Quoting Christian Lavoie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Hey All, > > > > Just venting. > > > > Recently I check out the Linux apps wish list web page! I though > > that it was > > mighty funny that the software that most people want to see > > ported to Linux > > is made by the big nasty Microsoft clan. Personally, I hate M$ > > and was glade > > to find Linux. If it wasn't for Linux I probably would have only > > used my PC > > for games, which is about the only thing I WindBlows is go for (IMHO)! > > Two things: First, I must agree, I've seen that bsod once too much in my > life > Second, let's not get to M$ sucks because M$ sucks kind of arguments, > please. > > > It seems to me that most Linux user feel the same way. I always > > read threads > > on the evil M$ or how bad Windblows is etc! So can someone tell me why the > > Hell everyone wants M$ apps ported to Linux - Doesn't that defeat the > > purpose!!! Well to me it does. > > Actually, I think more and more people are wanting Microsof-like > applications, because the Microsoft philosophy has some good ideas, > especially when you are a end-user. > i thought that people just wanted more companies to write for linux because then they would have more options to choose from when they look for the [fill in name of tool] that suits them best. there are areas that linux is lagging in (such as games) IMHO, and more choice would seem to be a good thing. i for one would hate to see any of the functionality of linux dumbed down just so that it appeals to the "masses" (yes, i think that there is a way to make something easier to use and retain the number of options and the power, but it's very difficult). hopefully, we can convince companies to write for linux because there are "enough" people using it, even if the number of users is not 90% of the world.
> Let's assume hardware requirments are not an issue and that there are NO > SINGLE BUG in any of those so-called apps. the philosophy behind Microsoft > thingies is pretty appealing to users. A single interface, compared to > Linux' buttload of window managers and widget sets. I agree it's a Linux > advantage on Microsoft on many points, but not to the newbie, or seldom > user. > this is MS's philosophy by appropriation, and they'd like you to think that they follow this to the letter. the fact is that it is Apple who started this philosophy on a large user-base OS, and the company that made the most strides to see that all application developers for their OS adhere to it. it is better for every developer to adhere to the standard, if it makes their software easier to use. since MS is heavily into the application business, it is *BAD* for them to adhere to the standard, because they can have their own standard and gather customers that way. this is only because MS offers a product in every category, so a user can theoretically use a computer with almost 100% MS software with a consistent interface, even if it is not a standard interface across the windows developer industry. it is for this reason that MS breaks the standard every time they release a new version of their software. mere innovation could be done while adhering to their previous interface, but they want developers to be stuck in a constant game of "catch up with the MS standard", because it gives them the edge that they can't get by being good programmers. the fact is that if you were using 5 applications that are made by various non-MS companies that adhered to a industry-wide standard, it would seem like they were the ones that were introducing an obscure interface if they were different than the 10 MS applications that you used along side them. so when you say that MS has introduced a "standard", i think that you are referring to the fact that everyone else tries to look like them so that they are standard with the 90% of software that they make. the real "standard" that they peddle is their suite of common dialogue boxes and controls that they don't ever really use in their own applications. > I think the way to go as a community would to form a regroupment which would > define standards on how such suite of apps should behave and output, and let > the programmers do their job. Let's have a central brain which coordinates > everyone's effort in a single place, to get the most out of our > anarchy-based development model. > i love linux, and i love the people that develop for it, but i think that this won't really happen as long as their are enough people who feel that they need to take part in developing their own version of the most essential parts of the system. if you want to have a lot of choices as to which toolkit, which window manager, etc, you use, then you want it to stay like it is. if you want to appeal to developers that they can reach a lot of users with a single build of a product, then you have to standardize some of those things. i'm not even sure which i'd rather have, a huge array of choices on every system component or a few choices that will never fit my prferences perfectly but that allow a "standard" to form. > The greatest example of such an app is > Gecko (the latest Mozilla 'semi-official' build). It's simply is an > internet-document renderer, yet it'll aimed to be used in things other than > a browser, like HTML E-mail readers, help systems and other things that > way.... Doesn't that sounds familiar? Yes, it does. Microsoft did the same > with IE, Office and Visual Studio. At the center of Microsoft philosophy is > to convince users to use their software. At the basis of ours, it's to allow > users to choose, and modularize the OS and suite of apps environment. > Microsoft actually did good things. It simply never did them for the correct > purpose. this is also the way HotJava is supposed to work, but they charge like 300 dollars for the license to use it in other applications. if they had made it stand-alone and interfaceable from any application, perhaps we'd already have a tool like that. -James Pollard
