Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad - Linux

This is a discussion on Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad - Linux ; Not wanting to rag on something publicly that I hadn't experienced intimately myself, I decided to take the plunge (called "eating your own dog food" in developer parlance) and see if I could move over full- time to the new ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 51

Thread: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

  1. Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad


    Not wanting to rag on something publicly that I hadn't experienced
    intimately myself, I decided to take the plunge (called "eating your
    own dog food" in developer parlance) and see if I could move over full-
    time to the new Windows 7 M3 pre-beta. After all, with an essentially
    unmodified kernel and no major changes to the security model, how bad
    could it be?

    Apparently, a lot worse than I thought....

    And it [Daemon Tools] broke. Not in any minor, cosmetic way, either.
    It broke big time....

    However, that sour taste of a failed transition was already building
    in my mouth. So when Skype 3.8 started freaking out (randomly crashing
    a few minutes after initial program load) I knew I was in trouble...

    What was a show-stopper was VMware Workstation 6.5....You see, VMware
    didn't just get quirky under Windows 7. It became unusable. In the
    end, this was the straw that broke the camel's back..... I'm starting
    to wonder if there isn't something malicious going on here, sort of
    like how Microsoft would deliberately break QEMM with each new version
    of DOS-based Windows.

    Regardless, my real takeaway from all of this is that, despite leaving
    the core Vista kernel and driver model intact, Microsoft is still
    finding ways to break applications. So much for the whole "seamless
    transition" promise to Vista users....this sort of incompatibility
    nuttiness simply shouldn't exist -- not for an OS that is just a
    lipstick tube away from its piggish predecessor.


    http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...astes_bad.html

  2. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    After takin' a swig o' grog, nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu belched out
    >>

    this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > What was a show-stopper was VMware Workstation 6.5....You see, VMware
    > didn't just get quirky under Windows 7. It became unusable. In the
    > end, this was the straw that broke the camel's back..... I'm starting
    > to wonder if there isn't something malicious going on here, sort of
    > like how Microsoft would deliberately break QEMM with each new version
    > of DOS-based Windows.


    I like that "blast from the past" note.

    > Regardless, my real takeaway from all of this is that, despite leaving
    > the core Vista kernel and driver model intact, Microsoft is still
    > finding ways to break applications. So much for the whole "seamless
    > transition" promise to Vista users....this sort of incompatibility
    > nuttiness simply shouldn't exist -- not for an OS that is just a
    > lipstick tube away from its piggish predecessor.
    >
    >
    > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...astes_bad.html


    C'mon, squeal like a pig!

    --
    For my son, Robert, this is proving to be the high-point of his entire life
    to date. He has had his pajamas on for two, maybe three days now. He has
    the sense of joyful independence a 5-year-old child gets when he suddenly
    realizes that he could be operating an acetylene torch in the coat closet
    and neither parent [because of the flu] would have the strength to object.
    He has been foraging for his own food, which means his diet consists
    entirely of "food" substances which are advertised only on Saturday-morning
    cartoon shows; substances that are the color of jukebox lights and that, for
    legal reasons, have their names spelled wrong, as in New Creemy
    Chok-'n'-Cheez Lumps o' Froot ("part of this complete breakfast").
    -- Dave Barry, "Molecular Homicide"

  3. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >
    > Not wanting to rag on something publicly that I hadn't experienced
    > intimately myself, I decided to take the plunge (called "eating your
    > own dog food" in developer parlance) and see if I could move over full-
    > time to the new Windows 7 M3 pre-beta. After all, with an essentially
    > unmodified kernel and no major changes to the security model, how bad
    > could it be?
    >
    > Apparently, a lot worse than I thought....
    >
    > And it [Daemon Tools] broke. Not in any minor, cosmetic way, either.
    > It broke big time....
    >
    > However, that sour taste of a failed transition was already building
    > in my mouth. So when Skype 3.8 started freaking out (randomly crashing
    > a few minutes after initial program load) I knew I was in trouble...
    >
    > What was a show-stopper was VMware Workstation 6.5....You see, VMware
    > didn't just get quirky under Windows 7. It became unusable. In the
    > end, this was the straw that broke the camel's back..... I'm starting
    > to wonder if there isn't something malicious going on here, sort of
    > like how Microsoft would deliberately break QEMM with each new version
    > of DOS-based Windows.
    >
    > Regardless, my real takeaway from all of this is that, despite leaving
    > the core Vista kernel and driver model intact, Microsoft is still
    > finding ways to break applications. So much for the whole "seamless
    > transition" promise to Vista users....this sort of incompatibility
    > nuttiness simply shouldn't exist -- not for an OS that is just a
    > lipstick tube away from its piggish predecessor.
    >

    >
    > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...astes_bad.html


    I agree -- To say that Microsoft (supposedly) employ some of the best
    developers in the world, and are still unable to produce a fully stable
    operating system with full backwards compatibility -every- single
    release cycle, it says something to me. I really don't see what the
    point would be of upgrading from Vista to Windows 7, when it's
    essentially a glorified Windows Vista.

    I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of whom
    aren't technically minded people, which says something too.

  4. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:32:11 +0000, Ben wrote:

    > I agree -- To say that Microsoft (supposedly) employ some of the best
    > developers in the world, and are still unable to produce a fully stable
    > operating system with full backwards compatibility -every- single
    > release cycle, it says something to me. I really don't see what the
    > point would be of upgrading from Vista to Windows 7, when it's
    > essentially a glorified Windows Vista.


    Not glorified, but rather tweaked and enhanced. Basicall 7 to Vista is
    like XP to 2000. XP was significantly better than 2000, not to mention
    updates and support will continue longer for 7 than Vista.

    > I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    > Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of whom
    > aren't technically minded people, which says something too.


    Yeah, it says they haven't actually done it yet.

  5. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    Ben wrote:

    > I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    > Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of
    > whom aren't technically minded people, which says something too.


    uh huh... sure they will.




  6. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    ____/ Ben on Sunday 02 November 2008 18:32 : \____

    > nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu wrote:
    >>
    >> Not wanting to rag on something publicly that I hadn't experienced
    >> intimately myself, I decided to take the plunge (called "eating your
    >> own dog food" in developer parlance) and see if I could move over full-
    >> time to the new Windows 7 M3 pre-beta. After all, with an essentially
    >> unmodified kernel and no major changes to the security model, how bad
    >> could it be?
    >>
    >> Apparently, a lot worse than I thought....
    >>
    >> And it [Daemon Tools] broke. Not in any minor, cosmetic way, either.
    >> It broke big time....
    >>
    >> However, that sour taste of a failed transition was already building
    >> in my mouth. So when Skype 3.8 started freaking out (randomly crashing
    >> a few minutes after initial program load) I knew I was in trouble...
    >>
    >> What was a show-stopper was VMware Workstation 6.5....You see, VMware
    >> didn't just get quirky under Windows 7. It became unusable. In the
    >> end, this was the straw that broke the camel's back..... I'm starting
    >> to wonder if there isn't something malicious going on here, sort of
    >> like how Microsoft would deliberately break QEMM with each new version
    >> of DOS-based Windows.
    >>
    >> Regardless, my real takeaway from all of this is that, despite leaving
    >> the core Vista kernel and driver model intact, Microsoft is still
    >> finding ways to break applications. So much for the whole "seamless
    >> transition" promise to Vista users....this sort of incompatibility
    >> nuttiness simply shouldn't exist -- not for an OS that is just a
    >> lipstick tube away from its piggish predecessor.
    >>

    >>
    >>

    http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...astes_bad.html
    >
    > I agree -- To say that Microsoft (supposedly) employ some of the best
    > developers in the world, and are still unable to produce a fully stable
    > operating system with full backwards compatibility -every- single
    > release cycle, it says something to me. I really don't see what the
    > point would be of upgrading from Vista to Windows 7, when it's
    > essentially a glorified Windows Vista.


    Microsoft was never ahead of the curve. Moreover, lacking competition that it
    bought out of destroyed, it became complacent and greedy (features it could
    not implements).

    > I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    > Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of whom
    > aren't technically minded people, which says something too.


    I know people who already moved. Things like AutoCAD and Halo don't stop them
    (without or without compatibility layers) because they use the basics. It's
    possible that as the barrier to entry in computing is lowered (emerging
    markets going digital), about 80% of the users won't require anything beyond
    the basics.

    How many people truly require and need complexity like macros, let alone
    complexity like viruses, Registry bloat and disk fragmentation?

    - --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | Useless fact: 21978 x 4 = 21978 backwards
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT GNU/Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    run-level 5 Oct 15 15:52 last=S
    http://iuron.com - help build a non-profit search engine
    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

    iEYEARECAAYFAkkOIeEACgkQU4xAY3RXLo44FQCfYVeWM6nrkY jW1/SzlMauhOSd
    CkwAoI4pDtf1v6nS4V4/f7yVlYmwEyml
    =RVLj
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

  7. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:32:11 +0000, Ben wrote:


    >> I agree -- To say that Microsoft (supposedly) employ some of the
    >> best developers in the world, and are still unable to produce a
    >> fully stable operating system with full backwards compatibility
    >> -every- single release cycle, it says something to me. I really
    >> don't see what the point would be of upgrading from Vista to
    >> Windows 7, when it's essentially a glorified Windows Vista.

    >
    > Not glorified, but rather tweaked and enhanced. Basicall 7 to Vista
    > is like XP to 2000. XP was significantly better than 2000


    I can think of a number of Windows admins and enthusiasts who would
    strongly disagree. 2K remained the preferred Windows OS for such people
    for years after XP was released, although with faster hardware, and 2K's
    EOL expiring some 3-4 years ago, they've undoubtedly upgraded by now.
    I'd imagine those same people will be using XP long after Vista's EOL
    has passed, if not switched to another platform completely, given the
    exponential increase in resources each successive Windows version seems
    to require, and the shovelware that increasingly bloats the system and
    adds to the security headaches.

    > not to mention updates and support will continue longer for 7 than
    > Vista.


    Ah yes, the Vole does have its old "planned obsolescence" trick to fall
    back on, to keep the Cash Cows milking.

    >> I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    >> Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of
    >> whom aren't technically minded people, which says something too.

    >
    > Yeah, it says they haven't actually done it yet.


    They will eventually, Erik. You can count on it.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    01:56:57 up 23 days, 11:52, 4 users, load average: 4.13, 4.06, 4.11

  8. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    DFS wrote:
    > Ben wrote:
    >
    >> I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    >> Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of
    >> whom aren't technically minded people, which says something too.

    >
    > uh huh... sure they will.
    >
    >
    >


    Oh, you again. Was wondering when I'd see you around.

  9. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    Ben wrote:
    > DFS wrote:
    >> Ben wrote:
    >>
    >>> I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    >>> Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of
    >>> whom aren't technically minded people, which says something too.

    >>
    >> uh huh... sure they will.
    >>

    > Oh, you again. Was wondering when I'd see you around.


    With Linux "advocates*", everyone is always "planning" to switch to Linux or
    "evaluating" Linux for their company, etc. Yet the Linux flatline market
    share stays flat year after year after year?




  10. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:57:21 +0000, Homer wrote:

    > Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
    >> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:32:11 +0000, Ben wrote:

    >
    >>> I agree -- To say that Microsoft (supposedly) employ some of the
    >>> best developers in the world, and are still unable to produce a
    >>> fully stable operating system with full backwards compatibility
    >>> -every- single release cycle, it says something to me. I really
    >>> don't see what the point would be of upgrading from Vista to
    >>> Windows 7, when it's essentially a glorified Windows Vista.

    >>
    >> Not glorified, but rather tweaked and enhanced. Basicall 7 to Vista
    >> is like XP to 2000. XP was significantly better than 2000

    >
    > I can think of a number of Windows admins and enthusiasts who would
    > strongly disagree. 2K remained the preferred Windows OS for such people
    > for years after XP was released, although with faster hardware, and 2K's
    > EOL expiring some 3-4 years ago, they've undoubtedly upgraded by now.


    The vast majority of people who were against XP were against Activation.
    Also, as with any new release of an OS (see the Ubuntu groups for 8.10
    examples) there are problems that need to be ironed out, and over time the
    OS becomes much better for it. Notice all the people claiming that XP was
    the best OS MS ever created (seriously).

    Also, with SP2, XP had a lot more security protections than 2000 did.

    >> not to mention updates and support will continue longer for 7 than
    >> Vista.

    >
    > Ah yes, the Vole does have its old "planned obsolescence" trick to fall
    > back on, to keep the Cash Cows milking.


    Don't be so disingenuous. All commercial (and even many open source)
    software providers EOL their products. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apple, IBM, etc..
    And, they EOL their products much quicker than Microsoft does. XP still
    isn't EOL after almost 8 years!

    >>> I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to one
    >>> Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released, half of
    >>> whom aren't technically minded people, which says something too.

    >>
    >> Yeah, it says they haven't actually done it yet.

    >
    > They will eventually, Erik. You can count on it.


    I seriously doubt it.

  11. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Don't be so disingenuous. All commercial (and even many open source)
    > software providers EOL their products. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apple, IBM, etc..
    > And, they EOL their products much quicker than Microsoft does. XP still
    > isn't EOL after almost 8 years!


    You know, that's actually not bad.

    However, where Microsoft gets you is in feature additions that are not
    backward compatible. The Early Adopters then gradually force the Late
    Adopters to Adopt.

    --
    I live the way I type; fast, with a lot of mistakes.

  12. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
    > On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 01:57:21 +0000, Homer wrote:
    >> Verily I say unto thee, that Erik Funkenbusch spake thusly:
    >>> On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 18:32:11 +0000, Ben wrote:


    > The vast majority of people who were against XP were against
    > Activation.


    And bloat.

    Most I talked to wanted a "clean" XP i.e. without the Vole's Shovelware.

    Just ask DFS; he knows what I'm talking about; after all he pruned his
    Desktop to "classic" mode to make it look like something from 1995, just
    to get it to run smoothly.

    > Also, as with any new release of an OS (see the Ubuntu groups for
    > 8.10 examples) there are problems that need to be ironed out, and
    > over time the OS becomes much better for it.


    But even now XP's bloat and insecurity is still a problem, despite those
    service packs and hotfixes. In fact SP3 actually made XP /worse/, I hear:

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05...boots_crashes/

    > Notice all the people claiming that XP was the best OS MS ever
    > created (seriously).


    Naturally I dislike them all, but if I absolutely had to pick one, it'd
    be 2K ... or possibly 2K3, but I've never actually tried the latter.

    > Also, with SP2, XP had a lot more security protections than 2000 did.


    Microsoft's security "improvements" seem to be one step forward and two
    steps back, most of the time ... when they actually work at all.
    Overall, XP probably is more secure than 2K (depending on configuration)
    but then XP has had the benefit of hotfixes denied to 2K users for some
    time.

    >>> not to mention updates and support will continue longer for 7
    >>> than Vista.

    >>
    >> Ah yes, the Vole does have its old "planned obsolescence" trick to
    >> fall back on, to keep the Cash Cows milking.

    >
    > Don't be so disingenuous. All commercial (and even many open source)
    > software providers EOL their products.


    A Linux vendor can EOL /support/ for a /distro/, but how exactly does
    one EOL Free Software? Will the developers/maintainers come round to my
    house with baseball bats and coerce me to stop patching the source?

    And BTW, that's not a theoretical argument either. I recently had "fork"
    x264 for my own personal use (OK, I published it on my repo too) because
    the maintainers had decided that CPU's without an SSE2 instruction set
    no longer exist, apparently, and that I had to upgrade my media server
    to accommodate their unilateral decision to commit euthanasia on all
    computers over a certain age. I did something similar with Amarok some
    time ago, when the devs decided that they didn't like the gstreamer
    backend, but the alternatives were unavailable for Fedora due to
    licensing issues.

    Naturally this is simply not possible with proprietary software, for
    which EOL really does mean the /end/.

    > Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apple, IBM, etc.. And, they EOL their products much
    > quicker than Microsoft does.


    You mean they /develop/ their products much faster than Microsoft does.

    We get a new /Pope/ faster than we get a new version of Windows, Erik,
    that's not exactly something worth bragging about.

    > XP still isn't EOL after almost 8 years!


    Yes, and we all know why that is, don't we? [wink]

    >>>> I know half a dozen Windows users who are planning to switch to
    >>>> one Linux distro or another by the time Windows 7 is released,
    >>>> half of whom aren't technically minded people, which says
    >>>> something too.
    >>>
    >>> Yeah, it says they haven't actually done it yet.

    >>
    >> They will eventually, Erik. You can count on it.

    >
    > I seriously doubt it.


    I know you do.

    --
    K.
    http://slated.org

    ..----
    | "At the time, I thought C was the most elegant language and Java
    | the most practical one. That point of view lasted for maybe two
    | weeks after initial exposure to Lisp." ~ Constantine Vetoshev
    `----

    Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.25.11-60.fc8
    02:33:46 up 24 days, 12:29, 3 users, load average: 0.08, 0.08, 0.02

  13. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    Chris Ahlstrom espoused:
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Don't be so disingenuous. All commercial (and even many open source)
    >> software providers EOL their products. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apple, IBM, etc..
    >> And, they EOL their products much quicker than Microsoft does. XP still
    >> isn't EOL after almost 8 years!

    >
    > You know, that's actually not bad.
    >
    > However, where Microsoft gets you is in feature additions that are not
    > backward compatible. The Early Adopters then gradually force the Late
    > Adopters to Adopt.
    >


    It's also quite misleading. If Ubuntu EOL a release of Ubuntu, you, the
    customer, can continue to support it for as long as you like, because
    you have access to the source code.

    Basically, the incorrectness of Erik's statement is that Ubuntu, Red
    Hat, and all other open-source providers do *not* EOL their software,
    they EOL their *support*.

    Because support is not tied to the original vendor, a customer has the
    choice of remaining with the original distribution or component for as
    long as they like, they have the option to seek support from
    alternative sources, they have the option to seek support from in-house
    teams, or from independent vendors.

    They have *options*.

    When Microsoft EOL their software, the customer has the following
    options: 1. upgrade 2. proceed using unsupported software.
    The option a foss customer has is 3. seek alternative support

    Option 3 is not available to Microsoft customers.

    --
    | mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | Open platforms prevent vendor lock-in. Own your Own services! |


  14. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad


    "Mark Kent" wrote in message
    news:ltf5u5-hp3.ln1@ellandroad.demon.co.uk...
    > Chris Ahlstrom espoused:
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Don't be so disingenuous. All commercial (and even many open source)
    >>> software providers EOL their products. Red Hat, Ubuntu, Apple, IBM,
    >>> etc..
    >>> And, they EOL their products much quicker than Microsoft does. XP still
    >>> isn't EOL after almost 8 years!

    >>
    >> You know, that's actually not bad.
    >>
    >> However, where Microsoft gets you is in feature additions that are not
    >> backward compatible. The Early Adopters then gradually force the Late
    >> Adopters to Adopt.
    >>

    >
    > It's also quite misleading. If Ubuntu EOL a release of Ubuntu, you, the
    > customer, can continue to support it for as long as you like, because
    > you have access to the source code.


    Oh yeah... like that's going to happen. Do go ahead and show a list of
    companies that decided to maintain and support their own distro because they
    have the source code. One day they're selling refridgerators and the next
    day they're going to hire a team of developers just so they can maintain
    some old version of Linux. Not.


    > Basically, the incorrectness of Erik's statement is that Ubuntu, Red
    > Hat, and all other open-source providers do *not* EOL their software,
    > they EOL their *support*.


    And in 99.99% of the time there is no practical difference.


    > Because support is not tied to the original vendor, a customer has the
    > choice of remaining with the original distribution or component for as
    > long as they like, they have the option to seek support from
    > alternative sources, they have the option to seek support from in-house
    > teams, or from independent vendors.


    So where's the list of companies who decided to use "in-house teams" to
    support a EOL distro? Companies have enough challenges focusing on their
    core business model. The last thing a book publisher wants to do is to get
    into the Linux kernel maintainance business.

    > They have *options*.


    Not nearly as many as you think.

    > When Microsoft EOL their software, the customer has the following
    > options: 1. upgrade 2. proceed using unsupported software.
    > The option a foss customer has is 3. seek alternative support
    >
    > Option 3 is not available to Microsoft customers.


    BS. Microsoft will and does offer extended support for specific customers on
    a case by case basis. Hint for the clueless - just because general 'public
    support' of an old version of Windows expires does not mean that MS walks
    away from all of their customers who are still using the OS.



  15. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    [snips]

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 14:02:37 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > Not glorified, but rather tweaked and enhanced. Basicall 7 to Vista is
    > like XP to 2000. XP was significantly better than 2000,


    It was? I used both for some time, and frankly I never saw the point to
    XP - other than to generate revenue.

    Put it this way: what was in XP which could not have been done in 2K?
    Not "was not done in 2K", "*could not have been done* in 2K?"

    Maybe XP's multimedia was a hair better. Possibly. What prevented those
    changes being done in 2K? It's not like XP was a complete rewrite; it
    was more a tweak - so why couldn't the original have been thus tweaked?


  16. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    [snips]

    On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:15:17 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:

    > Oh yeah... like that's going to happen. Do go ahead and show a list of
    > companies that decided to maintain and support their own distro because
    > they have the source code.


    IBM.
    HP, apparently.
    Linksys.
    Imovio.
    Cool-Idea Technology.
    OpenPandora.org.
    Archos.
    Clarion.
    Aceeca.
    Noah Education.
    Samsung.
    Motorola.
    Emblaze Mobile.
    Tranzda Technologies.
    OpenMoko.

    And the list goes on and on and on and on and on...


  17. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad


    "Kelsey Bjarnason" wrote in message
    news:87f8u5-jqu.ln1@spanky.work.net...
    > [snips]
    >
    > On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 09:15:17 -0500, Ezekiel wrote:
    >
    >> Oh yeah... like that's going to happen. Do go ahead and show a list of
    >> companies that decided to maintain and support their own distro because
    >> they have the source code.

    >
    > IBM.
    > HP, apparently.
    > Linksys.
    > Imovio.
    > Cool-Idea Technology.
    > OpenPandora.org.
    > Archos.
    > Clarion.
    > Aceeca.
    > Noah Education.
    > Samsung.
    > Motorola.
    > Emblaze Mobile.
    > Tranzda Technologies.
    > OpenMoko.
    >
    > And the list goes on and on and on and on and on...


    You might as well add Redhat and Novell to that list. The problem with your
    list is that these are all technology based companies who already have
    software developers. I'm talking about the other remaining 99% of companies
    who do have zero interest in becoming a software/technology company.

    Obviously it's not a big deal for IBM or HP to support their own distro.
    Hell... these companies have written and maintained their own propreitary
    OS's for years. But for a company like Caterpillar or Walmart sure as hell
    isn't going to start maintaining their own distro - source code or not.





  18. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > Obviously it's not a big deal for IBM or HP to support their own distro.
    > Hell... these companies have written and maintained their own propreitary
    > OS's for years. But for a company like Caterpillar or Walmart sure as hell
    > isn't going to start maintaining their own distro - source code or not.


    Why would they have to?

    --
    I stopped believing in Santa Claus when I was six. Mother took me to
    see him in a department store and he asked for my autograph.
    -- Shirley Temple

  19. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad


    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:TnmQk.55837$XT1.8544@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Obviously it's not a big deal for IBM or HP to support their own distro.
    >> Hell... these companies have written and maintained their own propreitary
    >> OS's for years. But for a company like Caterpillar or Walmart sure as
    >> hell
    >> isn't going to start maintaining their own distro - source code or not.

    >
    > Why would they have to?


    Read up the thread a few posts. Someone said that having the source code
    gives companies the option of maintaining the OS themselves instead of
    having to upgrade. My point is that maintaining the OS themselves because
    they happen to have the source code is only beneficial to very few
    companies.




  20. Re: Windows 7: The 'Dog Food' Tastes Bad

    After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    >
    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:TnmQk.55837$XT1.8544@bignews5.bellsouth.net.. .
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ezekiel belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Obviously it's not a big deal for IBM or HP to support their own distro.
    >>> Hell... these companies have written and maintained their own propreitary
    >>> OS's for years. But for a company like Caterpillar or Walmart sure as
    >>> hell
    >>> isn't going to start maintaining their own distro - source code or not.

    >>
    >> Why would they have to?

    >
    > Read up the thread a few posts. Someone said that having the source code
    > gives companies the option of maintaining the OS themselves instead of
    > having to upgrade. My point is that maintaining the OS themselves because
    > they happen to have the source code is only beneficial to very few
    > companies.


    Okay. You're talking about "all" of the OS or distro.

    I will say, though, that you can maintain just parts of it, if you want, and
    let normal distro upgrades handle the rest.

    --
    Some days you wake and immediately start worrying. Nothing in
    particular is wrong, it's just the suspicion that forces are aligning
    quietly and there will be trouble.
    -- "Survival Series", Jenny Holzer

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast