So, for a poll, if you've done any significant software development in a *nix-style platform, have you used an IDE? And if so, what is your favorite IDE and why?

I once had a software development job at a company that used Linux, and I ended up just using vi to write code and made use of gcc, g++, and gdb from the command prompt. I tried using KDevelop, but it didn't really seem to offer much of a better development experience. I know there are other IDEs available for Linux too (Eclipse, MonoDevelop, etc.) and am curious what other people have used. In Windows, I typically use Microsoft Visual Studio, and I think it provides great features for software development (good debugging functionality, IntelliSense, etc.). Apple's XCode seems fairly good too. I haven't yet used anything in Linux that I think compares to either of those, although I've heard that Eclipse is fairly good.

One thing that frustrated me a little about Linux IDEs (and Linux tools in general) is the philosophy of making use of other software that already exists. That means that the things that suck about other software will still be there in other software that uses it. For instance, for debugging apps in Linux, I started to use DDD, but DDD is simply just a GUI wrapper for gdb, so what bugged me about gdb also bugged me in DDD; I felt that DDD was only marginally better.

Nightfox

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to All on Fri Jan 22 2010 15:14:15

So, for a poll, if you've done any significant software development in a *nix-style platform, have you used an IDE? And if so, what is your favorite IDE and why?

Hi Nightfox,

Netbeans is one of my favorites for both Windows and *nix. Visual Studio is top of my list as you've said--it's a great IDE, however Netbeans comes pretty close. With its ability to handle ruby and rubygems for me it's pretty much the only IDE I work with in Linux.

I have been known to do various work projects in vim (and cream-vim for windows, which I highly recommend), for a console editor, it's probably the top of its class. I've used motor as well in the past.

I suppose that it all boils down to which language you use and for what purpose.

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jan 23 2010 20:33:38

Netbeans is one of my favorites for both Windows and *nix. Visual Studio is of my list as you've said--it's a great IDE, however Netbeans comes pretty close. With its ability to handle ruby and rubygems for me it's pretty much only IDE I work with in Linux.

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

I have been known to do various work projects in vim (and cream-vim for windows, which I highly recommend), for a console editor, it's probably the of its class. I've used motor as well in the past.

I had a job interview earlier this year, and the company was all into Microsoft technologies.. When they saw I had Linux on my resume, the manager asked me what my favorite Linux editor is (maybe a loaded question), and when I said vi, they all groaned. hehe

Nightfox

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 23 2010 22:00:05

Hi Nightfox,

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

Yes, excellent java support as well, which makes coding SBBS JSOM stuff a little bit easier on the eyes than what I was using (notepad.exe!).

I had a job interview earlier this year, and the company was all into Microsoft
technologies.. When they saw I had Linux on my resume, the manager asked me what my favorite Linux editor is (maybe a loaded question), and when I said vi,
they all groaned. hehe

I work for a Microsoft partner company, so I hear that. Mostly I can do and run whatever I want at work, which is great. But "whatever" does not include installing linux on my work kit! :) :(

It's funny how the whole linux-vs-windows thing goes on, firstly at work, and secondly when I come home and I'm browsing the internet! At the end of the day I would like to think I'm well-versed in both OSes, it doesn't have to be one or the other with no room for middle ground. Unfortunately, that's the way most enterprise deployments work--they want an all-Microsoft environment for management.

Personally at home, I've got everything from a Sparc Ultra 10 to Server 2008 R2 machines--and I've found each machine and OS to be good at doing at least one thing the others weren't... it's all about a mixed bag! At least in my humble opinion!

Kind regs,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Tue Jan 26 2010 20:18:34

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

Yes, excellent java support as well, which makes coding SBBS JSOM stuff a little bit easier on the eyes than what I was using (notepad.exe!).

I've been using Notepad2 to write my SBBS JSOM stuff. Notepad2 was written as a replacement for Windows Notepad, with many extra features, including syntax coloring for various programming languages, including JavaScript. I've gotten to like it as a quick & simple text editor for writing things like JavaScript scripts.

I work for a Microsoft partner company, so I hear that. Mostly I can do and whatever I want at work, which is great. But "whatever" does not include installing linux on my work kit! :) :(

I'm sorry to hear that. ;) I don't mind working in a company that uses Microsoft stuff (I do think they have good products), but what I don't particularly like is the "war" that Microsoft has against pretty much everyone else.

It's funny how the whole linux-vs-windows thing goes on, firstly at work, an secondly when I come home and I'm browsing the internet! At the end of the d I would like to think I'm well-versed in both OSes, it doesn't have to be on or the other with no room for middle ground. Unfortunately, that's the way m enterprise deployments work--they want an all-Microsoft environment for management.

I agree - And it seems that many companies aren't even open to considering alternative solutions and products. I've talked to some who go as far as not even trusting Linux - I had a job interview once at a place that used all Microsoft stuff, and the interviewer asked me what I thought of Linux. I said I genrally liked it, and he said he didn't trust Linux because since it's open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code and put in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I don't quite understand.. As a computer geek, I'm fairly computer-agnostic, and I like taking a look at anything and everything, from Windows to Linux to Apple/Macintosh, and pretty much anything else.

Personally at home, I've got everything from a Sparc Ultra 10 to Server 2008 machines--and I've found each machine and OS to be good at doing at least on thing the others weren't... it's all about a mixed bag! At least in my humbl opinion!

I agree with you there. :) I wouldn't mind tinkering with a Sparc machine; I've also heard that Amiga is planning to release a new computer this year, and it looks interesting.

Nightfox

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to art on Tue Jan 26 2010 15:40:36

Hi Nightfox,

I've been using Notepad2 to write my SBBS JSOM stuff. Notepad2 was written

I've heard of N2 but not tried it out yet, I'll have to remember that one. Cream/win32 itself is fairly hefty as it is VIM + more, it actually takes longer than visual studio 2010 to load up on my machines(!)

I'm sorry to hear that. ;) I don't mind working in a company that uses Microsoft stuff (I do think they have good products), but what I don't particularly like is the "war" that Microsoft has against pretty much everyone

I agree with you there--Server 2008, Windows 7, and SQL 2008 for example are rock solid products. As a partner we do get access to beta products, and even the stuff like the Windows 7 Technical Preview was amazing (bear in mind that this was 6-12 months before even the Open Beta). Good quality software is being churned out (or bought out) by them, which in my opinion is a good thing. I couldn't imagine life without Microsoft SQL Server or Windows Server 2003 or 2008...

I agree - And it seems that many companies aren't even open to considering alternative solutions and products. I've talked to some who go as far as

I think to a degree it's a lot of "they use Microsoft, so we should too". There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame when IT goes wrong; while you can get enterprise MySQL support, try to do the same for a smaller open source project and you're basically up shit creek -paddle.

Microsoft is pretty much the only player with a long history and is on the edge of innovation (I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms by saying that...). Old classics like Cisco and Oracle are being replaced by a single vendor that does it all.

open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code and in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I quite understand.. As a computer geek, I'm fairly computer-agnostic, and I

Yep. We've all heard that before. Although to a degree, I agree with that philosophy. Why require someone to read source code before they can trust it? In fact, why would anyone apart from a programmer want to read source code at all? Non-geeks prefer binaries, in my experience.

Versus buying a product from Microsoft, all those unknowns add up to a lot of time and risk very few companies I've come across are willing to accept that risk.

I've also heard that Amiga is planning to release a new computer this year,

Yeah I have seen that as well, looking forward to its release, although not sure if I'm going to purchase one!

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Wed Jan 27 2010 20:07:08

couldn't imagine life without Microsoft SQL Server or Windows Server 2003 or 2008...

In my experience, open-source technologies such as Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. also seem to be fairly rock-solid, and I think such products would provide a good (and perhaps less expensive) alternative to Microsoft products.

There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame when goes wrong; while you can get enterprise MySQL support, try to do the same f a smaller open source project and you're basically up shit creek -paddle.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but I think that's a fairly good point.. The open-source community can be fairly big, cloudy entity with no easy way to pin blame to someone.

Microsoft is pretty much the only player with a long history and is on the e of innovation (I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms by saying that...

hehe, yeah, I'd say that's quite a can of worms you're opening.. For a while, Linux has been making a fairly strong presence in the IT industry, with big companies like Red Hat and MySQL providing enterprise support, and there are companies that have relied on Linux for quite some time now. I used to work at a company that used purely Linux and open-source products, and it all seemed to work very well.

open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code a in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I

Yep. We've all heard that before. Although to a degree, I agree with that philosophy. Why require someone to read source code before they can trust it

You don't have to read source code in order to trust it. People trust Microsoft (to some extent) and other closed-source products, so I think open-source products can be trusted too. Open-source products such as Linux just require some form of administration/management to ensure good quality control, so that people can't contribute bad/malicious code to the project.

In fact, why would anyone apart from a programmer want to read source code a all? Non-geeks prefer binaries, in my experience.

I agree there. In fact, that's an argument I used to bring up with a previous employer who would add open-source as a benefit to our product. However, I do think that open-source does have a benefit for people who don't care about reading source code - What it means is that the product is open to a very large community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved faster than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working on it.

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Wed Jan 27 2010 17:36:43

Hi Nightfox,

In my experience, open-source technologies such as Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. also seem to be fairly rock-solid, and I think such products provide a good (and perhaps less expensive) alternative to Microsoft

No argument from me there. In fact, my MySQL server at home bodes better than our production SQL Server 2008 cluster in terms of stability, albeit with way less usage, but I agree that a lot of open source products are mature enough to be used in the enterprise, for a lot less licensing fees than Microsoft.

There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame

I hadn't really thought about that before, but I think that's a fairly good

Aye, one thing I've found that drives business is risk. Essentially everyone is just paying for the other party to take the risk. Open source rarely provides
a way to offset risk in a way that satifies large enterprises.

open-source products can be trusted too. Open-source products such as Linux just require some form of administration/management to ensure good quality control, so that people can't contribute bad/malicious code to the project.

Agreed. That's the risk of allowing open source communities to control the software enterprises are running at a code level. While there are OS products out there with good quality assurance, there are also those without any quality assurance, testing, and and the end of the day, accountability!

reading source code - What it means is that the product is open to a very community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved
than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working on it.

That's true in theory, but in practice, I think Microsoft would have more people working on a kernel issue than Linux or BSD, for example? For instance Microsoft issued a hotfix recently on the request of one of our clients. At the same time, I've had some great "real-time" support from a lot of OS developers, and I think that has a great advantage. But that's me personally, most companies don't buy into that, which is unfortunate.

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jan 30 2010 22:22:14

community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working o it.

That's true in theory, but in practice, I think Microsoft would have more people working on a kernel issue than Linux or BSD, for example? For instanc Microsoft issued a hotfix recently on the request of one of our clients. At same time, I've had some great "real-time" support from a lot of OS develope and I think that has a great advantage. But that's me personally, most companies don't buy into that, which is unfortunate.

With an open-source project, it's probably more difficult to count how many people are working on a particular task at any given time.

At any rate, Linux has been around since 1991 (at least just the kernel); the GNU project has been working on the GNU Linux tools since the early 90s, and from what I've noticed, it seems that Linux is only growing in popularity. I continue to occasionally hear new stories about Linux being used in new places and for different projects - for instance, I've heard about Linux being used in embedded environments and for lightweight PCs and laptops; I've also heard of big companies supporting Linux - IBM, for example, installs Linux on their server machines. So, it seems that Linux must be benefitting enough people and businesses for it to continue to grow and be used in various projects and products. I don't think Linux is going away, and despite its still somewhat slow growth in the marketplace, I imagine that Linux and other open-source tools will continue to be a thorn in Microsoft's side (in fact, a few years ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in Linux violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 30 2010 10:35 pm

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in Linu violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

I don't think so, as evidenced by the fact that the Linux community is still alive and well. :) From what I read, I think the only reason Microsoft was attempting that is that they're afraid of Linux continuing to become more popular and taking marketshare away from Microsoft. Microsoft was looking for a way to kill Linux, basically.

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 2010 09:48 pm

If Microsoft wants to be pissed at anybody it should be the Compiz people...Anybody out herre that runs Ubuntu would know...

OOH...WOWW...Microsoft can select two windows and tile them together...that's the big deal with Windows 7....ooooooh....

Try having multiple desktops on a CUBE & being able to switch to multiple desktops on that cube....4 desktops? Wait...6 desktops? 8 desktops? As many as you want???

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

Ubuntu's got them BEAT...Shit...If more people knew about Linux...Microsoft would go ****BROKE****....and I'd **LOVE** it...

Us old Micro Pro guys need to stick together!

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:36:00

If Microsoft wants to be pissed at anybody it should be the Compiz people...Anybody out herre that runs Ubuntu would know...

Try having multiple desktops on a CUBE & being able to switch to multiple desktops on that cube....4 desktops? Wait...6 desktops? 8 desktops? As man as you want???

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think all that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds of effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 30 2010 10:35 pm

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tricky, and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. Plus it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't make anything other then support :)

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 2010 21:48:18

ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code i violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

I don't think so, as evidenced by the fact that the Linux community is still alive and well. :) From what I read, I think the only reason Microsoft was attempting that is that they're afraid of Linux continuing to become more popular and taking marketshare away from Microsoft. Microsoft was looking f a way to kill Linux, basically.

Yeah First was SCO and now they are bankrupt but still trying... :) I'm sure there are small things here and there that are ver general, but if MS goes that route, IMB and other supports of Linux, have just as many patentes that they could counter sue MS on and it will be a whole mess back and forth.

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28 am

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think al that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

Well, if it's taking you a second or more to draw compiz effects you must have a really slow, cpu, not enough memory or a bad video card.

I *always* use the multiple desktop feature. I'm constantly running 20 million things at once.

I doubt it came from Mac. I've got a friend who's a Mac nut & when I showed him the compiz effects (especically the cube) and he freaked.

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:48 am

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tricky, and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. Pl it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't mak anything other then support :)

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Mon Mar 29 2010 23:32:00

Well, if it's taking you a second or more to draw compiz effects you must ha a really slow, cpu, not enough memory or a bad video card.

I guess it doesn't take that long, but it does take a moment to draw those effects.

I *always* use the multiple desktop feature. I'm constantly running 20 mill things at once.

I've always used the multiple desktop feature in Linux too. However, I tend to do without the fancy effects. I just like to be able to click another desktop and be there. :)

I doubt it came from Mac. I've got a friend who's a Mac nut & when I showed him the compiz effects (especically the cube) and he freaked.

Well check this YouTube video out (cube on a mac): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRNruZmIExA

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Nightfox on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:50:05

there are small things here and there that are ver general, but if MS goes t route, IMB and other supports of Linux, have just as many patentes that they could counter sue MS on and it will be a whole mess back and forth.

Yeah.. Sometimes I think Microsoft's tactic in this case might be to sue other companies so that the other companies will spend enough money on legal fees that they will be run into the ground, or at least financially hurt fairly bad. Microsoft probably has enough money that this can work for them, at least for a while.

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28 am

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think all that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds of effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a
second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

I have all the theming/etc shut off on xp and it runs much quicker.. I don't need the fisher price ui to help me :)


--

Tim Smith (mrproper)
WarZone BBS - warzone.synchro.net

---
■ Synchronet ■ WarZone BBS - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: mrproper to Nightfox on Thu Apr 01 2010 03:27:55

I have all the theming/etc shut off on xp and it runs much quicker.. I don't need the fisher price ui to help me :)

:) I agree. Since XP came out, I've tended to disable the theme stuff in Windows. I usually go into the Services configuration and disable the "Themes" service so that I can't even use the special themes - That probably saves some RAM and CPU cycles. I'm using Windows 7 now and still disable that stuff - I think the Aero styling in Windows Vista/7 is even more intense than XP's themes. I had actually started to consider using XP's themes before I upgraded my Windows. Now I think it might be useful to have XP's themes in Windows 7 as an alternative to Aero. :) Operating systems are starting to feel like cars, in that for some years I'll like the look of a car but might not in newer model years. :)

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Mon Mar 29 2010 23:34:00

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:48 am

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tric and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't anything other then support :)

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

Not to mention they like to make their own standards and fuck up everything else. One reason why i haven't baught a copy of Windows since '95 came with my computer in the early 90's. :)

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Apr 05 2010 02:07 pm

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

Not to mention they like to make their own standards and fuck up everything else. One reason why i haven't baught a copy of Windows since '95 came
with my computer in the early 90's. :)

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags are authorized windows developers...now would you think that they all might be in league (or actually doing it themselves) with the assholes that write spyware & viruses...

More money in their pockets...

-Rassilon...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Tue Apr 06 2010 00:02:00

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a

Since when? I thought all you needed was a Windows compiler. You can buy a copy of Visual Studio (or just Visual C++ or Visual C#, etc.) and write Windows software with those. In fact, you don't even need to pay anyone any money if you don't want to - There are free compilers & IDEs available for Windows, such as Dev-C++, MonoDevelop, Eclipse, and I'm sure there are others too.

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer", except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Tue Apr 06 2010 06:43 pm

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer", except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

That's exactly what it is...

-Rass...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Wed Apr 07 2010 13:48:00

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer" except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

That's exactly what it is...

But you don't *have* to be an "authorized Windows developer" in order to develop software for Windows. There are plenty of software companies and Windows developers who I'm sure don't have that title.

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Tue Apr 06 2010 00:02:00

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a authorized windows developers...now would you think that they all might be i league (or actually doing it themselves) with the assholes that write spywar viruses...

More money in their pockets...

They probably do, at least i remember thats how McAfee started was by making DOS viruses back in the day, then releasing them..

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Wed Apr 07 2010 10:21 am

They probably do, at least i remember thats how McAfee started was by
making DOS viruses back in the day, then releasing them..

I am not suprised...

-Rassilon...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28:33

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:36:00

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

That's a fair statement, although on my quad core computer, TWM runs at the same speed as compiz turned all the way up, these days it's becoming less and less of an issue.

I do agree with you though, all these bells and whistles don't really have anything to do with the OS itself and give end users the wrong impression. Compiz cube is awesome, lovely eye candy et al., but at the end of the day functionally doesn't make much difference from hitting alt-tab in windows.

One thing I'm doing these days is running 7 as a host OS, then using virtualbox with ubuntu koala as a guest VM in integrated mode, if you've got a decent system compiz cube works just a smoothly: http://art.csoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/theultimatecombo.jpg

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Wed Mar 31 2010 12:54:58

One thing I'm doing these days is running 7 as a host OS, then using virtual with ubuntu koala as a guest VM in integrated mode, if you've got a decent system compiz cube works just a smoothly: http://art.csoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/theultimatecombo.jpg

That's cool - I've used VirtualBox, but only briefly. I didn't know it had an Integrated mode. I've seen Integrated mode with Parallels on a Mac and thought that was cool and thought it might be something useful for a Windows host too.

I haven't messed with Linux in a while, but I've considered running it in a virtual machine rather than giving it its own partition, since I mainly use Windows. It seems like that might be a more convenient way to use Linux when I want/need to.

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Thu Jun 17 2010 21:06:31

Hi Nightfox,

I haven't messed with Linux in a while, but I've considered running it in a virtual machine rather than giving it its own partition, since I mainly use Windows. It seems like that might be a more convenient way to use Linux when I
want/need to.

I'm with you 100% there. As far as my desktop machine, I tend to prefer Windows 7. However with Virtualbox in integrated mode, I can run Win 7 as a guest OS and then XP and Linux as integrated guests. Being able to pause them to reboot the host is an added bonus of having them as VMs.

One thing to note is that virtualbox now supports D3D on windows guests, so if you still prefer to run Linux hosts, Windows 3D performance in guests are greatly improved these days.

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatcats BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyone run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinions of your experiences...

Kind regards,
________________ _______
\_____ __ \ ___\
\ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
\_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
f a t c a t s b b s

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Fri Jun 18 2010 08:14:34

One thing to note is that virtualbox now supports D3D on windows guests, so you still prefer to run Linux hosts, Windows 3D performance in guests are greatly improved these days.

That's good - One of the things that has bugged me in the past is lack of 3D performance in virtual machines. I admire the developers of virtual machine software who are able to do what they do..

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...

I've been running my BBS in a VM for over a year now. The reason is that I've been using a 64-bit OS as my main OS, and many BBS doors (being 16-bit DOS apps) aren't supported in 64-bit versions of Windows anymore. So I installed Windows 2000 in a VM for running my BBS, and it has generally worked well enough. A couple months ago, I moved my BBS over to a VM (running Windows 2000) in Parallels on my Mac Mini (because that's my only other desktop PC right now, and I didn't want to keep the PC in my bedroom running all the time due to heat).

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Fri Jun 18 2010 07:42:18

I've been running my BBS in a VM for over a year now. The reason is that been using a 64-bit OS as my main OS, and many BBS doors (being 16-bit DOS apps) aren't supported in 64-bit versions of Windows anymore. So I

Hi Nightfox,

That's the same reason I'd like to P2V, saves energy and I'll be able to continue running 64-bit host OSes. I also like the idea of being able to backup the entire environment with a single VM flatfile.

How is Parallels? I've not got any Apple hardware these days but a few people I know are using Parallels as their VM solution.

Kind regs,
________________ _______
\_____ __ \ ___\
\ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
\_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
f a t c a t s b b s

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jun 19 2010 12:02:41

How is Parallels? I've not got any Apple hardware these days but a few peopl know are using Parallels as their VM solution.

I think Parallels is decent - about on par with VMWare, but honestly I haven't used it much beyond running my BBS in it (with Windows 2000). It seems to work well though.

One thing I've noticed is that my BBS seems a little slower running in Parallels than it was on my main desktop PC using VMWare, but there definitely may be other factors causing that (different hardware, including a slower CPU, and different host OS).

Nightfox

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Fri Jun 18 2010 08:14:34

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...

I've heard most experiences are good. The only problems come with doors, becasue they are usually emulated to dos as well, and under load can come to a crawl. But i guess it also depends on the system and resources allocated., and waht doors you install...

So, for a poll, if you've done any significant software development in a *nix-style platform, have you used an IDE? And if so, what is your favorite IDE and why?

I once had a software development job at a company that used Linux, and I ended up just using vi to write code and made use of gcc, g++, and gdb from the command prompt. I tried using KDevelop, but it didn't really seem to offer much of a better development experience. I know there are other IDEs available for Linux too (Eclipse, MonoDevelop, etc.) and am curious what other people have used. In Windows, I typically use Microsoft Visual Studio, and I think it provides great features for software development (good debugging functionality, IntelliSense, etc.). Apple's XCode seems fairly good too. I haven't yet used anything in Linux that I think compares to either of those, although I've heard that Eclipse is fairly good.

One thing that frustrated me a little about Linux IDEs (and Linux tools in general) is the philosophy of making use of other software that already exists. That means that the things that suck about other software will still be there in other software that uses it. For instance, for debugging apps in Linux, I started to use DDD, but DDD is simply just a GUI wrapper for gdb, so what bugged me about gdb also bugged me in DDD; I felt that DDD was only marginally better.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to All on Fri Jan 22 2010 15:14:15

So, for a poll, if you've done any significant software development in a *nix-style platform, have you used an IDE? And if so, what is your favorite IDE and why?

Hi Nightfox,

Netbeans is one of my favorites for both Windows and *nix. Visual Studio is top of my list as you've said--it's a great IDE, however Netbeans comes pretty close. With its ability to handle ruby and rubygems for me it's pretty much the only IDE I work with in Linux.

I have been known to do various work projects in vim (and cream-vim for windows, which I highly recommend), for a console editor, it's probably the top of its class. I've used motor as well in the past.

I suppose that it all boils down to which language you use and for what purpose.

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jan 23 2010 20:33:38

Netbeans is one of my favorites for both Windows and *nix. Visual Studio is of my list as you've said--it's a great IDE, however Netbeans comes pretty close. With its ability to handle ruby and rubygems for me it's pretty much only IDE I work with in Linux.

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

I have been known to do various work projects in vim (and cream-vim for windows, which I highly recommend), for a console editor, it's probably the of its class. I've used motor as well in the past.

I had a job interview earlier this year, and the company was all into Microsoft technologies.. When they saw I had Linux on my resume, the manager asked me what my favorite Linux editor is (maybe a loaded question), and when I said vi, they all groaned. hehe

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 23 2010 22:00:05

Hi Nightfox,

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

Yes, excellent java support as well, which makes coding SBBS JSOM stuff a little bit easier on the eyes than what I was using (notepad.exe!).

I had a job interview earlier this year, and the company was all into Microsoft
technologies.. When they saw I had Linux on my resume, the manager asked me what my favorite Linux editor is (maybe a loaded question), and when I said vi,
they all groaned. hehe

I work for a Microsoft partner company, so I hear that. Mostly I can do and run whatever I want at work, which is great. But "whatever" does not include installing linux on my work kit! :) :(

It's funny how the whole linux-vs-windows thing goes on, firstly at work, and secondly when I come home and I'm browsing the internet! At the end of the day I would like to think I'm well-versed in both OSes, it doesn't have to be one or the other with no room for middle ground. Unfortunately, that's the way most enterprise deployments work--they want an all-Microsoft environment for management.

Personally at home, I've got everything from a Sparc Ultra 10 to Server 2008 R2 machines--and I've found each machine and OS to be good at doing at least one thing the others weren't... it's all about a mixed bag! At least in my humble opinion!

Kind regs,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Tue Jan 26 2010 20:18:34

I'll have to keep Netbeans in mind. :)

Yes, excellent java support as well, which makes coding SBBS JSOM stuff a little bit easier on the eyes than what I was using (notepad.exe!).

I've been using Notepad2 to write my SBBS JSOM stuff. Notepad2 was written as a replacement for Windows Notepad, with many extra features, including syntax coloring for various programming languages, including JavaScript. I've gotten to like it as a quick & simple text editor for writing things like JavaScript scripts.

I work for a Microsoft partner company, so I hear that. Mostly I can do and whatever I want at work, which is great. But "whatever" does not include installing linux on my work kit! :) :(

I'm sorry to hear that. ;) I don't mind working in a company that uses Microsoft stuff (I do think they have good products), but what I don't particularly like is the "war" that Microsoft has against pretty much everyone else.

It's funny how the whole linux-vs-windows thing goes on, firstly at work, an secondly when I come home and I'm browsing the internet! At the end of the d I would like to think I'm well-versed in both OSes, it doesn't have to be on or the other with no room for middle ground. Unfortunately, that's the way m enterprise deployments work--they want an all-Microsoft environment for management.

I agree - And it seems that many companies aren't even open to considering alternative solutions and products. I've talked to some who go as far as not even trusting Linux - I had a job interview once at a place that used all Microsoft stuff, and the interviewer asked me what I thought of Linux. I said I genrally liked it, and he said he didn't trust Linux because since it's open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code and put in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I don't quite understand.. As a computer geek, I'm fairly computer-agnostic, and I like taking a look at anything and everything, from Windows to Linux to Apple/Macintosh, and pretty much anything else.

Personally at home, I've got everything from a Sparc Ultra 10 to Server 2008 machines--and I've found each machine and OS to be good at doing at least on thing the others weren't... it's all about a mixed bag! At least in my humbl opinion!

I agree with you there. :) I wouldn't mind tinkering with a Sparc machine; I've also heard that Amiga is planning to release a new computer this year, and it looks interesting.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: Nightfox to art on Tue Jan 26 2010 15:40:36

Hi Nightfox,

I've been using Notepad2 to write my SBBS JSOM stuff. Notepad2 was written

I've heard of N2 but not tried it out yet, I'll have to remember that one. Cream/win32 itself is fairly hefty as it is VIM + more, it actually takes longer than visual studio 2010 to load up on my machines(!)

I'm sorry to hear that. ;) I don't mind working in a company that uses Microsoft stuff (I do think they have good products), but what I don't particularly like is the "war" that Microsoft has against pretty much everyone

I agree with you there--Server 2008, Windows 7, and SQL 2008 for example are rock solid products. As a partner we do get access to beta products, and even the stuff like the Windows 7 Technical Preview was amazing (bear in mind that this was 6-12 months before even the Open Beta). Good quality software is being churned out (or bought out) by them, which in my opinion is a good thing. I couldn't imagine life without Microsoft SQL Server or Windows Server 2003 or 2008...

I agree - And it seems that many companies aren't even open to considering alternative solutions and products. I've talked to some who go as far as

I think to a degree it's a lot of "they use Microsoft, so we should too". There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame when IT goes wrong; while you can get enterprise MySQL support, try to do the same for a smaller open source project and you're basically up shit creek -paddle.

Microsoft is pretty much the only player with a long history and is on the edge of innovation (I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms by saying that...). Old classics like Cisco and Oracle are being replaced by a single vendor that does it all.

open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code and in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I quite understand.. As a computer geek, I'm fairly computer-agnostic, and I

Yep. We've all heard that before. Although to a degree, I agree with that philosophy. Why require someone to read source code before they can trust it? In fact, why would anyone apart from a programmer want to read source code at all? Non-geeks prefer binaries, in my experience.

Versus buying a product from Microsoft, all those unknowns add up to a lot of time and risk very few companies I've come across are willing to accept that risk.

I've also heard that Amiga is planning to release a new computer this year,

Yeah I have seen that as well, looking forward to its release, although not sure if I'm going to purchase one!

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Favorite *nix IDE
By: art to Nightfox on Wed Jan 27 2010 20:07:08

couldn't imagine life without Microsoft SQL Server or Windows Server 2003 or 2008...

In my experience, open-source technologies such as Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. also seem to be fairly rock-solid, and I think such products would provide a good (and perhaps less expensive) alternative to Microsoft products.

There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame when goes wrong; while you can get enterprise MySQL support, try to do the same f a smaller open source project and you're basically up shit creek -paddle.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but I think that's a fairly good point.. The open-source community can be fairly big, cloudy entity with no easy way to pin blame to someone.

Microsoft is pretty much the only player with a long history and is on the e of innovation (I'm probably opening up a huge can of worms by saying that...

hehe, yeah, I'd say that's quite a can of worms you're opening.. For a while, Linux has been making a fairly strong presence in the IT industry, with big companies like Red Hat and MySQL providing enterprise support, and there are companies that have relied on Linux for quite some time now. I used to work at a company that used purely Linux and open-source products, and it all seemed to work very well.

open-source, he thought that anyone could go into the Linux source code a in a virus or otherwise malicious code. It's attitudes like that that I

Yep. We've all heard that before. Although to a degree, I agree with that philosophy. Why require someone to read source code before they can trust it

You don't have to read source code in order to trust it. People trust Microsoft (to some extent) and other closed-source products, so I think open-source products can be trusted too. Open-source products such as Linux just require some form of administration/management to ensure good quality control, so that people can't contribute bad/malicious code to the project.

In fact, why would anyone apart from a programmer want to read source code a all? Non-geeks prefer binaries, in my experience.

I agree there. In fact, that's an argument I used to bring up with a previous employer who would add open-source as a benefit to our product. However, I do think that open-source does have a benefit for people who don't care about reading source code - What it means is that the product is open to a very large community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved faster than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working on it.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Wed Jan 27 2010 17:36:43

Hi Nightfox,

In my experience, open-source technologies such as Linux, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Apache, etc. also seem to be fairly rock-solid, and I think such products provide a good (and perhaps less expensive) alternative to Microsoft

No argument from me there. In fact, my MySQL server at home bodes better than our production SQL Server 2008 cluster in terms of stability, albeit with way less usage, but I agree that a lot of open source products are mature enough to be used in the enterprise, for a lot less licensing fees than Microsoft.

There's also the legal departments who need a finger to point the blame

I hadn't really thought about that before, but I think that's a fairly good

Aye, one thing I've found that drives business is risk. Essentially everyone is just paying for the other party to take the risk. Open source rarely provides
a way to offset risk in a way that satifies large enterprises.

open-source products can be trusted too. Open-source products such as Linux just require some form of administration/management to ensure good quality control, so that people can't contribute bad/malicious code to the project.

Agreed. That's the risk of allowing open source communities to control the software enterprises are running at a code level. While there are OS products out there with good quality assurance, there are also those without any quality assurance, testing, and and the end of the day, accountability!

reading source code - What it means is that the product is open to a very community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved
than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working on it.

That's true in theory, but in practice, I think Microsoft would have more people working on a kernel issue than Linux or BSD, for example? For instance Microsoft issued a hotfix recently on the request of one of our clients. At the same time, I've had some great "real-time" support from a lot of OS developers, and I think that has a great advantage. But that's me personally, most companies don't buy into that, which is unfortunate.

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jan 30 2010 22:22:14

community of people to work on, so that bugs and issues can be resolved than they would be with a (comparatively) small group of people working o it.

That's true in theory, but in practice, I think Microsoft would have more people working on a kernel issue than Linux or BSD, for example? For instanc Microsoft issued a hotfix recently on the request of one of our clients. At same time, I've had some great "real-time" support from a lot of OS develope and I think that has a great advantage. But that's me personally, most companies don't buy into that, which is unfortunate.

With an open-source project, it's probably more difficult to count how many people are working on a particular task at any given time.

At any rate, Linux has been around since 1991 (at least just the kernel); the GNU project has been working on the GNU Linux tools since the early 90s, and from what I've noticed, it seems that Linux is only growing in popularity. I continue to occasionally hear new stories about Linux being used in new places and for different projects - for instance, I've heard about Linux being used in embedded environments and for lightweight PCs and laptops; I've also heard of big companies supporting Linux - IBM, for example, installs Linux on their server machines. So, it seems that Linux must be benefitting enough people and businesses for it to continue to grow and be used in various projects and products. I don't think Linux is going away, and despite its still somewhat slow growth in the marketplace, I imagine that Linux and other open-source tools will continue to be a thorn in Microsoft's side (in fact, a few years ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in Linux violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 30 2010 10:35 pm

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in Linu violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

I don't think so, as evidenced by the fact that the Linux community is still alive and well. :) From what I read, I think the only reason Microsoft was attempting that is that they're afraid of Linux continuing to become more popular and taking marketshare away from Microsoft. Microsoft was looking for a way to kill Linux, basically.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 2010 09:48 pm

If Microsoft wants to be pissed at anybody it should be the Compiz people...Anybody out herre that runs Ubuntu would know...

OOH...WOWW...Microsoft can select two windows and tile them together...that's the big deal with Windows 7....ooooooh....

Try having multiple desktops on a CUBE & being able to switch to multiple desktops on that cube....4 desktops? Wait...6 desktops? 8 desktops? As many as you want???

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

Ubuntu's got them BEAT...Shit...If more people knew about Linux...Microsoft would go ****BROKE****....and I'd **LOVE** it...

Us old Micro Pro guys need to stick together!

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:36:00

If Microsoft wants to be pissed at anybody it should be the Compiz people...Anybody out herre that runs Ubuntu would know...

Try having multiple desktops on a CUBE & being able to switch to multiple desktops on that cube....4 desktops? Wait...6 desktops? 8 desktops? As man as you want???

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think all that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds of effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sat Mar 27 2010 20:40:00

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Sat Jan 30 2010 10:35 pm

in factt, a few years
ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code in L violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tricky, and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. Plus it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't make anything other then support :)

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sat Mar 27 2010 21:48:18

ago, I heard stories that Microsoft tried to claim that certain code i violates Microsoft's patents, therefore claiming royalties on Linux).

Are you serious? Did Microsoft get away with it?

I don't think so, as evidenced by the fact that the Linux community is still alive and well. :) From what I read, I think the only reason Microsoft was attempting that is that they're afraid of Linux continuing to become more popular and taking marketshare away from Microsoft. Microsoft was looking f a way to kill Linux, basically.

Yeah First was SCO and now they are bankrupt but still trying... :) I'm sure there are small things here and there that are ver general, but if MS goes that route, IMB and other supports of Linux, have just as many patentes that they could counter sue MS on and it will be a whole mess back and forth.

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28 am

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think al that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

Well, if it's taking you a second or more to draw compiz effects you must have a really slow, cpu, not enough memory or a bad video card.

I *always* use the multiple desktop feature. I'm constantly running 20 million things at once.

I doubt it came from Mac. I've got a friend who's a Mac nut & when I showed him the compiz effects (especically the cube) and he freaked.

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:48 am

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tricky, and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. Pl it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't mak anything other then support :)

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

-Rassilon...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Mon Mar 29 2010 23:32:00

Well, if it's taking you a second or more to draw compiz effects you must ha a really slow, cpu, not enough memory or a bad video card.

I guess it doesn't take that long, but it does take a moment to draw those effects.

I *always* use the multiple desktop feature. I'm constantly running 20 mill things at once.

I've always used the multiple desktop feature in Linux too. However, I tend to do without the fancy effects. I just like to be able to click another desktop and be there. :)

I doubt it came from Mac. I've got a friend who's a Mac nut & when I showed him the compiz effects (especically the cube) and he freaked.

Well check this YouTube video out (cube on a mac): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRNruZmIExA

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Nightfox on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:50:05

there are small things here and there that are ver general, but if MS goes t route, IMB and other supports of Linux, have just as many patentes that they could counter sue MS on and it will be a whole mess back and forth.

Yeah.. Sometimes I think Microsoft's tactic in this case might be to sue other companies so that the other companies will spend enough money on legal fees that they will be run into the ground, or at least financially hurt fairly bad. Microsoft probably has enough money that this can work for them, at least for a while.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28 am

I thought the Compiz people got that from Apple's OS X.. Anyway, I think all that stuff is cool looking, but I tend to feel like that stuff isn't very useful. It's good for an OS to look nice, but sometimes I think those kinds of effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a
second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

I have all the theming/etc shut off on xp and it runs much quicker.. I don't need the fisher price ui to help me :)


--

Tim Smith (mrproper)
WarZone BBS - warzone.synchro.net

---
■ Synchronet ■ WarZone BBS - warzone.synchro.net - Chatsworth GA

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: mrproper to Nightfox on Thu Apr 01 2010 03:27:55

I have all the theming/etc shut off on xp and it runs much quicker.. I don't need the fisher price ui to help me :)

:) I agree. Since XP came out, I've tended to disable the theme stuff in Windows. I usually go into the Services configuration and disable the "Themes" service so that I can't even use the special themes - That probably saves some RAM and CPU cycles. I'm using Windows 7 now and still disable that stuff - I think the Aero styling in Windows Vista/7 is even more intense than XP's themes. I had actually started to consider using XP's themes before I upgraded my Windows. Now I think it might be useful to have XP's themes in Windows 7 as an alternative to Aero. :) Operating systems are starting to feel like cars, in that for some years I'll like the look of a car but might not in newer model years. :)

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Mon Mar 29 2010 23:34:00

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Mar 29 2010 10:48 am

They haven't done anythign yet, but i also think it's too general of a statement, as linux is only the Kernel, they would have to sue GNU that suppulse bascially the entire OS Systems that the Kernel runs.. It's tric and will be interesting to see what they pull out of thier bagof tricks. it will be interesting to claim royalties on a FREE Systems that doesn't anything other then support :)

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

Not to mention they like to make their own standards and fuck up everything else. One reason why i haven't baught a copy of Windows since '95 came with my computer in the early 90's. :)

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Mon Apr 05 2010 02:07 pm

Yah, leave it to them to try tho. Microsoft are crooks.

Not to mention they like to make their own standards and fuck up everything else. One reason why i haven't baught a copy of Windows since '95 came
with my computer in the early 90's. :)

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags are authorized windows developers...now would you think that they all might be in league (or actually doing it themselves) with the assholes that write spyware & viruses...

More money in their pockets...

-Rassilon...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Tue Apr 06 2010 00:02:00

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a

Since when? I thought all you needed was a Windows compiler. You can buy a copy of Visual Studio (or just Visual C++ or Visual C#, etc.) and write Windows software with those. In fact, you don't even need to pay anyone any money if you don't want to - There are free compilers & IDEs available for Windows, such as Dev-C++, MonoDevelop, Eclipse, and I'm sure there are others too.

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer", except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Tue Apr 06 2010 06:43 pm

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer", except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

That's exactly what it is...

-Rass...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Wed Apr 07 2010 13:48:00

I'm not really sure what it means to be an "authorized Windows developer" except perhaps certified by Microsoft as conforming to their UI standards and trusted by Microsoft to not do anything malicious perhaps..

That's exactly what it is...

But you don't *have* to be an "authorized Windows developer" in order to develop software for Windows. There are plenty of software companies and Windows developers who I'm sure don't have that title.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Mercyful Fate on Tue Apr 06 2010 00:02:00

Ya, you ever notice that to write software for windows you have to be an autorized windows developer (Pay money), so all these anti-virus slimebags a authorized windows developers...now would you think that they all might be i league (or actually doing it themselves) with the assholes that write spywar viruses...

More money in their pockets...

They probably do, at least i remember thats how McAfee started was by making DOS viruses back in the day, then releasing them..

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Mercyful Fate to Rassilon on Wed Apr 07 2010 10:21 am

They probably do, at least i remember thats how McAfee started was by
making DOS viruses back in the day, then releasing them..

I am not suprised...

-Rassilon...


The Citadel BBS - telnet://citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role Playing...

---
■ Synchronet ■ *[The Citadel BBS]* - citadel.synchro.net (PORT 4000) - Sci-Fi / Fantasy / Role

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to Rassilon on Sun Mar 28 2010 10:28:33

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Rassilon to Nightfox on Sun Mar 28 2010 07:36:00

Microsoft can NEVER compete with that...

effects can get in the way of work sometimes. It can take a second or so to draw those effects, and since those effects will happen a lot, that time can add up..

That's a fair statement, although on my quad core computer, TWM runs at the same speed as compiz turned all the way up, these days it's becoming less and less of an issue.

I do agree with you though, all these bells and whistles don't really have anything to do with the OS itself and give end users the wrong impression. Compiz cube is awesome, lovely eye candy et al., but at the end of the day functionally doesn't make much difference from hitting alt-tab in windows.

One thing I'm doing these days is running 7 as a host OS, then using virtualbox with ubuntu koala as a guest VM in integrated mode, if you've got a decent system compiz cube works just a smoothly: http://art.csoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/theultimatecombo.jpg

Kind regards,
+------------------------------+
| Art % fatcats.poorcoding.com |
+--------------- ----- -- -

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Wed Mar 31 2010 12:54:58

One thing I'm doing these days is running 7 as a host OS, then using virtual with ubuntu koala as a guest VM in integrated mode, if you've got a decent system compiz cube works just a smoothly: http://art.csoft.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/theultimatecombo.jpg

That's cool - I've used VirtualBox, but only briefly. I didn't know it had an Integrated mode. I've seen Integrated mode with Parallels on a Mac and thought that was cool and thought it might be something useful for a Windows host too.

I haven't messed with Linux in a while, but I've considered running it in a virtual machine rather than giving it its own partition, since I mainly use Windows. It seems like that might be a more convenient way to use Linux when I want/need to.

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Thu Jun 17 2010 21:06:31

Hi Nightfox,

I haven't messed with Linux in a while, but I've considered running it in a virtual machine rather than giving it its own partition, since I mainly use Windows. It seems like that might be a more convenient way to use Linux when I
want/need to.

I'm with you 100% there. As far as my desktop machine, I tend to prefer Windows 7. However with Virtualbox in integrated mode, I can run Win 7 as a guest OS and then XP and Linux as integrated guests. Being able to pause them to reboot the host is an added bonus of having them as VMs.

One thing to note is that virtualbox now supports D3D on windows guests, so if you still prefer to run Linux hosts, Windows 3D performance in guests are greatly improved these days.

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatcats BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyone run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinions of your experiences...

Kind regards,
________________ _______
\_____ __ \ ___\
\ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
\_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
f a t c a t s b b s

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Fri Jun 18 2010 08:14:34

One thing to note is that virtualbox now supports D3D on windows guests, so you still prefer to run Linux hosts, Windows 3D performance in guests are greatly improved these days.

That's good - One of the things that has bugged me in the past is lack of 3D performance in virtual machines. I admire the developers of virtual machine software who are able to do what they do..

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...

I've been running my BBS in a VM for over a year now. The reason is that I've been using a 64-bit OS as my main OS, and many BBS doors (being 16-bit DOS apps) aren't supported in 64-bit versions of Windows anymore. So I installed Windows 2000 in a VM for running my BBS, and it has generally worked well enough. A couple months ago, I moved my BBS over to a VM (running Windows 2000) in Parallels on my Mac Mini (because that's my only other desktop PC right now, and I didn't want to keep the PC in my bedroom running all the time due to heat).

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: Nightfox to art on Fri Jun 18 2010 07:42:18

I've been running my BBS in a VM for over a year now. The reason is that been using a 64-bit OS as my main OS, and many BBS doors (being 16-bit DOS apps) aren't supported in 64-bit versions of Windows anymore. So I

Hi Nightfox,

That's the same reason I'd like to P2V, saves energy and I'll be able to continue running 64-bit host OSes. I also like the idea of being able to backup the entire environment with a single VM flatfile.

How is Parallels? I've not got any Apple hardware these days but a few people I know are using Parallels as their VM solution.

Kind regs,
________________ _______
\_____ __ \ ___\
\ __ \ <_ \ @ fatcats[dot]poorcoding[dot]com
\_______\___\___\___\ ------------------------------------
f a t c a t s b b s

---
■ Synchronet ■ fatcats bbs - http://fatcats.poorcoding.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Sat Jun 19 2010 12:02:41

How is Parallels? I've not got any Apple hardware these days but a few peopl know are using Parallels as their VM solution.

I think Parallels is decent - about on par with VMWare, but honestly I haven't used it much beyond running my BBS in it (with Windows 2000). It seems to work well though.

One thing I've noticed is that my BBS seems a little slower running in Parallels than it was on my main desktop PC using VMWare, but there definitely may be other factors causing that (different hardware, including a slower CPU, and different host OS).

Nightfox

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Microsoft vs. open-source
By: art to Nightfox on Fri Jun 18 2010 08:14:34

I've been considering decommissioning the physical machine used to host Fatc BBS, and doing a P2V (physical to virtual) and running it in a VM--does anyo run their boards out of VMs currently? I'd be interested to hear some opinio of your experiences...

I've heard most experiences are good. The only problems come with doors, becasue they are usually emulated to dos as well, and under load can come to a crawl. But i guess it also depends on the system and resources allocated., and waht doors you install...

---
■ Synchronet ■ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com