Brett Parker wrote:
J j.e.taylor@uea.ac.uk wrote:
Erm, Linus dosnt sit down and write X does he? or fix patches on Gaim?
Coo, you're getting good at this, you do actually know something... *applauds the J*.
Why thank you
Whats your point about who writes it? My point about Windows was that the Operating system provider (Microsoft) also provide a development kit that allows a range of languages and a range of efficiencies for the development of applications for their operating system.
They do?! You mean that commercial get in your face, Pile Of Wank, get in the way IDE called Visual Studio? I wasn't aware that this was Free Software? or even available/accessable to the hundreds and thousands of programmers out there? I wasn't aware that the range of languages MS supports was actually very vast, or, even, very nice. And, above all, the Windows API is evil.
Yes. Acutally I do mean that "Pile of Wank" Visual studio. Something which provides a range of languages from increadbly easiy to pickup (although in-efficient) VB through to more complex Cpp varients.
You can not sit and define the Windows API as "evil" AND sit and say that versitility is the spice of life. The Windows API is just different, and for some aspects, potentially better. For aspects of sound and video in Windows is actually something that I think is better supported then in the posix enviroment.
Hang on, now you've switched to package management?!
No. the use of the debian package manger is something that
Now, lets think about this, Windows is one distribution of one god damned awful operating system, *VERY* easy to get people to use a very very similar install mechanism, because everyone has to use the same set of libraries, and the same mechanisms to display windows. InstallShield ended up being one of the most popular installers for windows software, because it was easy... You'll notice the growing trend on linux to be apt-get, weird that, seens as it works. There are only really 2 schools now, the apt-get crew, and the ports crew (in effect), and both have their respective advantages and disadvantages, and mostly, they both work damned well. Now, if you have windows, where's the choice? it's going to be an executable, it's going to be run to install, wow. You know that there's going to be a GUI, because windows won't let you not have a GUI, so, there's one less concern. Now, take linux, doesn't matter what distro, someone, somewhere, is running it in the most minimal state possible while someone else has KDE/GNOME/FreeDesktop/all the graphical funkyness in the world... *YET* both of those systems should be able to upgrade cleanly, and with out requiring any more software.
No. I didnt switch to package managment. I mean the production of an executable file for another person.
Just *WHAT* do you mean by this, you appear to be jumping between controlling interfaces, installers, IDEs, and, well, all the tools that for a good development environment you have to find some that suit you. It's a personal thing. Personally, I'd rather hack on code in vim, by hand, and write a quick makefile to generate the binaries, I don't like IDEs though, they tend to reduce my productivity by generally having backwards design ideas and trying to tell me what I mean when it's not at all what I mean. ISTR Mr Ray likes wily, because it sits well with how he develops, now, if you're saying that Visual Studio fits with how you develop, and you're very happy with the APIs of Microsoft Windows, then why waste your time telling us how great it all is, when we're not particularly interested, and go out and work for them?
Im meaning that this is a potential "style" of system engineering, that it can be applied to **any** system used in computers, that you can apply it to the way that your systems are transmitted to the other computers, that you can apply it to the system you are making, so that your systems that you make are generic and workable .
Im not even saying that the use of your devopment kit has to be the one that is recommended by whoever made your OS - if you want to write in something else, sure, go ahead, there are command line options for those compilers as well you know.
But at the same time, dosnt it make sense to use the development kit that is built to interface with the operating system that you are writing for? Surely even for RAP systems, they will be even the slighest bit more effcient then having written without one.
Yes, I am asking alot. Its great being alturistic isnt it? Or wasnt that the point of the email?
And as for not being particually interested with how great Microsoft is - I never said they where great. Im saying they use this alternate style of engineering that you all seem to be misunderstanding, and that someone else started this trhead with Microsft are crap, so when asked if you're interested, well obviously at least one other person on this list is.
I tend to prefer *NOT* fucking with customers e-mail midstream, TYVM. As for Linux virii, weirdly, you get these 'ere security alerts etc etc, most of us do keep an eye on what's going on.
Fair point. But what about your customers who might be running mail servers for internal people on a Linux system - For example, whilst we do not want our ISP rejecting emails for us, we do reject emails for our users - indeed we even take those emails to a specific email address and have an admin deal with it in a "safe" manner. This is something we do in case there is potential that the content of the eamil might get passed here in another manner - for instance an email from home to work that has a virus in, we will inform the user that their comptuer at home has a virus, we will clean that email of the virus and then send the email to them. That way we get the work done.
Hrm, well, woke up this morning, coughed guts up for half hour, head still fuzzy, sneezing is not nice, and generally feeling quite lethargic, about covers it. Now off to put the kettle on and have some tea while watching some snooker.
Nurgle fangle :( Tea is always good. J