That would be believable if Linux wasn't a total rip off Unix.
What's wrong with that? Linux has
expanded UNIX. Think of UNIX as Windows 98 and Linux as Windows Vista. They're both under the GPL license; what's wrong with expanding on a brother project? That's the
point of open source development. Open source developers
want their code to be used.
No, those people are coding for themselves. No one sensible uses Linux, so the "Greater" good isn't as "Great" as most may think.
I'd call it coding for the "Select few individuals too poor to buy Windows"
Bullshit! Do you even understand what the "Greater good" we're referring to is? When programming first became popular, everyone shared code. They all publicly provided their work so that it could be used to accelerate the programming community's advancement pace. It worked extremely well. If every piece of software was corporate, people would continually have to "re-invent the wheel," so to speak. Obviously, this is not the case. There are
tons of open source projects. If you're starting a project and you want to implement a specific feature that's already been created, you can simply learn from the source that's been provided for you. That's a damned awesome "Greater good."
I've explained this multiple times, I'm starting to think you either have a reading problem or just chose to completely ignore me.
I'm starting to think the same about you. I've explained why I believe what I do. I've continually rejected your rationale, so you conclude that I'm not understanding what you're saying? For some odd reason, this brings on a strange sense of
deja vou.
I'm not talking about UI. I'm talking about DESKTOP usability which is not limited to the UI, but functionality driving the UI.
You're saying I'm talking about the UI..seems to me you're doing most of that here.
You need to be more clear then. Even in your rationalization, you're confusing functionality with usability.
Neither am I, Windows has multiple things which are more stable than Linux could ever want. Windows supports more drivers and knows more trade secrets than Linux will ever have. That makes them the superior OS, that makes them more powerful, that is what seperates the good OS from the shitty ancient OS.
Name a few, please. Windows has "auto-detecting" driver engines, which are pretty useless. The device works crappily until you install the correct drivers. Linux doesn't provide that short time of limited functionality, but I have little doubt that with a bit of searching, you'll find a comparable driver. What kind of "trade secrets" are you talking about? Riddle me this, Warrior: why do the most world renowned physicists, theorists and scientists publish their work? So that the
world can understand their findings. So that humanity can progress. So people don't have to discover what they've found after it's already been done. This is the idea behind open source. I think it's a phenomenal idea.
Then they have no room to insult how Windows goes about doing things when them as an OS couldnt' do the same.
Sure they do. There are lots of things I wish Windows did differently. These issues can be discussed if needed, but I'm pretty sure they're intuitively obvious given Window's history on security and stability issues.
No.
I have to do this again?
*sigh*
www.m-w.com :
Main Entry: 1rev·o·lu·tion·ary
Pronunciation: -sh&-"ner-E
Function: adjective
1 a : of, relating to, or constituting a revolution <revolutionary war> b : tending to or promoting revolution <a revolutionary party> c : constituting or bringing about a major or fundamental change <revolutionary styling> <a revolutionary new product>
Note the bolded definition. This is the one that Windows is referring to when it claims that one of its features is "revolutionary." How can something be revolutionary if it's already been done? It can't be.
No they don't, you just think they do thus yours rely heavily on the UI, not mine. I'm not talking about the desktop enviroment, I'm talking about the desktop EXPERIENCE which means functionality, support for drivers, ease of use, etc..
Something Linux in it's unstable state cannot provide.
That seems pretty synonymous with UI features to me (other than the driver functionality). Ease of use is irrelevant in a functionality argument, if you ask me. If some feature can be learned through means of experience, then ease of use isn't very important. I've already argued a rational point on Linux and drivers. Linux is
not unstable:
[xx@walden xx]$ uptime
21:34:17 up 369 days, 12:09, 6 users, load average: 0.63, 0.94, 1.33
(actual username replaced with xx for privacy reasons).