Darren New wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> no, I'm simply saying that those "multiple operating systems" are 
>> using the same old code from the same single company to handle old 
>> apps, so that doesn't count as multiple operating systems.
> 
> Well, no, they're not. That's just factually incorrect. If that was the 
> case, DOS programs couldn't write to files on NTFS partitions or access 
> network shares,

once the NTFS partitions or network shares are "mounted", I guess they 
just made it available to the DOS IO calls as local files in DOS 
"standard file format".  Little extensions and adjustments to let the 
old dog keep moving.

> nor would software that writes directly to the screen 
> work inside a window.

why not?  videogame emulators have long been tricking console software 
dumps into thinking a rectangular area in a windowing system is actually 
the TV screen...

> I.e., you've pushed off the work of porting your stuff to the author of 
> the interpreter.

so what?  old DOS apps running on Windows also did that.

Your code is portable and you don't have to recompile nor compile the 
runtime for yourself.  Are people never satisfied?

> Yet "mono" for some reason is "proprietary Microsoft code"?

besides the untested IP aspect that can give M$ weapons for spreading 
"Linux uses our IP" FUD by distorting some truth, the real horrendous 
aspect of mono is that it gets people hooked on yet another M$ dependent 
  technology that'll never run as well on the real thing and that is 
always one step behind the original.

> That doesn't make it "cross-platform".

but it is:  I can use from Windows at work, Linux at home, whatever...

> Who put the word "visual" in there? You *are* aware that MS has been 
> making BASIC interpreters since like Atari 800 days, right?

yes, but when you come up with Basic and M$, today, it's all about VB. 
and besides, old M$ bas files are not cross-platform either.

>>> Except they don't provide executables.
>> They sure do.  And they are truly cross-platform.
> 
> Python compiles down to an executable I can run on both Windows and 
> Linux without installing a Python interpreter? Cool.

I thought you saying the companies did not provide executables.

>>> I agree that open source software is probably a better way to do 
>>> stuff, as long as you aren't worried about making a living at it.
>>
>> the folks at RedHat or Novell seem to be doing fine.
> 
> Yeah, much much better than Microsoft.

they don't have a monopoly in their hands to rip off their userbase.

>>  But the source is there 
> 
> ... if you don't mind giving it away ...

we're talking about open-source software here, aren't we?

> Yep. In other words, recompile.  As opposed to Microsoft, which manages 
> to do it without recompiling and without a "cross-platform language".

they recompiled their own DOS runtimes and APIs and introduced 
"middlemen" so as to make them see network shares or windows as 
traditional resources.

Why are you so obsessed with recompilations when it's not even any 
trouble for you as a user?

Post a reply to this message