 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 14:45:30 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> This should be 100% impossible, but somehow they did it. And they did it
> better than the makers themselves...
Damn, you beat me to it. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 20:04:02 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Windows, on the other hand, is a vast lump of software purposely
> designed to be difficult to understand.
There's the fallacy of your argument. Windows' code isn't purposely
designed to be difficult to understand - that's something that generally
naturally happens when a project becomes very large.
The Linux kernel could be said to be very difficult to understand because
of its complexity, but ask any of the developers if they intentionally
make it difficult to understand, and you'll probably get laughed off the
planet.
Again, as much as I dislike Microsoft (mostly for their business
practices more than anything), I can't attribute to malice the problems
with their software. Whether you develop closed-source or open-source
software, to get your changes committed to the official source tree, you
have to have a pretty good idea of what you're doing. In the OSS world,
you don't gain points by trying to obfuscate your code and make it
difficult to understand. The same is true in the closed-source world.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 07:42:40 +0000, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> nemesis wrote:
>> Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] dev null> 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...
And whether they can enforce it is yet another....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:58:50 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> You missed mine. If it's buggy on Windows, why would it not be buggy on
> every OS in Creation?
Um, because suspend to disk/RAM is largely implemented in software, not
in hardware?
Or are you telling me that this feature that I've used for months on this
D610 laptop really isn't working?
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Now I'm going to break your brain.
One of those "Why would you make such a thing??" projects.
--
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Do I have your permission to put that as a tagline in my sig?
Sure. I didn't make it up, tho.
> Attribution will be included, if desired.
You can attribute it to "elbows". Don't ask. ;-)
--
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 Tue, 16 Dec 2008 18:33:09 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Now I'm going to break your brain.
>
> One of those "Why would you make such a thing??" projects.
Well, I could see it as being a way to better understand Windows,
personally. Few things will teach you more than trying to reimplement
something someone's already done.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>
> I often got Vim commands in the middle of POV-Ray code; since I was using
> POV-Win editor, where the Esc key doesn't really get into command mode :)
> And even more often, pressing Esc and noticing before typing a command.
I've tried to quit Excel with <esc>:q couple of times... Vi's commands
are somehow addicting :).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> Sure. And do you know how to *find* that?
man vi
Although I don't remember ever seeing anything about a tutor, at least
it tells you how to quit.
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Orchid XP v8 [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> Besides, I was under the distinct impression that it's *illegal* to
> reverse-engineer Windows. And that its implementation is covered by
> several billion patents precisely to prevent anybody ever making
> something compatible with it, for that matter.
WINE Is Not an Emulator. They don't really reverse engineer anything
(that is, they don't reimplement the Windows core DLLs or anything),
rather they allow Windows .exe's to run on Linux, and allow dynamic
linking of Windows DLLs under Linux.
In other words, it allows native Windows apps to run under Linux as if
they were under Windows.
It's surprisingly effective (although none of the programs *I* needed when
I tried it worked, it's still a cool concept).
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
