Re: Future for VC++ Programmers

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance

I have that same problem with the Unix/Linux crowd. "I want to be free to do whatever I
want" is the cry. So you have no uniform way of configuring apps, no uniform way of
retaining options, apps will use the same-named environment variable (One level of naming
was good enough for my grandfather, and by gum, it's good enough for me!) for completely
unrelated purposes.

Option letters differ from app to app, and pipes are thought to actually be useful.
Apparently if you write enough 30-line apps and pipe them together you are supposed to
have a usable system.

At one time the head of Red Hat was heard to remark that open source was a major stumbling
block in making his company have any useful value-added.

I like many ideas of open source, and I give away a lot of free source myself, but I don't
require that you make your entire application open source if you use anything of mine. The
open-source fanatics think that every piece of source code should be freely available to
anyone. The two are slightly orthogonal; you can have open source without giving the
source away (anyone who pays the fee can see the source, but they are not free to
redistribute it as source), and demanding that all programs that use any open source must
therefore be in the public domain is a form of fascism which, if it were imposed by any
other group, would have civil libertarians, defenders of freedom of speech, IP lawyers,
etc. up in arms. "If you quote my work, however briefly, in your work, then your work
goes into the public domain" would not stand any legal test, yet it is such a religious
dogma that no one dares question it. Like most good ideas carried to extremes, it begins
to fail in significant ways.

I don't use free source, I can't afford to. It is far too expensive for me.
joe
On Fri, 29 Dec 2006 05:50:21 +1000, "Ian Semmel" <anyone@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Of course, the linux zealots say that something like 400 distros, lack of a
unified installer system, nothing like the registry to determine what's on
the machine and where, libraries placed at arbitrary locations and
incompatible gui systems is "freedom". Most rational people call it "chaos".

I think, however, that the emergence of the "big boys", RedHat, IBM and
Novell et al will make a difference in the future.

One thing that will change is that the software won't be free. There will
still be room for the hobbyists to play around with their own systems, but
for linux to be an acceptable alternative to windows on the desktop,
commercialization is inevitable.

"MrAsm" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h377p2darg85e6djekldu4r88p276g2qo1@xxxxxxxxxx
On 27 Dec 2006 11:04:12 -0800, marcoera@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

I shouldn't have written the word "linux" on a microsoft newsgroup...

Just joking. BTW, all what you write is a matter of personal
preference;

I don't agree. I think that Joe's list is very interesting and
objective indeed.

Windows' list could be much longer, if only someone finds
the time to write it.

It would be interesting to see at least some part of this "long
list"...

In my opinion, Linux has more chances to improve in the way users and
developers want, as it's not bound to some company economic interests.

Sure: you have the source and you can modify them for your needs.
But this is very "theoretical"...
The reality is that people need money to live, and you can't have a
true serious business model with open-source.
e.g. Debian is completely sucking: it distributes old software, and
the releases are also procrastinated.

Moreover, device driver support is poor on Linux: e.g. I can't install
Ubuntu because of problems with ATI graphics card (and ATI is a very
important graphics card vendor! So it should be supported by Linux
community); these kind of bugs have a long list on the Ubuntu bug
site. But the list remains there, long, even if there are the sources
that someone could modify and debug...

I think that Microsoft has team of QA engineers to test drivers, etc.
You can have them only if you can pay them, and to pay them you must
sell software, not do open-source things.

Linux could be an interesting hobby for those interested in low-level
system software and operating system kernels: you have the soruces and
can study them: you could learn the mechanics of booting an operating
system, protected mode programming, etc.
But for a real business, I consider Linux completely unfit.

Best,
MrAsm
Joseph M. Newcomer [MVP]
email: newcomer@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.flounder.com
MVP Tips: http://www.flounder.com/mvp_tips.htm
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Super Widget Set
    ... > Are all these cross-platform open source apps are good for linux the ... > least) linux and windows. ... > level functions without even considering what operating system it ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: Linux is Lame
    ... >> commercial quality apps whether open source or proprietary (and the ... > like to see an M$-clone of Visual Basic for Linux. ... Seems like as soon as a free software company starts ...
    (alt.os.linux.redhat)
  • Super Widget Set
    ... Are all these cross-platform open source apps are good for linux the ... create a single component library that accomplishes, well, pretty much ...
    (comp.os.linux)
  • Re: what to do after "Touretzkeys book"?
    ... IBM has some Linux hackers, ... see what your point is and how you discount IBM's open source contributions. ... or some kernel device driver... ... generated by people who are paid to do the hacking. ...
    (comp.lang.lisp)
  • Re: The Myth of the secure Mac
    ... On one hand a Linux brag is that it is free. ... GNU/Linux on the home desktop. ... Mac on Linux ... the apps still work fine. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)