Linux-Advocacy Digest #917, Volume #28 Tue, 5 Sep 00 08:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: Computer and memory ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christophe Ochal")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:30:50 +0200
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
%lEs5.31994$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > I'm not implying _ALL_ (or most, for that matter) of the Americans are
> > stupid, I'm implying they're being willingly ignorant of the state of
> > the world address.
>
> Who said they're being ignorant. Many Americans are well aware of the
> BT plight and are indifferent because, as I said in another post, you've
> dug your own hole and now you're angry at us because we've got a better
> situation. Grass is greener, I suppose.
Ask yourself *WHY* you have a "better situation" first
> Ignorance and indifference are two seperate things. We're not about
> to grind to a halt and wait for you to catch up to late-20th century
> level technology just so you don't think we have "attitudes" anymore.
And what technology do you have that we don't have?
> > You know, there's an ancient Japanese proverb that
> > says,
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Spare me the "grasshopper" stuff. You're no more my Sensai than
> Bill Clinton is.
Ah, you're a republican? Why am i not suprised
> > Think about it for a moment, Chad. Do you happen to sense a shade of
> > wisdom in it? Could you apply a tiny fragment of it to your statement?
>
> So you want us to give you fishing poles? You want us to give you hand
> outs?
>
> You Brits seem so high and mighty on your civility, culture and
> fortitude, how come you haven't mangaged to work yourself out of this
> situation. Well, when it comes to facism, we'll gladly help you out,
> but when it comes to money, it's a different ball-game.
LOL, sorry there buddy, but do you really think it's that simple?
> Your telco situation is your own problem, not ours.
Then how come this is not just in the UK a problem?
> > >Look, I can understand if you're sore because you got left in
> > >the 20th century, but don't try to blame it on us.
> >
> > I didn't get left anywhere I wouldn't want to stay, I'm not
> > complaining about my situation anyway - the ban on exporting software
> > that used strong cryptography had long before been lifted for my
> > country. Besides, the mere assumption of everything non-American being
> > plain obsoleted 20th century crap tells us all a great deal about your
> > attitude, so I doubt that bothering myself any further would be in
> > place.
>
> Would you guys please stick to one topic-line. You have about 3
> issues going on in this one post and you keep chastizing me for talking
> about the others when you youself are doing it.
>
> Nigel made two points:
> - That America was somehow descriminating against the rest of the world
> by having a strong economy and good RAM prices and by having 50MB
> downloads that somehow exclude our telco-challenged friends across the
> pond
Now now, ask yourself the following question, *WHY* do you have good prices?
Can you awnser that? Oh, btw, i know places where ram is ALOT more cheaper
then 1$/mb
> - The America is descriminating by not allowing strong encryption
exporting.
Or usage of strong encrypting by it's own people
> I've already addressed the first hogwash point, now onto the second.
>
> They've lifted some of the restrictions but again, the fact that Britian
> has lifted their restrictions doesn't really mean diddly because they
> don't have much to protect. The Software industry in the U.K. is slow
> at best, stifled at worse (see BT plight as a related effect).
There's hardly any software coming from the states i'd pay a dime for anyway
> Lifting the restriction in the US means a whole lot more because we
> have many softwares that serve much more critical purposes and could be
> used in very bad ways. Of course you know this already, I'm explaining
> the obvious, right? Appearently not as you have brought up this dicussion.
You guys are really paranoide, are you?
> Besides, what are you all waiting on America for software for. Why
> don't you get things going and right your own and tell us to bugger off.
> It's certainly better than you sitting here bitching and moaning about
> how the world isn't fair.
Hmm... Linux was born in Europe, QNX is in Canada, BeOS was also in Europe
iirc, the only thing big you guys had is M$, and i don't care about that
monopolistic company (as for apps, if the other OS's had a bigger market
share, they'd be ported)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:36:12 +0200
abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8ova36$1ku7$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ignorance and indifference are two seperate things. We're not about
> > to grind to a halt and wait for you to catch up to late-20th century
> > level technology just so you don't think we have "attitudes" anymore.
> >
>
> Again, chad speaks out of his as, see previous post.
I asume that's ass?
> >> You know, there's an ancient Japanese proverb that
> >> says,
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Spare me the "grasshopper" stuff. You're no more my Sensai than
> > Bill Clinton is.
> >
>
> He cant even spell 'sensei' correctly. Chad is an idiot of grand
proportions.
LOL, Chad no baka
> >> Think about it for a moment, Chad. Do you happen to sense a shade of
> >> wisdom in it? Could you apply a tiny fragment of it to your statement?
> >
> > So you want us to give you fishing poles? You want us to give you hand
> > outs?
> >
>
> I would suggest not arguing with chad. His brain is very, very small and
> barely has enough resources to keep him breathing.
He's running windowsCE on that 16bits proccesor? <Grin>
> > You Brits seem so high and mighty on your civility, culture and
> > fortitude, how come you haven't mangaged to work yourself out of this
> > situation.
>
> I think I remember this line from "A Fish Called Wanda". Kevin Kline was
> witty and enjoyable. Chad is a moron.
Chad was the fish
> > Well, when it comes to facism, we'll gladly help you out,
> > but when it comes to money, it's a different ball-game.
> >
>
> Note that chad utterly believes that he speaks for the entire united
states.
We have a nut just like that in c.s.a.a.
> > Your telco situation is your own problem, not ours.
> >
>
> Chad does not understand your telco situation; yet he speaks as though
> he does.
He's a politican then?
> > Would you guys please stick to one topic-line.
>
> This from a foolish lout who annoyed comp.os.linux.advocacy for 10 months
> with off-topic FUD.
I *knew* i saw this name before!
> > You have about 3
> > issues going on in this one post and you keep chastizing me for talking
> > about the others when you youself are doing it.
> >
>
> Chad doesnt know what hes talking about. Chad is an idiot.
>
> > Nigel made two points:
> > - That America was somehow descriminating against the rest of the world
> > by having a strong economy and good RAM prices and by having 50MB
> > downloads that somehow exclude our telco-challenged friends across the
> > pond
> >
>
> Nigel, of course, made no such claim--either outright or insinuated. Chad
> is making things up again.
Definatly sounds like SG
> > - The America is descriminating by not allowing strong encryption
exporting.
> >
>
> Nigel, of course, made no such claim--either outright or insinuated. Chad
> is making things up again.
>
> > I've already addressed the first hogwash point, now onto the second.
> >
> > They've lifted some of the restrictions but again, the fact that Britian
> > has lifted their restrictions doesn't really mean diddly because they
> > don't have much to protect. The Software industry in the U.K. is slow
> > at best, stifled at worse (see BT plight as a related effect).
> >
>
> Actually, Britian is in a much better situation re: encryption technology.
> Chad would understand this if chad had half a brain. Since chad has
nearly
> no brain at all, chad does not understand this.
ROFL
> > Lifting the restriction in the US means a whole lot more because we
> > have many softwares that serve much more critical purposes and could be
> > used in very bad ways.
>
> I suspect that not even chad understood what he meant by that sentence.
Hey, maybe he don't want us to play solitaire
> > Of course you know this already, I'm explaining
> > the obvious, right? Appearently not as you have brought up this
dicussion.
> >
>
> Apparantly he has problems spelling things other than 'sensei'.
>
> > Besides, what are you all waiting on America for software for.
>
> I think chads point may well lie behind that preposition.
He should move over to Bill Gates place, i heard he ran out of asslickers
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:42:21 +0200
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
KRWs5.32665$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erm, no, actually. It was intended to target American behaviour as far
> > as sharing their knowledge with others is concerned.
>
> Ah... so that's what this is about? The intellectual fiber in Britian has
> declined to the point that you need to get all your information from us?
gimme a break, most Europeans speak 3 to 4 languages, how many Americans can
say that?
As for information, all information gathered in univercities is shared with
the rest of the world, the only thing not shared freely is intelectual
property
> What exactly should we share with you? This is business. There are no
> hand-outs in business.
...
> Give me a break.
<crack>
> > >The problem in the UK is that too many people are fearful of
> > >self-reliance and so insist on socialism, which is VERY wasteful
> > >of natinoal resources.
> >
> > I wouldn't know about UK's problems, as I don't live there, but like I
> > explained in my next post, my claim has not to do with self-reliance,
> > rather than with the fact one can't build a car if they don't know how
> > to produce steel. That's the sort of problem I'm talking about here.
>
> So then it's America's fault that UK can't produce it's on steel
(metaphorically
> speaking)? America got the edge and surpassed the world in technology and
Arrogance again?
> now all the poor, disparaged countries (modern, western countries I might
add)
> were left in the dirt with only their arrogance and presumptousness in
their
Here, have a mirror
> hands, so now we have to ante up and divulge all the technology we've
spent
> billions researching and developing?
How much of your technology is actually manufactured in the States, and not
in Taiwan?
> Again, I'll be requiring another break from this moronic idea.
You really should look in the mirror
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:45:25 +0200
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
7UWs5.32666$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Grega Bremec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > ...and [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
> > >"Give a man a fish and you have fed him for a day; but, teach a man how
to
> > >fish and you have fed him for life."
> > >
> >
> > That's the one allright. I'm sorry about my error, seems it's been a
> > while since I last heard the original...
> >
> > Gosh, I feel quite embarrased over it.
>
> The operative phrase would probably be:
>
> "Do something better than the brits and they suddenly expect you to
> divulge all your secrets so they can make some money too".
This has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion going on, you idiot
> How come it's always America helping out the Brits. What's the UK ever
> done for us but give us some mohawked punk bands?
Queen a "mohawked punk band"? Do you prefer Five?
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 10:48:11 +0200
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> abraxas wrote:
> >
> > In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > Perhaps you should be writing your government then.
> > >
> > > It's not America's fault your country(ies) are behind
> > > in technology.
> > >
> >
> > There goes chad again, talking out of his ass. This actually has
nothing
> > to do with being 'behind in technology', it has to do with there being
no
> > one common communications tariff methodology.
> >
> > To all: Chad actually knows next to nothing about computers, and
exactly
> > nothing about the way countries other than the united states work. Hes
> > probably best ignored.
>
> Wrong. Britain COULD have just as vibrant a memory-production industry
> as the US....IF THEY DESIRED to do so.
>
> It's not as if beach sand and photo-lithography and molecular beam
> epitaxy only work on the US mainland.
>
> Hell, TAIWAN has a bigger chip-making industry than Britain, and they
> didn't have ***ANY*** capacity 15 years ago.
Why do you think this is, do you know what the people there are payed by the
month? And do you know who their biggest customers are? Do you even know
*why* these are "low wages" countries?
There's no way the UK can compete with these
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:22:58 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >
> > >> >If it is true that Apple is not factoring the OS cost into the
overall
> price
> > >> >of the computer, then Apple must changed their actions in that
> reguard.
> > >>
> > >> I'm not sure what you mean by "factoring in the cost". To me, the
> > >> concept of "factoring in" means it isn't a direct cost to speak of.
> > >
> > >Max, do you have any education as an accountant? If so refresh youself
> on
> > >cost and managerial accounting you will see what I was referring to.
> This
> > >do not mean that as an insult or to chastise you, just a pointer to a
> better
> > >and more detailed treatment than can be provided here.
> >
> > I'm afraid I've got no formal education as an accountant; just a drop of
> > experience with some small-office book-keeping.
> >
> > >All the same, here goes with a very simplified example to explain the
use
> of
> > >the term to "factor in the cost":
> >
> > [...]
> > >Combing the per unit cost and the per unit target profit we get the
> > >$1,150.00/computer price.tag. The invoice would only list the
computer's
> > >price and the prorated cost of $20.00 for OS that was factored in.
> > >
> > >P.S. The quantites and monetary figures here are for example only and
> not
> > >to be considered as typical.
> >
> > Yes, that is what I figured you meant by "factored in". To be honest,
> > to me, as a consumer, that's entirely meaningless. I don't pay
> > percentages of my dollars to different parts of a company for the
> > different contributions they made, regardless of how they do their
> > accounting. I pay one price to purchase one thing from one company.
> > Where the money goes from there is not my concern, really.
> >
> > With PC OSes, this is never the case, because the OS is not an internal
> > component or an add-on. Nor is it, however, an integrated part of the
> > computer; it can be added and removed and replaced with technical ease
> > (application support aside). I have reconsidered what somebody said
> > (Simon?) earlier; the EULA may literally be with the OEM, rather than
> > Microsoft (I disagree that it can be both). It may be that this is the
> > only way to model it, legally. But I think that just goes to show how
> > disreputable and intolerable the whole practice is, as it is
> > fundamentally dishonest and anti-competitive, the way its done now. It
> > obviously isn't Dell's OS, so I don't see how I could be paying them for
> > it. The problem is, of course, pinning down what 'it' is, like usual.
>
> It make no different if the OS is written under the authority of the
> manufacturer of the computer of if the manufacturer aquires it from else
> were, the customer pays for it if they use it or not. In the case of the
> example computer system of the if it did not come with the OS the price to
> the customer would have been $1,130.00 instead of $1,150.00 for the
machine.
Has anyone actually tried to return his windows licence that came with a
computer?
<cut>
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:39:10 +0200
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8os5bf$ve0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Simon Cooke wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:8oref8$fgr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > `>` The law should be passed that no computer or harddrive can be
> sold
> > > with
> > > > > a
> > > > > >preinstalled OS or be bundled with and OS or software.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thus effectively killing the newbie computer user market. Or
making
> > > CompUSA
> > > > > make a killing on installing OSes for people.
> > > >
> > > > No. You merely charge that as a SEPERATE line-item, dipshit.
> > >
> > > And this benefits consumers.....how?
> >
> > It provides the consumer freedom.
> >
> > The freedom to select any computer hardware that fits their needs
without
> > having to pay for preloaded software that they not need or use.
>
> This freedom already exists.
Can you buy a Comcrap without *ANY* preinstalled OS?
> > It provides the consumer the freedom to use whatever OS they want that
is
> > compatible with their choice of hardware.
>
> This freedom already exists.
Can you buy a Packard Hell without *ANY* preinstalled OS?
> > It would provide more freedom for other OS devlopers to compete on the
> same
> > footing as those that are now having their products preloaded on most of
> > today's computers.
>
> We're talking about consumers.... But the software industry has about the
> lowest barrier to entry of any product in existence.
Do you want to tango with M$ when they are preloaded on, erm, i dunno, let's
say 75% of all PC's sold?
> > It would mean lower costs for those who have no need for preloaded
> software
> > without having to build their own systems or going to some alternate
> > distributer.
>
> Not necessarily. It might mean higher costs when the OEM suddenly has to
> provide support for 100 different operating systems.
The OEM should only support hardware anyway, anyone who thinks software
comes with *ANY* guarantee is crazy
> > ...and there are more but this is good for a start.
> >
> >
> Let's have more then...
Why? you'll never agree on them anyway
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 11:46:59 +0200
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
cut>
> > You really can't see the benefit for the consumer of having more
> competition
> > in the OS market?
>
> No.
Bwahahahah! Are you blonde? I think we should take that "admin" name in your
email with some salt....
> >Fine, in that case I will spell it out. More developers
> > providing more competing OS would cause the customers loyality to not be
> > taken for granted by the devlopers. More competitiion (discounting
> > collusion) would lead to low prices and better quality products.
> >
> > > But the software industry has about the
> > > lowest barrier to entry of any product in existence.
> >
> > Tell that to DRI.
>
> Tell it to the thousands of developers thriving by only having to create
> products for the Windows Operating System. How many would be out of
business
> if faced with the task of designing for 100 operating systems each with 1%
> of the market.
Competition means bussiness, look at the hardware, it's only cheap because
of two things, mass production & killer competition
If they can't create apps good enough to survive when facing competition,
then i guess their software wasn't as good after all....
> Tell it to the developers showcased here: http://download.cnet.com/ who
are
> thriving BECAUSE there's one main standard.
M$ is hardly a standard, it's a monopoly
> > > > It would mean lower costs for those who have no need for preloaded
> > > software
> > > > without having to build their own systems or going to some alternate
> > > > distributer.
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. It might mean higher costs when the OEM suddenly has
to
> > > provide support for 100 different operating systems.
> >
> > Support for the software should be supported by the company or
> organization
> > that writes it or integrates it into a distribution, not the OEM.
>
> No it shouldn't
IT should, i work in a computer shop, got problems with software? Call the
manufacturor
> Support rests with the company selling the final package. When I take my
> Ford in to the dealer to fix a faulty chip I don't expect them to give me
> the support phone number of the chip manufacturer.
Bad analogy, the correct one is:
"if i take my ford to the garage because i can't drive, can i expect the
garage to *teach* me how to drive?"
software is not like hardware
> If I bought an OEM computer (which I wouldn't) I'd expect them to back up
Why wouldn't you? What do you buy then? OEM parts?
> the whole package and not pass the support for that product on to the 100
or
> so manufacturers which provided the components of the computer. For
> example - If the monitor would start flickering for no reason on the
second
> day of ownership, I wouldn't expect to get a huge list of phone numbers
from
> the OEM on who to call about it to track down who's responsible for fixing
> it. I would expect them to fix it. If they suddenly had the burden of
> supporting 100 different operating systems, prices would go UP, not down.
You're comparing *software* with *hardware*¨only a *moron* would do that
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:04:09 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
73As5.48654$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ouf76$j86$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:92ys5.48520$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8osv70$j7g$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > That is why it is important to write programs to be as portable as
> > > possible.
> > > > This again is nothing new, that is how it was before Windows took
> over.
> > > > Software companies have thrived in that environment. Remember when
> > there
> > > > were Apple's ][, PET, CBM, Atari 400 & 800, Cromemco, and latter Vic
> > 20's
> > > > and IBM PC, S100/IEEE696 software all being sold side by side. AND
> > those
> > > > were not even for the same hardware platforms.
> > >
> > > The average app back then was 20,000 lines of code, tops.
> > >
> > > The average app today is approximately 350,000 lines of code.
> >
> >
> > All the better argument for programming with portability in mind to help
> > leverage your product into more markets.
>
> Much easier said than done. I'd say that easily 70% of any application is
UI
> code. Which changes from system to system nearly completely.
Amie springs to mind... =)
> So how do you propose dealing with that? The only solution I can see that
> comes even close is Java.
Elate :)
> Also, consider this: currently, < 1% of our target demographic uses
Linux..
> < 4% uses Mac. The other 95 or so % use Windows.
Nah, 0.5% uses Amiga ^_^
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:10:54 +0200
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
%AWs5.49395$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > >Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >: "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >snip<
> > >:> No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product
> is
> > >:> much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
> > >:> done. Deal with it.
> > >:
> > >: How about you write us something along the lines of photoshop... or
> even
> > >: solitaire. Make it completely portable. And why not at the same time
> > >: explain how easy or not it was to do. Because unless *YOU* do it, it
> looks
> > >: like you've got a damn big opinion on you, and you're not going to
> accept
> > >: anyone else's experience to the contrary.
> > >
> > > Hmm, Gimp anyone?
> >
> > I don't program, I don't call myself a programmer, and I don't feel I
> > need to in order to expect programmers to compete for business, just
> > like everybody else.
>
> So you don't understand the complexities of supporting 6 different OS's,
the
> costs involved, and how much work that would be with today's applications?
>
> Then QUIT SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, OR "DEALABLE WITH".
It should be possible tho, by writing functions that are called from within
the program, but where the compiler selects different sources for different
platforms.
Funtions like windows, buttons, menu's etc are common on all platfrom, write
a C (to keep the example simple) header file for each os, that incorporates
these functions, when compiling, the make utility can see what the target OS
is, and include the correct include file.
> The software companies decide who they want to support. It's their choice.
> Not yours. If you want to start a software company supporting six
different
> OS's, then it's your business -- feel free.
Hyperion supports Linux(PPC), Mac & Amiga, and they port DirectX stuff.... I
never heard them complain (other how much they hate directX ^_^)
Amon_Re
------------------------------
From: "Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2000 12:12:09 +0200
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >So you don't understand the complexities of supporting 6 different OS's,
the
> >costs involved, and how much work that would be with today's
applications?
> >
> >Then QUIT SUGGESTING THAT IT WOULD BE EASY, OR "DEALABLE WITH".
> >
>
> What do you expect from the guy who said that software products can't
> be damaged because it's all just bits?
Depends on what you call damage, you can damage the media, but yo can
*corrupt* the software
Amon_Re
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
