Hi All, On 4/12/06, PLinnell <mrdocs at scribus.info> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 April 2006 07:09, Erich Dollansky wrote: > 1) Exposing the code to Windows compilers unearthed several bugs which > did not show up in either GCC, even GCC 4.1 with the strictest flags > or in Sun's CC. Say what you want about MS, they do make decent > compilers.
But doesn't it mean that the opensource developers need to put more effort into making GCC better than MSVC? Also, I think Linux file system needs more improvement. In addition, we need granular security on file system and services level. Windows has that security - at the object level - throughout. IMO, Windows gets more security attacks 'cos it's used by more people around the world. Disconnect it from the internet, use it on the local network and it's more stable. At least, after a power failure, Windows (with NTFS) is more likely to start smoothly than Linux. IMHO, all that boils down to is: opensource developers need to put more efforts in making Linux a better OS. It also means that we need to make more efforts in developing new font technologies, new fonts, better color management systems, etc. - when it comes to DTP/graphcis/Layout, etc. on Linux. Porting OSS to Windows does indeed help the end-users but I agree with Christopher that users do tend to stay with Windows instead of coming to Linux! They will use Linux only if they have to deploy Scribus, for example, on lots of machines - cutting OS license cost is the name of the game in that scenario. Conversely, Windows-ported OSS does indeed help the end-user transition to Linux gradually when s/he sees the same OSS running on Linux the same way with the same look-n-feel. However, it must also be taken into account that every OSS port to Windows makes their monopoly stronger & sturdier than before! Quoting my own example, I have to recommend Windows as a desktop for my current project because my client won't be using UPSes for hundreds of computers and I know that Linux sometimes dumps you into command-line after a crash due to power-failure, for instance - where the user is supposed to manually recover lost fragments using a command-line system program. Although ext3 has matured considerably, it still lags far behind when you think about the robustness of Windows NTFS filesystem. I am also thinking about using a Live-CD work-around for such as crash-scenario along with ext3. But NTFS is a better option nonetheless. Endless discussion, guys! ... -- Best regards, Asif
