 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
>>>>> So I decided to stick with Windows, and guess what? Things just
>>>> work.
>>>>
>>>> Except a lot of those Linux apps.
>
> Unfortunately, free software means the source is available even to Windows
> whinners to use because there will be always someone willing to port them to
> Windows.
Why is that unfortunate?
And as I mentioned to Ben, a few years ago this wasn't all that true. A
number of programs I used were ported to Windows only recently.
--
Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:21:04 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Why is that unfortunate?
I wondered that as well. I may not like using Windows, but that doesn't
mean that those users should be forced to a particular platform for OSS
applications. That's a Microsoft attitude. <g> <scnr>
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> That and a number of other experiences taught me something about the
> market. People don't choose the "better" product if they're using one
> that's "good enough".
Hence the popularity of languages like C, for example. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:18:25 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Let's be realistic: Linux could be a huge headache, especially
for one
> who's not very computer-savvy.
My wife's not very computer savvy, and she uses openSUSE 11.0
exclusively. She hasn't touched Windows in years.
Her needs are fairly simple - web browsing, IM, writing tools. She uses
an older Compaq laptop and has no problems at all (well, the speakers are
a bit tinny, but you can't blame Linux for that).
So sorry, I don't buy that.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 20:19:36 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> There are better chances now that it will than ever before. And if you
>> go for Cedega (or Transgaming, or whatever they're calling themselves
>> now), they've expanded the supported function calls so there's actually
>> a very good chance it *will* work.
>
> I tried Cedega some years ago. It didn't do it for me. Perhaps it
was a
> bit better, but overall it wouldn't let me play what I wanted. This is
> also compounded by the fact that most games I play are *not* one of the
> top 10-20 games around.
>
> Also, having a Radeon 8500 LE doesn't help. Especially my version
of
> the chip, which a number of projects have washed their hands off of. I
> have 3-D working, but not all of it. Currently, Wine knows about the
> issue and aren't too interested in coding to fix it (and they're not
> even sure they can).
>
> Transgaming's attitude in those days was more like "You're card
is not
> commonly used among our customers - so low priority (i.e. never)."
>
> Same comments for the games.
Not being a heavy gamer myself, it's not that big of a deal for me. I'm
happy with games like x-moto and torcs generally, if I want to play
games, I can run Perfect Dark in an emulator or natively on a N64.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:01:33 -0500, nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Wow... The concept of using a free OS on a product specifically
>> designed for vendor lock-in seems astounding to me...
>
> Nobody can stop free software from running anywhere, not even Apple or
> Dell!! :D
Apple's having a good run at that on the iPhone....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Sure. So you've got several GB of data, and you can only pick apart a
>> few dozen bytes of it per day.
>
> Except you have reams and reams of documentation telling you what each
> function does, what arguments it takes, and so on. Way easier than
> writing a virus.
Yeah, but it doesn't tell you about the million and one undocumented
features that make Windows actually work properly. (That's what makes
them... you know... undocumented.)
>> Besides, I was under the distinct impression that it's *illegal* to
>> reverse-engineer Windows.
>
> Probably not. IANAL, but the last lawsuit I looked at in the USA, if you
> copyright the code, then someone else can reverse engineer it.
And the part in the EULA that says "you must not reverse-engineer this"...?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> Wow... The concept of using a free OS on a product specifically designed
>> for vendor lock-in seems astounding to me...
>
> Nobody can stop free software from running anywhere, not even Apple or Dell!! :D
Actually they can; whether it's legal or not is another matter...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> Andrew, both emacs and vi come with quite good interactive tutorials.
Sure. And do you know how to *find* that?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> User error. He didn't know how to exit vi with shift-ZZ or :q! or :w!
One might argue "designer error" for making the system so non-obvious to
operate. :-P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
