Why everyone here dosent hate microsoft..................?
-
AndrewAPrice
- Member
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:00 pm
- Location: USA (and Australia)
They bought Tablet PCs to the market..
And Microsoft Surfaces.. ([urlhttp://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/05/30/microsoft_surfa.html[/url] - watch the video)
I know you might say "but that's been done before since the 60/70/80s" to all those things.. But, has it really been done so fluently that it integrates with nearly everything you're doing?
i.e. the Windows tablet input panel and digital inking that integrates through the entire operating system, the surface wirelessly connecting to phones and cameras to download/upload images (which I've seen on 90's TV shows, but it's more realistic when you add the amount of phones and cameras Windows supports)
And Microsoft Surfaces.. ([urlhttp://blog.scifi.com/tech/archives/2007/05/30/microsoft_surfa.html[/url] - watch the video)
I know you might say "but that's been done before since the 60/70/80s" to all those things.. But, has it really been done so fluently that it integrates with nearly everything you're doing?
i.e. the Windows tablet input panel and digital inking that integrates through the entire operating system, the surface wirelessly connecting to phones and cameras to download/upload images (which I've seen on 90's TV shows, but it's more realistic when you add the amount of phones and cameras Windows supports)
My OS is Perception.
my two cents is this:
i used to hate microsoft with a passion, but when i made the decision to become a programmer 1st out of love and 2nd to get paid, i began to realize that for software developers, you need a platform to make that $$$. MS provides that platform. Linux is very cool indeed, and is extremely useful to networking buffs (much better than trying to use ms server) but unfortunately the very nature of the GPL limits someones ability to cash in.
Plus, and i don't know a whole lot about the subject, i believe the way the linux kernel behaves gives users MUCH more access to what could be proprietary stuff than something like what windows uses.
Somebody correct me if i'm wrong please, i've still got much to learn about this OS development thing.
i used to hate microsoft with a passion, but when i made the decision to become a programmer 1st out of love and 2nd to get paid, i began to realize that for software developers, you need a platform to make that $$$. MS provides that platform. Linux is very cool indeed, and is extremely useful to networking buffs (much better than trying to use ms server) but unfortunately the very nature of the GPL limits someones ability to cash in.
Plus, and i don't know a whole lot about the subject, i believe the way the linux kernel behaves gives users MUCH more access to what could be proprietary stuff than something like what windows uses.
Somebody correct me if i'm wrong please, i've still got much to learn about this OS development thing.
"MUCH more access"... well... probably the same access. However, I think you are right on the money as by the last time I checked, the biggest example of that is the proprietary driver by nVidiaeboyd wrote:my two cents is this:
Plus, and i don't know a whole lot about the subject, i believe the way the linux kernel behaves gives users MUCH more access to what could be proprietary stuff than something like what windows uses.
Somebody correct me if i'm wrong please, i've still got much to learn about this OS development thing.
Even if Linux starts to get *popular* in the desktop world, the GPL ideology will not keep people/companies from developing proprietary drivers. The only thing that the GPL will guarantee is that their idealists have to live amongst the reality of paid hardware/software developers OR alienate those developers/companies and force them to stay with the Windows and Macs of the world.
I admire the courage and philanthropy of those affiliated with the GPL and FSF, but those two attributes don't feed the family in today's economy.
-
AndrewAPrice
- Member
- Posts: 2299
- Joined: Mon Jun 05, 2006 11:00 pm
- Location: USA (and Australia)
Microsoft aren't entirely anti-open source. You can understand why, as a business, they're not going to release the source code for their most profitable products (Office, Windows, etc).
They contribute by hosting several forums (understandably biased towards Windows/Visual Studio), they are constantly producing programming tutorials as online web casts, they have set up sites for encouraging open source projects (CodePlex comes to mind), they occasionally open-source popular products from the past after 5 or so years when they believe they won't make more profit off it (the game Allegiance, and several others I can think of), and the MSDN library must be one of the largest programming libraries in the world (I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or if it's due to their API's being so complex).
They release some of their core code (i.e. .Net framework, the Windows kernel) until a shared source license, except this is only for universities and colleges (the license restricts how it can be used, but it's mostly to be used as an educational tool to teach how to implement theories). And sometimes they release code they think would be useful as public domain.
They contribute by hosting several forums (understandably biased towards Windows/Visual Studio), they are constantly producing programming tutorials as online web casts, they have set up sites for encouraging open source projects (CodePlex comes to mind), they occasionally open-source popular products from the past after 5 or so years when they believe they won't make more profit off it (the game Allegiance, and several others I can think of), and the MSDN library must be one of the largest programming libraries in the world (I'm not sure if this is a good thing, or if it's due to their API's being so complex).
They release some of their core code (i.e. .Net framework, the Windows kernel) until a shared source license, except this is only for universities and colleges (the license restricts how it can be used, but it's mostly to be used as an educational tool to teach how to implement theories). And sometimes they release code they think would be useful as public domain.
My OS is Perception.
So let me get this right SpooK, as thus far i've been a little confused on the subject...
1) That the only real potential for proprietary access (like the whole nVidia thing) is that the hardware abstraction would no longer be abstracted from someone who would have to see the kernel's source code?
2) That I could, if I wanted to, write Linux programs and GASP!... sell them? (Even though I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy them!)
1) That the only real potential for proprietary access (like the whole nVidia thing) is that the hardware abstraction would no longer be abstracted from someone who would have to see the kernel's source code?
2) That I could, if I wanted to, write Linux programs and GASP!... sell them? (Even though I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy them!)
Use whatever method of "protection" that you like, but that is the reality of the situation.eboyd wrote:1) That the only real potential for proprietary access (like the whole nVidia thing) is that the hardware abstraction would no longer be abstracted from someone who would have to see the kernel's source code?
StarOffice, Transgaming's Cedega (formerly WineX), etc...eboyd wrote:2) That I could, if I wanted to, write Linux programs and GASP!... sell them? (Even though I don't think anyone in their right mind would buy them!)
Whatever the case, the winner is the one who will sell to the *average* user and provide *adequate* technical support. You underestimate how much the *average* user is afraid to lose all their precious data/documents/pr0n and how much they will pay for someone to hold their hand once in a while.