Igor Furlan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 10:50 AM, Tim Roberts <t...@probo.com> wrote: >> One of the advantages of libusb is that it crosses platforms. Why don't you >> run your code on Windows? > Yes I could,,, but I wrote already few other utilities on LINUX > (mostly GPIB related). I would like to continue on Linux. On top of > that, licensing is free, no virues, upgrading linux require just a > recompile of my utilities, stability, reliability, abundance of > programming/scripting tools so, the users can use my utilities > within any programming environment they are comfortable with. Like > octave, shells,c, C++, Ruby, Perl, Pascal adn as a command line.
OK, but you are intentionally overlooking the very important point that YOUR USERS ARE ALREADY RUNNING WINDOWS. You said this yourself. They already have licenses. They already have virus checkers. They already know how to launch programs and interact. They do not know Octave, bash, Ruby, Perl, or Pascal. You are asking them to run an additional rather intrusive tool (VirtualBox) so they can run an entirely unfamiliar environment just so you can feel religiously pure in your development. Your upgrade argument is also silly. An upgrade of Windows doesn't require ANY recompiling of your tools and utilities. The old binaries just keep on working. Microsoft has spent a vast fortune to ensure that the Fortune 100 companies don't have to do any work on their line-of-business tools to slip in an operating system upgrade. Linux developers, on the other hand, tend to favor purity over compatibility. > Working remotely is a plus... etc .. Stuff I wrote in 2002/03 in > my former company is still in use today, 12 years later. It was > written for RedHat 8 2012 and just recompiled on CentOS 6. You're just making stuff up that doesn't have any basis in fact. The Windows remote access tools are just as good or better than the remote access tools on Linux. I'm still running Windows tools that I wrote and last compiled in 1995. Now that I'm running a 64-bit Windows, my 25-year-old 16-bit tools no longer run, but I've known that was coming for 10 years. It's interesting that you tried to use backwards compatibility as an argument. As a driver writer, I know that Windows has the best backwards compatibility behavior of ANY of the major operating systems. The video capture driver BINARIES that I wrote for Windows 98SE way back in the 20th Century still run in Windows 8. With a Linux kernel driver, you often don't even get SOURCE compatibility between version x.y.z and x.y.z+1. -- Tim Roberts, t...@probo.com Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft _______________________________________________ libusbx-devel mailing list libusbx-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libusbx-devel
