|
I paid 40$ for my Mandrake distribution  , and 130$ (I think) for W2k OEM. Win2k is at least 4 times better.
I vote pro drink 
|
|
|
|
|
Red Hat, Debian and Mandrake too, are all free - if you have the bandwidth.
Is Win2K infinitely better?
-c
------------------------------
Smaller Animals Software, Inc.
http://www.smalleranimals.com
|
|
|
|
|
a) I have a 56k modem
b) I like installation CDs
c) I really like Visual Studio
d) I really hate vi, emacs, gdb, makefile,...
e) I dislike KDE, Gnome, ...
f) Nothing is free in this world (maybe in the next world, ... we'll find out some day)
g) I like arguing with you  but I have some job to do (on my Win2k computer). Bye.
I vote pro drink 
|
|
|
|
|
Yuo forgot to count Visual Studio (containing the C++ compiler etc...) into the price.
Pirce += $1000.
Now, is there w2k a 250 times better?
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see - how much money can I make programming Windows, and how much can I make programming Red Hat ?
Return on investment is looking better all the time.
Christian
As I learn the innermost secrets of the around me, they reward me in many ways to keep quiet.
Men with pierced ears are better prepared for marriage. They've experienced pain and bought Jewellery.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, assuming that the Microsoft and it's Windows dominates the Desktop market. That may not be the case in the future, so I am not sure how to count and investemnt - because in the long run it may all look different. Microsoft, being dominating temporarily, makes a lot of moves that can change their dominance. They anger developers and they ignore customers. Situation on the market in question can change very quickly and if M$ continues their agressive moves they can fall as hard as they are hight...
I for once am one of the people who tried the other, call it Unix, development. Heck, for some while I was even in embedded market. I know that my investemnt will always return becuase I invest into knowledge, not the market. Whatever the market - I care not much. I am always a developer.
|
|
|
|
|
Let's see, programming Solaris and RedHat I was making 15K/yr. more than I am making now that I am doing solely Windows apps.
Does that answer your question?
Although I by far prefer MSDEV, MFC, and in general windows coding, I have always been able to make a lot more money doing Unix. I am definitely a much better Windows programmer than Unix programmer, so it is not based on skill level that's for sure.
I think now-a-days, everyone and their dog can program for Windows, but most people won't touch Unix. That leaves some really high paying jobs for Unix/Linux programmers.
There is also the fact that Linux/Unix sysadmins are paid much more than their NT counterparts. At my last company, we paid our Unix admin 80K/yr and our NT guy 50K/yr... They were both on about the same skill level...
|
|
|
|
|
Having just one company rule the desktop makes total
sense -- it's so much easier to develop for and
troubleshoot.
I think we should take this idea to other areas too.
How about cars? It would be so much easier if there
was just one 'standard' type of car. If you need a
replacement part they don't have to order it in for you
because they have one in stock. When your friend buys a
new car, you don't have to ask what kind -- instead
you ask what colour.
This would be great in politics too! We all know that
all politicians are the same. In an election you just
choose the lesser evil, and half the population doesn't
even care enough to vote. Why not just have one political
party? This would eliminate Florida's voting problems
too!
My point is that open standards promote competition
(isn't that the basis of capitalism?) and proprietary, de
facto standards don't. This doesn't mean that you can't
choose to buy and install Windows, it just means there
should be other choices too.
"das leid schlaft in der maschine" -Einstürzende Neubauten
|
|
|
|
|
I guess you could say that everything has a good and a bad side to it. Having one dominant OS is definitely easier for both developers and consumers if that OS is stable and runs the software they want. Imagine if every computer buyer had to pick between 4 or 5 OSs to install on their machines. First they'd have to figure out if the software they want to run is available for those OSs. Then they'd have to know about the different features, such as hardware requirements, multi-tasking capabilities, plug and play, support for hardware devices, etc... These days, thanks to Microsoft's dominance, few people care. They buy a computer and know that it will run whatever software they want and talk to whatever peripherals they plug into it. Is this a good thing? I say yes; it frees people to do what they bought the computer in the first place for: to run their software.
I have more to say but I'll stop here since I gotta get back to work.
Regards,
Alvaro
|
|
|
|
|
Possibly a more appropriate analogy would be the road systems that cars run on. Even the most die hard capitalist (such as myself) would not argue that every car company should be responsible for designing the roads that their cars will be compatible with. If you buy a Ford, you can only drive it on roads also designed by Ford! While I do not advocate government creating and maintaining the OS as they do roads, having some type of standard controlled by some kind of limited authority is better than no standard at all. Still,I voted for the multiple OS option. The best of all possible worlds would be to have a number of competing OS providers all working from a mutually agreed upon set of basic standards. I know that's utopian, and there is too much animosity among all the big players and too much arrogance and greed on the part of the biggest player to ever acheive that. Short of that, however, I believe that a Microsoft standard is better than no standard.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with your first sentence, My first thought was "I can't believe there are 134 idiots here"... but then I realize that there are probably alot of people around that never went to the computer store in the early 80s and had to pilfer through 100s of games only to find that only 6 of them actually supported any one hardware platform. Frustrating... Even more frustrating is trying to find a large enough audience to develop for when there are tons of systems out there. The current videogame industry is a small peek into what it's like without domination, except most people can afford to buy a playstation2 AND a x-box, not many can afford to buy a PC and an Amiga, and a Mac and a Beos Box, etc etc...
I remember development and software purchase in the pre-MS days, and I'm damn glad there's someone to lead and dominate now, I dont care if its Microsoft or someone else, but I can tell you that MS puts a hell of alot more back into the software / computer world than IBM did when it was king, and look what apple did during thier brief reign, closed up the box and said "No peeking inside or we'll void your warranty"... IBM came out with the Microchannel bus and patented it 100 ways so they could assume total domination and control and capital. (Good thing for us that both IBMs and Apples plans backfired and sealed their own dooms) No I'm not crying any tears for either of them, and I'm sure that MS is not the worst leader we could possibly have.
Dan K
|
|
|
|
|
Open standards are a MYTH!!!
They just don't exist in the real world. (An over statement, but the world of open standards are not as happy and care free as so many people think.)
The problem is that every company is looking to add value. (Remember JavaScript and all the other things Netscape did to the HTML standard?)
Well, once there is a clear leader, developers start taking advantage of those proprietary enhancements to add value to their own software. ("This site best viewed with Netscape!", EMBED).
Then the open standard gets taken over by a one or a few large companies that drive the standard to best meet their needs.
Of course, if this company has political favor, then it is said that the standard is advancing. If this company has fallen out of political favor, then it is said that they are trying to control or even take over the standard process.
Same events, different outlooks purely based on how a company is viewed politically.
(Don't even get me started on 'open standards' that try to be everything to everybody. How many of you remember when Digital Equipment Corp submitted their VMS operating system for POSIX compliance. The funny this is that the POSIX standard was so poor, they could actually meet the requirements.)
Tim Smith
Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
|
|
|
|
|
I think the selections should have been:
Windows
OS/2
Mac OS/X
Linux/FreeBSD/Unix/Posix
PC/MS/DR-DOS
BeOS
Other
Equal Share
Don't Care
I don't want any single company to dominate, but I would prefer to pay less for a stable OS.
|
|
|
|
|
I was purposely concentrating on companies, not technologies (I only mentioned DR-DOS to prompt those who wondered what Digital Research did).
Everyone seems to be down on MS, but then when you push someone about whether they would prefer to have Sun running the show then they are like 'um...er...' so I figured I'd do a simple popularity test.
I can do the OS popularity poll later 
cheers,
Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
|
|
|
|
|
The results so far seem to be backing that up. Everybody hates Microsoft, but only half of them are willing to let another company get more ground.
|
|
|
|
|
The loss of popularity has more to do with what they want to do in the near future than with this poll. The previous polls expressed the interest in the new toys like Managed C++ or C# and new "Activation" scheme - people don't quite like it. So, if M$ will continue to push crap on the people, the patience may end one day and we will all be using Linux or something like that.
|
|
|
|
|
Well said George.
M$ is very evil.
|
|
|
|
|
Come again? How is Microsoft different from any other company?
|
|
|
|
|
Says who? Got a (trustable) link where I can read that?
--
Alex Marbus
www.marbus.net
But then again, I could be wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
That is because you are wrong. M$ is f**king evil, all they care about is money and screwing their customers with crappy software. Even I could do better than them! M$ should change their business practices to those of Sun. No need for links - everybody with a brain knows this.
|
|
|
|
|
M$ should change their business practices to those of Sun.
Now I'm curious: which particular ones are you suggesting?
cheers,
Chris Maunder (CodeProject)
|
|
|
|
|
Sun don't make you pay $$$ for some their software which is free. All software should be free or very small priced or not everybody will have it.
Also Sun don't have lots of bugs in there software like M$ do. M$ is the worst software by a long distance. Sun has softwares that run on non-M$ operating systems so they can't crash!!
Need I mention more?
|
|
|
|
|
I tell you what, you persuade Sun to give away its hardware (which is its primary business) and I'll get Bill to give away his software (which is his primary business).
Sounds fair to me
Good luck
Michael
|
|
|
|
|
Hardware is too much as well. All these companies that make such inferior products should make them very cheaper or not everybody will have them! What's the point in spending $$$ making something if you only see it to 5 people? If it is free of very cheap then it is better for the consumer (who is always right) which then gives benefit back to the company as they will have more of customers.
|
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for obviously missing the point, but what is this benefit you talk of that occurs when a company has more customers, yet these cusomers do nothing for the company?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
