Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Mac - Linux - Windows

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Oh yes I guess I got caught up in my chain of thought there. But the idea is still what I thought it was, least I think so lol

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    882
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twey
    Ah, yes. The up-and-coming new wave of computer users are scared of the command line, so most package managers also have a graphical front-end.
    I'm not scared off the command line. I use apt-get(Synaptic slows things down when you only have 128mb of RAM) all the time. I just don't see why I should use something like emacs/vi/vim when Bluefish is so much easier.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,581
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default

    I want Linux... Badly....
    - Mike

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    38
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    I'm not scared off the command line. I use apt-get(Synaptic slows things down when you only have 128mb of RAM) all the time. I just don't see why I should use something like emacs/vi/vim when Bluefish is so much easier.
    I'll just assume this is about programming since I have no idea what you're talking about lol
    I want Linux... Badly....
    I second that

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    882
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Why don't you both try out a live cd or two?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,581
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default

    Hmm... Well. Let's think of the reason's (for me) not to:

    1. This isn't my computer.
    2. I'm too cheap and lazy to do so.

    and well, that's pretty much it. But other than that, hey. Why not.
    - Mike

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    882
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mburt
    Hmm... Well. Let's think of the reason's (for me) not to:

    1. This isn't my computer.
    2. I'm too cheap and lazy to do so.

    and well, that's pretty much it. But other than that, hey. Why not.
    1.Not a problem
    2.This one either

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,581
    Thanks
    13
    Thanked 28 Times in 28 Posts

    Default

    Thanks
    - Mike

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    2,358
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Twey
    I'm also a Linux user, so my viewpoint is probably somewhat biased.
    Let's be honest Twey, "probably" and "somewhat" are understatements.

    Linux is a lot more modular than Windows.
    The comparison isn't really meaningful. Linux has a core set of third-party libraries and utilities that everyone else uses to perform certain tasks. That this isn't the case on Windows has nothing to do with Windows itself.

    There is nothing that is stopping a third-party from creating a set of libraries that will install to a single shared location that will service any requesting software (and of course, that does happen). There's also nothing stopping an application from omitting that library from its distribution and downloading it only if necessary.


    Quote Originally Posted by tacmig99
    Quote Originally Posted by Twey
    installing a program means installing that program and all the libraries and files it needs to run.
    So then that means you never have the problem of a program only being able to run on older versions of the operating system right?
    I would find the answer "Yes" to be rather suspicious: binary incompatibility is still an issue. The main difference is that due to the open source nature of most Linux software, a Linux user is usually in the position to rebuild the software, linking against the current versions of libraries installed on the system. However, even that isn't a solution for all cases: the library interface must also have been unchanged between versions.

    That could really come in handy for me, I have a few things I can't use even when I try using the Windows Program Compatibility Wizard because of missing .dll's
    I hope you don't think that Linux will solve that.

    Mike

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    英国
    Posts
    11,878
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 180 Times in 172 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mwinter
    Let's be honest Twey, "probably" and "somewhat" are understatements.
    (nods ruefully)
    There is nothing that is stopping a third-party from creating a set of libraries that will install to a single shared location that will service any requesting software (and of course, that does happen). There's also nothing stopping an application from omitting that library from its distribution and downloading it only if necessary.
    Of course not. The point I was making was that it isn't part of the core operating system.
    binary incompatibility is still an issue.
    Due to continuous updates and, as you say, the abundance of open source software, while it may still be an issue, it's rather rare, even with binary distributions. I can't say I've ever encountered it, except with the closed-source nVIDIA drivers.
    However, even that isn't a solution for all cases: the library interface must also have been unchanged between versions.
    Again, the nature of open source software saves the day: generally, developers of one application, having access to the source of the next version of a library upon which it depends, can build applications to be compatible with that software before it's formally released.
    That could really come in handy for me, I have a few things I can't use even when I try using the Windows Program Compatibility Wizard because of missing .dll's
    I hope you don't think that Linux will solve that.
    Depends on the definition of "solve." Wine has good support for software built for old versions of Windows. That aside, it depends whether "solve" means "prevent this problem from happening with new software" or "run those specific applications that wouldn't run on Windows." tacmig99 was quite vague on that point, so I didn't comment one way or the other.
    Twey | I understand English | 日本語が分かります | mi jimpe fi le jbobau | mi esperanton komprenas | je comprends franšais | entiendo espa˝ol | t˘i Ýt hiểu tiếng Việt | ich verstehe ein bisschen Deutsch | beware XHTML | common coding mistakes | tutorials | various stuff | argh PHP!

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •