It's been a while since the latest Microsoft-should-open-source-Windows article, so SJVN felt compelled to write one. "Although Microsoft may claim otherwise, Vista, from both from a technical and business point of view, is proving to be a failure. Why not turn it over to people who have shown time after time that they can deliver the goods?"
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-10-02
The fact that you can't run Visual Studio on Linux is not your personal preference.
The fact that you can't run all those games on Linux is not your personal preference.
Then, AutoCAD, Photoshop, SQL Server, etc, etc. (And no, GIMP is not Photoshop, etc).
Duh...
I never claimed having to run an OS was a matter of preference.
What I replied was that liking or disliking an OS was a matter of preference.
Having to run an OS is a matter of need, and a completely different issue.
It is possible to run Photoshop, AutoCAD (great app btw. - have used it since version 9), Quake (I-IV), Doom, Wolfenstein 3D and so on on linux. Some through Wine, other games and applications can run natively.
Having to use an OS only says something about need (being forced by external circumstances) and nothing about quality of alternatives.
All of those games and applications could tecnically run on Linux. It is not lack of quality in Linux that makes these applications and games Windows-only, but deliberate choices by the companies.
Most people don't run SQL Server btw.
(and I prefer postgreSQL any day - but that's a personal preference). Gimp is clearly not Photoshop. CMYK anyone?
- Gimp is however good as long as you don't need CMYK. That's a problem when you are working in the graphic industry (which is primarily Mac-oriented). Completely irrelevant in regard to my reply, but whatever. Not wanting to pay for Windows has nothing to do with whether you like Windows or not. Besides that people who prefer Windows probably don't mind paying for it. I like Beatles and I don't mind paying for their music. Preferably on vinyl (personal preference). Most people would probably want to get things for free but since they can't they prefer to pay for what they want rather than paying for something they don't want.
If it was all about personal preference there wouldn't be three major OS'es but rather 5 or 6 or 15.
However! I did not claim that running an OS was all about personal preference. It is clearly not. What I wrote was that "liking" an OS was all about personal preferences. "Having to use" is not the same as "prefering to use". And doesn't say anything about quality.
Member since:2007-01-27
No of course it isn't possible to run Visual Studio on Linux because it is a Microsoft product. Microsoft is notorious for making all of its own software depend on (parts of) its own operating system even if it is not necessary.
What is worse is that many third parties do the same thing e.g. depend on IE services even if a custom HTML component (Gecko/KHTML/Webcore) would do just as well. I think this kind of behaviour is inexcusable and also makes it a lot harder to port your application to another platform.
SQL Server is not much different from the original Sybase
and if I remember there is AutoCAD and Photoshop for other platforms.
I'd much rather run any of them in HP-UX/IRIX/Solaris under emulation than in Windows. Nowadays you can just run the Windows versions of them either via WINE or a virtualisation solution if necessary.
So you are right it is the applications that matter. Nobody cares about the OS in and of itself. But when comparing just the bare OSes Windows isn't in the same league as GNU/Linux.
Member since:2005-11-10
So you are right it is the applications that matter. Nobody cares about the OS in and of itself.
Agreed.
But when comparing just the bare OSes Windows isn't in the same league as GNU/Linux.
Don't know what is that supposed to mean? OS itself is good for what? You just said nobody cares about OS in and of itself.
Or are you trying to compare kernels? Well, I would bet my money on Dave Cutler et al any day versus Linus and friends.
And what exactly are you missing in Windows these days? Bear in mind that Windows (especially Vista or forthcoming 2007 Server) is much improved and different from, for example, Windows NT 4. In my experience, most of people are completely unaware of what Windows offers. They think it's just a bit better Windows 9x. So wrong.
Just look at those statistics from EU comission: Windows is now at 75% of workgroup server market share, up from 35% in 1999. In just 8 years they doubled their presence. And don't forget - you have to pay for Windows Server (and for client access licences), yet..
And you can't really say that people that buy those servers are unaware of alternatives.
..and this guy, SJVN, is telling us Windows needs to be saved from Microsoft? Is that not a joke, really?
Edited 2007-04-14 17:11
Member since:
2005-11-10
I know I said I wouldn't, but I have to.. just this last one
It proves nothing but your personal preference.
No.
The fact that you can't run Visual Studio on Linux is not your personal preference.
The fact that you can't run all those games on Linux is not your personal preference.
Then, AutoCAD, Photoshop, SQL Server, etc, etc. (And no, GIMP is not Photoshop, etc).
Duh...
If it was all just personal preference, nobody would want to pay for Windows. We're not all crazy (or unaware of Linux, etc).
Edited 2007-04-14 02:34