Re: Learning process

• Previous message: KTC: "Re: Do I need any Visual Basic before learning C++?"
• In reply to: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Next in thread: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Reply: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 13:48:43 +0000

Hi,

Chris ( Val ) managed to grunt out the following :

> "Paul F. Johnson" <paul@all-the-johnsons.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:pan.2004.01.05.07.56.50.749789@all-the-johnsons.co.uk...
> | Have I said *anywhere* that there are more wxWindows apps out
> | there?
>
> What does- quote:
> "treble your potential client base by using wxWindows"
>
> ...mean then ?

It means you treble your potential client base by using wxWindows. It
doesn't mean that there *are* more wxWindows apps out there.

> | What I've said is that using wxWindows massively
> | increases your userbase potential.
>
> 'massively' :-) ?

Have you seen the list of platforms wx will work on - including the
embedded arena?

> But really '~one million' users, does not justify the
> term 'massively' at all I'm afraid :-).

Depends on the userbase size. Sure, a million users on Windows would be
nice, but it wouldn't make that big a mark.
 
> I think you're actually agreeing with me, but you just don't know it
> :-).

Damn!
 
> What really gets me the most, is that everyone endorses the excellent
> work of the open source community(I am happy that it exists too), but
> some people just go to far to promote how good it is, when it is still
> leaps and bounds away in many areas.

You'd be suprised. In a lot of respects, it is far out in front!
 
> What's worse, is many of the open people against MS, are actually
> killing themselves to provide MS like applications, emulators to run MS
> Windows applications and support - how ironic is that :-).

Not really, it's an end to justify a means. I use Wine for one or two
applications (VirtualA5000 and VirtualRPC) which there isn't a native
linux version. I'd hazard the guess that lots of people will use Wine
until they see the Linux native apps are so much more fun!
 
> | MS sales figures, number of documented companies moving over and
> | removing Windows as the desktop environment over companies adopting.
>
> Please paste in the relevant link here: ------------------

El Reg for a lot of 2003
 
> | Not really - it only takes people to wake up to the "let's patch
> | again, like we did yesterday" mentality of MS - and people are.
>
> FWIW, most(if not all), of the *nix* distributions, are regularly
> patched, just like MS stuff. If you don't think so, then can you tell me
> why there are so many incremental releases(not only to the kernels), but
> the supported applications that are part of the package(s) ?

The nix distros are patched from time to time - I have no problem with
that. Most of the patches are fixes for problems in security and a lot of
them are out faster than you can say "blue screen of death". Having the
kernel updated a lot is wonderful as you don't need to wait for the
service packs to be released to fix long standing bugs. Oh look, the one
blaster relied on has been through how many SPs since it was identified in
Win95?

> I'll tell you why - bugs :-).

Spot on.
 
> | > As much as you or any others despise MS, you do at least have to
> | > acknowledge that they have made significant improvements, are
> | > continuing to do so, and *do have an excellent product*.
> |
> | Nothing MS produce is excellent in anyway, shape or form.
>
> That could not be further from the truth - like them or hate them, they
> indeed have good products on offer, although, I admit, that they are
> expensive.

Microsoft hardware is rather fine. Microsoft software isn't - a lot of it
has been "borrowed" or bought from other companies, so they can't even
claim to have written it in the first place! The expense is in that you
never buy Win, you buy a licence to use it.

> | If a box comes
> | preinstalled with an OS, people stick with it - lots never bother
> | applying
> | patches.
>
> So why is that the fault of MS ?

It isn't. It is down to the user to do the updates. But then, MS don't
exactly make the update information accessible to humans - I've seen ones
which even their tech support can't understand!!!

> The same can be said for *nix* systems.

Correct. Nice thing with Redhat and Fedora (and lots of others) is they
have this dinky icon which tells you when there are updates available.
Click on it and let the machine do the rest while you get on with
important things.
 
> | It usually doesn't matter how bad the product is either. Face it,
> | Outlook/Outlook Express are two of the most insecure piles of pap on
> | the face of the planet - yet will people move to Pegasus or
> | EudoraLite? No.
>
> You know, I regularly visit MS Windows Update, and I can tell you, that
> as soon as any security hole is found, you can find a patch for it -
> almost immediately.

Good. You're more an exception than a rule. There are two problems - some
of the patches don't work (look at sp4 for W2K and 3D studio max and a
pile of games or the SQL blaster which required 2 patchs - patch 1, patch
2 then reapply patch 1 as patch 2 broke something from it!) and the kernel
holes *aren't* patched almost immediately. Holes in IE, Outlook etc may
be, though the ones for OfficeXP took a few months to appear, despite
being told of them while it was in beta.

> Every single operating system(or software(on any system)), can be
> exploited, if the hacking community were focused on it, and because MS
> hold the crown - there are more reward points in hacking it, rather than
> the rest.

I agree, except for one thing - it's not the Unix community hacking MS
products - it's MS users. Most in the unix community don't have the
indepth knowledge of Windows to be able to do more than a rudimentary r00t
of a W2003 server ;-p

While Linux (and BSD) is open source, fixing exploits is far faster and
everyone is also working to a common goal.

> | They don't need to as they already have O/OE. Mozilla is now a far
> | more capable browser than IE - it is certainly more compliant to w3c
> | specs - is it dominant? No. Why? It's not bundled with Windows.
>
> People are not stupid - they use what works, and indeed works well. Why
> on earth would they want to change it ?

Because they are both security risks. A friend at MS has told me
frequently that the only time they use O/OE and IE is when the build it
and test it and then it is on an internal network only so noone can break
through.

> | A stranglehold does not make for "improvements" either. Win3.11 was
> | the most stable version of Windows with Win2K being the most usable,
> | yet the current version has more holes than a cheese grater, tries to
> | do the thinking for the user and treats everyone like a 3 year old
> | (it's not for nothing that XP was dubbed the Teletubbie edition in the
> | UK)
>
> I can tell you(from my experiences), W2K and XP are solid rock stable,
> and I use both of them heavily each day of the week.

I use W2K at work. It's nice. WXP is really flaky - even on very high
quality hardware.

> | Given the choice of two weeks work in return for lots of money, or
> | keep plodding on is crazy? Makes sense to do the work!
>
> I don't believe you could re-write and re-document any substantial
> application in two weeks :-).

Why not? I also didn't say it would only be me.

> | > I wasn't talking about a toy program you know!
> |
> | I know. Toy ones tend to take ages!
>
> I'm now confused ???
> The toy ones take time, but the substantial ones do not ?

Only from what I've played with. Scribus is a very large application and
due to that, rather complex. The toy testers usually take more time than
writing the real code!

> [snipped out of frustration :-)]

I know! ;-p
 
> | Windows has not really had a command line environment since DOS 7
> | vanished (XP). It is not that widely used any more.
>
> Couldn't be further from the truth - the command line is live and
> kicking in many workplaces.

Not in FE & HE they're not.
 
> | > Please do not confuse MS-DOS with today's Windows command line.
> |
> | I'm not. DOS was usable, it had it's problems, but was definately more
> | usable!
>
> Nope - today's command line interpreters would eat DOS alive, and
> support many types of scripting etc...

Fair enough.
  
> | Nope. bash (and csh and zsh) are all quite happy together. Anyone
> | using bash understands that - even PHBs!
>
> Yes, but I was talking about the fact one may not know how to perform a
> simple command line 'command' under modern Windows interpreters.

In which case, why bring up bash?
 
> | > Yes - It's called 'LogHorn' :-).
> |
> | Longhorn is awful. Have you seen the betas? Euw!!!!! Longhorn,
> | especially created for those who can just about turn the computer on
> | and like eye candy and don't mind everything running dog slow!
>
> That is an exaggeration of monolithic proportions :-).

Not from when I've played on it using a 3.2GHz mega stonk of a box...
Horrible is an understatement of monolithic proportions.

TTFN

Paul

-- 
One OS to fool them all
One browser to find them
One email client to bring them all
And through security holes, blind them...

• Previous message: KTC: "Re: Do I need any Visual Basic before learning C++?"
• In reply to: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Next in thread: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Reply: Chris \( Val \): "Re: Learning process"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]