Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story - Linux ; 7 wrote: > Have you thought about > 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance, > the windummy software should work fine > with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux. Why do ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

  1. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    7 wrote:

    > Have you thought about
    > 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    > the windummy software should work fine
    > with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.


    Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?




    > 2. Gambas to put a GUI scripted stuff. (Just gets some repetitve
    > things working at thrilling speeds with click of a button).


    The Gambas guy is funny:

    Left side of mouth: "Gambas almost means Basic. This project aims at making
    a graphical development environment based on a Basic interpreter, so that we
    have a language like Visual BasicT under LinuxT.
    I took from Visual Basic what I found useful : the Basic language, the
    development environment, and the easiness to quickly make programs with user
    interfaces. That's all."

    Right side of mouth: "Its architecture is largely inspired by Java"

    LMAO! Another piece of crap Linux theftware cloned from the masters at
    Microsoft.

    http://gambas.sourceforge.net/




    > 3. VirtualBox with dual or quad core processors and say 8Gb RAM.
    > Running VirualBox will double and quadruple your windummy
    > applications even through its an emulation because Linux scales CPU
    > horsepower while windummy OS and apps can't.


    blah blah blah...





  2. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS

    wrote
    on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    :
    > 7 wrote:
    >
    >> Have you thought about
    >> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >> the windummy software should work fine
    >> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.

    >
    > Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >


    There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    functions more efficiently.

    >
    >
    >
    >> 2. Gambas to put a GUI scripted stuff. (Just gets some repetitve
    >> things working at thrilling speeds with click of a button).

    >
    > The Gambas guy is funny:


    Gambas reminds me of LOGOS -- though it hints that it
    can do at least some basic BASIC prototyping. However,
    Eclipse with Java is probably better for more serious
    work (though Swing is problematic), and solutions such as
    libglade are far more flexible.

    Besides, that blue thing is just silly. (Supposedly,
    it's a form of shrimp, but many people, myself included,
    might think it's a lobster. Yes, it can be closed.)

    >
    > Left side of mouth: "Gambas almost means Basic. This project aims at making
    > a graphical development environment based on a Basic interpreter, so that we
    > have a language like Visual BasicT under LinuxT.
    > I took from Visual Basic what I found useful : the Basic language, the
    > development environment, and the easiness to quickly make programs with user
    > interfaces. That's all."
    >
    > Right side of mouth: "Its architecture is largely inspired by Java"


    An interesting claim, apparently verging on the ridiculous.
    However, I'd have to study the matter.

    >
    > LMAO! Another piece of crap Linux theftware cloned from the masters at
    > Microsoft.
    >
    > http://gambas.sourceforge.net/


    "Theftware"? What did they steal, precisely? Does Microsoft
    hold a patent to the BASIC language, then?

    [rest snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #110309238:
    item * f(item *p) { if(p = NULL) return new item; else return p; }
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

  3. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    The Ghost In The Machine wrote:

    > In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >
    > wrote
    > on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    > :
    >> 7 wrote:
    >>
    >>> Have you thought about
    >>> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >>> the windummy software should work fine
    >>> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.

    >>
    >> Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >>

    >
    > There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    > obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    > functions more efficiently.



    I don't use WINE much, however, whenever I ran it, it is many
    times faster; particularly on dual core machines.
    WINE is a faster alternative to Micoshaft WINDOPWS.
    There is a marketing advantage to selling apps with WINE 1.0 compliance.
    The applications run not only more faster but on a more robust Linux
    platform that is cheaper to deploy and easier to maintain.
    If software houses offer their WINDUMMY software with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    then customers will know that if their WINDUMMY PCs crash and blue screen
    out of existance, then they can switch to a Linux machine in under an hour
    and have the whole thing working before the WINDUMMY machine has its disk
    reformatted.



  4. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    7 writes:

    > The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >
    >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >>
    >> wrote
    >> on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    >> :
    >>> 7 wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Have you thought about
    >>>> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >>>> the windummy software should work fine
    >>>> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.
    >>>
    >>> Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >>>

    >>
    >> There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    >> obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    >> functions more efficiently.

    >
    >
    > I don't use WINE much, however, whenever I ran it, it is many
    > times faster; particularly on dual core machines.
    > WINE is a faster alternative to Micoshaft WINDOPWS.


    This is total nonsense.

    > There is a marketing advantage to selling apps with WINE 1.0 compliance.
    > The applications run not only more faster but on a more robust Linux
    > platform that is cheaper to deploy and easier to maintain.


    So what? WINE still crashes a lot - its better than it was. People want
    their Windows apps to work. WINE is not a good thing for "mission
    critical" work.

    > If software houses offer their WINDUMMY software with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    > then customers will know that if their WINDUMMY PCs crash and blue screen
    > out of existance, then they can switch to a Linux machine in under an hour
    > and have the whole thing working before the WINDUMMY machine has its disk
    > reformatted.


    Seriously, how come you are so clueless?

    --
    "My college theater antics were the inspiration for Robin
    Williams' character on Mork & Mindy"
    -- Rex Ballard in comp.os.linux.advocacy

  5. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    Micoshaft Fraudster and Asstroturfer Hadron wrote on behalf of Half Wits
    from Micoshaft Corporation:

    > 7 writes:
    >
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> 7 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Have you thought about
    >>>>> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >>>>> the windummy software should work fine
    >>>>> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    >>> obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    >>> functions more efficiently.

    >>
    >>
    >> I don't use WINE much, however, whenever I ran it, it is many
    >> times faster; particularly on dual core machines.
    >> WINE is a faster alternative to Micoshaft WINDOPWS.

    >
    > This is total nonsense.


    Since when?


    >> There is a marketing advantage to selling apps with WINE 1.0 compliance.
    >> The applications run not only more faster but on a more robust Linux
    >> platform that is cheaper to deploy and easier to maintain.

    >
    > So what? WINE still crashes a lot - its better than it was. People want
    > their Windows apps to work. WINE is not a good thing for "mission
    > critical" work.



    Doh!
    Thats why windummies have to port their applications to WINE
    so that it doesn't crash!!!
    Unlike proprietory micoshaft products, the source code for
    WINE is available open source and so the coders can fix their
    bugs. And if WINE itself is the cause of the bug, then
    they can request or submit a patch.



    >> If software houses offer their WINDUMMY software with WINE 1.0
    >> compliance, then customers will know that if their WINDUMMY PCs crash and
    >> blue screen out of existance, then they can switch to a Linux machine in
    >> under an hour and have the whole thing working before the WINDUMMY
    >> machine has its disk reformatted.

    >
    > Seriously, how come you are so clueless?


    Thats no way to talk to the man in the mirror!



  6. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    On Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400, DFS wrote:

    > 7 wrote:
    >
    >> Have you thought about
    >> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >> the windummy software should work fine
    >> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.

    >
    > Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?


    Because he is mentally retarded.


    >
    >
    >
    >> 2. Gambas to put a GUI scripted stuff. (Just gets some repetitve
    >> things working at thrilling speeds with click of a button).

    >
    > The Gambas guy is funny:
    >
    > Left side of mouth: "Gambas almost means Basic. This project aims at making
    > a graphical development environment based on a Basic interpreter, so that we
    > have a language like Visual BasicT under LinuxT.
    > I took from Visual Basic what I found useful : the Basic language, the
    > development environment, and the easiness to quickly make programs with user
    > interfaces. That's all."
    >
    > Right side of mouth: "Its architecture is largely inspired by Java"
    >
    > LMAO! Another piece of crap Linux theftware cloned from the masters at
    > Microsoft.
    >
    > http://gambas.sourceforge.net/
    >


    At least the Linux loons are smart enough to copy what people want.
    The problem is, they screw it up and end up with a bomb.....


    >
    >
    >> 3. VirtualBox with dual or quad core processors and say 8Gb RAM.
    >> Running VirualBox will double and quadruple your windummy
    >> applications even through its an emulation because Linux scales CPU
    >> horsepower while windummy OS and apps can't.

    >
    > blah blah blah...


    Same old tripe from a moron whose name ie:7 matches his IQ.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  7. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    On Sat, 12 Jul 2008 19:49:45 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > 7 writes:
    >
    >> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>
    >>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >>>
    >>> wrote
    >>> on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    >>> :
    >>>> 7 wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Have you thought about
    >>>>> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >>>>> the windummy software should work fine
    >>>>> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.
    >>>>
    >>>> Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    >>> obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    >>> functions more efficiently.

    >>
    >>
    >> I don't use WINE much, however, whenever I ran it, it is many
    >> times faster; particularly on dual core machines.
    >> WINE is a faster alternative to Micoshaft WINDOPWS.

    >
    > This is total nonsense.


    Of course it is.

    Try reading the Wine database of applications some time.
    It's a complete joke.

    Pay particular attention to the bugs....

    >> There is a marketing advantage to selling apps with WINE 1.0 compliance.
    >> The applications run not only more faster but on a more robust Linux
    >> platform that is cheaper to deploy and easier to maintain.

    >
    > So what? WINE still crashes a lot - its better than it was. People want
    > their Windows apps to work. WINE is not a good thing for "mission
    > critical" work.


    With 64 bit applications is recovers twice as fast as with 32 bit
    applications
    BWAAAAAAAAAA


    >> If software houses offer their WINDUMMY software with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >> then customers will know that if their WINDUMMY PCs crash and blue screen
    >> out of existance, then they can switch to a Linux machine in under an hour
    >> and have the whole thing working before the WINDUMMY machine has its disk
    >> reformatted.

    >
    > Seriously, how come you are so clueless?


    Deprived of O2 at birth...
    7 kept trying to crawl into his mother's asshole instead of out the birth
    canal and he got brain damaged in the process.


    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  8. Re: Our Co is Migrating to Linux from Window,s story

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, 7

    wrote
    on Sat, 12 Jul 2008 22:16:16 GMT
    :
    > Micoshaft Fraudster and Asstroturfer Hadron wrote on behalf of Half Wits
    > from Micoshaft Corporation:
    >
    >> 7 writes:
    >>
    >>> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, DFS
    >>>>
    >>>> wrote
    >>>> on Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:38:51 -0400
    >>>> :
    >>>>> 7 wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Have you thought about
    >>>>>> 1. WINE 1.0 compliance. If you recompile with WINE 1.0 compliance,
    >>>>>> the windummy software should work fine
    >>>>>> with hardly any mods but run many times faster on Linux.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why do you write such unabashed idiocy and lies?
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> There are multiple issues here. WinE by itself conveys no
    >>>> obvious speed-ups, although it might implement certain
    >>>> functions more efficiently.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I don't use WINE much, however, whenever I ran it, it is many
    >>> times faster; particularly on dual core machines.
    >>> WINE is a faster alternative to Micoshaft WINDOPWS.

    >>
    >> This is total nonsense.

    >
    > Since when?


    Both systems should be the same speed; they are driven by
    the same hardware. Of course there are a lot of factors
    here, one of which might be decisions on which pages to
    fault in, which to fault out, etc. WinE has no code at all
    in that area; it punts to the Linux kernel AFAIK.

    >
    >
    >>> There is a marketing advantage to selling apps with WINE 1.0 compliance.
    >>> The applications run not only more faster but on a more robust Linux
    >>> platform that is cheaper to deploy and easier to maintain.

    >>
    >> So what? WINE still crashes a lot - its better than it was. People want
    >> their Windows apps to work. WINE is not a good thing for "mission
    >> critical" work.

    >
    >
    > Doh!
    > Thats why windummies have to port their applications to WINE
    > so that it doesn't crash!!!


    Not quite that simple. WinE, after all, merely implements
    a shim between Linux and/or the X Window System, and
    various Windows libraries, maybe with a side order of x86
    emulation on non-x86 systems; on x86 systems, WinE runs
    natively if the API isn't involved.

    My thought would be to use something along the lines of
    xming32, a cross-compiler.

    > Unlike proprietory micoshaft products, the source code for
    > WINE is available open source and so the coders can fix their
    > bugs. And if WINE itself is the cause of the bug, then
    > they can request or submit a patch.


    This is of some assistance, but WinE is *not* standard, in
    the sense that Windows implements the Win32 et al standard.
    Of course, Windows isn't exactly standard either; one might
    suggest that WinE become a reference implementation for
    a coming standard in the future, and that would confuse
    things no end (and probably make Microsoft very angry
    *huff huff* very angry indeed....)

    >
    >
    >
    >>> If software houses offer their WINDUMMY software with WINE 1.0
    >>> compliance, then customers will know that if their WINDUMMY PCs crash and
    >>> blue screen out of existance, then they can switch to a Linux machine in
    >>> under an hour and have the whole thing working before the WINDUMMY
    >>> machine has its disk reformatted.


    And Microsoft still gets paid. Bad idea, long-term.
    A better one: port to true standards such as POSIX, Open
    Group, and WWW, and offer machines with Linux preinstalled.

    Granted, standardization of certain Windows APIs might be
    an acceptable substitute, but there would have to be a
    reference implementation on non-Windows systems. WinE is
    a good candidate for that reference.

    [ad hom snipped]

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Useless C++ Programming Idea #7878218:
    class C { private: virtual void stupid() = 0; };
    ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

+ Reply to Thread