In the linux case if their is damage to my IP rights, who am I going to sue coll
Try: * Browser * Disk Defragmenting * Disk Diagnostics * Media Player * Remote Desktop Access * TCP Stack * Terminal Emulator * Accessibility Extensions * Zip file utility * I'm sure there are more, that's just from the top of my head...
Each of these *was* a viable community of third party software. Now they are just assumed into the OS. Some still have product out there, because of entrenchment. Microsoft says this is good for the consumer, and frankly I have to agree in most cases. But don't say "how many times", because the OS encloses more space on every revision.
Of those the only ones that are giveaways are browser and the mediaplayer
To get Defragmenting, disk diagnostics, remote desktop client, tcp stack, the terminal emulator, accesibility and zip utilities you had to upgrade your O.S. This is a purchase
If you buy a car and tires are inclueded is it a giveaway ? You might as well rail at IBM for including the keyboard when with the MAC it was an optional add on. It aint a giveaway unless its retroactively made available to you for free. The fact that micr
" To get Defragmenting, disk diagnostics, remote desktop client, tcp stack, the terminal emulator, accesibility and zip utilities you had to upgrade your O.S. This is a purchase"
I believe the point of the article was to show that if you are building for a proprietary system, you are on "borrowed time". Basically, as soon as your sector becomes lucritive, it will be absorbed. The fact that users upgrade systems periodically means that the utility market becomes more and more marginalized. I am *not* saying this is a bad thing, but your original comment said "how many times" and I counted a few examples. Saying "you have to buy the upgrade" doesn't negate the fact that the next gener
I agree you will have to compete. It is as constant as death or taxes. The circumstance devolves to the following you are competing on a system where the users not only expect the things you are building to be given away, but a fair number are capable of replicating the work and giving it away. The other scenario is if the product becomes deemed too neccesesary by a proprietary vendor they will include it in their product.
In the first case the current market and future markets are attacked, in the second
I'm not saying you don't have to compete. However, in the MS word, you have to complete against an entity that "holds the keys to the kingdom". Surely in a "fair market" of competition, your host should not be able to simultaniously release a competitive product, either integrated or not, while having the ability to break your software. And yet that is what happens with utility software nearly every upgrade cycle... you don't have the information to change your software until *after* you gain a tarnish on y
My clients buy Tiramisu from ontrack when they need their data back.
They used to buy Spinrite from GRC, they stopped when disks got too large for it, not because scandisk was better
If you have a system with Client32 from novell on it you have third party TCP/IP stack, and you have several other third party network protocols on it.
Look at accounting firms you will find lotus products lurking all around the place. Legal and title offices you'll find wordperfect
Discussion done... it's clear you have never written software that breaks because your os vendor has decreed that is shall break. The article is not about the fact there are still areas that you can eek out a living. Tiramisu is pretty arcane example, and spinright not working isn't a counter example. I already admitted that there are a lot of old windows 95 machines running old versions of applications, but look at Lotus sales and call that healthy? Wordperfect is just about given away, and about 50% of th
I pray I'm never your client. Turning DLL hell into a profit center seems "nice". I prefer my profit center be providing services, not milking the cow, thanks.
A "thick client" is a client that has a lot of processing done locally. In the case of our old model (before doing web interfaces) the client could do a lot of the logic for reports and screens locally. This is now considered bad design, but was the norm for 2 tier apps. The database was doing view transforms and was accessed via stored procedures. So, yes, pretty typical client/server. Our current model, being web based, doesn't provide for a lot of processing on the client side. Fortunately, our clients a
When dos didn't come with it I was. You have no idea how upset people were about being nickle and dimed by microsoft for not including basic parts of an O.S. in MS-DOS.
I believe it came in at 5. I would have to double check my copies of the manuals. Prior to scandisk there was the now deprecated Chkdsk and not to forget the ever popular chkdsk/F or chkdsk/R. Boy that/R was usefull .
I may be wrong its been awhile but The real funny thing in this context is that the original scandisk was bought from norton for inclusion in dos. Oddly enough despite the fact microsoft now gives away scandisk the norton utils are still selling well, or at least they take up alot of sp
Hate to say this, but this is exactly I like the Windows OS. While I'm completely familiar and happy with command-line work, I dislike *nix simply because to get a desktop system running to my standards of happiness, I have to look all around the web to find the right apps to install. And not just applications like media players or graphics software, but even (what I consider) low-level stuff like the windowing system, the fonts (for crissake!), the pre-emptive kernel patch so it doesn't lock important op
I'm not opposed the the integration of Windows. I'm just agreeing with the article that it's hard to compete when you both have OS absorption of markets AND a company that can change the rules of the game at whim. I personally have been building web apps for some time, and appreciate the fact that we are affected by this only in the regards of new browser versions, and we can make our changes in one place.
Of course, that was what MS was fearing the browser would do: remove reliance on the OS. But that does
Try installing RedHat7.1, then wipe the system and try installing RedHat9. See the difference? Yes, M$ may have Linux beat on the easy-install-all-together-ready-to-go-in-3-disks deal (note, that's 1 disc for windows, 2 for office). However, Linux is catching up quick. We all know that the foundation of linux isn't why it's not on more systems. It's rock phuxing solid. What's keeping linux of grandma's PC is the install setup, and many di
...I dislike *nix simply because to get a desktop system running to my standards of happiness, I have to look all around the web to find the right apps to install.
Funny, I think the exact same thing about Windows. If I were ever forced to work full-time with Windows (thankfully I a free man at the moment), the first thing to get installed would be cygwin or MKS or similar. Windows simply comes with no useful tools. Emacs isn't there. Sed and grep aren't there. Also, I would rather become a sharecropp
If I were ever forced to work full-time with Windows (thankfully I a free man at the moment), the first thing to get installed would be cygwin or MKS or similar.
See now, that's funny. When I left my second last job (where Tim Bray had been my direct manager), I ended up at this small company to be their "web application consultant". They set me up with a MS-Windows box, something I hadn't used since pre-Chicago days, and I asked how the hell I, a UN*X person, would get work done?
They told me where I could get the install for the other product they produce: the MKS Toolkit.
I used the MKS Toolkit briefly about two years ago and thought it was pretty good. Perhaps the best part was that its man pages were good enough for me to create makefiles that worked on both Solaris and MKS (basically, I learned how to make near-POSIX-compliant makefiles). Perhaps the other advantage to MKS is that it claims to aim for POSIX compliance, while I assume cygwin would aim for GNU compliance by de
Realize that many commercial UN*Xen licensed the MKS Toolkit source code in the late 80's/early 90's in order to speed their development towards POSIX compliance.
OS/390 (formerly OpenMVS) had a UNIX layer that was co-written by IBM and MKS, re-using much of the TK code. Though I suspect that much of that product has been superceded by another UNIX-like offering on Big Iron...:-)
Hate to say this, but this is exactly I like the Windows OS. While I'm completely familiar and happy with command-line work, I dislike *nix simply because to get a desktop system running to my standards of happiness, I have to look all around the web to find the right apps to install. And not just applications like media players or graphics software, but even (what I consider) low-level stuff like the windowing system, the fonts (for crissake!), the pre-emptive kernel patch so it doesn't lock important op
Living in the past (Score:3, Interesting)
If I have an application for any os, I have the same set of worries no matter what. If its windows yes I do have to worry about microsoft developing their own and giving it away. However how many times has microsoft decided to give away stuff ? If its linux I have to worry about someone reverse engineering my product and making an open source knockoff. In the linux case if their is damage to my IP rights, who am I going to sue coll
However how many times (Score:5, Insightful)
* Browser
* Disk Defragmenting
* Disk Diagnostics
* Media Player
* Remote Desktop Access
* TCP Stack
* Terminal Emulator
* Accessibility Extensions
* Zip file utility
* I'm sure there are more, that's just from the top of my head...
Each of these *was* a viable community of third party software. Now they are just assumed into the OS. Some still have product out there, because of entrenchment. Microsoft says this is good for the consumer, and frankly I have to agree in most cases. But don't say "how many times", because the OS encloses more space on every revision.
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
To get Defragmenting, disk diagnostics, remote desktop client, tcp stack, the terminal emulator, accesibility and zip utilities you had to upgrade your O.S. This is a purchase
If you buy a car and tires are inclueded is it a giveaway ? You might as well rail at IBM for including the keyboard when with the MAC it was an optional add on. It aint a giveaway unless its retroactively made available to you for free. The fact that micr
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
That's a cop out and you know it.
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
In the first case the current market and future markets are attacked, in the second
Re:However how many times (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
My clients buy Tiramisu from ontrack when they need their data back.
They used to buy Spinrite from GRC, they stopped when disks got too large for it, not because scandisk was better
If you have a system with Client32 from novell on it you have third party TCP/IP stack, and you have several other third party network protocols on it.
Look at accounting firms you will find lotus products lurking all around the place. Legal and title offices you'll find wordperfect
Can anyone a
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
You know what I call it when it breaks because microsoft makes changes ?
A profit center.
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
thick client? (Score:1)
Re:thick client? (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
When dos didn't come with it I was. You have no idea how upset people were about being nickle and dimed by microsoft for not including basic parts of an O.S. in MS-DOS.
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
I may be wrong its been awhile but The real funny thing in this context is that the original scandisk was bought from norton for inclusion in dos. Oddly enough despite the fact microsoft now gives away scandisk the norton utils are still selling well, or at least they take up alot of sp
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
Of course, that was what MS was fearing the browser would do: remove reliance on the OS. But that does
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
But have you tried RedHat9?
Try installing RedHat7.1, then wipe the system and try installing RedHat9. See the difference? Yes, M$ may have Linux beat on the easy-install-all-together-ready-to-go-in-3-disks deal (note, that's 1 disc for windows, 2 for office).
However, Linux is catching up quick. We all know that the foundation of linux isn't why it's not on more systems. It's rock phuxing solid. What's keeping linux of grandma's PC is the install setup, and many di
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:0)
Uhm, how can it be such an advantage, when the vast majority of users will never see it?
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:0)
You must be getting your experience from some lame knock off system.
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
Funny, I think the exact same thing about Windows. If I were ever forced to work full-time with Windows (thankfully I a free man at the moment), the first thing to get installed would be cygwin or MKS or similar. Windows simply comes with no useful tools. Emacs isn't there. Sed and grep aren't there. Also, I would rather become a sharecropp
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
See now, that's funny. When I left my second last job (where Tim Bray had been my direct manager), I ended up at this small company to be their "web application consultant". They set me up with a MS-Windows box, something I hadn't used since pre-Chicago days, and I asked how the hell I, a UN*X person, would get work done?
They told me where
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:1)
I used the MKS Toolkit briefly about two years ago and thought it was pretty good. Perhaps the best part was that its man pages were good enough for me to create makefiles that worked on both Solaris and MKS (basically, I learned how to make near-POSIX-compliant makefiles). Perhaps the other advantage to MKS is that it claims to aim for POSIX compliance, while I assume cygwin would aim for GNU compliance by de
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
OS/390 (formerly OpenMVS) had a UNIX layer that was co-written by IBM and MKS, re-using much of the TK code. Though I suspect that much of that product has been superceded by another UNIX-like offering on Big Iron... :-)
Re:This is why I LIKE Windows (gulp). (Score:2)
Re:However how many times (Score:2)
And I say THANK GOD THEY ARE!
It raised the quality of computing for everyone. Especially integrating the TCP stack in, without that the Internet would still be floundering.
I can't believe people are still whining about that.
Re:However how many times (Score:0)
Sheldon
The Internet would be *INCREDIBLE* today if MS
still hadn't infected it.
MS didn't make the Internet happen any more then Gore did -- MS has, as usual, severly damaged computing associated with the Internet.
Re:However how many times (Score:1)