Dave
04-13-2000, 11:33 AM
From a previous response:
>
>I will try Linux as soon as possible and if I had resources I would most
>definetely write another OS just for the sake of creating a TRUE competitive
>industry in which quality is good, rather than just MS Crappy technology....
>
Oh great, another so called great programmer who thinks they could do a better
job of writing a computer OS than MS - if they only had a little more time.
If you've ever developed for a system with more than a hundred thousand
lines of code (and Windows 2000 has about 2 million I think) you would know
that as the system grows the complexity increases exponentially, not linearly.
Just because you can develop a nice little 10,000 line application doesn't
mean you can develop one even 10 times that size. Whenever someone says
how they could write a better OS than Microsoft I just laugh to myself at
their ignorance. And please, don't start comparing Linux to Windows 2000
as a better OS. Compare Linux to DOS 6.x and I will listen.
Like many other developers I develop Intranet applications. All my users
(2500) have the same OS, browser (IE 4.1) etc.. The problem is that my users
are used to feature rich user interfaces that HTML 3.2 can't deliver. By
taking advantage of IE advanced features (i.e. DHTML, ActiveX) I am able
to deliver to my users what the want and need. I also have to write Internet
applications but the user's expectations are much lower so coding to HTML
3.2 works fine without having to worry about browser compatibility issues.
Standards are great and should be followed when they make sense. When they
don't or are lacking then the people that actually make the software need
to decide what goes and what stays. In the end it is their jobs on the line,
not the standard committees.
>
>I will try Linux as soon as possible and if I had resources I would most
>definetely write another OS just for the sake of creating a TRUE competitive
>industry in which quality is good, rather than just MS Crappy technology....
>
Oh great, another so called great programmer who thinks they could do a better
job of writing a computer OS than MS - if they only had a little more time.
If you've ever developed for a system with more than a hundred thousand
lines of code (and Windows 2000 has about 2 million I think) you would know
that as the system grows the complexity increases exponentially, not linearly.
Just because you can develop a nice little 10,000 line application doesn't
mean you can develop one even 10 times that size. Whenever someone says
how they could write a better OS than Microsoft I just laugh to myself at
their ignorance. And please, don't start comparing Linux to Windows 2000
as a better OS. Compare Linux to DOS 6.x and I will listen.
Like many other developers I develop Intranet applications. All my users
(2500) have the same OS, browser (IE 4.1) etc.. The problem is that my users
are used to feature rich user interfaces that HTML 3.2 can't deliver. By
taking advantage of IE advanced features (i.e. DHTML, ActiveX) I am able
to deliver to my users what the want and need. I also have to write Internet
applications but the user's expectations are much lower so coding to HTML
3.2 works fine without having to worry about browser compatibility issues.
Standards are great and should be followed when they make sense. When they
don't or are lacking then the people that actually make the software need
to decide what goes and what stays. In the end it is their jobs on the line,
not the standard committees.