couldn't imagine life without Microsoft SQL Server or Windows Server 2003 or 2008...
There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame when goes wrong; while you can get enterprise MySQL support, try to do the same f a smaller open source project and you're basically up shit creek -paddle.
Microsoft is pretty much the only player with a long history and is on the e of innovation (I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms by saying that...
open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code a in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I
Yep. We've all heard that before. Although to a degree, I agree with that philosophy. Why require someone to read source code before they can trust it
In fact, why would anyone apart from a programmer want to read source code a all? Non-geeks prefer binaries, in my experience.
In my experience, open-source technologies such as Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. also seem to be fairly rock-solid, and I think such products provide a good (and perhaps less expensive) alternative to Microsoft
There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blameI hadn't really thought about that before, but I think that's a fairly good
open-source products can be trusted too. Open-source products such as Linux just require some form of administration/management to ensure good quality control, so that people can't contribute bad/malicious code to the project.
reading source code - What it means is that the product is open to a very community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved
than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working on it.
community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working o it.
That's true in theory, but in practice, I think Microsoft would have more people working on a kernel issue than Linux or BSD, for example? For instanc Microsoft issued a hotfix recently on the request of one of our clients. At same time, I've had some great "real-time" support from a lot of OS develope and I think that has a great advantage. But that's me personally, most companies don't buy into that, which is unfortunate.
in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in Linu violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).
Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?
If Microsoft wants to be pissed at anybody it should be the Compiz people...Anybody out herre that runs Ubuntu would know...
Try having multiple desktops on a CUBE & being able to switch to multiple desktops on that cube....4 desktops? Wait...6 desktops? 8 desktops? As man as you want???
Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...
in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).
Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?
Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 30 2010 10:35 pm
in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).
Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code i violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).
Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?
I don't think so, as evidenced by the fact that the Linux community is still alive and well. :) From what I read, I think the only reason Microsoft was attempting that is that they're afraid of Linux continuing to become more popular and taking marketshare away from Microsoft. Microsoft was looking f a way to kill Linux, basically.
I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think al that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..
They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tricky, and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. Pl it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't mak anything other then support :)
Well, if it's taking you a second or more to draw compiz effects you must ha a really slow, cpu, not enough memory or a bad video card.
I *always* use the multiple desktop feature. I'm constantly running 20 mill things at once.
I doubt it came from Mac. I've got a friend who's a Mac nut & when I showed him the compiz effects (especically the cube) and he freaked.
there are small things here and there that are ver general, but if MS goes t route, IMB and other supports of Linux, have just as many patentes that they could counter sue MS on and it will be a whole mess back and forth.
I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think all that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds of effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a
second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..
I have all the theming/etc shut off on xp and it runs much quicker.. I don't need the fisher price ui to help me :)
Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:48 am
They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tric and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't anything other then support :)
Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.
Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.
Not to mention they like to make their own standards and fuck up everything else. One reason why i haven't baught a copy of Windows since '95 came
with my computer in the early 90's. :)
Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a
I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer", except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..
I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer" except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..
That's exactly what it is...
Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a authorized windows developers...now would you think that they all might be i league (or actually doing it themselves) with the assholes that write spywar viruses...
More money in their pockets...
They probably do, at least i remember thats how McAfee started was by
making DOS viruses back in the day, then releasing them..
Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:36:00
Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..
One thing I'm doing these days is running 7 as a host OS, then using virtual with ubuntu koala as a guest VM in integrated mode, if you've got a decent system compiz cube works just a smoothly: http://art.csoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/theultimatecombo.jpg
I haven't messed with Linux in a while, but I've considered running it in a virtual machine rather than giving it its own partition, since I mainly use Windows. It seems like that might be a more convenient way to use Linux when I
want/need to.
One thing to note is that virtualbox now supports D3D on windows guests, so you still prefer to run Linux hosts, Windows 3D performance in guests are greatly improved these days.
I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...
I've been running my BBS in a VM for over a year now. The reason is that been using a 64-bit OS as my main OS, and many BBS doors (being 16-bit DOS apps) aren't supported in 64-bit versions of Windows anymore. So I
How is Parallels? I've not got any Apple hardware these days but a few peopl know are using Parallels as their VM solution.
I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...
Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
---|---|
Location: | Shelby, NC |
Users: | 749 |
Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
Uptime: | 60:38:29 |
Calls: | 10,860 |
Files: | 5,288 |
D/L today: |
2 files (0K bytes) |
Messages: | 510,128 |