Linux vs windows?

[iamroot]

It's true that if you support and use only one Os then you miss out on the "benefits?" that other OSes possess. However i believe that if you really believe in the OS, then you'll ensure that the OS you support will have the "benefits" of other OSes as well. Just take a look at the WINE project. It's trying to overcome the software incompatibility problem of GNU/Linux.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Of course it is. Sorting out Software Compatibility is always the task of the small guy. Its only made a problem by and for the small guy. WinE doesn't try and sort out Intercompatibiliy; that would involve tham trying to make a way for programs to run on everything. They're purely trying to make programs run on Linux Operating Systems. They're working for Linux Compatibiliy.

Whereas of course - C# and Java already have full intercompatibility with all Operating Systems. Linux doesn't have that does it

If people wrote in C# - the most likely choice because of its Visual Basic and C++ origins, and the fact that Java is a Web Programming Language - then the programs would work. But Linux Developers don't do that do they? So why should Windows Developers support a system whose Developers don't support them.

 

[DevilHack]

Wine is crap '-'
Basicly using windows anyway..

 

[iamroot]

It's not a matter of GNU/Linux not wanting to code in a de-facto standard but it s a matter of the language not supporting GNU/Linux. I'm not sure about C# and i've never used it before but Java is a non-free language with many implentations and features controlled by Sun. Free software developers do not use non-free languages to create free software. However, the Free Software Community is creating a free version of Java so Java will thus be an acceptable language for Free Software projects. And I never said that Windows developers shoudl support GNU/Linux. Why should they? I'm talking about third-party software developers.


WINE is not "using Windows". It's recreating the Windows APIs so Windows-only programs can work on GNU/Linux. Why do you say its "crap"? Emulators have been around for some time now and they are widely used.

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

Haha. C# is Free All reasonable Operating Systems come with the Command Line Compiler, and many development tools for it are free.

If you don't mean free; and mean controlled by nobody, then who is to say what is controlled by who? If I wanted to add a specific event into an Open-Source C# Library it would be no different than me adding an event to C# as it is today. I have it on my computer - and reference it on my Web Apps or Applications through the normal code. If you want to completely whipe all Microsoft Libraries from C# and the CLR then you can by all means and all your own full Library of all different options using only the C# Language as your base.

What would you want to do to C# that you cannot now?

Haha! Open-Source Java... you'll get the normal version into Open-Source soon enough. You've already got Star Office haven't you? Not long now until Sun is Open-Source and he gets to fight among the other useless groups of squabbling people who make up the Open-Source Community.

By Windows Developers, I did mean all Developers for Windows. They are not supported by Linux Developers, even copied by Linux Developers, or taken and twisted by Linux Developers.

 

[root]

C# is a .net technolgy and as such is owned and licensed by Microsoft,
the only way I've found to run .Net applications on linux is by using Mono, (and even then it's not as easy as it should be)...

Open source is controlled, there is usually a team of core developers, who control the source tree, then a load of random contributers, who do little bits.
opensource languages are supported on windows, (perhaps that is why windows should support them)

Java supported windows, and even licensed it's software to windows, in return Microsoft manged javascript, adding, (often pointless) additions that broke compatibility...

You say "why should Windows Developers support a system whose Developers don't support them"

well why should Open source developers support microsoft when they know they'll just be shit on in return for their efforts?

 

[kulkarni]

I hate to interrupt the debate of gurus but here's what i have to say:

I coded for windows years back and i must say it is pretty organized...

I started coding for Linux a year ago and i find it a bit haywire...maybe because i am more used to windows but managing stuff in Linux is not that professionall and tightly controlled

Also it lacks the smootheness in many applications that r similar to windows...

but the one thing i like about it is that it's free...
maybe if i had windows source...i'd like it even more

BTW has the XP source really broken out?...

 

[Lord Kalthorn]

C# is a .net technolgy and as such is owned and licensed by Microsoft,
the only way I've found to run .Net applications on linux is by using Mono, (and even then it's not as easy as it should be)...

Mono is reasonable enough... if Linux Developers are so much better than Windows Developers and various Third Party Developers why can't they make a CLR for Linux that works as well or better than the Windows one? Lots of people work various Languages into it. It doesn't stand for Closed Language Runtime afterall

Open source is controlled, there is usually a team of core developers, who control the source tree, then a load of random contributers, who do little bits.
opensource languages are supported on windows, (perhaps that is why windows should support them)

Open Source Languages? The extent of which is what... PHP? And that's Server Code.

Java supported windows, and even licensed it's software to windows, in return Microsoft manged javascript, adding, (often pointless) additions that broke compatibility...

Javascript is a surprising reasonable use of a language set aside by C++ ages ago. A huge number of brilliant PHP and various Open-Source Programs including this use Javascript.

You say "why should Windows Developers support a system whose Developers don't support them"

well why should Open source developers support microsoft when they know they'll just be shit on in return for their efforts?

Maybe they shouldn't I didn't say they should.

 

[iamroot]

You'll never get the source code for Windows, Kulkarni. Not legally at least. I understand what you mean when you say that Windows apps run smoother than their GNU/Linux counterparts. However, that's not really true cos it just seems that way. It's mostly visual. One of GNU/Linux's greatest strengths is the availability of the source code and the freedom to modify it.

 

[trance565]

ok, linux is great for ppl who dont like viruses and dont like spending 200 bux just to use their comp, but its got a down side as most games dont support it, and its a bit of a pain in the ass to install things for old windows users. and also, since most the time ur not using the "root" user, and ur logging in as one of the ... log ins, is the easiest way to put it, its almost impossible to hack any important files. plus its 100% free, all u gotta do is download it, i dled a 3.1 gig linux SuSe 64bit, and it came with sooooo much software, i have the equivalint of ms word, powerpoint,spreadsheet, etc. and can open/save in ms formats

windows is nice because it is extremely ez to use, compatable with just about EVERY game, cept super tux, but costs 150 +, which is a pain to get that much money when u dun got a job