Windows 7 to be Open Source....
-
... did that get your attention? :) Although I wouldn't put it past Balmer and Co. to do it. Microsoft are well positioned to make such a move and it makes a good deal of commercial sense. Given Microsoft's significant infrastructure and financial resource there's nothing to stop it from benefiting from the work of a vast number of developers the world over and maintain its commercial model as a Windows retailer. Under a sensibly constructed open source licence Microsoft could easily package applications like Windows Media Player, IE and just about anything else it wanted with its Windows distribution to encourage consumers to part with their cash and there'd be no anti-trust or EU recourse to litigation - and they could then offer these products to users of other Windows distributions at a price. If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
Not yet. In 10 years, I could see it.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
... did that get your attention? :) Although I wouldn't put it past Balmer and Co. to do it. Microsoft are well positioned to make such a move and it makes a good deal of commercial sense. Given Microsoft's significant infrastructure and financial resource there's nothing to stop it from benefiting from the work of a vast number of developers the world over and maintain its commercial model as a Windows retailer. Under a sensibly constructed open source licence Microsoft could easily package applications like Windows Media Player, IE and just about anything else it wanted with its Windows distribution to encourage consumers to part with their cash and there'd be no anti-trust or EU recourse to litigation - and they could then offer these products to users of other Windows distributions at a price. If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
http://www.microsoft.com/opensource/[^] Sounds like the only open source thing they are going to do is celebrate "amazing people who develop and deploy open source software" :) Microsoft might be able to pull it off but I find it hard to imagine them doing this within the decade
-
... did that get your attention? :) Although I wouldn't put it past Balmer and Co. to do it. Microsoft are well positioned to make such a move and it makes a good deal of commercial sense. Given Microsoft's significant infrastructure and financial resource there's nothing to stop it from benefiting from the work of a vast number of developers the world over and maintain its commercial model as a Windows retailer. Under a sensibly constructed open source licence Microsoft could easily package applications like Windows Media Player, IE and just about anything else it wanted with its Windows distribution to encourage consumers to part with their cash and there'd be no anti-trust or EU recourse to litigation - and they could then offer these products to users of other Windows distributions at a price. If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
martin i think that last sentence of yours shows a lack of understanding of the open source community generally ... one of the most fundamental ideas is that no one company can dictate the direction or own the software ... it is genuinely owned by the community microsoft might well "open source" some of it's kernel in time and maybe some of it's apps but the drm issues will prevent it from sharing the stuff that matters ... and it sure as hell won't let anyone use the codebase to make their own versions of windows from my honest opinion is that windows will gradually decline in importance in certain markets, for instance, netbooks and other small devices, mobile phones, and servers ... the desktop is where it rules still and rules very well ... but the desktop is becoming less important all imho of course ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
-
martin i think that last sentence of yours shows a lack of understanding of the open source community generally ... one of the most fundamental ideas is that no one company can dictate the direction or own the software ... it is genuinely owned by the community microsoft might well "open source" some of it's kernel in time and maybe some of it's apps but the drm issues will prevent it from sharing the stuff that matters ... and it sure as hell won't let anyone use the codebase to make their own versions of windows from my honest opinion is that windows will gradually decline in importance in certain markets, for instance, netbooks and other small devices, mobile phones, and servers ... the desktop is where it rules still and rules very well ... but the desktop is becoming less important all imho of course ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
martin i think that last sentence of yours shows a lack of understanding of the open source community generally ... one of the most fundamental ideas is that no one company can dictate the direction or own the software ... it is genuinely owned by the community
You see, young Lauren, I have a different view :) One of the mistakes people make about Open Source: the community owns it and everyone has a say. The reality is that all Open Source projects, individually, are controlled by an elite group who manage the direction of the project. The fact that I can download the source and tinker with it is irrelevant - if my tinkering is not "accepted" by the elite, then it's worthless unless I then redistribute my tinkerings, which I might not have the time or resource to do. Then there's also the argument that the majority of users are incapable of modifying the source, even if they wanted to. Take your mum, your gran, your sister, your brother, your idiot cousin who went to "art" school - are any of them actually able to modify software to suit themselves? Nope. I think MS understand this and in order to ensure future success, particularly in emerging platforms, will do almost anything to ensure sales of Office, SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint and all of their other big money apps :)
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
-
martin i think that last sentence of yours shows a lack of understanding of the open source community generally ... one of the most fundamental ideas is that no one company can dictate the direction or own the software ... it is genuinely owned by the community microsoft might well "open source" some of it's kernel in time and maybe some of it's apps but the drm issues will prevent it from sharing the stuff that matters ... and it sure as hell won't let anyone use the codebase to make their own versions of windows from my honest opinion is that windows will gradually decline in importance in certain markets, for instance, netbooks and other small devices, mobile phones, and servers ... the desktop is where it rules still and rules very well ... but the desktop is becoming less important all imho of course ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
... it is genuinely owned by the community
Well, unless you talk about project such as "Community Server" which has basically been pulled except for commercial use. Then of course there is MySQL which Sun now owns and can do anything they like with. The above two are the reason I like BSD licenses ;)
l a u r e n wrote:
my honest opinion is that windows will gradually decline in importance in certain markets
I agree and think that is why Microsoft is trying to move so fast into the net stuff. They see the writing on the wall for major OSes and know that just a little ways down the road things will have to change. For example Silverlight was their version of Flash with .NET so that that Windows developers could bypass Javascript and Flash and have the world they are already use to (and I for one thank them for their work), but Flex has helped push them to move more and more to Silverlight and WPF is looking like DCOM or Object Spaces in the future. The requirement for stand alone cross platform Silverlight apps is there and will gain more and more over this next year as the wave of developers are tasting .NET development via Silverlight. Anyway, I think that the actual OS will slowly fade in importance but online everything is where the world is heading. It is almost like "back to the future", insted of dumb terminals with green screens hooked up to octopus RS232 devices, we now have rich clients with every increasing power and flexibility. The sun is setting on the Desktop as we know it..
Rocky <>< Recent Blog Post: LINQ to SQL Dead? Thinking about Silverlight? www.SilverlightCity.com
-
... did that get your attention? :) Although I wouldn't put it past Balmer and Co. to do it. Microsoft are well positioned to make such a move and it makes a good deal of commercial sense. Given Microsoft's significant infrastructure and financial resource there's nothing to stop it from benefiting from the work of a vast number of developers the world over and maintain its commercial model as a Windows retailer. Under a sensibly constructed open source licence Microsoft could easily package applications like Windows Media Player, IE and just about anything else it wanted with its Windows distribution to encourage consumers to part with their cash and there'd be no anti-trust or EU recourse to litigation - and they could then offer these products to users of other Windows distributions at a price. If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
I have been thinking that for years, well not exactly, but more along the lines of 'a client Windows OS should be free for non-commercial usage'.
xacc.ide - now with TabsToSpaces support
IronScheme - 1.0 beta 1 - out now!
((lambda (x) `((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) '`((lambda (x) ,x) ',x)) -
... did that get your attention? :) Although I wouldn't put it past Balmer and Co. to do it. Microsoft are well positioned to make such a move and it makes a good deal of commercial sense. Given Microsoft's significant infrastructure and financial resource there's nothing to stop it from benefiting from the work of a vast number of developers the world over and maintain its commercial model as a Windows retailer. Under a sensibly constructed open source licence Microsoft could easily package applications like Windows Media Player, IE and just about anything else it wanted with its Windows distribution to encourage consumers to part with their cash and there'd be no anti-trust or EU recourse to litigation - and they could then offer these products to users of other Windows distributions at a price. If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
My Bookmarks I clicked the link. In an instant I was transported 15 years back in time.
martin_hughes wrote:
If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
I don't think so. Linux is great in the server arena, where machines tend to be fairly homogenous and small in number, but it lacks in the desktop world. One of the problems Linux suffers from in the corporate IT world is administration over large numbers of machines. Sysadmins like knowing that, regardless of the machine's provenance, the Windows environment has a certain set of basic behaviors that they can rely upon. They also like being able to push changes to their 1,000's of machines all at once, and to know that they got there. It's my impression that Linux has a hard time with these. There's just too much local tinkering you have to do. "Get this version of the kernel, but not this option, update this driver, downgrade this one, yadda, yadda. Oh, by the way, it only works from the command line for distros A, B, and Q. For distribution K, you've got to run this GUI thing. Don't forget that the GUI thing was written by 133tPimpleBoy in his basement, and he's grounded from the Internet 'cause his mom found his pr0n, so you won't get any support on that for a while."
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
martin_hughes wrote:
If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
I don't think so. Linux is great in the server arena, where machines tend to be fairly homogenous and small in number, but it lacks in the desktop world. One of the problems Linux suffers from in the corporate IT world is administration over large numbers of machines. Sysadmins like knowing that, regardless of the machine's provenance, the Windows environment has a certain set of basic behaviors that they can rely upon. They also like being able to push changes to their 1,000's of machines all at once, and to know that they got there. It's my impression that Linux has a hard time with these. There's just too much local tinkering you have to do. "Get this version of the kernel, but not this option, update this driver, downgrade this one, yadda, yadda. Oh, by the way, it only works from the command line for distros A, B, and Q. For distribution K, you've got to run this GUI thing. Don't forget that the GUI thing was written by 133tPimpleBoy in his basement, and he's grounded from the Internet 'cause his mom found his pr0n, so you won't get any support on that for a while."
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]Excellent last para! :laugh:
Kevin
-
Excellent last para! :laugh:
Kevin
Thanks :-\. Unfortunately, it's all too realistic when it comes to support for open source stuff. The original developer gets bored and abandons it, or a critical member of the team gets in a snit and leaves. There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
Thanks :-\. Unfortunately, it's all too realistic when it comes to support for open source stuff. The original developer gets bored and abandons it, or a critical member of the team gets in a snit and leaves. There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]Yes it's always a concern when it seems that it is mostly a single developer responsible for the product. In that situation I look at: 1. the date of the last release. 2. how active the forum is. If the date in 1 is quite old then I pay attention to 2. If that is lively then I consider giving it a shot, especially if the current version of the product is quite robust. Of course, it's still a concern that the main developer might fall ill or something but it's not too bad if the product is good. A recent example for me is the excellent WatiN. One main developer but lively forum. A similar example is NLog. Hasn't been updated for years but is a pretty solid product with an active forum. The other consideration is how central to your application the open source product is and the consequences should you need to replace it.
Kevin
-
Thanks :-\. Unfortunately, it's all too realistic when it comes to support for open source stuff. The original developer gets bored and abandons it, or a critical member of the team gets in a snit and leaves. There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
so it seems because of the nature of open source, it's main challenge is continuity. but as in the news link i posted below, if the hardware manufacturers have their own team of open source developers to work on a flavor of linux to ship with their machines, then this poses a threat to MS Windows?
---------------------------------------------------------- "unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep" - my daily unix command list
-
martin i think that last sentence of yours shows a lack of understanding of the open source community generally ... one of the most fundamental ideas is that no one company can dictate the direction or own the software ... it is genuinely owned by the community microsoft might well "open source" some of it's kernel in time and maybe some of it's apps but the drm issues will prevent it from sharing the stuff that matters ... and it sure as hell won't let anyone use the codebase to make their own versions of windows from my honest opinion is that windows will gradually decline in importance in certain markets, for instance, netbooks and other small devices, mobile phones, and servers ... the desktop is where it rules still and rules very well ... but the desktop is becoming less important all imho of course ;)
"mostly watching the human race is like watching dogs watch tv ... they see the pictures move but the meaning escapes them"
l a u r e n wrote:
but the desktop is becoming less important
Maybe for individuals, but for actually doing business, the desktop is still the best place to get real work done. Nobody wants to squint at a 3-inch screen all day (or even a 9-inch screen). While Windows remains dominant on the desktop, the micro devices like phones, PDAs and netbooks must remain compatible (to a certain degree) in order to transfer/sync data with desktop machines. In my case, I don't have a need for (and don't even want) 95% of the functionality a modern cell phone offers, I don't have a blackberry, and see no use for the latest craze called netbooks. In fact, the older I get, the further I want to get away from technology. I am NOT a gadget guy - I haven't turned on my iPod (my only gadget, and it was given to me as a gift) in over two months.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
so it seems because of the nature of open source, it's main challenge is continuity. but as in the news link i posted below, if the hardware manufacturers have their own team of open source developers to work on a flavor of linux to ship with their machines, then this poses a threat to MS Windows?
---------------------------------------------------------- "unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep" - my daily unix command list
swjam wrote:
hardware manufacturers have their own team of open source developers to work on a flavor of linux
Then it's not really open source any longer, is it? The fact that the source code may be available is no longer material. That version of Linux is now maintained by developers from a single company, who can adulterate it any way they see fit. At that point, they are competing on the same field and under largely the same conditions as Microsoft with Windows.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
martin_hughes wrote:
If I were a betting man I'd bet that in five-ten years time Linux will be very much on the decline in favour of Open Source Windows.
I don't think so. Linux is great in the server arena, where machines tend to be fairly homogenous and small in number, but it lacks in the desktop world. One of the problems Linux suffers from in the corporate IT world is administration over large numbers of machines. Sysadmins like knowing that, regardless of the machine's provenance, the Windows environment has a certain set of basic behaviors that they can rely upon. They also like being able to push changes to their 1,000's of machines all at once, and to know that they got there. It's my impression that Linux has a hard time with these. There's just too much local tinkering you have to do. "Get this version of the kernel, but not this option, update this driver, downgrade this one, yadda, yadda. Oh, by the way, it only works from the command line for distros A, B, and Q. For distribution K, you've got to run this GUI thing. Don't forget that the GUI thing was written by 133tPimpleBoy in his basement, and he's grounded from the Internet 'cause his mom found his pr0n, so you won't get any support on that for a while."
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Sysadmins like knowing that, regardless of the machine's provenance, the Windows environment has a certain set of basic behaviors that they can rely upon.
I don't understand why you think Linux also doesn't have "a certain set of basic behaviors". Linux can be installed without the kernel source, and can be locked down just as easily as Windows can be.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
They also like being able to push changes to their 1,000's of machines all at once, and to know that they got there.
Linux can work as a thin client, eliminating the need to "push" anything to 1000's of machines. Everyone than needs it can be granted remote access to applications on the server. I'm not sure what kind of functionality Linux has to allow pushing actual application installs to remote machines, but I imagine it can be implemented through the automatic update features of the particular distro. That way, the user can be notified that updates are available, and they can update when they're ready. I don't know if Windows can be modified to do this as well.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
"Get this version of the kernel, but not this option, update this driver, downgrade this one, yadda, yadda. Oh, by the way, it only works from the command line for distros A, B, and Q. For distribution K, you've got to run this GUI thing. Don't forget that the GUI thing was written by 133tPimpleBoy in his basement, and he's grounded from the Internet 'cause his mom found his pr0n, so you won't get any support on that for a while."
While I agree that Linux *in general* is still far from being the best choice for a GUI, once a company settles on a distribution, those kinds of things are eliminated, especially in the case of thin clients. The system admin can establish dependencies and resolve problems before making the app generally available, and in the case of a business environment, command line applications will probably be avoided. In the end, Linux is just as capable as Windows is, and the basis for the success of a given OS (be it Windows or Linux) in the enterprise is the presence of a capable system admin and an effective training program for the users.
"Why don't you
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
There's no continuity, except for a relatively small core group of applications.
so it seems because of the nature of open source, it's main challenge is continuity. but as in the news link i posted below, if the hardware manufacturers have their own team of open source developers to work on a flavor of linux to ship with their machines, then this poses a threat to MS Windows?
---------------------------------------------------------- "unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep" - my daily unix command list
So, in addition to being locked in to a specific OS distribution, you also become locked in to that hardware vendors hardware? Might as well stay with Windows, and at least have flexibility in hardware choice. Moreover, what hardware vendor is going to pour the level of support for into software that someone like Microsoft would?
-
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Sysadmins like knowing that, regardless of the machine's provenance, the Windows environment has a certain set of basic behaviors that they can rely upon.
I don't understand why you think Linux also doesn't have "a certain set of basic behaviors". Linux can be installed without the kernel source, and can be locked down just as easily as Windows can be.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
They also like being able to push changes to their 1,000's of machines all at once, and to know that they got there.
Linux can work as a thin client, eliminating the need to "push" anything to 1000's of machines. Everyone than needs it can be granted remote access to applications on the server. I'm not sure what kind of functionality Linux has to allow pushing actual application installs to remote machines, but I imagine it can be implemented through the automatic update features of the particular distro. That way, the user can be notified that updates are available, and they can update when they're ready. I don't know if Windows can be modified to do this as well.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
"Get this version of the kernel, but not this option, update this driver, downgrade this one, yadda, yadda. Oh, by the way, it only works from the command line for distros A, B, and Q. For distribution K, you've got to run this GUI thing. Don't forget that the GUI thing was written by 133tPimpleBoy in his basement, and he's grounded from the Internet 'cause his mom found his pr0n, so you won't get any support on that for a while."
While I agree that Linux *in general* is still far from being the best choice for a GUI, once a company settles on a distribution, those kinds of things are eliminated, especially in the case of thin clients. The system admin can establish dependencies and resolve problems before making the app generally available, and in the case of a business environment, command line applications will probably be avoided. In the end, Linux is just as capable as Windows is, and the basis for the success of a given OS (be it Windows or Linux) in the enterprise is the presence of a capable system admin and an effective training program for the users.
"Why don't you
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I don't understand why you think Linux also doesn't have "a certain set of basic behaviors". Linux can be installed without the kernel source, and can be locked down just as easily as Windows can be.
My comments are all based on third-hand information rather than first-hand experience. My impression was that each distribution, and sometimes releases within a distribution, had a lot more variability for admins than is present in the Windows world. Even in plants where you've got a mix of Win2K, WinXP, Win2K3, and Vista running around, there's a great deal of commonality amongst the entire lot. I probably should have kept my mouth shut, but I thought the premise of the OP was overreaching.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
the basis for the success of a given OS (be it Windows or Linux) in the enterprise is the presence of a capable system admin and an effective training program for the users.
Always the truth, and far too seldom the case.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
l a u r e n wrote:
but the desktop is becoming less important
Maybe for individuals, but for actually doing business, the desktop is still the best place to get real work done. Nobody wants to squint at a 3-inch screen all day (or even a 9-inch screen). While Windows remains dominant on the desktop, the micro devices like phones, PDAs and netbooks must remain compatible (to a certain degree) in order to transfer/sync data with desktop machines. In my case, I don't have a need for (and don't even want) 95% of the functionality a modern cell phone offers, I don't have a blackberry, and see no use for the latest craze called netbooks. In fact, the older I get, the further I want to get away from technology. I am NOT a gadget guy - I haven't turned on my iPod (my only gadget, and it was given to me as a gift) in over two months.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I haven't turned on my iPod (my only gadget, and it was given to me as a gift) in over two months
The best place to put your iPod: the glove compartment of your car. I replaced the audio system in my car earlier in the summer. For an extra $20, I bought the 'iPod ready' version. I have an iPod nano I use on the aerobic machines in the winter when I can't run outside. The nano's now in the glove compartment of the car, and I don't lug CD's in and out any longer. The navigation for the iPod content is a little klunky from the car audio system, but I typically select a playlist and let it go. Guess I'm going to have to buy another iPod to use on the elliptical machine this year...
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I haven't turned on my iPod (my only gadget, and it was given to me as a gift) in over two months
The best place to put your iPod: the glove compartment of your car. I replaced the audio system in my car earlier in the summer. For an extra $20, I bought the 'iPod ready' version. I have an iPod nano I use on the aerobic machines in the winter when I can't run outside. The nano's now in the glove compartment of the car, and I don't lug CD's in and out any longer. The navigation for the iPod content is a little klunky from the car audio system, but I typically select a playlist and let it go. Guess I'm going to have to buy another iPod to use on the elliptical machine this year...
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]A few months ago, I installed a stereo in the car that allows a usb connection, and I've connected a 16gb thumb drive with all of my songs on it. The thumb drive is significantly cheaper than the iPod, so I won't mind if it gets stolen.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001 -
Not yet. In 10 years, I could see it.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Who in MS would lead this? AFAIK Ozzie hadn't done any open source projects before he came to MS. And why 10 years? Would they be doing it from a position of strength or a position of desperation?
cheers, Paul M. Watson.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I don't understand why you think Linux also doesn't have "a certain set of basic behaviors". Linux can be installed without the kernel source, and can be locked down just as easily as Windows can be.
My comments are all based on third-hand information rather than first-hand experience. My impression was that each distribution, and sometimes releases within a distribution, had a lot more variability for admins than is present in the Windows world. Even in plants where you've got a mix of Win2K, WinXP, Win2K3, and Vista running around, there's a great deal of commonality amongst the entire lot. I probably should have kept my mouth shut, but I thought the premise of the OP was overreaching.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
the basis for the success of a given OS (be it Windows or Linux) in the enterprise is the presence of a capable system admin and an effective training program for the users.
Always the truth, and far too seldom the case.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
Even in plants where you've got a mix of Win2K, WinXP, Win2K3, and Vista running around, there's a great deal of commonality amongst the entire lot.
That's the single best feature of Windows - commonality of interface - and is also the whole reason Windows has succeeded in the enterprise where desktops are concerned. With Linux applications, it's a crap-shoot as to what you're going to see where the interface is concerned. The latest trend of applying pointless graphics/skins to standard components (menus, dialogs, etc) does nothing but obfuscate the functionality of a given application. This is also becoming a problem in Windows. For instance, the Nero Express application is one of the worst I've ever seen. Users have become accustomed to finding certain things in certain places in the menu, and doing something different for the sake of doing something different only serves to confuse the user.
Gary R. Wheeler wrote:
I probably should have kept my mouth shut, but I thought the premise of the OP was overreaching.
It was, and you had every right to speak your mind. These are the kinds of threads in which I enjoy participating. The inane crap that seems to flood the Lounge now-a-days is much less interesting.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001