Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!! - Page 3


DevX Home    Today's Headlines   Articles Archive   Tip Bank   Forums   

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 206

Thread: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

  1. #31
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    In article <3ba75cee@news.devx.com>,
    "Bob" <tooslow42@yahoo.com> writes:

    > > > I disagree. Ask Zane how much innovation he is doing while he
    > > > converts his products to use .NET.


    > > Ask Zane how many man-hours he is wasting DOING that conversion,
    > > and how many innovative new features he could have added to those
    > > products - and how many innovative new products he could have
    > > added - with those hours.


    > O.K. Zane, will you please answer the question above.


    And as we have seen, he avoided the issue of man-hours entirely, and
    chose to deny your claim that he was doing such a conversion (while
    admitting that he was rewriting the code from the ground up).

    > > > As part of my self-taught intro to VB.NET, I'm writing a service that
    > > > uses a timer that exists only in code. There is no way to do that in
    > > > VB6 without third party tools.


    > > Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of that, or is it simply that you have
    > > not come up with a way to do so? If the third party tools can do
    > > it, it obviously MUST be possible to do. Your description is
    > > ambiguous enough that it is not practical to point you in the
    > > right direction.


    > This application is 24/7. You can do a timer in VB6, with unacceptable
    > limitations.


    Only if you limit yourself to the obvious approaches.

    > You can't write a service in VB6.


    Well ... you CAN, but M$ will not support it and it probably won't
    be all that stable. But that is a separate issue from your "timer
    that exists only in code".

    > It's been a few years since I looked at the kludge that MS made
    > available that tries to serve as a Service wrapper for programs
    > and if I remember correctly, is unsupported.


    M$ does not support any NT4 services in VB6. So?

    > <snip>


    > > > You may not consider this an 'innovation', but both my manager
    > > > and I view it as a major enhancement to our systems.


    > > One which you do not really know could - or could not - have been
    > > done with VB6.


    > Please prove me wrong.


    Please send a detailed spec and listing of your system, including all
    libraries. Our charge for such consultation is $285/hr. Send it to the
    address in the .sig (below), to my attention.

    > If it's an acceptable solution, I'll be glad to use it to upgrade
    > the current application.


    > > It is nice that your company has so much spare money that it can
    > > afford to pay you to play with your "self-taught intro to VB.NET",
    > > but with all the recent cutbacks many companies do not have such
    > > luxuries.


    > I'm sorry you consider making improvements to an application, 'play'.


    I consider unregulated experimentation with a "self taught intro" to
    any language to be "play". That you stumbled across some minor
    improvement in the process is a minor side effect of such play.

    > I'll also note that companies that stop or severly cut back R&D in
    > bad times tend not to survive over the long haul as this usually
    > gives a large advantage to their competitors who do keep up their
    > R&D spending.


    Tell that to companies who choose instead to rewrite existing products
    in Beta versions of new "languages".

    > > And again, I am forced to wonder what innovations you could
    > > otherwise have made in that time.


    > Feel free to keep on wondering. In the mean time, I'll keep
    > preparing for the future as directed by my management.


    Be careful what "future" you prepare for. There are already indications
    (some from Bill Gattes himself) that .NET will be used to attempt to
    force some VERY unpopular shifts in the industry. Does your management
    REALLY want to pay Micro$oft a yearly licensing fee to run the software
    that YOU (and their other employees) are developing?

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  2. #32
    Tom Shelton Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    > And the mix of keywords are more confusing than elaborating. Overrides and
    > Overloads are nearly identical, Shadows breaks polymorphism.


    Overrides and Overloads have completely different meanings. When you
    Override a method, you are hiding a method in the parent class, with a
    method with the same name and signature. Overloading is having multiple
    methods, in the same class, with the same name but different signatures.
    Very different.

    I must admit, the Shadows concept has me a little confused. But I haven't
    studied it extensively either. I do wonder why they chose this as the
    default.

    Tom Shelton



  3. #33
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    In article <3baeb8a7.395724781@news.devx.com>,
    zane@mabry.com (Zane Thomas) writes:

    > "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote:


    > >In San Fransisco, a gentleman retired (relatively) recently. ...


    > That's a poor analogy, and I have some serious reservations about the
    > accuracy of your little story.


    You can quite easily check it out. The Port Authority records are a
    matter of public record.

    > Over the past 26 years I've been programming tools and platforms have
    > evolved.


    And over the past 35 years I've been programming, much of that so-
    called "evolution" has resulted in dead ends.

    > The types of applications which are practical to write, and the
    > increasing understanding of what *can* be done with applications,
    > has resulted in ever-increasing functionality.


    Not all that much. For instance, when was the last time you saw a
    "standard" word processor with a built-in Grammar checker? Most of
    them do little more than extend their core functionality to cover new
    peripherals and platforms. What HAS resulted in increases in function
    has been the increases in speed and decreases in cost of processors
    and memory (and some peripherals). By virtue of THOSE increases, some
    things that once were impractical are now common.

    > It seems that your logic leads to the conclusion that we should all
    > still be programming in assembler.


    Not at all. But to date, your utility with logic has been very much
    in question. The end result of my logic would be that only NEW
    products which are specifically designed for the Golly-Gee-Whizz-New
    form of the platform would be written using the tools specific to
    that platform, and that work on EXISTING products would focus on
    improvements to those products rather than unnecessary rewrites.

    > >> The productivity of the .net environment is so much greater for
    > >> writing components than COM/ATL that it won't be long before our
    > >> rewrites and new components, all together, require less time than
    > >> would have been wasted doing the new products in COM/ATL.


    > >Interesting article of faith.


    > Article of faith? Statement of fact.


    So you have done a side-by-side comparison, with two thoroughly
    equivalent teams doing EXACTLY the same development (one in each
    platform) at the same time - and then compared the results? No? Then
    it is no more than an increasingly tenuous article of faith.

    > Based on what you've written so far it appears you aren't
    > qualified to discuss the differences between com/atl and .net
    > authored components.


    Based on what you've written so far, it appears that you are unable
    to carry on a substantive discussion of these issues. Instead, you
    choose to lapse into ad hominem arguments and other childish games.
    Sad, that.

    > What exactly is your experience which prompts you to make the sorts
    > of claims you're making?


    35 years of software development in a wide variety of environments
    and a wide network of contacts in the field (INCLUDING some in M$).
    What exactly is your experience which prompts you to ignore the
    statements of Bill Gates and the documents of Micro$oft, and thereby
    make the sorts of overly broad claims that YOU are making?

    > If you're concerned about everyone's wasting their time you might
    > like to make arguments which don't waste everyone's time.


    You seem to be doing more than enough of both for the entire group.

    > >But now that you think about it, how
    > >much of that time will you spend trying to catch up with the
    > >differences between the current Beta and the (eventual) first couple
    > >of "real" releases?


    > You're really grasping at straws there W. E (Bill) Goodrich, Phd. -
    > I don't expect there will be another beta before the first release,


    Well, we will see about that. One nice thing about such exchanges here:
    there is a record that can be accessed later.

    > and I have every reason to expect that any changes to the interfaces
    > presented by the framework - if any - will be very minor.


    And I have reason to believe that the actions of the US and EU courts
    will force some substantial changes in the core functionality of .NET.
    You can always HOPE that those changes will not affect YOUR code all
    that much, but history is not very supportive of such hopes. In fact,
    there is a finite chance that .NET (as you know it) will collapse
    entirely within a few years.

    > As to your implication of crushing changes for the next release I
    > have one thing to say: FUD.


    Ah, yes - another of your "reasoned arguments".

    > >The differences between the Betas have already
    > >caught a number of people flat-footed.


    > Some people just have flat feet. The changes from beta1 to beta2
    > weren't that serious viewed from the perspective of my uses,


    Well, isn't that special. But it certainly isn't a particularly valid
    basis for across the board generalizations about OTHER companies' uses.

    > and anyone who expects a beta 1 of an entirely new product to be
    > cast in concrete is just plain foolsih.


    Or ANY Beta.

    > >> Add to that the fact that we can put in new functionality which
    > >> was just to much of a pita to do (for the price we charge),


    > >Charge who? Because you were too expensive, or because you are on
    > >too small of a margin?


    > Do you have any real business experience?


    Somewhat more than 3 decades' worth. More than enough to know that
    there are several (potentially equally valid) interpretations of your
    poorly worded statement.

    > I wonder because I thought the above was perfectly clear.


    Of course you did - you are reading it with the same set of unexamined
    assumptions that went into writing it. Such self-delusive evaluation
    does little to address the actual merits (or lack thereof) of your
    prose.

    > For any given price there is a certain amount of work that can be
    > put into components.


    Interesting assumption. Of course, there are quite a number of
    variables that can significantly alter the equation - effectively
    nullifying that generalization. For example, the "amount of work that
    can be put into components" *irrespective of immediate profit or loss*
    is quite different from the cost that can be devoted to such work (for
    that given price) and allow for an immediate profit. Then there is the
    issue of how much fixed overhead you are figuring into those costs, as
    well as the issue of differing personnel costs (unless you are a one
    person shop). And so on. All told, your claim is more of an
    unnecessarily limiting assumption than a fact of business life.

    > The more functionality a programming


    Do you mean programmer?

    > gives per unit of work the more bang-for-the buck


    That rather depends on how much additional testing (and rework) that
    oh so "productive" programmer creates a need for while adding such
    "functionality".

    > irregardless


    Do you mean irrespective? Regardless? There is not really any such
    word as "irregardless".

    > of how many bucks we're talking about.


    Only if you choose to ignore other significant, relevant factors.

    > Didn't they cover Economics 101 in school?


    Apparently, that is as far as you got. If you had gotten more of an
    education in both macroeconomics and microeconomics - and business
    economics in general - you would not be likely to fall into such
    simplistic (and inaccurate) claims.

    > >> and the net result can hardly be called a "waste of time".


    > >But the exercise can.


    > Yawn. Let me guess, you have a PhD in philosophy right?


    No, Psychology. With a couple of decades of Business Consultancy (for
    such firms as Honeywell, AT&T, Polaroid, etc.) mixed in with the
    software engineering. And my undergraduate degree was in CS.

    > Go ahead, admit it, lots of people didn't learn anything useful in
    > school.


    Apparently, some less than others.


    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  4. #34
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    In article <3ba8252c@news.devx.com>,
    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> writes:

    > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3ba7d7ee.14831198@news.devx.com...


    > > So how come is Linux (not that I was talking about Linux, but since
    > > you brought it up implicitly in your reference to "'nix scripts")
    > > 1000 percent more reliable than Windows?


    > I used Linux as an example because you mentioned that you installed
    > it. I run several OS' here including Linix and Solaris and I don't
    > find them any more or any less unreliable than NT.


    Interesting - why did you choose to narrow the scope from Mike's
    characterization of "Windows" to your personal findings regarding one
    of the smaller (in installed base) subsets of Windows?

    > Improperly written drivers can crash any OS.


    The more interesting question is how likely such "improperly written
    drivers" are to be distributed with the OS - by the OS vendor.

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  5. #35
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    In article <3ba7c212$1@news.devx.com>,
    "Cali LaFollett" <cali@No-Spam-Please-visionized.com> writes:

    [NOTE: it is unfortunate that you chose to delete the claim I was
    actually responding to - concerning "a timer that exists only in
    code". It turns out to make a difference.]

    > > > Are you ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN of that, or is it simply that you
    > > > have not come up with a way to do so? If the third party tools
    > > > can do it, it obviously MUST be possible to do. Your description
    > > > is ambiguous enough that it is not practical to point you in the
    > > > right direction.


    > > This application is 24/7. You can do a timer in VB6, with
    > > unacceptable limitations. You can't write a service in VB6. It's
    > > been a few years since I looked at the kludge that MS made available
    > > that tries to serve as a Service wrapper for programs and if I
    > > remember correctly, is unsupported.


    > Bob is absolutesly correct! MS DOES NOT support Visual Basic written
    > services and here is the link incase you are interested Bill:
    > http://support.microsoft.com/directo...;EN-US;Q175948


    But that link does not address the issue of "a timer that exists only in
    code" - the issue he originally raised. The fact that M$ does not support
    NT4 services in VB6 is rather irrelevant to the issue of whether such a
    service (or its functional equivalent) can contain such a timer without
    third-party kludges.


    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  6. #36
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3BA86E29.B4D1D397@earthlink.net...
    >
    > Interesting - why did you choose to narrow the scope from Mike's
    > characterization of "Windows" to your personal findings regarding one
    > of the smaller (in installed base) subsets of Windows?


    Because I've found that a good percentage of people (esp. those with a *nix
    background) tend to consider Windows 9x and Windows NT as the same. Since
    the majority of people use Linux in a server role it's only valid to compare
    an equivalent OS.

    > The more interesting question is how likely such "improperly written
    > drivers" are to be distributed with the OS - by the OS vendor.
    >


    The only issues with drivers I've ever come across both at home and among
    various companies have been those by third party vendors.




  7. #37
    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    In article <3ba7c585@news.devx.com>,
    "Ian R" <ianr@na.net> writes:

    > "Mike Mitchell" <kylix_is@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    > news:3ba7b5af.6062859@news.devx.com...


    > > Yeah, when I see just how many of the flash-in-the-pan ideas
    > > Microsoft has brought to the programming table over the past
    > > ten years, all the acronyms, all the changes, sometimes from one
    > > week to the next, all the myriad servers...


    > Of course you're forgetting how many advancements came from many of
    > those "flash-in-the-pan" ideas.


    VERY few. M$ has a historical pattern of capitalizing on advancements
    from OTHER companies rather than producing such advancements
    themselves. It is interesting to note that in a recent interview, Bill
    Gates claimed for MS-DOS/Windows "advancements" that actually came
    from CP/M (vendor-independent OSs) and Apple, Amiga, and Sun (GUIs).

    > Between you and Sun we'd still be sitting at a command prompt.


    Sun was running GUI OS long before Windows came out.

    > > Most of those hundreds of "initiatives" were just ploys to feed
    > > the money machine, just ways of getting as many people as
    > > possible to pay up and buy more of the crapola. It sucks, it
    > > really does. Microsoft doesn't have a single innovating bone in
    > > its body. Even .NET is a


    > And exactly how many "innovative" competative OS' are out there?


    18, according to the US DOC.

    > Exactly how many "innovative" competative technologies are out
    > there?


    Far too many to mention.

    > Microsoft isn't the dominant player solely because of it's marketing
    > department despite claims to the contrary.


    More because of the legacy of IBMs marketing department, coupled with
    "business strategies" aimed at crippling their more innovative
    competitors (such as the OS code which deliberately interfered with
    Netscape). In those areas in which it has had to attempt to compete
    on merit (such as handheld computing), M$ has not done all that well.
    It is only those markets which have been vulnerable to OS leverage
    (read blackmail and/or sabotage) which have seen M$ as a "dominant
    player".

    --

    W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD

    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*
    * CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
    * * *
    * Without Aversive * ctgcentral@earthlink.net *
    * Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
    * or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
    * * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
    *-----------------------*--------------------------------------------*

  8. #38
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3BA87196.BBC81490@earthlink.net...
    >
    > But that link does not address the issue of "a timer that exists only in
    > code" - the issue he originally raised. The fact that M$ does not support
    > NT4 services in VB6 is rather irrelevant to the issue of whether such a
    > service (or its functional equivalent) can contain such a timer without
    > third-party kludges.
    >


    To switch back to one of the original points of the thread, those points are
    moot in .NET. The framework provides classes for both timers and services.
    It's easier, faster and less lines of code to produce the equivalent code in
    VB.NET than in VB6. End of point, regardless of whether one likes or
    dislikes .NET, agrees or disagrees with Microsoft, regardless of the state
    of the moon, and regardless of any other inane objection the .NOTers have.




  9. #39
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3BA87683.75C5B1C@earthlink.net...
    >
    > VERY few. M$ has a historical pattern of capitalizing on advancements
    > from OTHER companies rather than producing such advancements
    > themselves. It is interesting to note that in a recent interview, Bill
    > Gates claimed for MS-DOS/Windows "advancements" that actually came
    > from CP/M (vendor-independent OSs) and Apple, Amiga, and Sun (GUIs).
    >


    That's irrelevant. Regardless of whether it's done by invention or
    capitalization, it's the implementation and introduction that's important.

    > Sun was running GUI OS long before Windows came out.
    >


    And they're still running the same crap.

    >
    > 18, according to the US DOC.
    >


    And the majority of the ones in use are ? Hmm.. let me guess ...

    >
    > Far too many to mention.
    >


    See above.

    >
    > More because of the legacy of IBMs marketing department, coupled with
    > "business strategies" aimed at crippling their more innovative
    > competitors (such as the OS code which deliberately interfered with
    > Netscape). In those areas in which it has had to attempt to compete
    > on merit (such as handheld computing), M$ has not done all that well.
    > It is only those markets which have been vulnerable to OS leverage
    > (read blackmail and/or sabotage) which have seen M$ as a "dominant
    > player".
    >


    Name one major company that doesn't practice this. IBM had ample opportunity
    to dominate, they screwed it up. Sun had ample opportunity to dominate, they
    screwed it up, Netscape had ample opportunity to dominate, they screwed it
    up. Apple had ample opportunity to dominate, they screwed it up. Novell had
    ample opportunity to dominate, they screwed it up. Microsoft had ample
    opportunity to dominate, they got away with it.



  10. #40
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "Thomas Eyde" <thomas.eyde@online.no> wrote in message
    news:3ba8597a$1@news.devx.com...
    >
    > My remarks are not about inheritance or not, but about exploiting this
    > feature effectively and without introducing bugs.
    >


    But the same can be said about learning any new technology .

    >
    > And the mix of keywords are more confusing than elaborating. Overrides and
    > Overloads are nearly identical, Shadows breaks polymorphism.
    >
    > I was not refering to bugs in .NET, Microsoft has done a good job there,

    no
    > doubt. I was refering to bugs introduced by programmers due to, IMO,
    > confusing keywords.
    >


    I understand the point you're making. But to me once you learn and
    understand a keyword it shouldn't be an issue. That said, I admit the naming
    of certain keywords in VB.NET could have foregone a bit more thought.

    > fast development, but all landmarks tells me: .NET is reducing my speed.
    >


    This is something I don't understand. My experience with .NET so far brings
    me in the opposite direction.




  11. #41
    Mark Jerde Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    > Does your management
    > REALLY want to pay Micro$oft a yearly licensing fee to run the software
    > that YOU (and their other employees) are developing?


    Oh, yes! We know they have our best interests in mind.

    -- Mark




  12. #42
    Cali LaFollett Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    > Because I've found that a good percentage of people (esp. those with a
    *nix
    > background) tend to consider Windows 9x and Windows NT as the same. Since
    > the majority of people use Linux in a server role it's only valid to

    compare
    > an equivalent OS.


    Not that I am trying to step on your toes but you would be surprised at how
    many devs (and others for that matter) use Linux as the desktop too. There
    are actually some pretty nice GUIs in Linux. I flip-flop between my Linux
    install and Windows all the time.

    The thing that I think makes people think that Linux is a server
    installation is that most Linux distributions include FULL implementations
    (with source) of all the software needed to setup up your normal everyday
    Server (Web server, DNS server, DHCP, Telnet, SQL, etc.) where as Microsoft
    does not do this with there various Windows versions.

    But one doesn't not have to run this stuff to benefit from Linux.

    Cal



  13. #43
    Bob Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message
    news:3BA87196.BBC81490@earthlink.net...
    <snip>
    > > Bob is absolutesly correct! MS DOES NOT support Visual Basic written
    > > services and here is the link incase you are interested Bill:
    > > http://support.microsoft.com/directo...;EN-US;Q175948

    >
    > But that link does not address the issue of "a timer that exists only in
    > code" - the issue he originally raised. The fact that M$ does not support
    > NT4 services in VB6 is rather irrelevant to the issue of whether such a
    > service (or its functional equivalent) can contain such a timer without
    > third-party kludges.
    >

    Bill,

    There were two issues I raised. I'm sorry if you fixated on the timers
    issue. The first was a VB app as a service. The second was a timer that
    exists only in code. When I write code, I always try to write it with an eye
    towards reuse. In VB6, that's COM objects. Due to the limitations on the
    implementation of timers in code in VB6, that reuse is not possible.

    Now that I understand how timers work in .NET, I'll be creating my own
    VB.NET class that will provide my required functionality that will be
    reusable.

    Bob



  14. #44
    Ian R Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!


    "Cali LaFollett" <cali@no-spam-please-visionized.com> wrote in message
    news:3ba88c7d@news.devx.com...
    >
    > Not that I am trying to step on your toes but you would be surprised at

    how

    That's ok, hanging around here I tend to wear steel toed boots... grin...

    > many devs (and others for that matter) use Linux as the desktop too. There


    I have it here as a matter of interest and staying up to date with things.
    Developement on it is a different issue.

    > are actually some pretty nice GUIs in Linux. I flip-flop between my Linux
    > install and Windows all the time.
    >


    The GUIs (and Linux in general) have come a long way in terms of looks. I
    will give credit to the Linux developers for that. Useability and
    application availability again is another issue.

    > The thing that I think makes people think that Linux is a server
    > installation is that most Linux distributions include FULL implementations
    > (with source) of all the software needed to setup up your normal everyday
    > Server (Web server, DNS server, DHCP, Telnet, SQL, etc.) where as

    Microsoft
    > does not do this with there various Windows versions.
    >


    With the exception of SQL, NT provides the same services out of the box.
    Windows 9x has PWS which is free and suitable for the average home user web
    site. Which is what the majority of home users (both Linux and Windows) do.
    Linux in a server role isn't too bad, but then again so are my Sparcs
    running Solaris. I think a good portion of what makes Linux fairly popular
    is the fact that it's *not* a Microsoft product and thus appeals to the many
    anti-MS people out there.

    > But one doesn't not have to run this stuff to benefit from Linux.
    >


    I have no major issues with the actual OS itself. It's fairly fast and the
    stablility isn't too bad. In terms of the presentation layer, services,
    useability and applications, it's still years behind what's expected from an
    OS today. QNX is another good example of a fairly good kernel with a poor
    front end. As bad as Windows 95 is, neither can compare with the useability
    and application aspects of it. Things may probally change in time for Linux
    but as it stands now it's not suitable in a desktop role for the average
    user.




  15. #45
    Joe \Nuke Me Xemu\ Foster Guest

    Re: Why don't you go back to the days of DOS!!

    "W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <bgoodric@earthlink.net> wrote in message <news:3BA85D2F.C637298C@earthlink.net>...

    > In article <3ba75cee@news.devx.com>,
    > "Bob" <tooslow42@yahoo.com> writes:


    > > This application is 24/7. You can do a timer in VB6, with unacceptable
    > > limitations.

    >
    > Only if you limit yourself to the obvious approaches.
    >
    > > You can't write a service in VB6.

    >
    > Well ... you CAN, but M$ will not support it and it probably won't
    > be all that stable. But that is a separate issue from your "timer
    > that exists only in code".
    >
    > > It's been a few years since I looked at the kludge that MS made
    > > available that tries to serve as a Service wrapper for programs
    > > and if I remember correctly, is unsupported.

    >
    > M$ does not support any NT4 services in VB6. So?


    That should make absolutely no difference whatsoever! Try getting
    "support" for any VB program which uses the Declare statement, for
    example. Commune with the Mind of Microsoft on WTL, yet another
    "unsupported" technology:

    http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...%40tkmsftngp04

    That's right, just because Microsoft Product Support Services will
    just tell you to FOAD after charging your credit card should *not*
    discourage you from betting the farm on "unsupported" technology!

    --
    Joe Foster <mailto:jlfoster%40znet.com> Got Thetans? <http://www.xenu.net/>
    WARNING: I cannot be held responsible for the above They're coming to
    because my cats have apparently learned to type. take me away, ha ha!



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
HTML5 Development Center
 
 
FAQ
Latest Articles
Java
.NET
XML
Database
Enterprise
Questions? Contact us.
C++
Web Development
Wireless
Latest Tips
Open Source


   Development Centers

   -- Android Development Center
   -- Cloud Development Project Center
   -- HTML5 Development Center
   -- Windows Mobile Development Center