On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
>> Let Microsoft play with, and sell, pretty GUIs and pretty apps.
> I completely disagree. MS sucks at making GUIs.
>
I never said they were good at making GUIs. I said they were good at
selling GUIs.
Dan is right about the ugliness of the Wind
On 2011.07.06 12:03 AM, Dan Stromberg wrote:
> I disagree. The stuff endusers tend to use is polished to some
> extent, but the backend is verging on hideous. If a developer
> complains about the ugly internal structure "yeah, but you say that
> just because you're a computer person / geek."
Admi
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:13 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
> > Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
> > won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount
On 2011.07.05 11:25 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> Suppose I gave you a computer that had GNOME ported to Windows, and
> used the purplish palette that Ubuntu 10.10 uses, and had a Windows
> port of bash as its most convenient terminal. Members of this list
> will doubtless have no problem duck-typing
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Andrew Berg wrote:
> On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
>> I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
>> Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
>> won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to
On 2011.07.05 09:31 PM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> I've said for a while that Microsoft could do far worse than to turn
> Windows into a GUI that sits on top of a Unix-derived kernel. They
> won't do it, though, because it would be tantamount to admitting both
> that Unix is superior to Windows, AND t
