Microsoft

Heh, I know I'm gonna get hit hard by flames for posting this but the irony amazes me so here I go anyway: It still makes me laugh when I see people in a visual basic forum flaming the company that made the program they makes their apps with and program in everyday. I mean you love Visual Basic and yet condemn the company that created it. LOL, I know they have a monopoly and are greedy but think about it... what if unix/linux/sun catches up in the amount of users. Say windows users went from 85% to 35%. Then your apps will only work on 35% of the computers out there. In a way the monopoly helps us all out :) Cmon... let me have it *ducks and waits for the flames to pour in* :D

-zer0 flaw

VB sucks, long live C++.

The ideal situation would be for everything to be OS independent...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by denniswrenn
VB sucks, long live C++.

---

Traitor! :mad: :rolleyes: :D

Then the ideal situation would be to use C++.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by denniswrenn
Then the ideal situation would be to use C++.

---

VB is a RAD tool, C++ is good but not perfect for everything and everyone

Wow... that didn't take long for you guys to respond =] Yeah, C++ is nice but VB is a lot faster

what? What? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?



:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

Exactly oposite:

vb is nice but C++ is faster

:)

YA nice place to be saying that DennisWrenn. At least in VB you can make a @#$% message box in less than a hundred lines....

Well Microsoft makes great software, and there marketing strategy is...well...unstoppable. The other side to things is that programmers HAVE to write software that is compatible with there OSes cause they own the largest market share. After that it only makes sense to use there software to write those programs, cause they know there own damn OS better than anybosy else. The point is that they are slowly taking over the small amount of market share that they havnt already touched...and at this rate soon software will be the same as saying Microsoft. And then prices will be...well...up to them. You see the obious problem with the monopoly here.

Dont get me wrong there are a lot of good things about the monopoly such as the fact that if i write something in VB, i know that the vast majority of computer users will also be able to use it. Its a double-edged sword...

MessageBox(NULL, "Text", "Caption", MB_OK);


Let's count, shall we? 1...

Uhh zero...VB is an interpreted language, C++ isnt...so its IMPOSSIBLE for VB to be faster. C++ is WAY faster...thats why APIs are faster tahn using VB code...cause they were written in C++. But of course...VB still Rulz!:D

Well, Zer0, it's not really like that. Most Visual Basic programmers write software for their own companies (or corporate clients). For example, I work for CIBC. We use Windows, so I don't lose anything. In fact, I sometimes write apps for our department to assist in development itself. VB is usually not good enough for professional retail software.

Additionally, should a company decide to switch platforms, most professional programmers have no problem learning new languages and technologies, and therefore are unafected by the change. Another thing, now with JAVA and VBNET, this is even less of a problem as these technologies work cross-platform. So you see, the way I look at it, if Microsoft goes down, fine. I know and can learn other languages. I'll adapt. I even interviewed with a company that was looking for programmers who would be constantly using new technologies and would have to learn them on the fly.

Basically, Microsoft programs are @#$% and in fact Windows is just something they bought (they did NOT come up with that). They are sloppy and can afford to do so, as they have no real competition. I am doing VB now, but who knows what I'll be doing in a year or 2. I know C and UNIX, I have an understanding of PERL, PHP, and C++. And I am learning JAVA.

ya ok so i know jack about C++...but you know that for just about anything VB can be written faster and with WAY less lines.

I've seen Hello world programs in C++...WAAAAy too long

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
Uhh zero...VB is an interpreted language, C++ isnt...so its IMPOSSIBLE for VB to be faster. C++ is WAY faster...thats why APIs are faster tahn using VB code...cause they were written in C++. But of course...VB still Rulz!:D

---

Huh? I was refering to the number of lines needed to make a message box....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
Uhh zero...VB is an interpreted language, C++ isnt...so its IMPOSSIBLE for VB to be faster. C++ is WAY faster...thats why APIs are faster tahn using VB code...cause they were written in C++. But of course...VB still Rulz!:D

---

I dont know if anyone realizes this, but the VB compiler actually converts the code to C++ first. Now, this is probably a bad thing, and I don't think it's by accident that VB does not let you see that C++ code. It is probably the ugliest thing ever. VB is structured differently, and that structure is slower.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by jpbtennisman
I've seen Hello world programs in C++...WAAAAy too long

---

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using std::cout; using std::endl;
int main()
{
cout << "Hello World" << endl;
return(0);
}

---

Wow, that is too long...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
ya ok so i know jack about C++...but you know that for just about anything VB can be written faster and with WAY less lines.

---

Right, but it is much less powerful, and not designed for retail apps.

But Spetnik, as a programmer you must be able to appreciate the standardization that Microsoft has brought. If you write a program in VB, just about any User can use that program because Windows is used the the vast majority of computer users. If Microsoft wasnt there, there would be no windows. And since Unix never quite had a standard version, there may not have been 1 big OS...so programmers wouldnt be able to program for as large a share of the market.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
But Spetnik, as a programmer you must be able to appreciate the standardization that Microsoft has brought. If you write a program in VB, just about any User can use that program because Windows is used the the vast majority of computer users. If Microsoft wasnt there, there would be no windows. And since Unix never quite had a standard version, there may not have been 1 big OS...so programmers wouldnt be able to program for as large a share of the market.

---

Most UNIX apps run on most versions of UNIX. Yeah, Windows is nice, but without MS, there would be competition and quality systems. There would also be standardization. In fact, I'll bet that had there not been Microsoft, we would have seen CLRs (Common Language Runtime) alot sooner. The only reason Microsoft is introducing the CLR with .NET is because they already see their monopoly starting to falter. Bill Gates may suck at programming, but he is a business genius (and therefore an @$$hole).

Uhh pardon my ignorance Spetnik...but what indication is there htat Microsoft's monopoly is faltering? I mean they won there appeal and they wont be broken up anymore...whos going to stop them now?

I will MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA™ http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2001/07/1.gif

Well, with LINUX/UNIX becoming more popular, there are many companies that have/are switched/switching over. This, along with the advent of JAVA has forced MS to try to monopolize the CLR technology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by denniswrenn
I will MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA™ http://www.vbforums.com/images/ieimages/2001/07/1.gif

---

That should be the new emoticon.

Nowadays VB is almost 100% compiled (almost), very little is interpreted in the later versions. The fact remains, though, that it is slower than most languages.

The fact is, VB is a RAD tool. It's for quick and dirty apps that probably aren't mission-critical, or it's for programmers who are uncomfortable with the greater challenges of more complex languages. VB is very good at what it does, on the Windows platform. There are alternatives that offer similar facilities, like Java, Delphi and Python, although they all have their own positions in the market.

VB is a good idea, but it's nothing fantastic. If VB wasn't around, it wouldn't mean all the people here at VB-World wouldn't be programmers any more, they'd be using other tools instead. Personally I hardly use VB any more, I've moved on to other things like C++ and Python, since my interests lie more with performance-critical apps and platform-independent web-based programs.

Microsoft has brought standards, that much is true, but they are enforced, closed standards. They aren't good standards. Microsoft designs the standards to support their own corporate needs, not those of its consumers and the development community as a whole. We as developers would be much better off with open standards that everyone agrees on and everyone contributes to.

I doubt their market share is growing, although I wouldn't bet on it. Linux is making a lot of headway at the moment, and so is a heck of a lot of other open-source stuff. The open-source movement is doing very well.

Lol the fact is that they made standards. Without them, and Bill Gates genius (ya i know hes a filthy rich greedy bastard, and yeah i know im jealous) i dont think there would have been any standards. Everyone would never have agreed to one set of standards to the extent that they have with Microsofts standards. Of course, since they stand to make a buck, those standards arent always the best

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
Lol the fact is that they made standards. Without them, and Bill Gates genius (ya i know hes a filthy rich greedy bastard, and yeah i know im jealous) i dont think there would have been any standards. Everyone would never have agreed to one set of standards to the extent that they have with Microsofts standards. Of course, since they stand to make a buck, those standards arent always the best

---

Apparently, u don't know C or C++. If you want standard, I have one word for you: ANSI. C and C++ have been standardized over different companies and platforms via ANSI. And besides, how, may I ask is VB standard? Even Microsoft barely uses it for end-user apps :rolleyes:.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by denniswrenn

Code:

---

#include <iostream>
using std::cout; using std::endl;
int main()
{
cout << "Hello World" << endl;
return(0);
}

---

Wow, that is too long...

---

Yep, and the same thing in VB is like 40 lines (and that's jsut to initialize the console :rolleyes:

ya but theres like no point of using a dos window in VB

it's not a DOS window, it's a console window..... :rolleyes:

lol like i said i know jack about C++

But it's not C++.... DOS is what ya boot into when you need to fix something with Windows(or install windows, or something)... Console is a DOS-Like application that runs under Win32...

Oh no. i committed the sin of calling it a dos window!! Noo im doomed to hell!! lol sorry. It looks like a dos window. You know all black and all. Sorry if your console window looks like a DOS window...

Please, don't do that. If you knew the difference between DOS and Console already, and just made a mistake, I'm sorry, but if you are referencing something and perhaps giving false information about it, well that's not so good...

There are widely used open standards all around the industry, like ASCII, OpenGL, Jpeg, Mpeg, C++, SQL, etc. If you think people can't agree on standards without one single business forcing one on them, you're wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


Apparently, u don't know C or C++. If you want standard, I have one word for you: ANSI. C and C++ have been standardized over different companies and platforms via ANSI. And besides, how, may I ask is VB standard? Even Microsoft barely uses it for end-user apps :rolleyes:.

---

Well what i meant is that Microsoft made a platform that every programmer can program for, highly regardless of programming language. Through there marketing strategy, they have basically forced people to use there software. But in the process they have made a base upon which every programmer can build. Unix and the other OSes around were never standardized to the level to which Windows was.

Well that's the one arguement I always object to nishantp.
MS has never FORCED anyone to use any of their products. Yes they were forced onto my harddrive, but nothing has ever made me use it. Like Media Player. It may be on my harddrive, but do I have to use it for MP3's. Heck no. Nothing stopped me from downloading Winamp.

One thing that Ms bashers do not realize is that because of MS, we are where we are today. They are always the first implement new technologies. If they hadnt, many of these would probably still be dead in the water going no where. For isntance XML. And now everyone is implementing XML capabilites and is becoming widely used.

And speaking of standards. Have you guys ever heared some of these people spouting off 'how dare MS remove the Java standard form Windows!' What I want to know is, since when was Sun a governing standards body? And they accuse MS of making its own standards.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp


Well what i meant is that Microsoft made a platform that every programmer can program for, highly regardless of programming language. Through there marketing strategy, they have basically forced people to use there software. But in the process they have made a base upon which every programmer can build. Unix and the other OSes around were never standardized to the level to which Windows was.

---

Once again, WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!

There are many areas of UNIX/LINUX programming to go into, whether it be C, C++, JAVA, COBOL, BASIC (including visual editions), and more. UNIX has highly powerful shell scripting languages too, that are far-superior than anything MS has even attempted. In fact until recently, MS used UNIX themselves. There are an enourmous emount of computer programming positions out there. In fact if you go to http://www.computerjobs.com, you will see that for Windows Development they have 3,585 jobs, and for Unix 3,588. I was trained on a UNIX platform and am very greatful for that. UNIX is a much more sofisticated, yet simple to understand OS that belittles Windows. Windows is just a nice front-end for dumb end-users (not meaning to criticize users, but lets face it. Most home users know very little about computers in general and the Windows desktop, however buggy, is right now their best option). UNIX can be customized on a business level to run seamlessly and efficiently. You can have 200 dumb-terminals attached to one machine, thereby saving alot of overhead cost.

I was once at Lambert airport in St. Louis, by the curbside check-in. I noticed that the touch-screen computers were running Win 3.1 software. I told a SKYCAP ('porter' for u dumb brits and aussies:D), "I bet I can get a card game up on your screen". He was kind of surprised, but let me go ahead. By double-tabbing the title-bar, I restored the maximized window and brought up the task-manager. I brought up the 'open' dialog box, browsed for solitaire, and there it was on the screen. Now, this may not be the best example (but it is a great story), but it demonstrates one thing. In an business environment, where the user is meant to be doin one task (or set of tasks) only, it is a big waste to give each user their own pc and OS. Besides cost, it also can be a security problem. With UNIX, a user can have an inexpensive dummy terminal, and the only whing running on his screen is his application (menu interface or whatnot). He cannot exit, he cannot reboot. There is no way for him to screw up (unless the programmer did already).

Ok, I gotta get back to VB programming, but I hope I showed you some things you did not realize about other OS's and the computer market.:)

And dont forget Delphi spetnik. A Vb like language you can do cross platform programming with as quickly as writting in VB. I am learning that now so I can move into more Linux programming incase my current job was to ever fall through I would have another option.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Well that's the one arguement I always object to nishantp.
MS has never FORCED anyone to use any of their products. Yes they were forced onto my harddrive, but nothing has ever made me use it. Like Media Player. It may be on my harddrive, but do I have to use it for MP3's. Heck no. Nothing stopped me from downloading Winamp.

One thing that Ms bashers do not realize is that because of MS, we are where we are today. They are always the first implement new technologies. If they hadnt, many of these would probably still be dead in the water going no where. For isntance XML. And now everyone is implementing XML capabilites and is becoming widely used.

And speaking of standards. Have you guys ever heared some of these people spouting off 'how dare MS remove the Java standard form Windows!' What I want to know is, since when was Sun a governing standards body? And they accuse MS of making its own standards.

---

I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I must object. Microsoft forced users by wiping out competition. Why would users use other software, if everyone is using MS? Microsoft also slowed development with their monoply. Since they planted themselves firmly with Windows 95, what have they really accomplished? Not much? Since everyone switched to it, they slowed down. Remember back with DOS and early verisons of windows? There were new products coming out all the time. Dos went through versions faster than Italy goes through governments. More products emerged than Bill Clinton can lie in 10 minutes. Now, I'm not saying they havent done anything, that would be wrong. But I am saying that due to their monopoly Bill Gates has taken so much vacation and spent so much time building his new house and entertainment system, that he forgot where he could find a decent barber.

But seriously, once they had the world in its grasp with Windows 95, Microsoft slowed down. Only recently, has the rush started up again, and that's because of new competition arrising. If not for the lack of competition, we would be alot further. Instead of spending time making cool animated toolbar buttons, MS and its competitiors would have been fighting to come up with decent industry standards. We would have had an XML equivelent years ago (I think we did, it's called INI:D:p), and cross-platform development would be standard.

Quote:

---

Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.:)

---

I cant argue with that but..
It was not just MS alone. It was the Home PC market which demanded an easy to use OS. The other options for this was so small that had it not been for MS the home
Pc market may have died out. This in turn caused everyone, mostly MS, to focus on the home user and ignore the improvement of tehcnology.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
I cant argue with that but..
It was not just MS alone. It was the Home PC market which demanded an easy to use OS. The other options for this was so small that had it not been for MS the home
Pc market may have died out. This in turn caused everyone, mostly MS, to focus on the home user and ignore the improvement of tehcnology.

---

WHAT?!?!?!?!?

I'm sorry, but the home PC market (or any market for that matter) won't die out because there is no vendor for it. If Microsoft wasn't around, Linux wouldn't have taken so long to become popular, because there would have been a demand for it. Whenever there is a demand, there is money to be made, and people will try to satisfy that demand. Without the demand, MS would have never been able to do what they did. The difference between MS and its competitors is that Bill Gates is a business genius. It's not the quality of the software, but rather how it is marketed. With his business knowledge (and by bundling packages), he was able to convince people that his product was better when in fact it is no better than the next thing out there. Without MS, Linux and other OS's would have matured much faster, thereby introducing cross-platform tehchnologies years ago.

WEll i know that Unix is way more efficient than Windows in pretty much every way. Much better organized. First of all the guy who programmed the software you hacked at the airport(:D nice job!!) was a moron. It IS possible to write foll proof software for simple applications for Windows, having done so myself (not sure about win 3.1). I realize that in that situation Unix may have been a better option, but you shoudn't judge Windows based on some stupid programmers. The fact remains inspite of Windows failing and its inherent instability that it was something the general public could use easily. Most of us are programmers and thus we have much more knowledge of computers and software than the average user. With that in mind, Bill Gates made his software look good and easy to use which attracted more users. Not only did he meet that demand that was there but he created more by demontrating how easily people could use computers. At a time when people thought that computers were complicated and for pros only, he demontrated otherwise. Igf he hadnt, perhaps someone else eventually would have, but he thought of it first, and now were stuck with him whether we like it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


I don't want to get off on a rant here, but I must object. Microsoft forced users by wiping out competition. Why would users use other software, if everyone is using MS?

---

Exactly!! In the end Microsoft is in it to make a buck (aside from Gates's plans of world domination). If you want to survive in the business world, you have to crush your competition if you have the chance. It just so happens that Gates found and made opportunities to do that a lot more than most (anyone). Its true that that probably slowed development, but they had by far the best business strategy of any of there competitors, so they succeeded. Any they arent going anywhere in the near future so we might as well get used to them.

What i meant when i said they forced people to use there software if that well they make it hard not to. Sure you can use Winamp instead of Media PLayer. But that doesnt mean anything to them. Your still doing it on Microsoft Windows. If you decide not to use that, where are you going to go? Software for other platforms isnt nearly as vast as it is for Windows. In this way, they force (ok...coax) people into using there software.

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out

You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nishantp
[BMost of us are programmers and thus we have much more knowledge of computers and software than the average user. [/B]

---

I DO NOT think that most users are gurus as can plainly be seen above:rolleyes: Bill Gates knew that!! Thats why he made his software look user-friendly on the outside even though it was a mess on the inside. This strategy is waht kept Linux (among others) from generating any significant interest. The only reason that its gaining momentum now is because with releases such as Win98, which is a mess with too many small features that make it very unstable, people are starting to realize that Microsoft software may not be hte only user friendly software out there. Also, there strategy somwhat fell apart because they added so many features to make it look all nice and beautifil without a stable base that the cracks are starting to form even on the top (crashes are MUCH for frequent, etc.) But it will take years if not decades for there to be any significant change in their market share.

The only reason their market share isn't falling (much?) is because the market is still growing, and almost all the new users start out with Windows whatever's-out-now whether they like it or not. It comes with the system.

How many Linux users move over to Windows do ya think?

How many Windows users move over to Linux?

Same question goes for Windows and any other OS.

While the market is still growing Microsoft will appear to be doing well because they have the newbies fooled. That may not last.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
You seem to think that the Home PC market is only computer gurus. You are wrong. And there is no excuse that Linux could never have become easy to use for the home user. The MS anti-competetive arguement does not hold water in that respect. No one ever stopped Linux from being improved all those years. You can spout off MS did this, MS did that, but the pure fact is that there is no excuse for Linux to not improve. Its a cop-out plain and simple.

---

once again u are wrong. Linux was being developed by amateurs, for free. why? because of the ms monopoly, there was no market for anything else! everyone was using windows! the only way to market linux was to offer it for free. it was extremely hard. luckily, it started to catch on. it opened peoples eyes to the possibilty of an OS that does not crash twice aday and does not swallow resources. Now, it is at a stage where it is starting to shape up. very soon, there will be desktop versions out that are as easy to use as windows. There are even major games and other apps for linux onthe market now. It is slowly building. The reason they could not do this until now was that there was no money in it. Nobody was paying them. Technology is not a magical thing that just appears. Like any industry, there must be demand. Without that demand, nobody wanted to pay for linux. by doingg what they did, they slowly introduced a demand, forcing MS to start improving (well, whatever).

AT&T in the 80's had a monopoly on phone companies (until the govnm't broke em up). Remeber that period? No extra features, all plans were horrible. The technology for caller ID and call-waiting and 3-way was out there, but AT&T didnt offer it because they didnt have to. Only now, with a bunch of smaller companies regualted by the FCC, we are constantly getting new plans, better service, and advanced features. It is no different than MS. With competition, u improve. Without it, u dont feel a need to, so u dont. :rolleyes:

Well generally you dont have many if any linux to Windows. :P But there are plenty that use both like me. You use what is appropriate. Because of my job I use Windows to program becuase what the user base of my programs is on. For games I use Windows for obvious reason. But that will eventually change if the continue porting great games to Linux. And finally I use Linux and Windows for hobby programming. I dont just throw out a OS or blindly follow another becuase I was told to by Bill Gates, Anti-MS media, or Department of Justice.

I use what I want to use when I want to

Quote:

---

once again u are wrong. Linux was being developed by amateurs, for free. why? because of the ms monopoly, there was no market for anything else! everyone was using windows! the only way to market linux was to offer it for free. it was extremely hard. luckily, it started to catch on. it opened peoples eyes to the possibilty of an OS that does not crash twice aday and does not swallow resources. Now, it is at a stage where it is starting to shape up. very soon, there will be desktop versions out that are as easy to use as windows. There are even major games and other apps for linux onthe market now. It is slowly building. The reason they could not do this until now was that there was no money in it. Nobody was paying them. Technology is not a magical thing that just appears. Like any industry, there must be demand. Without that demand, nobody wanted to pay for linux. by doingg what they did, they slowly introduced a demand, forcing MS to start improving (well, whatever).

---

again you are going off in another direction. Demand is a moot point here. the fact is Linux was NOT a viable option versus windows for any average home user. Although it is closeer these days with the Gnome and KDE desktops, it is STILL not a viable option. I do admit that Linux is getting there. It needs a couple more years and MS being forced to ease up on what it does.

Also spetnik no offense but you need to get your linux history facts straight., That is not why Linux is free. It is free because it is based on Unix code which was forced by the government to be free open source when it was deemed that it would create a monopoly many years ago. Go figure..:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Demand is a moot point here. the fact is Linux was NOT a viable option versus windows for any average home user.

---

But the reason it was not good is because there was no demand for it. Because there was no demand, there was not much moneyt in it, and investors were unwilling to throw money into it. Now, without money, not many programmers are willing to do the job.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cander
Also spetnik no offense but you need to get your linux history facts straight., That is not why Linux is free. It is free because it is based on Unix code which was forced by the government to be free open source when it was deemed that it would create a monopoly many years ago. Go figure..:rolleyes:

---

u may be right. but so what? If not for being free, there would have been no way to license it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


But the reason it was not good is because there was no demand for it. Because there was no demand, there was not much moneyt in it, and investors were unwilling to throw money into it. Now, without money, not many programmers are willing to do the job.

---

Linux is also still too difficult for the home user to use. Whenever you hear "edit your configuration file" or "recompile your kernel", it would scare you away. While Linux has been getting easier, Windows is, unfortuntately :rolleyes:, still the better OS.

And MacOS X still kicks ***. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by filburt1


Linux is also still too difficult for the home user to use. Whenever you hear "edit your configuration file" or "recompile your kernel", it would scare you away. While Linux has been getting easier, Windows is, unfortuntately :rolleyes:, still the better OS.

And MacOS X still kicks ***. :)

---

yes, :(, unfortunately, you are right. But they say it will not be long until there is a LINUX shell that's great for the home user.
"And on that day LINUX will shall be one, and it's name shall be one" :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by spetnik


yes, :(, unfortunately, you are right. But they say it will not be long until there is a LINUX shell that's great for the home user.
"And on that day LINUX will shall be one, and it's name shall be one" :D

---

Free is good, open source idea is good, but it still leads to lack of official support from a company, and difficulty. I hate to have to support Microsoft (I read your signature, spetnik), but their support actually isn't that bad, and since *cough* everybody *cough* :) pays for their products, they are also buying support. And the GNU licence does not guarantee support. :(

Also, I really doubt that the majority of open source users actually seriously read the source and try to add features or fix bugs.

well, im talking about companies like RedHat which will support a licensed version.

But then it's not free. And usability is no different from Mandrake or other distributions.