The rise and fall of Microsoft
Darryl Burling
MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
With all the flurry surrounding Linux over the last few months, I wonder
if it has stirred anyone to make that move.
Personally I think MS is currently at their strongest and falling away
slowly due to thier credibility slowly being erroded away, and their
increasingly publicised "pushy" sales tactics (putting it mildly)
I am now using Linux almost exclusively (have downloaded free Office
software, and use Netscape etc for web/mail duties). I still have Win98
(for games) and NT Server on my machine (but maybe not for much longer).
I am very pleased with the look, feel, customisability (if that is the
right word for it), functionality and stability of it and believe that
Linux will probably pick up some solid commercial support in the near
future....to MSs detriment.
Any others gone or thinking about going the same way?
Darryl
Oacs
They're waiting for NT5. Then it'll be bigger than 95, I guess they'll call it
'software for a new millenium' or something. alas we might not have the spwice
gwirls for that:)
ciao!
-------------------------------------
"Let me try to do the interview... So tell me, what's life like being a transvestite?"
- Noel ==> the MTV Music Awards preshow
Ghost Rider
Matthias Dallmeier wrote in message <35D807AF...@waterpark.co.nz>...
>Darryl Burling wrote:
>>
>> Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
>> MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
>
And me. I'm running NT5 on a test machine, and Ithink it still has
a long way to go. Plus the hassle of re-booting an NT4 box when something
is changed is something I could live without (user don't seem to like it
much either - but you should never take them seriously) :-)
Matthias Dallmeier
CATHROX
> Im sick of the MS
>manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc )
I am a little off the subject of the thread here but I recently was so p'd off
after upgrading to AOL V4 w/M$ IE and the problems encountered [freezing,
unable to log off just being two]. After looking at AOL's computer ng
and finding hundreds of others having the same problem,. it turns out that one
really needed to have Win95 VB or Win 98 to run AOL V4 properly.
AOL users with older computers, especially those that don't have the money to
upgrade or buy new computers, have computers that cannot be upgraded etc, or
like me preferring Win.311 for the use I have, are being stiffed.
As a result, AOL users are either having to stick with V3 or are dropping AOL.
I have tried downloading Netscape into V3 but it just wouldn't work.
I uninstalled V4 then re-installed it using my present modem settings which is
working with V4 a lot better. During the first installation, I went with the
'new setting' box which has 'recommended' beside it - I suspecst that most
people did this.
If it wasn't for the fact that I am leaving in a couple of months time, I'd
drop AOL.
Catherine, San Diego, CA.
Matthew Poole
>Paul <pa...@vidmark.co.nz> wrote:
>>Well, I just got hold of Redhat 5 to learn about it. Im sick of the MS
>>manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
>>only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>>
>
>Unix is user friendly, it just chooses its own friends...
>
Unix is userfriendly. It just hasn't decided who its friends are yet <G>
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mpoole at ihug dot co dot nz
Paul
>
> Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
> MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
Well, I just got hold of Redhat 5 to learn about it. Im sick of the MS
manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
Cheers,
Paul.
Ryurick M. Hristev
> Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
> MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
> With all the flurry surrounding Linux over the last few months, I wonder
> if it has stirred anyone to make that move.
> Personally I think MS is currently at their strongest and falling away
> slowly due to thier credibility slowly being erroded away, and their
> increasingly publicised "pushy" sales tactics (putting it mildly)
[...]
Linux have evolved tremendously over the last 5 years since I've
started to use it. If it will continue for the next 5 years then MS
may be well in the position Apple is now and 1998 will be well
remembered :-)
However at this stage Linux have still a relatively high opportunity
cost for SOHO and even if this cost is dwarfed later on there are many
people who don't understand it. On the bright side these issues are
well known by developers and being addressed :-)
But much more importantly I think is the fact that we are on the verge
of a paradigm shift in software development: from the "cathedral" to
the "bazaar" style and probably any mix in between.
Cheers,
--
______________________________________________________________________
Ryurick M. Hristev ()..()/^\/^\ -<:-)
phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz \/ \#/\#/\) What opinions ?
______________________________________________________________________
Bruce Sinclair
"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
+
+
+Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS products.
+I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally). Microsoft
+does an exceptional job of supporting their developers. The MSDN is a
+wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0 (my
+main development platform) has been rock-solid for me.
+
+The biggest bug-bear to MS is their need to support legacy applications.
+
+Anyway, I have absolutely NO complaints about the MS environment I'm
+working in.
I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
try to get any help as a USER :))
I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
Bruce
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple exclamation marks are the sign of a sick mind !!!!!!
(Work)email SinclairB@Agresearch "dot" cri "dot" nz
NOTE remove the not_ from the reply or see the line above.NO SPAM !
postmaster@localhost,abuse@localhost,ro...@mailloop.com
cat/dev/zero/tmp/...`@localhost,halt@localhost (gotta try this :) )
Andy Bearsley
Bruce Sinclair wrote in message <6rajug$3h5$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>...
>In article <6raf5q$g3n$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>,
> "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>+
>+
>+Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS products.
>+I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally). Microsoft
>+does an exceptional job of supporting their developers. The MSDN is a
>+wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0 (my
>+main development platform) has been rock-solid for me.
>+
>+The biggest bug-bear to MS is their need to support legacy applications.
>+
>+Anyway, I have absolutely NO complaints about the MS environment I'm
>+working in.
>
>I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
>developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
>try to get any help as a USER :))
>I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
>interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop my
code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means there
are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
Which is better for the users...
Andy B.
Aleisha
If you can program it shouldn't be hard to adapt to a new enviroment
(thats IF you can program not if you can point and click and type a few
lines of code)
Aleisha
Aleisha
>
> Darryl Burling wrote:
> >
> > Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
> > MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
>
> manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>
linux is user friendly :) in they way that it lets you do what you want.
I was using windows 98 the other day and when I went to the c:\windows
directory it told me i shouldn't do anything to the files otherwise my
programs wouldn't run! and it didn't even show me the files i had to
click on a link to see them. what a waste of space writing that in.
People have to stuff up computers, its the best way to learn! :)
Aleisha
Bruce Sinclair
"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
+Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
+platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop my
+code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means there
+are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
+Which is better for the users...
agreed ... if they go, if they are stable, if they do what we want, if they
don't hog 500 meg of disk and 85 of RAM ... :) ... or to put it another way
.. if they aint micro$oft :)
Peter Kerr
>Well, I just got hold of Redhat 5 to learn about it. Im sick of the MS
>manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
>only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>
Unix is user friendly, it just chooses its own friends...
--
Peter Kerr bodger
School of Music chandler
University of Auckland New Zealand neo-Luddite
Peter Kerr
>They're waiting for NT5. Then it'll be bigger than 95, I guess they'll call it
>'software for a new millenium' or something.
Yeah, I've seen the poster already, with the fine print footnote:
millennium, fr. Latin mille = 1000, annus = year
millenium, fr. Latin mille = 1000, anus = ?
Andy Bearsley
Bruce Sinclair wrote in message <6rb3o9$9vg$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>...
>In article <6ravbp$6a8$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>,
> "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>
>+Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
>+platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop my
>+code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means there
>+are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
>+Which is better for the users...
>
>agreed ... if they go, if they are stable, if they do what we want, if they
>don't hog 500 meg of disk and 85 of RAM ... :) ... or to put it another way
>.. if they aint micro$oft :)
Now now now... you can write large ungainly code on ANY platform. Yes
there are more devolopers for Windows, so Yes there is going to be more
trashy code. There's also going to be more good code.
Andy B.
Matthias Dallmeier
> Well, I just got hold of Redhat 5 to learn about it. Im sick of the MS
> manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
... well, what's your definition of a user friendly operating system?
... something that crashes at least once a week, keeps telling you what
you can't do, and generally thinks it's smarter than you?
Andy Bearsley
Aleisha wrote in message <35DA16...@REMOVE.ihug.co.nz>...
>Andy Bearsley wrote:
>>
>> Bruce Sinclair wrote in message <6rajug$3h5$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>...
>> > "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>> >+
>> >+
>> >+Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS
products.
>> >+I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally).
Microsoft
>> >+does an exceptional job of supporting their developers. The MSDN is a
>> >+wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0
(my
>> >+main development platform) has been rock-solid for me.
>> >+
>> >+The biggest bug-bear to MS is their need to support legacy
applications.
>> >+
>> >+Anyway, I have absolutely NO complaints about the MS environment I'm
>> >+working in.
>> >
>> >I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
>> >developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
>> >try to get any help as a USER :))
>> >I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
>> >interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
>>
there
>>
>
>(thats IF you can program not if you can point and click and type a few
>lines of code)
I CAN program, and program well, thanks. The question is: Whose paying
for the software I write? Are Linux users going to shell out for the
software I write? Nope. They expect it for free.
Look, I've programmed on some pretty obscure systems, in some pretty
obscure languages. At the end of the day, I still have to eat, and to eat
I have to earn money, and to earn money I have to sell my code, and to
sell my code I have to have the biggest market available.
I've heard the point made that Linux developers make their money from
support of their software... Well THERE's a big incentive to write
friendly, bug-free code!
And the fact that Visual C++ takes away all the hassle of setting up a
framework for my application from me means I can spend my time writing the
core application.
But I promise, on my heart and sole, that the day Linux has the tools,
the support, and the business user-base that MS products do, I'll happily
and eagerly write for that platform as well. Note that I'm not going to go
out and buy any books on it today...
Andy B.
Matthias Dallmeier
> If you can program it shouldn't be hard to adapt to a new enviroment
> (thats IF you can program not if you can point and click and type a few
> lines of code)
... and I doubt any operating system offers better support for (real)
developers than Linux...
Andy Bearsley
Matthias Dallmeier wrote in message <35D916B8...@waterpark.co.nz>...
And what <he said, baiting the hook> is your definition of a (real)
programmer?
Andy B.
Oacs
>Paul wrote:
>>
>> Darryl Burling wrote:
>> >
>> > Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
>> > MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
>>
>> manipulating me in to using their products ( IIS4 needs IE4 etc ). If
>> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>>
>
>I was using windows 98 the other day and when I went to the c:\windows
>directory it told me i shouldn't do anything to the files otherwise my
>programs wouldn't run! and it didn't even show me the files i had to
>click on a link to see them. what a waste of space writing that in.
>
>Aleisha
now thats the best thing Ive heard on this thread so far:)
Simon Thompson
Sinclair) wrote:
> I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
> developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
> try to get any help as a USER :))
> I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
> interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
If you think VB is looking after developers...;-)
MS developments tools, and SQL Server, have their good points, and
their bad points. (VB excepted, it has no good points). The thing that
annoys me the most is MS's arrogance towards standards, i.e., too
often ignoring them or not implementing them properly. But that charge
can be leveled at many companies. And making unnecessary, or
avoidable, changes that cause more work. E.g., numerous changes to
Word's document format.
-----------------------------------------
Simon Thompson
Christchurch
New Zealand
John Hornblow
wrote:
>
>They're waiting for NT5. Then it'll be bigger than 95, I guess they'll call it
>'software for a new millenium' or something. alas we might not have the spwice
>gwirls for that:)
>
NT5 is going to be 85% new code...
whould you trust an MS product thats 85% new code?
NOOOOOOO WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!q
NT5 wont be safe for business use untill the second service pack at
least!
Patrick Dunford
1998 07:38:41 GMT in
nz.comp:<EDdDvZ83i1Q0-pn2-vddxuoP1pcUc@localhost>...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:05:03, Sinclairb@NOT_Agresearch.cri.nz (Bruce
>Sinclair) wrote:
>
>> I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
>> developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
>> try to get any help as a USER :))
>> I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
>> interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
>
>If you think VB is looking after developers...;-)
I don't, I use Delphi :)
Basic is a TOY language.
--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3405/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9789/
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9792/
**************************************************
Christianity Explained - http://www.christ.gen.nz/
Christian Internet Services - http://www.godzone.net.nz/
Andy Bearsley
Patrick Dunford wrote in message <35d93240...@news.caverock.co.nz>...
>Verily, verily nwt...@ibm.net (Simon Thompson) didst write on 18 Aug
>1998 07:38:41 GMT in
>nz.comp:<EDdDvZ83i1Q0-pn2-vddxuoP1pcUc@localhost>...
>
>>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 00:05:03, Sinclairb@NOT_Agresearch.cri.nz (Bruce
>>Sinclair) wrote:
>>
>>> I think the obvious is missing here ... most of us are users and not
>>> developers ... and micro$loth doesn't give a proverbial about them (just
>>> try to get any help as a USER :))
>>> I'm sure they do look after their developers ... they have a vested
>>> interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
>>
>>If you think VB is looking after developers...;-)
>
>I don't, I use Delphi :)
>
>Basic is a TOY language.
Well now again that comes down to what you want to do with it.
First up, I stopped using VB at 4.0, so I can't comment on anything later
than that. But I found VB to be a really simple language to learn - I
taught myself everything from the helpfiles. They're VERY good.
Secondly, it IS in use in many commercial software development houses
because it's easy to code DBMS type programs REALLY quickly. I'm talking
Front End to SQL Server database type programs. As far as performance goes,
that's not a critical consideration, as all the work is being done by the
SQL server on the backend - VB is merely providing a input, reporting, and
user interaction functions.
Andy B.
paulsy
I bet you get razor blades for breakfast.
M/S might be monopolistic but nothing else around has convinced me that there
is an alternative yet.
Paul
In article <35DA16...@REMOVE.ihug.co.nz>, awa...@REMOVE.ihug.co.nz
says...
Simon Thompson
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
> Well now again that comes down to what you want to do with it.
> First up, I stopped using VB at 4.0, so I can't comment on anything later
> than that. But I found VB to be a really simple language to learn
Vintage BASIC is, but impossible to prgram well. VB is the most
convuluted, incomprehensible, inconsistent language I have come
across. Fail to see how that is easy to learn, and to learn to program
well.
> - I taught myself everything from the helpfiles. They're VERY good.
> Secondly, it IS in use in many commercial software development houses
> because it's easy to code DBMS type programs REALLY quickly.
There are other environments where this is true.
> I'm talking Front End to SQL Server database type programs. As far as performance goes,
> that's not a critical consideration, as all the work is being done by the
> SQL server on the backend - VB is merely providing a input, reporting, and
> user interaction functions.
You can't always put all the performance on the server; there are
times when record by record processing is necessary. Speed then
becomes important.
Simon Thompson
Dunford) wrote:
> I don't, I use Delphi :)
Ditto.
Bruce Sinclair
"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
+
+>In article <6ravbp$6a8$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>,
+> "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
+>
+>+platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop
my
+>+code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means
there
+>+are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
+>+Which is better for the users...
+>
+>agreed ... if they go, if they are stable, if they do what we want, if
they
+>don't hog 500 meg of disk and 85 of RAM ... :) ... or to put it another
way
+>.. if they aint micro$oft :)
+
+
+Now now now... you can write large ungainly code on ANY platform. Yes
+there are more devolopers for Windows, so Yes there is going to be more
+trashy code. There's also going to be more good code.
+
sure will be ... but the problem remains ... FINDING the good stuff amongst
the dross :) :)
chris burgess
>
>Bruce Sinclair wrote in message <6rajug$3h5$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>...
>> "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
I don't see how you can claim linux lacks the tools and environment you need
to develop software. I'd say the opposite is true: I'd never had the chance
to do any kind of development until i got my hands on an OS which shipped
with a compiler ... by default you have a lot *more* at your fingertips with
a linux box than with windows, and if you want to pay extra for IDEs and
such then they're available for both. Personally, i think XEmacs does
everything I want (syntax highlighting, indentation, and a compile button :)
from an IDE, but you can get extra if that's your thing ...
In terms of toolkits and such, Linux offers everything I can see a need for,
but I'm *not* primarily a software type.
One of MS's big advantages is the tremendous amount of shareware and cheap
software available, but that's changing now. Compare the apps released daily
on freshmeat.net versus winfiles.com, and you'll see. It strikes me that
while there are lots more apps on winfiles.com, there's a limited market for
a dozen different VB apps that make your text wavy in HTML :)
c
--
chris burgess
http://ibex.co.nz
chris burgess
>Just wondering how many people out there have moved to Linux from
>MS Products especially over the last three months or so....
>if it has stirred anyone to make that move.
me too. i was a long-term windows user until about nine months ago. however,
i started using linux because my business is internet presence, and i
couldn't get the features i wanted for development under NT. until then, had
barely touched any kind of unix ... now i'm loving it. the software is as
good or better for what i want (i still think it lacks things like a nice
spreadsheet, but haven't gotten my hands on applixware or friends to test
them out). i think now it's more and more a "real" small business option
though; once you've adapted (like i had to adapt to several other oses) it's
a great environment.
i like that about linux, too: i see it as being more a long-term work
environment than others i've tried.
>Personally I think MS is currently at their strongest and falling away
>slowly due to thier credibility slowly being erroded away, and their
>increasingly publicised "pushy" sales tactics (putting it mildly)
>I am now using Linux almost exclusively (have downloaded free Office
>software, and use Netscape etc for web/mail duties). I still have Win98
>(for games) and NT Server on my machine (but maybe not for much longer).
yep, i think this too. it's the reason lots of people who would otherwise be
concerned about ms's position in the marketplace *aren't* worried - they see
that their time has come, basically. i think a major element of this has
been the lack of focus on providing one thing well, and instead branching
into media (msnbc and friends, tv, news, magazines, books) and services
(satellite cellphones anyone?), internet provisions (msn, who lost their
position in the win98 box to either aol or compuserve), hardware ... i don't
think any company can really stand the strain of that, at the same time as
trying to produce software to fill almost *every* portion of the market!
compare their site product list to what it was nine months ago: there are
few areas they don't have a product now. are any of the quality that they
could be?
>I am very pleased with the look, feel, customisability (if that is the
>right word for it), functionality and stability of it and believe that
>Linux will probably pick up some solid commercial support in the near
>future....to MSs detriment.
well, ibm have said (http://www.computer-zeitung.de) they plan to support
linux as they do nt in their software (great news!), and already use it
internally. oracle now will. corel sell the netwinder on it and make (IMO)
the best wordprocessor for it. companies like scitech (have linux staff
onboard porting since a few months ago), textpad (whose excellent text
editor i used under windows), and others have responded with interest when
i've asked if they'd consider porting if there was a market. and
realnetworks use it a whole bunch :) ... *lots* of companies are turning
their heads, and it's great! it took some time for them to realise that
people using linux are not doing it because it's cheaper, but because it's
better.
>Any others gone or thinking about going the same way?
i recommend it (as if you couldn't guess by now!!) ... i installed on a 386
last year, then it worked it's way quickly up the computers i work with. i
still have windows on one machine, and use it because nikon haven't got
information out on how to make my scanner work with it yet[1].
did i mention it's free? :)
--
chris burgess
http://ibex.co.nz
[1] wondering if your hardware will be friends with linux? check
http://ibex.co.nz/linux/LDP/HOWTO/Hardware-HOWTO-1.html
chris burgess
>Paul wrote:
>> Darryl Burling wrote:
>> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>linux is user friendly :) in they way that it lets you do what you want.
very true. people say windows is user-friendly, but i find it hard to
believe people say that of an OS which will uninstall system devices
seemingly at random (hey, it's PNP though!), refuse to see with a dialler a
modem that appears in the control panel, reset it's default networking
protocols because you install an HTML viewer, or (my personal favourite)
detect a second version of any PNP device where the configuration gets hosed
..
user-friendly, to my mind, means *consistent* and *reliable* as well as easy
to configure. if that means using a text-file to configure the plug-and-play
settings, at least i know it'll stay the same between reboots. in contrast,
i find the windows[95|NT] registry to be insanely arcane, and an unreliable
way to store data. by arcane, i mean with almost no documentation, a
confusing structure, no real security over who can modify it, a separate
unweildy tool to configure it, and a binary file size upwards of three meg
which makes it slow to load the most common of settings (unless it's three
meg held in memory? even better!). i know when i tell my crap AWE64 card
under linux that it lives at irq 5 it will *stay* there. and, if i need to
change it, i can do that without rebooting. [1]
in terms of inconsistency, windows will warn you about deleting .exe files
but not files like user.dat or c:\windows\system\*.dll ... it *attempts* to
be user-friendly, but doesn't manage it. in contrast, linux lacks a
graphical PNP config tool to interface with /etc/isapnp.conf, but one would
be relatively trivial to write in tcl/tk, and i'd put cash on the next
release of redhat shipping with one if there isn't already.
an os that can't maintain stability is one the user will have to work harder
to use. if you want clicky-draggy-user-friendly, get a mac and get some work
done! at least they crank in terms of raw speed ...
don't get me wrong: i really *liked* windows when i used it, and considered
myself a "windows power user" :) ... i wouldn't use the term now though, and
i'm reluctant to use windows ever because the environment just doesn't
compare ... that said, it's taken a few months and a little commitment to
learn enough to feel natural in linux, and i didn't swap immediately. my
expectations of a work environment and of an OS have gone up, though, which
is the chief reason for my lack of love for wintendo these days. it's just
too damned frustrating!
chris
--
chris burgess
http://ibex.co.nz
[1] not quite that easy, of course, but as long as it's pnp you should be
able to slot in a module for irq7 ... haven't had reason to try it tho!
chris burgess
>I CAN program, and program well, thanks. The question is: Whose paying
>for the software I write? Are Linux users going to shell out for the
>software I write? Nope. They expect it for free.
common misconception, IMO. a few people use linux for *price* reasons,
others (most) use if for *performance* reasons. okay, doing what i do with
mysql + roxen + linux for free would cost me tens of thousands of dollars
with coldfusion + msSQL + NT, but performance and stability is what i want
first, because an expensive server that's down is just an expense.
corel, oracle, and many other companies are coming to the party. they
expect, and will get, cash for their products. i can and will buy commercial
products for linux, and prefer to support distributors by buying CDs too. i
prefer working with open source software, because when my webserver doesn't
do what i expect i can open it up and see which one of us is being silly.
(usually, sadly, me, but that's life :) ... ditto my kernel. "Illegal
Operation #something"?? no thanks, if there's a problem i want to know what
and where so i can take that piece of hardware back. however, companies need
to be told this, and i urge linux consumers (yes, you, you're still a
consumer damnit!) to *tell* companies that they *will* buy commercially
supported software for linux, if they just ship the stuff!
i would also suspect that licensing infringement would be statistically far
less common with linux, for no reason other than the fact that good products
are available for free. IMO, the trade in warez (illegal copies of software)
is a major factor in the economy of using a windows-based solution. most
companies, from what i've seen, are to some degree guilty, and microsoft's
break from the BSA could indicate that they understand the importance of
that. (can i be sued for saying that??) but, even if you're using a
stolen/borrowed copy of win95, you're tied into their upgrade cycle and are
a customer of some sort. ta-da! [1]
c
--
chris burgess
http://ibex.co.nz
[1] i can't make "the microsoft sound (c) brian eno 1994 [2]" in text, sorry :)
[2] but could some win98 type tell me the author of the windows98 sound please?
Matthew Poole
>Are you kidding? User friendly!!!!
>I bet you get razor blades for breakfast.
>M/S might be monopolistic but nothing else around has convinced me that there
>is an alternative yet.
>
How're the nomex (fireproof fabric) undies?
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mpoole at ihug dot co dot nz
James Sleeman
>
> Are you kidding? User friendly!!!!
> I bet you get razor blades for breakfast.
> M/S might be monopolistic but nothing else around has convinced me that there
> is an alternative yet.
Let me guess how many possibilities you have tried, more than likely a
big fat 0, at least in any depth. Unixes are no more difficult, and
much more powerful and complete than any standard PC dos, be that MS-
PC- NET- OPEN-... The problem with people who use computers today is
that they are never taught the basics, never see a DOS shell, courses
are more 'This is how you use a computer, take the mouse, click on the
pretty litle picture and this happens.'
Now I'm not knocking GUIs, infact, most of my time is spent using GUI
tools, (NOT Micro$oft stuff though), I'm using a GUI tool right now
(Netscape), GUI tools are useful, they are friendly to the new,
ignorant, user but they generally lack POWER, and SPEED.
Consider for example the action of copying a file, in a GUI (only)
environment, you generally have to open a window on the directory
containing the file, open the destination directory, and drag the file
across (or click copy, or whatever) any of those steps may require the
execution of yet another program, in a command line driven environment
it requires a simple, 2 argument command, eg 'cp ./file ../'. Which is
easier (IMHO) - number 2, which is faster - number 2, which requires a
very small amount of ram - number 2, which do most people use - number
1, go figure.
I guess what I am saying in all these ramblings is this, are you a
sheep and follow the flock, not caring that what you are doing in your
micro$oft O/S (I'm talking about windows here, not DOS which is
perfectly acceptable :-) ) could be done in a fraction of the time, with
a fraction of the resources by hitting a few keys rather than drag-drop,
OR, do you dare to be different and be in the lead of the flock of the
future and take the time to LEARN how to use an operating system that
will enable you to do what you want, when you want, and do it easier
(once you know how), quicker and less expensivly too boot ?
Oh, and a unix (with or without X11) is not the only other alternative,
AmigaOS and Workbench are a pretty damn good combo too.
Ryurick M. Hristev
> Well now again that comes down to what you want to do with it.
> First up, I stopped using VB at 4.0, so I can't comment on anything later
> than that. But I found VB to be a really simple language to learn - I
> taught myself everything from the helpfiles. They're VERY good.
> Secondly, it IS in use in many commercial software development houses
> because it's easy to code DBMS type programs REALLY quickly. I'm talking
> Front End to SQL Server database type programs. As far as performance goes,
> that's not a critical consideration, as all the work is being done by the
> SQL server on the backend - VB is merely providing a input, reporting, and
> user interaction functions.
Then why not using Tcl/Tk ? It have a visual development environment,
nice widgets and is more portable than VB.
Cheers,
--
______________________________________________________________________
Ryurick M. Hristev ()..()/^\/^\ -<:-)
phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz \/ \#/\#/\) What opinions ?
______________________________________________________________________
Ryurick M. Hristev
> Are you kidding? User friendly!!!!
Unix is user friendly, its just that is selective about its friends :-)
Ryurick M. Hristev
[...]
> And the fact that Visual C++ takes away all the hassle of setting up a
> framework for my application from me means I can spend my time writing the
> core application.
http://www.primenet.com/~jtharris/qtarch/index.html
Andy Bearsley
James Sleeman wrote in message <35D97BDF...@ihug.co.nz>...
>AmigaOS and Workbench are a pretty damn good combo too.
<blink> Didn't that just completely fly in the face of what you posted
earlier?
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Ryurick M. Hristev wrote in message ...
>"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> writes:
>
>> Well now again that comes down to what you want to do with it.
>> First up, I stopped using VB at 4.0, so I can't comment on anything
later
>> than that. But I found VB to be a really simple language to learn - I
>> taught myself everything from the helpfiles. They're VERY good.
>> Secondly, it IS in use in many commercial software development houses
>> because it's easy to code DBMS type programs REALLY quickly. I'm talking
>> Front End to SQL Server database type programs. As far as performance
goes,
>> that's not a critical consideration, as all the work is being done by
the
>> SQL server on the backend - VB is merely providing a input, reporting,
and
>> user interaction functions.
>
>Then why not using Tcl/Tk ? It have a visual development environment,
>nice widgets and is more portable than VB.
Because the clients being written for are MS houses. Because the people
supporting the code are all VB programmers. Because the integration with
other MS products the customers are using is very tight. Because MS provide
their developers with swathes of information and support. Because I want to
be employable in the future. Because...
Andy B.
Matthias Dallmeier
> And what <he said, baiting the hook> is your definition of a (real)
> programmer?
... probably someone who reads the source code of a program, instead of
the documentation, to find out what it does... someone who would never
touch a 'wizard' in their life... of course such a person doesn't have
to be a Linux user... (it sure helps though ;-)
Roger Watts
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
<snip>
>>+Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS products.
>>+I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally). Microsoft
>>+does an exceptional job of supporting their developers. The MSDN is a
>>+wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0 (my
<more snip>
>>interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
>
>Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
>platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop my
>code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means there
>are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
...until something else becomes more attractive to the corporates.
There will always be an overhead in training for any s/w, but it is
a) continual hardware updates and
b) ongoing user/software/hardware support that co$ts.
cheers,
rw...
Andy Bearsley
Bruce Sinclair wrote in message <6rd4lb$51e$1...@news.akl.netlink.net.nz>...
>sure will be ... but the problem remains ... FINDING the good stuff amongst
>the dross :) :)
<grin> Ah, that's left as an exercise for the user...
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Matthias Dallmeier wrote in message <35DA1A08...@waterpark.co.nz>...
If you're going to build a house, do you hammer the nails in with your
fist, a hammer, or a nail-gun?
Wizards are tools. I use them when they're going to save me time.
Sunshine, I can program in Assy code, I can program in C++ (PLM/51,
PLM/86, Pascal, Basic, Several processor Assy codes, SQL, and several
other languages). If you want to spend your time reading source, and
ignoring tools that will make you more productive, that's up to you. Why
program in C++ when Assy will do the job just as well? Because C++ is a
better tool.
Wizards are great for doing the mundane stuff that has to be done every time
you write a program. It means you can jump straight into the meat of your
app rather than dicking around with the vegetable stuff.
I guess you still key your programs in with a hex keypad too, huh?
I think you described a geek instead of a real programmer. Real programmers
live off the fruits of their labour.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Roger Watts wrote in message <35da24d2....@news.clear.net.nz>...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 16:20:09 +1200, "Andy Bearsley"
><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>+Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS
products.
>>>+I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally).
Microsoft
>>>+does an exceptional job of supporting their developers. The MSDN is a
>>>+wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0
(my
><more snip>
>>>interest in them ... but they can sell any old shit to joe user :) :)
>>
>>Okay, but as you say, I'm a developer. Why would I want to move to a
>>platform that doesn't have the tools and environment I need to develop my
>>code? So I'm going to keep developing apps for Windows. This means there
>>are always going to be more professionally developed apps for Windows.
>
>...until something else becomes more attractive to the corporates.
Absolutely. And on that day, I change allegiance.
>There will always be an overhead in training for any s/w, but it is
>a) continual hardware updates and
>b) ongoing user/software/hardware support that co$ts.
I think the plan is that you recover that cost in improved productivity.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Simon Thompson wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 08:26:03, "Andy Bearsley"
><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>
>> First up, I stopped using VB at 4.0, so I can't comment on anything
later
>> than that. But I found VB to be a really simple language to learn
>
>convuluted, incomprehensible, inconsistent language I have come
>across. Fail to see how that is easy to learn, and to learn to program
>well.
Not impossible. It requires a certain style (and it doesn't readily lend
itself to non-convolutedness), but again that's up to the programmer. The
idea is that it's quick to put together applications.
>> - I taught myself everything from the helpfiles. They're VERY good.
>> Secondly, it IS in use in many commercial software development houses
>> because it's easy to code DBMS type programs REALLY quickly.
>
>There are other environments where this is true.
I know. The Delphi programmers I've hired in the past point out similar
experiences.
>> I'm talking Front End to SQL Server database type programs. As far as
performance goes,
>> that's not a critical consideration, as all the work is being done by
the
>> SQL server on the backend - VB is merely providing a input, reporting,
and
>> user interaction functions.
>
>You can't always put all the performance on the server; there are
>times when record by record processing is necessary. Speed then
>becomes important.
I agree with that as well. You CAN write quite involved code in SQL as well
if you really want speed (and even use the SQLPassThru to construct some
WICKED queries to send to the SQL server). It proved fast enough for the
systems we were using it for, and I believe that VB5.0 is fully compiled so
gives a performance improvement over VB4 as well.
But even if Delphi is a better language to program in, it doesn't
necessarily make for a better language to use:- MS has a great overall
package - the language is good, the support (MSDN, TechNet, Web support)
for developers is outstanding. The integration with other MS products is
great. There is a huge pool of experience to draw on, and MS are going to
be around for a long time to come.
I learned the hard way that going with the product that has the best tech
specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
consider.
About a decade ago, I built an absolutely Kick-Ass computer system. It had
sound to die for, it had dual processors, and a whopping 128KB of RAM.
... And there were bugger-all apps that would run on it, and few people
could run the code I wrote. So I sold it, and bought something lower
spec'd, and never looked back.
Andy B.
Paul Oliver
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
>
> I CAN program, and program well, thanks. The question is: Whose paying
> for the software I write? Are Linux users going to shell out for the
> software I write? Nope. They expect it for free.
Not true. There are many commercial products for Linux, which people _do_
buy. When Oracle 8.1 comes out on Linux, only lobomites will be running
it on NT.
> Look, I've programmed on some pretty obscure systems, in some pretty
> obscure languages.
I assume you mean win32 ;)
At the end of the day, I still have to eat, and to eat
> I have to earn money, and to earn money I have to sell my code, and to
> sell my code I have to have the biggest market available.
There are now an estimated 10 million linux users. The Linux market
share is growing faster than that of windows.
> I've heard the point made that Linux developers make their money from
> support of their software... Well THERE's a big incentive to write
> friendly, bug-free code!
Pah! I've never heard such bollocks! Whose favourite company charges
for online support? Microsoft Plus anyone?
> And the fact that Visual C++ takes away all the hassle of setting up a
> framework for my application from me means I can spend my time writing the
> core application.
>
You know, Visual C++ is not the only IDE around.
> But I promise, on my heart and sole, that the day Linux has the tools,
> the support, and the business user-base that MS products do, I'll happily
> and eagerly write for that platform as well. Note that I'm not going to go
> out and buy any books on it today...
>
The question is, will this day come? I believe it will. Do you?
Paul Oliver.
Patrick Dunford
write on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:22:33 +1200 in
nz.comp:<6rdcr9$o44$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>I guess you still key your programs in with a hex keypad too, huh?
No he still uses those binary switches on the front panel :)
Matthias Dallmeier
>
> Verily, verily "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> didst
> write on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:22:33 +1200 in
> nz.comp:<6rdcr9$o44$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>
> >I guess you still key your programs in with a hex keypad too, huh?
>
> No he still uses those binary switches on the front panel :)
... well, I'm not a "real" programmer, so I'm using a keyboard...
Patrick Dunford
Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:08:09 +1200 in
nz.comp:<slrn6tki5l...@athena.ibex.co.nz>...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:05:13 -0700, Aleisha <awa...@REMOVE.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>Paul wrote:
>>> Darryl Burling wrote:
>>> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>>linux is user friendly :) in they way that it lets you do what you want.
>
>very true. people say windows is user-friendly, but i find it hard to
>believe people say that of an OS which will uninstall system devices
>seemingly at random (hey, it's PNP though!), refuse to see with a dialler a
>modem that appears in the control panel, reset it's default networking
>protocols because you install an HTML viewer, or (my personal favourite)
>detect a second version of any PNP device where the configuration gets hosed
>..
Sounds like an extreme experience, not at all the norm for a majority
of users...
>user-friendly, to my mind, means *consistent* and *reliable* as well as easy
>to configure. if that means using a text-file to configure the plug-and-play
>settings, at least i know it'll stay the same between reboots. in contrast,
>i find the windows[95|NT] registry to be insanely arcane, and an unreliable
>way to store data. by arcane, i mean with almost no documentation, a
>confusing structure, no real security over who can modify it, a separate
>unweildy tool to configure it, and a binary file size upwards of three meg
>which makes it slow to load the most common of settings (unless it's three
>meg held in memory? even better!). i know when i tell my crap AWE64 card
>under linux that it lives at irq 5 it will *stay* there. and, if i need to
>change it, i can do that without rebooting. [1]
Most of what you have written is crap, there is ample documentation
for the Registry, it can be made far more secure (especially under
Windows NT) than ini files which have no security at all, can hold all
the data in one location rather than multiple text files and can hold
different data for different users which ini files simply cannot do in
the same standardised way.
I think this post is flamebait because it exaggerates the relative
disparities of Windows, I have not used Linux and have no comment to
make upon that OS's capabilities but I do use Windows every day and
what you are writing is either the viewpoint of a PC Luddite who wants
to stick with arcane command shells, or simple exaggeration.
Roger Watts
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
<firedrill not needed>
>I learned the hard way that going with the product that has the best tech
>specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
>consider.
Absolutely - some exceedingly popular software consistently causes the
pc it is running on to need rebooting after heavy use and people buy
it in droves and developers make money out of it etc
I was a great os/2 fan before W4WG took hold of our lives. It is still
a great os but it wasn't marketed. And Billy G was involved in
developing it.
I have a server running on it - never ever crashes. You can pull the
power plug out of the back of it and it will tidy everything up when
it is rebooted, connected workstation considerations aside.
<climbs off soapbox>
>About a decade ago, I built an absolutely Kick-Ass computer system. It had
>sound to die for, it had dual processors, and a whopping 128KB of RAM.
sounds like my old amstrad - it came with CP/M _and_ 128K
or did you mean MB <g>
so what were the dual processors out of?
>... And there were bugger-all apps that would run on it, and few people
>could run the code I wrote. So I sold it, and bought something lower
>spec'd, and never looked back.
cheers,
rw...
paulsy
more than M/s Windows provides.
Paul
In article <35D97BDF...@ihug.co.nz>, pa...@ihug.co.nz says...
>
>paulsy wrote:
>>
>> Are you kidding? User friendly!!!!
Darryl Burling
> Well, I'm going to play the heretic here and say that I love MS products.
I used to like MS too, but recently they have been getting pushy (ie abusing
their monopolistic powers). I believe they are slowly eroding the freedom
consumers have over their PC. The more I hear of the pushy marketing and
sales machine of MS's the more I am inclined to lend an ear (so to speak) to
the good points of running a linux box/network
> I develop software for Windows (and the MacOS, incidentally). Microsoft
> does an exceptional job of supporting their developers.
But does it beat the support from Linux guru's that are on the Net? -
certainly not numerically - maybe financially.
> The MSDN is a
> wonderful tool, the development environments are a joy to use. NT4.0 (my
> main development platform) has been rock-solid for me.
NT 4.0 Workstation (I use and administer it at work) is reasonably stable,
but no where near as stable as my Linux box at home
> Anyway, I have absolutely NO complaints about the MS environment I'm
> working in.
Well if you like playing with PC's as many here do, then Linux gives you
heaps more choices.What other operating system ships with a Web Server, News
Server, DHCP Server, Web & EMail clients, C++, C, Assembly compilers, BASIC,
Python, TCL/Tk, Perl, ANSI SQL compliant RDBMS, Proxy/Gateway software, and a
command line capable of doing things MS products require scripting languages
to do? My RedHat Linux came with all the above and heaps more..... and it
cost me nothing to put an office suite, and awsome GUI interface (KDE) on it.
The same thing in MS products would have cost me thousands. Granted, it
would be slightly easier to use in some cases, but I love learning new things
and I have the necessary knowledge to get into it without major hiccups.
If you love MS products because of stability you will love Linux, if you love
programming then Linux is worth a look as it comes with all you need
including multiple programming languages. If you love scripting you will
love linux because it is the basis upon which all MS scripting languages are
born ("I could do this on Unix, but not NT..."), If you love the Web, you
will love Linux as most of the web runs on it.
If, however, you like ease of use and hate learning - stick to MS. (Linux is
not for everyone, but give it time.....and not much more of that either.....)
I think that in 18 months, if the current momentum keeps up, MS will be
looking down the same barrel they were looking down when they realised the
internet was popular.... (Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh - quickly Mr Ballmer, port
all our server apps to Linux, make a Windows like Window Manager (eeek!) and
get that marketing machine moving again! And while you're at it re-invent
the wheel!)
Just my humble opinion....
-------------
Darryl Burling
MCSE, MCP+I, CNA (UnixWare)
Computers are logical - People dont understand....
Andy Bearsley
chris burgess wrote in message ...
> It strikes me that
>while there are lots more apps on winfiles.com, there's a limited market
for
>a dozen different VB apps that make your text wavy in HTML :)
So what you're saying is that you have to be able to write better apps to
differentiate yourself to make a living programming for windows, right?
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Paul Oliver wrote in message ...
>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
>>
>> I CAN program, and program well, thanks. The question is: Whose
paying
>> for the software I write? Are Linux users going to shell out for the
>> software I write? Nope. They expect it for free.
>
>Not true. There are many commercial products for Linux, which people _do_
>buy.
Heh. That's not the impression I've been given from the Linux friends I
have. But that aside, for the moment there are more Windows users willing
to give me money than Linux users.
>> Look, I've programmed on some pretty obscure systems, in some pretty
>> obscure languages.
>
>I assume you mean win32 ;)
You aint lived until you've programmed in PLM/51:- a language with all the
ease of use of assembly code, with the readability of bad c.
>> And the fact that Visual C++ takes away all the hassle of setting up a
>> framework for my application from me means I can spend my time writing
the
>> core application.
>
>You know, Visual C++ is not the only IDE around.
I know. We were talking about the 'point and click' application building.
I'm guessing someone was griping about the way VC sets up your entire
application framework with a few mouse-clicks.
Interestingly, in the environment I'm programming in now, we aren't using
MFC at all. We can't even use the dialog editor for UI elements.
>> But I promise, on my heart and sole, that the day Linux has the tools,
>> the support, and the business user-base that MS products do, I'll
happily
>> and eagerly write for that platform as well. Note that I'm not going to
go
>> out and buy any books on it today...
>>
>
>The question is, will this day come? I believe it will. Do you?
I dont believe it will, but I'm happy that the universe never gives a damn
about belief. It appears to run independant of it. So what I believe isn't
important.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Matthias Dallmeier wrote in message <35DA57A7...@waterpark.co.nz>...
Shame! Geez! Next you'll be using Wizards!
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Darryl Burling wrote in message <35DA8413...@xtra.co.nz>...
>Well if you like playing with PC's as many here do, then Linux gives you
>heaps more choices.What other operating system ships with a Web Server,
News
...
>If you love MS products because of stability you will love Linux, if you
love
>programming then Linux is worth a look as it comes with all you need
>including multiple programming languages. If you love scripting you will
>love linux because it is the basis upon which all MS scripting languages
are
>born ("I could do this on Unix, but not NT..."), If you love the Web, you
>will love Linux as most of the web runs on it.
You've hit the nail on the head.
Linux is absolutely EXCEPTIONAL at doing those things.
It's a wonderful 'tinkerers' OS. It does TCP/IP brilliantly. It's an
outstanding platform for running Net Server Apps.
But I dont do ANY of that. Neither do my customers.
My customers and I are doing all the things Windows is good at.
>If, however, you like ease of use and hate learning - stick to MS. (Linux
is
>not for everyone, but give it time.....and not much more of that
either.....)
I've done the Unix thing. I learnt all the wonders of HPUX (or whatever it
was 12 years ago...).
If you can tell me that under Linux I dont need to memorize 30 different
parameters for every command, I'll think slightly more of it than I do of
Unix.
>I think that in 18 months, if the current momentum keeps up, MS will be
>looking down the same barrel they were looking down when they realised the
>internet was popular.... (Aaaarrrrrggggghhhhhh - quickly Mr Ballmer, port
>all our server apps to Linux, make a Windows like Window Manager (eeek!)
and
>get that marketing machine moving again! And while you're at it re-invent
>the wheel!)
Maybe. I'm guessing 'not'.
Andy B.
Patrick Dunford
19 Aug 1998 07:34:55 GMT in
nz.comp:<35da7bbc....@news.clear.net.nz>...
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:39:50 +1200, "Andy Bearsley"
><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>
><firedrill not needed>
>>I learned the hard way that going with the product that has the best tech
>>specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
>>consider.
>
>Absolutely - some exceedingly popular software consistently causes the
>pc it is running on to need rebooting after heavy use and people buy
>it in droves and developers make money out of it etc
>
>I was a great os/2 fan before W4WG took hold of our lives. It is still
>a great os but it wasn't marketed. And Billy G was involved in
>developing it.
>I have a server running on it - never ever crashes. You can pull the
>power plug out of the back of it and it will tidy everything up when
>it is rebooted, connected workstation considerations aside.
><climbs off soapbox>
Yes and maybe a server is all you can run on it :(
I have seen my Win95 system run out of resources at times (with a
couple of dozen power application windows open) but this in no way
compares with Windows 3.11's inability to run even one database and
Word at the same time without pushing the meter into the red, whence
the system would immediately crash.
Right now on Win95 the meter is in the yellow, which is acceptable -
and I have System Monitor, Outlook98, Delphi3, Acroread,
Webprintsmart, Free Agent, IE4, 3 Navigator windows, WSFTP and a
couple of other applications open. No way could you ever do that with
Windows 3.1. Even going from 256 to 65536 colours on some systems took
20% more GDI resources.
Paul Oliver
On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> I don't, I use Delphi :)
>
> Basic is a TOY language.
>
Bzzz! Sorry, wrong answer. Both Delphi and Basic are crap, just
differing levels of crap. Check out the following link for Brian
Kernighan's paper on why Pascal (and therefore Delphi) is crap.
http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mist/Folklore/PascalNotFavorite.html
Paul.
Paul Oliver
On 19 Aug 1998, paulsy wrote:
> Ramble on like an idiot all you like but face it, how many people need any
> more than M/s Windows provides.
>
> Paul
BwaHaHaHa! Anybody that wants reliablity for starters!
Paul.
Simon Thompson
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
> Not impossible. It requires a certain style (and it doesn't readily lend
> itself to non-convolutedness), but again that's up to the programmer. The
> idea is that it's quick to put together applications.
..that are impossible to maintain. Speed of development is not always
the cheapest in the long run.
> I agree with that as well. You CAN write quite involved code in SQL as well
> if you really want speed (and even use the SQLPassThru to construct some
> WICKED queries to send to the SQL server). It proved fast enough for the
> systems we were using it for, and I believe that VB5.0 is fully compiled so
> gives a performance improvement over VB4 as well.
The problem with involved code with SQL is that too often you have to
use non-standard SQL. E.g., SQL Server's case versus Oracle's decode.
That reduces the portability of the code. One way around it is to use
stored procedures so the differences are on the server, but you still
have to write the code twice.
I do work hard to avoid record by record programming, and have written
some convoluted SQL to do so. Often using multiple steps makes it
easier to write, test, and maintain. Several passes with SQL set
statemnts is still faster than record by record. But sometimes there
is no easy way to do the task in SQL.
> But even if Delphi is a better language to program in,
It is.
> it doesn't
> necessarily make for a better language to use:- MS has a great overall
> package - the language is good, the support (MSDN, TechNet, Web support)
> for developers is outstanding. The integration with other MS products is
> great.
I've seen programmers argue in some areas Delphi's integration is
actually better.
[Snip]
> I learned the hard way that going with the product that has the best tech
> specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
> consider.
There is. One other factor for me is enjoyment. If I enjoy my
programming, I do a better job, and end up with a better result. At
the end of the day I choose Delphi because I enjoy it more, far more,
than Visual Basic, VBA, Access Basic, etc. My experience tells me I
can produce a result faster in Delphi than those alternatives, which
is cheaper for the client. If they want to pay the (hidden) premium
for VB, I acquiese.
-----------------------------------------
Simon Thompson
Christchurch
New Zealand
Matthias Dallmeier
>
> Ramble on like an idiot all you like but face it, how many people need any
> more than M/s Windows provides.
... considering that Windows 98 doesn't even support the Gregorian
calendar...
Bruce Simpson
<matt...@waterpark.co.nz> wrote:
>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>
>> Verily, verily "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> didst
>> write on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:22:33 +1200 in
>> nz.comp:<6rdcr9$o44$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>>
>> >I guess you still key your programs in with a hex keypad too, huh?
>>
>> No he still uses those binary switches on the front panel :)
>
>... well, I'm not a "real" programmer, so I'm using a keyboard...
LUXURY!
I use a patch-cord rack for my programming!
:-)
---------------------------------
Don't send email to me, send a Memo.to me
http://memo.to/BruceSimpson
Memo.to, your email firewall, stops junk email dead!
Patrick Dunford
1998 10:05:41 GMT in
nz.comp:<EDdDvZ83i1Q0-pn2-WiqlgYCmi57H@localhost>...
I agree with this viewpoint wholeheartedly, having started with
Access/VBA and graduated to Delphi, I now program only in Delphi.
Patrick Dunford
Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:55:57 +1200 in
nz.comp:<Pine.OSF.3.91.980819...@sapphire.otago.ac.nz>...
My guess is that Brian Kernighan's paper is just opinionated "crap",
for want of a different word :)
Delphi is not the same as classic Pascal, it has been extended
massively over time and a standard pascal compiler would not be able
to compile a Delphi program.
Your lumping of Delphi with pascal shows your ignorance of Delphi, the
two are chalk and cheese. Most of what has been written in Mr K's
comments belong to Pascal but not to Delphi, which shares its compiler
back-end with Borland C and is written to work in a C environment
(Microsoft Windows).
chris burgess
yep, that's true, but my point was that there may be twenty-odd
web-mirroring packages on winfiles.com and only three on freshmeat.net, but
i'd warrant that those on freshmeat are more featureful and reliable because
they've had the benefit of combined efforts going into them (instead of
independent development w/out regard to the `competing' products).
my experience, anyway, has been that choosing software for windows is a huge
trial and error process as you find a good reliable app. with linux, it
seems one or two will establish themselves as the most popular, because they
offer far more. it almost sounds like the `real software world' except for
the fact that snazzy marketing and market tactics don't affect consumer
decisions.
don't get me wrong, andy: i'm not saying *you* have to switch to linux. for
me, it offers far more than windows does, and more than solaris too[1]. i'd
recommend anyone who's tired of the expensive and unneccessary upgrade cycle
of that world consider the power, stability and satisfaction that linux can
offer. but i don't want m$ put out of business (they can do that themselves)
and i don't want people to move from a solution that works for them unless
they're interested in a better option.
chris
==========================================================================
http://garage.ibex.co.nz - buy, sell, trade computer equipment for free!
==========================================================================
chris burgess <ch...@ibex.co.nz>
[1] solaris, of course, has the funky tools for java that interest me, but
things like Freebuilder for linux offer a visual IDE so sexy no "real"
programmer would touch it :)
chris burgess
>Verily, verily ch...@athena.ibex.co.nz (chris burgess) didst write on
>Tue, 18 Aug 1998 18:08:09 +1200 in
>nz.comp:<slrn6tki5l...@athena.ibex.co.nz>...
>
>>On Tue, 18 Aug 1998 17:05:13 -0700, Aleisha <awa...@REMOVE.ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>>>Paul wrote:
>>>> Darryl Burling wrote:
>>>> only linux was a little more "user friendly" . . .
>>>linux is user friendly :) in they way that it lets you do what you want.
>>
>>very true. people say windows is user-friendly, but i find it hard to
>>believe people say that of an OS which will uninstall system devices
>>seemingly at random (hey, it's PNP though!), refuse to see with a dialler a
>>modem that appears in the control panel, reset it's default networking
>>protocols because you install an HTML viewer, or (my personal favourite)
>>detect a second version of any PNP device where the configuration gets hosed
>>..
>
>Sounds like an extreme experience, not at all the norm for a majority
>of users...
i've installed over three hundred windows (3.x, 95, NT) machines, i'd guess,
and used it extensively until recently, so maybe you're right and my
experience isn't the norm. i'm also one of those people who gets wheeled out
to fix the family's software when "it just doesn't work". no, i don't
program ASM, nor will i ever :)
all those are from my experience though. my windows box here, OSR2b or
whatever it is, has been known to "lose" its sound card. my flatmates has
currently "lost" its 3d card. i've seen TCP/IP get shifted out of the way in
favour of netbeui by a client app (forget what). i've had the aforementioned
problem with modems appearing in the control panel but not under DUN, and
vice versa, with about four different machines (the fix seems to be avoid
COM2 as far as i can tell ...). and as for detecting multiple video cards or
other pnp devices, you're telling me you've never seen that?
>>user-friendly, to my mind, means *consistent* and *reliable* as well as easy
>>to configure. if that means using a text-file to configure the plug-and-play
>>settings, at least i know it'll stay the same between reboots. in contrast,
>>i find the windows[95|NT] registry to be insanely arcane, and an unreliable
>>way to store data. by arcane, i mean with almost no documentation, a
>>confusing structure, no real security over who can modify it, a separate
>>unweildy tool to configure it, and a binary file size upwards of three meg
>>which makes it slow to load the most common of settings (unless it's three
>>meg held in memory? even better!). i know when i tell my crap AWE64 card
>>under linux that it lives at irq 5 it will *stay* there. and, if i need to
>>change it, i can do that without rebooting. [1]
>Most of what you have written is crap, there is ample documentation
>for the Registry, it can be made far more secure (especially under
>Windows NT) than ini files which have no security at all, can hold all
>the data in one location rather than multiple text files and can hold
>different data for different users which ini files simply cannot do in
>the same standardised way.
had to leave my post in there. so you don't think it's true? okay ... in my
mind, the registry *is* arcane. the average user doesn't understand it, nor
do most who admin the machines know the differences between the various
trees. and it bothers me that a 3Mb [1] binary database has to be read to
get any piece of critical system information for a client app!
>I think this post is flamebait because it exaggerates the relative
>disparities of Windows, I have not used Linux and have no comment to
>make upon that OS's capabilities but I do use Windows every day and
>what you are writing is either the viewpoint of a PC Luddite who wants
>to stick with arcane command shells, or simple exaggeration.
not true, common misconception etc etc. i like command shells and i like the
fact that with a line of code i can correct a spelling mistake or image url
in fifty files in under ten seconds. if you call extensively documented and
internally consistent "arcane", i call *that* flamebait [2] :) OTOH, i quite
like my current GUI (tkdesk+wmx). it's simple, functional, and fast as hell.
there are ultra-sexy GUIs about for linux, but i prefer a low-bandwidth
approad. and no, it's not an exaggeration. patrick, i've converted to linux
because of my years experience with the windows environment, which i enjoyed
but found intensely frustrating. linux offers me more enjoyment in and ease
of usage and administration.
--
chris burgess
http://ibex.co.nz
[1]
[chris@athena /tmp]# ls /mnt/w95/windows/*dat
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 7409 Mar 26 22:38 /mnt/w95/windows/extend.dat*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 42483 Oct 14 1995 /mnt/w95/windows/icccodes.dat*
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 3233267 May 18 23:52 /mnt/w95/windows/ie4bak.dat*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 6550 Feb 17 1998 /mnt/w95/windows/jautoexp.dat*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 16384 Aug 15 05:31 /mnt/w95/windows/msimgsiz.dat*
-rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 37458 Aug 18 09:06 /mnt/w95/windows/nsreg.dat*
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 2741176 Aug 18 09:54 /mnt/w95/windows/system.dat*
-r-xr-xr-x 1 root root 61588 Aug 5 14:31 /mnt/w95/windows/user.dat*
which are the registry, is it just user.dat and system.dat?
or are there more?
[2] come on, flamebait? why are you calling a command shell "arcane" when
you continue to indicate you probably haven't used one except for DOS?
why is what i thought to be reasonably well-argued is being trashed as
ludditeism (*ahem*, DOS based systems are the legacy here!) or
exaggeration, but without supporting evidence from you?
Simon Thompson
Dunford) wrote:
> Yes and maybe a server is all you can run on it :(
I still use OS/2 more than Windows. There is a wealth of Shareware
available.
Simon Thompson
wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Patrick Dunford wrote:
> >
> > I don't, I use Delphi :)
> >
> > Basic is a TOY language.
> >
>
> Bzzz! Sorry, wrong answer. Both Delphi and Basic are crap, just
> differing levels of crap. Check out the following link for Brian
> Kernighan's paper on why Pascal (and therefore Delphi) is crap.
>
> http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mist/Folklore/PascalNotFavorite.html
So a paper written in 1981, by one of the developers of C is still
gospel 17 years later?
Pascal was developed as a teaching language, and its developers never
intended for it to be a serious language. However, the Pascal in
Delphi, really Object Pascal, addresses most, if not all, of the
concerns mentioned in this paper. I don't have the time to address
them one by one.
The fact Pascal become so popular, and has been developed to the
degree it has, is a reflection on how well it was designed. All
languages have there strengths and weaknessess.
The Basic of the time, IIRC, was still restricted to 1 or 2 character
variable names, and the $ and % suffixes were mandatory.
I don't think C++ really even existed, at least not outside its
development organisations.
I have read papers, and listened to speeches criticising C (and C++)
(or in your vernacular, calling it 'crap') because of its weak typing,
wild pointers, etc.
I wouldn't use Pascal (Delphi) to write device drivers (not that I
ever want to write a device driver), but nor would I use C or C++
where I use Delphi. But then nor would I use Delphi where SQL is the
correct solution.
Software tools develop, and Delphi's Pascal is a very good option for
many programming tasks.
Geoff McCaughan
>
> Most of what you have written is crap, there is ample documentation
> for the Registry, it can be made far more secure (especially under
> Windows NT) than ini files which have no security at all, can hold all
> the data in one location rather than multiple text files and can hold
> different data for different users which ini files simply cannot do in
> the same standardised way.
Comparing one brain-dead microsoftism with an even worse one is hardly the
point here. Using ini files is marginally better than scratching marks on the
cave wall with a sharp stick, but that doesn't make ini files the pinnacle
of erudition.
Simon Thompson
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
> I'm a die-hard C++ programmer these days and will likely never touch Delphi
> of VB again.
"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
nail."
Choose the tool for the job. C++ is great for device drivers. Delphi
for business development. SQL for database access. VB for a mental
breakdown. ;-)
Guy Steven
"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> writes:
>
> I've done the Unix thing. I learnt all the wonders of HPUX (or whatever it
> was 12 years ago...).
> If you can tell me that under Linux I dont need to memorize 30 different
> parameters for every command, I'll think slightly more of it than I do of
> Unix.
An operating system which, through the wealth of commands and options
available to those commands lets you achieve exactly what you want to do
is bad.
An operating system which assumes that it knows what you want to do and
does not give you the choice to do something else is good.
Duh!
--
Guy Steven
15 Massey Crescent, Christchurch New Zealand
ph 355 6189
fax 355 6429
Matthew Poole
>
>
>On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
>
>>
>> I dont understand people who malign the stability of NT. In a typical day,
>> I have IE4 open, VC++ compiling while I play on the web, SourceSafe,
>> Outlook (for mail and calender), Outlook Express (for news), ICQ, and am
>> often starting and stopping other applications as well. I never have
>> crashes. (Which is surprising given how I write code!)
>>
>> Andy B.
>>
>
>Is this meant to impress? We have a departmental Alpha box running OSF/1
>UNIX, check this out:
>
>atlas~/ uptime
>11:20 up 783 days, 13:23, 23 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04
>atlas~/
>
>NT will never match this stability, ever! NT 5.0 will have 30 million
>lines of code, 85% of which are new. It will constitute the greatest
>software engineering failure in american history.
What makes you so damn certain? Admittedly, given that this is M$, it won't
be half as good as *nix. BUT, what gives you the total certainty that it will
be a total failure? The betas I've used were pretty damn stable. Admittedly,
M$'s betas are a far cry from their releases, but not THAT far.
>The OS/360 debacle
>will be a drop in the ocean compared to the oncoming NT disaster. I want
>you to answer me a question. Given the choice of NT against any version
>of UNIX, what would you run a mission critical application such as Oracle
>on?
>
It would depend entirely on how well config'd the *nix box was as to whether
I'd even feel comfortable using that.
>Paul.
I think you meant "God"
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"
My real e-mail is mpoole at ihug dot co dot nz
James Sleeman
>
> James Sleeman wrote in message <35D97BDF...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
> >AmigaOS and Workbench are a pretty damn good combo too.
>
> earlier?
>
> Andy B.
Ahh, no, AmigaOS is stable, fast, and powerful, Workbench (the GUI) is
optional, AmigaOS will happily run along without it. AmigaOS similar
unix (although basically single user (unless you play around with MuFS))
in many ways.
James Sleeman
>
> I've done the Unix thing. I learnt all the wonders of HPUX (or whatever it
> was 12 years ago...).
> If you can tell me that under Linux I dont need to memorize 30 different
> parameters for every command, I'll think slightly more of it than I do of
> Unix.
>
Err, never heard of 'man' ? It certainly was around 12 years ago, it
certainly eliminates the need for memorising command parameters, and
most commands have some help parameter for a brief run-down (--help -h
-? ).
Andy Bearsley
Bruce Simpson wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 16:42:15 +1200, Matthias Dallmeier
><matt...@waterpark.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Patrick Dunford wrote:
>>>
>>> Verily, verily "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> didst
>>> write on Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:22:33 +1200 in
>>> nz.comp:<6rdcr9$o44$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>...
>>>
>>> >I guess you still key your programs in with a hex keypad too, huh?
>>>
>>> No he still uses those binary switches on the front panel :)
>>
>>... well, I'm not a "real" programmer, so I'm using a keyboard...
>
>LUXURY!
>
>I use a patch-cord rack for my programming!
>:-)
Oooo, what I'd 'ave done for patch-cords.
We used to use Taranaki gates, and cows in different paddocks to represent
data.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Patrick Dunford wrote in message <35da9fc7...@news.caverock.co.nz>...
>Verily, verily rwa...@clear.net.nz (Roger Watts) didst write on Wed,
>19 Aug 1998 07:34:55 GMT in
>nz.comp:<35da7bbc....@news.clear.net.nz>...
>
>>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 14:39:50 +1200, "Andy Bearsley"
>><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>>
>><firedrill not needed>
>>>specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
>>>consider.
>>
>>pc it is running on to need rebooting after heavy use and people buy
>>it in droves and developers make money out of it etc
>>
>>I was a great os/2 fan before W4WG took hold of our lives. It is still
>>a great os but it wasn't marketed. And Billy G was involved in
>>developing it.
>>I have a server running on it - never ever crashes. You can pull the
>>power plug out of the back of it and it will tidy everything up when
>>it is rebooted, connected workstation considerations aside.
>><climbs off soapbox>
>
>
>couple of dozen power application windows open) but this in no way
>compares with Windows 3.11's inability to run even one database and
>Word at the same time without pushing the meter into the red, whence
>the system would immediately crash.
>
>Right now on Win95 the meter is in the yellow, which is acceptable -
>and I have System Monitor, Outlook98, Delphi3, Acroread,
>Webprintsmart, Free Agent, IE4, 3 Navigator windows, WSFTP and a
>couple of other applications open. No way could you ever do that with
>Windows 3.1. Even going from 256 to 65536 colours on some systems took
>20% more GDI resources.
Andy Bearsley
Simon Thompson wrote in message ...
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 02:39:50, "Andy Bearsley"
><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>> I learned the hard way that going with the product that has the best tech
>> specs isn't necessarily the best way to go. There's an awful lot more to
>> consider.
>
>There is. One other factor for me is enjoyment. If I enjoy my
>programming, I do a better job, and end up with a better result. At
>the end of the day I choose Delphi because I enjoy it more, far more,
>than Visual Basic, VBA, Access Basic, etc. My experience tells me I
>can produce a result faster in Delphi than those alternatives, which
>is cheaper for the client. If they want to pay the (hidden) premium
>for VB, I acquiese.
Okay, Delphi sounds like a better language. MS certainly doesn't have the
monopoly on developing good applications. There is a modicum of personal
preference in choice of language as well.
(Incidentally, I've often had to pick up VB code to maintain from other
programmers. I haven't found it a problem at all.)
I'm a die-hard C++ programmer these days and will likely never touch Delphi
of VB again.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
James Sleeman wrote in message <35DACEA2...@ihug.co.nz>...
Argh! YES! I've heard of 'man'! No, really, thanks, I'm happy with the
environment I'm working in.
Andy B.
Paul Oliver
On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
>
> I dont understand people who malign the stability of NT. In a typical day,
> I have IE4 open, VC++ compiling while I play on the web, SourceSafe,
> Outlook (for mail and calender), Outlook Express (for news), ICQ, and am
> often starting and stopping other applications as well. I never have
> crashes. (Which is surprising given how I write code!)
>
> Andy B.
>
Is this meant to impress? We have a departmental Alpha box running OSF/1
UNIX, check this out:
atlas~/ uptime
11:20 up 783 days, 13:23, 23 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04
atlas~/
NT will never match this stability, ever! NT 5.0 will have 30 million
lines of code, 85% of which are new. It will constitute the greatest
software engineering failure in american history. The OS/360 debacle
will be a drop in the ocean compared to the oncoming NT disaster. I want
you to answer me a question. Given the choice of NT against any version
of UNIX, what would you run a mission critical application such as Oracle
on?
Paul.
Andy Bearsley
Paul Oliver wrote in message ...
Thanks, I've worked in an Oracle environment, in SQL environments, in NT
Server Network admin environments...
They all have their place, their advantages and disadvantages.
I'd happily recommend an NT box with SQL server and a Win95 client
situation. For a customer that it's appropriate for.
It's odd that many MS opponents are bitching about the lagacy code in NT4,
but then bitch about the new code in NT5.
Many of the problems MS users get are self-inflicted. There are too many
pieces of hardware with shoddy drivers available. Set up a name-brand box,
with name-brand cards, and you'll have less problems.
Y'know, I'm gonna bow out of this debate. The OS wars, and PC wars always
boil down to this:- There are appropriate places for every operating
system. All of them have advantages and disadvantages over others.
My customers use more MS products, therefore I use MS products because my
customers pay my wages. I have other personal reasons for my choice of OS,
but you're likely to have differing experiences with OS's and different
requirements.
Use whatever is best for you. I'll move if/when the market moves.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Simon Thompson wrote in message ...
>nail."
Alternatively, if the only tool you have is a hammer, become a
carpenter...
The business I'm in needs C++, and as I love the work I do, I can't see
myself changing in the forseeable future.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Simon Thompson wrote in message ...
>I wouldn't use Pascal (Delphi) to write device drivers (not that I
>ever want to write a device driver), but nor would I use C or C++
>where I use Delphi. But then nor would I use Delphi where SQL is the
>correct solution.
>
>Software tools develop, and Delphi's Pascal is a very good option for
>many programming tasks.
Yup. Use what's appropriate to the job.
Andy B.
Andy Bearsley
Guy Steven wrote in message <6rfmnk$65o$1...@etive.southern.co.nz>...
>In article <6re6b5$k7c$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>,
> "Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> writes:
>>
it
>> was 12 years ago...).
>> If you can tell me that under Linux I dont need to memorize 30 different
>> parameters for every command, I'll think slightly more of it than I do
of
>> Unix.
>
>An operating system which, through the wealth of commands and options
>available to those commands lets you achieve exactly what you want to do
>is bad.
>An operating system which assumes that it knows what you want to do and
>does not give you the choice to do something else is good.
Close, but no cigar.
An OS that requires I learn loads of different (obscure!) commands with
absolutely dozens of modifiers for each command is going to frustrate me
more (and get more in the way of productive work) than one that graphically
and intuitively shows me what I need to know.
Bear in mind also that the OS is really incidental to what I (and I expect
most people) actually DO with their computers. The OS is really just a
launching platform for the application they're using.
I really dont want to tinker with my OS at all. I want it to do stuff that
I dont need to know about while I do productive work.
Andy B.
Ryurick M. Hristev
> Heh. That's not the impression I've been given from the Linux friends I
> have. But that aside, for the moment there are more Windows users willing
> to give me money than Linux users.
Translation :-)
"The Linux system comes with almost anything you would ever need
so is very difficult to do something new such that potential buyers would be
tempted"
Cheers,
--
______________________________________________________________________
Ryurick M. Hristev ()..()/^\/^\ -<:-)
phy...@phys.canterbury.ac.nz \/ \#/\#/\) What opinions ?
______________________________________________________________________
Carl Ansley
> On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
>
> >
> > I dont understand people who malign the stability of NT. In a typical day,
> > I have IE4 open, VC++ compiling while I play on the web, SourceSafe,
> > Outlook (for mail and calender), Outlook Express (for news), ICQ, and am
> > often starting and stopping other applications as well. I never have
> > crashes. (Which is surprising given how I write code!)
> >
> > Andy B.
> >
>
> Is this meant to impress? We have a departmental Alpha box running OSF/1
> UNIX, check this out:
>
> atlas~/ uptime
> 11:20 up 783 days, 13:23, 23 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04
> atlas~/
I agree that Unix in general is more stable than NT. otoh many sites
have to run NT server because ultimately if it doesn't run the
applications they want, Unix is irrelevant.
I personally prefer NT as a workstation OS over Unix. If you can
arrange it, have two machines networked together- NT workstation and a
Unix box. It's the best of both worlds; you can run telnet or an
Xserver under NT to give you remote access to Unix, while still being
able to run your favourite windows apps locally.
Anyone who has fanatical preference of one over the other is missing
out imo. Even if you're solely developing Windows apps, the Unix
environment is a powerful testbed for data crunching, non-GUI related
code. And Windows has very nice shake'n'bake GUI development tools
like Delphi that i wouldn't want to be without. So why choose one
over the other if you can have both.
carl
beagle
>of UNIX, what would you run a mission critical
>application such as Oracle on?
Does anyone else remember when all the magazines sneered at Unix as
being immature and that it would never replace the big systems for
real work?
And let's think about some of the awful Unix implementations that have
been out there. Early Solaris for example. The AIX patch debacle. The
Irix that sucked and embarrassed Silicon Graphics so much. The
mishandling of Unixware and how crap the first version was. The
weirdness of SCO.
Unix is not some perfect OS created by God.
--
Thomas Beagle
Sapphire Technology Ltd
tho...@sapphire.co.nz
Paul Oliver
That is certainly true. But you didn't answer my question.
Paul.
Andy Bearsley
Ryurick M. Hristev wrote in message ...
>"Andy Bearsley" <an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> writes:
>
>> Heh. That's not the impression I've been given from the Linux friends I
>> have. But that aside, for the moment there are more Windows users
willing
>> to give me money than Linux users.
>
>Translation :-)
>
>"The Linux system comes with almost anything you would ever need
> so is very difficult to do something new such that potential buyers would
be
> tempted"
<sigh>
Yeah good on ya mate.
Andy B.
Avatar
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 10:32:16 +1200, "Andy Bearsley"
<an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote in message
[<6rcvbf$62a$1...@news.iconz.co.nz>]:
>
>James Sleeman wrote in message <35D97BDF...@ihug.co.nz>...
>
>
>>AmigaOS and Workbench are a pretty damn good combo too.
>
>
><blink> Didn't that just completely fly in the face of what you posted
>earlier?
No. Amiga os has a shell, much like the shell's available under unix. Fully
mutlitasking and programable, with a 'batch' language that is actually
usful for complicated tasks. Also has Arexx - a superset of the mainframe
REXX langauge - an langauge useful for programming custom functions into
already existing applications and utilities. Something like visual basic
might hope to be give 100 years of ms devlopment. It was very nice to be
able to customise one program controlling a string of other programs. OS/2
uses it also I understand.
I think I understand what James is getting at though: the people buying
PC's today and running windoze really have zero idea of what a real
computer is like. To them, massive amounts of ram and hard drive are what
'ever' computer needs; buying a new cpu to simply run the latest apps every
year or so is 'simply the way all computers work'; formatting a disk
halting all multitasking is 'just the way computers work', etc. All these
stupid limitations of windows are seen as common to all computers, and this
is just not the case (as you know).
It is sad the way MS has been able to lower people's expectations this way.
Avatar.
All my comments are "In my Opinion", unless otherwise stated, and are Copyright 1998.
Join the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email - http://www.cauce.org
Allistar Melville
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 21:42:02, "Andy Bearsley"
><an...@ambient.gen.nz.remove> wrote:
>
>
>> I'm a die-hard C++ programmer these days and will likely never touch Delphi
>> of VB again.
>
>"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a
>nail."
>
>Choose the tool for the job. C++ is great for device drivers. Delphi
>for business development. SQL for database access. VB for a mental
>breakdown. ;-)
I have traditionally developed in C++, mainly for multi-threaded
network accessing apps, and have done a bit of Delphi as well. Both
systems have there advantages and disadvantages. Out of the two I
prefer C++ (dunno what it is, feels like I'm building with steel,
rather than play-dough)....
If you want a language to do rapid database development, give Jade a
go. I've been developing in it for the past 10 months, and it is
great. Some pros are that is is completely OO, even the database is
OO, and is comploetely integrated with the development environment,
and also it is produced in Christchurch....
Allistar.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allistar Melville (BSc) Email: alli...@ihug.co.nz \_
Birkdale, Auckland </'
NEW ZEALAND /)
Web: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~allistar/ (/`
`
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford
1998 22:12:06 GMT in
nz.comp:<EDdDvZ83i1Q0-p...@slip202-135-85-23.pe.nz.ibm.net>...
>On Wed, 19 Aug 1998 09:55:57, Paul Oliver <pu...@sapphire.otago.ac.nz>
>wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Aug 1998, Patrick Dunford wrote:
>> >
>> > I don't, I use Delphi :)
>> >
>> > Basic is a TOY language.
>> >
>>
>> Bzzz! Sorry, wrong answer. Both Delphi and Basic are crap, just
>> differing levels of crap. Check out the following link for Brian
>> Kernighan's paper on why Pascal (and therefore Delphi) is crap.
>>
>> http://yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au/~mist/Folklore/PascalNotFavorite.html
>
>So a paper written in 1981, by one of the developers of C is still
>gospel 17 years later?
>
>Pascal was developed as a teaching language, and its developers never
>intended for it to be a serious language. However, the Pascal in
>Delphi, really Object Pascal, addresses most, if not all, of the
>concerns mentioned in this paper. I don't have the time to address
>them one by one.
>
>The fact Pascal become so popular, and has been developed to the
>degree it has, is a reflection on how well it was designed. All
>languages have there strengths and weaknessess.
>
>The Basic of the time, IIRC, was still restricted to 1 or 2 character
>variable names, and the $ and % suffixes were mandatory.
Yup, I started programming with TRS-80 and Apple ][, both of which
used M$ Basic enforcing the above rules...
>I wouldn't use Pascal (Delphi) to write device drivers (not that I
>ever want to write a device driver), but nor would I use C or C++
>where I use Delphi. But then nor would I use Delphi where SQL is the
>correct solution.
The average device driver would be written in assembly language,
surely ? (BTW Delphi has a built in assembler, quite a necessary thing
as some of the library source is also written in asm)
--------------------------------------------------
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ
http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Village/3405/
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/9789/
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Sector/9792/
**************************************************
Christianity Explained - http://www.christ.gen.nz/
Christian Internet Services - http://www.godzone.net.nz/
Peter Kerr
Paul Oliver
On Wed, 19 Aug 1998, Matthew Poole wrote:
> In article <Pine.OSF.3.91.980820...@sapphire.otago.ac.nz>, Paul Oliver <pu...@sapphire.otago.ac.nz> wrote:
> >
> >
> >On Thu, 20 Aug 1998, Andy Bearsley wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I dont understand people who malign the stability of NT. In a typical day,
> >> I have IE4 open, VC++ compiling while I play on the web, SourceSafe,
> >> Outlook (for mail and calender), Outlook Express (for news), ICQ, and am
> >> often starting and stopping other applications as well. I never have
> >> crashes. (Which is surprising given how I write code!)
> >>
> >> Andy B.
> >>
> >
> >Is this meant to impress? We have a departmental Alpha box running OSF/1
> >UNIX, check this out:
> >
> >atlas~/ uptime
> >11:20 up 783 days, 13:23, 23 users, load average: 0.00, 0.04, 0.04
> >atlas~/
> >
> >NT will never match this stability, ever! NT 5.0 will have 30 million
> >lines of code, 85% of which are new. It will constitute the greatest
> >software engineering failure in american history.
>
> What makes you so damn certain? Admittedly, given that this is M$, it won't
> be half as good as *nix. BUT, what gives you the total certainty that it will
> be a total failure? The betas I've used were pretty damn stable. Admittedly,
> M$'s betas are a far cry from their releases, but not THAT far.
Oh gee, I dunno. Just a fundamental law of software engineering! The
number of bugs increases faster than the number of lines of code. Always.
> >The OS/360 debacle
> >will be a drop in the ocean compared to the oncoming NT disaster. I want
> >you to answer me a question. Given the choice of NT against any version
> >of UNIX, what would you run a mission critical application such as Oracle
> >on?
> >
> It would depend entirely on how well config'd the *nix box was as to whether
> I'd even feel comfortable using that.
I assume you mean hardware. Ok, how about identical intel boxes?
> >Paul.
> I think you meant "God"
God^H^H^HPaul.
Simon Thompson
Dunford) wrote:
> The average device driver would be written in assembly language,
> surely ?
I understand, but have never checked, that many are written in C, but
I would think they would use many of C's low-level constructs.
Simon Thompson
wrote:
> If you want a language to do rapid database development, give Jade a
> go. I've been developing in it for the past 10 months, and it is
> great. Some pros are that is is completely OO, even the database is
> OO, and is comploetely integrated with the development environment,
> and also it is produced in Christchurch....
Given half a chance I would. I need access to Jade, and a client that
wants something developed in it. It is too expensive to get on the
off-chance.
Can you hook other languages into the Database, maybe via ODBC. E.g.
Delphi? I have some Delphi specific, but database nuetral, code that I
wouldn't want to rewrite.
Dan Langille
> Given half a chance I would. I need access to Jade, and a client that
> wants something developed in it. It is too expensive to get on the
> off-chance.
I think I can get access to a copy through work and start using it. I've
heard good things about it and from a colleague. We both do a great deal
of OO work. Jade removes a great deal of the database access worries from
the equation. If you get your class model right, you don't have any
database table worries at all. But this is from the outside. I plan to
redevelop an existing system and see how it goes.
--
Dan Langille - DVL Software Limited
to reply via email, try the contact at the website below
http://www.dvl-software.com/racingsystem.htm - for race timing solutions
Andy Bearsley
Patrick Dunford wrote in message <35dbb4ac...@news.caverock.co.nz>...
>The average device driver would be written in assembly language,
>surely ? (BTW Delphi has a built in assembler, quite a necessary thing
>as some of the library source is also written in asm)
I would have thought the average device driver would be written in C or C++.
Andy B.
Darryl Burling
> I'd happily recommend an NT box with SQL server and a Win95 client
> situation. For a customer that it's appropriate for.
I would do the same - the key here is what is appropriate for the
situation.....?
> It's odd that many MS opponents are bitching about the lagacy code in NT4,
> but then bitch about the new code in NT5.
>
> Many of the problems MS users get are self-inflicted. There are too many
> pieces of hardware with shoddy drivers available. Set up a name-brand box,
> with name-brand cards, and you'll have less problems.
Bingo - here is a good point. We run Dells at work with 3Com Cards, ATI video
etc, etc and have very few OS stability problems. Especially when you compare
it to a machine that is built around junk/cheap parts.... I think you are
right when you say that drivers are often the problem - I am sure this is the
case, I have encountered problems often that are solved by upgrading the
drivers.... I'm sure others have too.I think that Linux (in particular) works
well with hardware due to the fact that the drivers work - if they dont work
the drivers are modified by someone who can do it well - this is the brilliant
thing about the Linux development model, if an app doesn't work, someone else
can get the source code and change/tweak it until it does work, the drivers are
then posted somewhere so that everyone can use them or change them again if
they want to. There are pitfalls to this though - firstly the development is
often generic ie does not take advantage of all a components features unless
the person who writes the drivers has inside info into the hardware. Secondly
there are often several generations of drivers hanging around on various sites,
thirdly unless you know where to look you can find it hard to locate the
drivers in some cases.
> Y'know, I'm gonna bow out of this debate. The OS wars, and PC wars always
> boil down to this:- There are appropriate places for every operating
> system. All of them have advantages and disadvantages over others.
> My customers use more MS products, therefore I use MS products because my
> customers pay my wages. I have other personal reasons for my choice of OS,
> but you're likely to have differing experiences with OS's and different
> requirements.
I agree to a point, I work with my clients to do what they want to - hence my
MCSE, however I personally have decided recently to drop MS at home for Linux
simply because I have become increasingly unhappy with MS using their marketing
power to manipulate the industry. I want to be able to buy a PC with the OS and
software on it that I want - MS want to sell their product regardless of
customer requirements/desire. I dont personally want to support something that
does not support the common good - especially when there are products available
that cost less and do all that MS products do and more, and better.Dont follow
MS blindly (not saying you are...) just cos it is what you use at work. There
are alternatives and they are beginning to gain popularity for two basic
reasons - MS are starting to grate people the wrong way and there are better
(technically) products available based on a better distribution model.
> Use whatever is best for you. I'll move if/when the market moves.
Linux - the choice of a GNU generation..... ;~)
--
Darryl Burling
MCSE, MCP+I, CNA (UnixWare)
Computers are logical - People dont understand....
Andy Bearsley
Darryl Burling wrote in message <35DC0669...@xtra.co.nz>...
>that cost less and do all that MS products do and more, and better.Dont
follow
>MS blindly (not saying you are...) just cos it is what you use at work.
There
>are alternatives and they are beginning to gain popularity for two basic
>reasons - MS are starting to grate people the wrong way and there are
better
>(technically) products available based on a better distribution model.
Hmmm... ah... Home IS work. I work from home, so I really dont have a
choice there either. Not that I regret it in any way.
Andy B.