I don't want to spur a big debate, but I fail to see where Microsoft has innovated in computing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
Printable View
I don't want to spur a big debate, but I fail to see where Microsoft has innovated in computing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
Xaenn, I fail to see a point in time where your mother was not a cheap whore.
But I wouldn't want to spur a big debate, so let's leave the subject.
By creating the most used, commonly accepted, versatile, widely distributed, most supported, easily understandable and accessable, jargon-free, developer friendly, recognisable GUI operating system on the planet, first and foremost. And lets face it, their software isnt shit. At all. Its just considered 'cool' to diss Microsoft, Bill Gates and all affiliates for some reason. Ive used Windows for more years than I care to remember, and to be fair, over the course of that time I have very few complaints.
Personally I'm a bigger fan of firefox. I've used opera for awhile, and having to pay for it doesn't really make it worth while (and no, I'm not going to browse with ads). Opera feels more bloated, as well. Firefox has worked great, I just wish it was still called firebird :(
Ok, the fact that it is the most used, commonly accepted, widely distributed, most supported, and easily accessible really don't say anything about whether or not it's a good system. They say that it's popular...Quote:
Originally Posted by Clive
Of any developers I know...Windows is not their prefered environment. Open Source is a much more development friendly environment. In all fairness, the GPL kinda sucks, because it deters businesses from trying to use that code. But the Berkley license is awesome.
I'll give windows this, for a new person it is pretty easy to use. But doing stuff that's more complicated, windows isn't really the best environment for it. Troubleshooting? Forget it. You're best off just reformatting. Of all my time in windows, people don't actually solve problems, they just start over/reboot, or something that shouldn't have any part in computing.
I believe that Mac OSX is actually easier to use, and more friendly. Not to mention it has a much more stable base. However, it doesn't have the software support of Windows.
In all honesty, the only thing that's good about windows is that it has tons of developers support. And that isn't really anything good about windows as an operating system...
I find their software to be shit actually. Take Microsoft Office for example. What is it, $500 dollars for the full license to the full office suite? OpenOffice.org is easily just as good, and I would argue that it's even better. And it's absolutely free.
Most versatile? I don't really see on what grounds it is versatile. I would consider netbsd running on somewhere around 50 platforms pretty versatile.
Edit: Very funny Skinner...
gpl > berkely licsense BECAUSE it means that you can't take a GPL thing and turn it into a comercial closed-source product. you can actually do that with a bsd-licsensed thing. most of the networking code in windows is ripped off from bsd unix. if you use something free, you ought to keep your product free and that's what the gpl enforces. you may not agree with the philosophy, but as a founder of the communist guild way back when, you probably do...
Did I st-stutter? ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xaenn
I think you're reading it differently than I meant. What I meant was reliability in displaying web pages as they are meant to be displayed...which can all be attributed to the way the developers code their sites, of course, but still.
Hmm, I could say that I want my website to be displayed whole different way than it is now, but IE doesn't change it. I just hate those sites with non-standard coding and layout. They work with IE, because it can display those things that shouldn't even be possible with HTML language. Sometimes the non-standardiness is just because the web-developer is a n00b and doesn't know a shit about standards. Other case is that the page should be very 'cool' and is made looking that in the expense of usability. The main guiderule when designing web pages is: The layout shouldn't be the main aspect. All the information should be available whether the browser supports all the features used on the page or not. Some people just don't know what that means...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Woo
The Berkley philosophy was to get the most use out of that code. Sure, someone like M$ windoze might steal some stuff from FreeBSD, but that will only improve their system. I think it's even worse for someone to have to redo work. That makes far less sense. I do like the philosophy of the gpl, and think it is cool and all, but due to the gpl, BSD's really try not to use linux software, (well, none in the default package) because then they would have to release it under the gpl. THAT is why I don't like the gpl as much as the Berkley license.Quote:
Originally Posted by madcrow
EDIT: I definately think that people should always share their code that is written, especially if it's based off of other code. However, the BSD license is less restrictive, so I see it as a system that would be much more viable for stronger commerical development than linux. However, it doesn't have the popularity. Now surely that doesn't mean it is difficult for commercial developers to develop for linux, BUT, if there is a handy linux utility, that could acheive something that would better their commercial product, they could certainly not use it. Now you might say, that's fine and dandy because they'd be making money off of somebody else's code. But if you instead look at the end product, that the software is superior because it was able to take advantage of that code, that's where I see the benefit. Also, take Mac OSX for example. They could most certainly not base it off of linux, as they would have to release it under the GPL. I do believe it is highly based off BSD 4.4 with a lot of FreeBSD enhancements (someone can correct me on this). But due to this, now Apple seems to have an interesting relationship with NetBSD (I think it's net, the one on tons of platforms) which otherwise would be impossible. The way I see it, being less restrictive makes it much easier to bring others into the *nix environment, which I can only see as a good thing.
Indeed, there are pages that IE will display properly (well, define properly) and other browsers will not. But it wouldn't be right for other browsers to tailor to those non-standards, as then they would become the norm and much less control over web content would be had...as everyone would be playing catch up to M$.
How To Speed Up Firefox
Here's something for broadband people that will really speed Firefox up:
1.Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit return. Scroll down and look for the following entries:
network.http.pipelining network.
http.proxy.pipelining network.
http.pipelining.maxrequests
Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.
2. Alter the entries as follows: Do this by Right click on selected Entry
Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to some number like 30. This means it will make 30 requests at once.
3. Lastly right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer.
Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "0".
This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it recieves.
If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages MUCH faster now!
I HAVE DONE THIS IT WORKS ON MOZILLA & FIREFOX
This also
DONE THIS BET NOT TO SURE HOW MUCH EXTRA SPEED U GET
From the Daily Telegraph
network.http.max-connections: 48
network.http.max-connections-per-server: 24
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy: 12
network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server: 6
network.http.pipelining: true
network.http.pipelining: true network.http.pipelining.maxrequests: 8
network.http.proxy.pipelining: true
Uh... If you have a broadband connection, page loading speed is virtually never a problem anyway. And that's not enough to make Firefox better...
Except it makes it like 10x faster, Skinner? :/
So I could load more or less any page in 0.05 seconds instead of 0.5? I don't give a shit.
Well fuck off and get out your shed then.
I'll fuck YOU.