My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Linux

This is a discussion on My employer completed migration of apps to Linux - Linux ; Erik Funkenbusch writes: > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:10:32 -0600, Canuck57 wrote: > >> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message >> news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com... >> >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available >>> for general purpose computers is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 250

Thread: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

  1. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 16:10:32 -0600, Canuck57 wrote:
    >
    >> "Erik Funkenbusch" wrote in message
    >> news:1er766k0amq90$.dlg@funkenbusch.com...
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> When I hit this I knew your post was BS.
    >>
    >> God, it took Microsoft this long to figure out the power of a shell after
    >> how many years? And it is better than anything else?
    >>
    >> Hahahaha.... You also must be a MVP, Microsoft Vista Pusher too. Go an play
    >> in the vista group or something, it is more your speed.

    >
    > I notice you have absolutely zero technical arguments to dispute me.
    >

    Well, since you brought no arguments to begin with, it's rather hard
    to dispute you with arguments, right?

    He who states a thing has to prove it, so why don't *you* produce
    arguments as to why PowerShell is the most advavnced scripting
    environment out there?

    Why should anyone else have to do *your* homework?

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  2. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:45:55 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.

    >
    > Yes, it's windows only.
    >
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    >> don't have?

    >
    > Actually, you are mixing shells with scripting languages.




    Say, you didn't specify shells, Erik. You specified *scripting
    environments*.

    Moving the goalposts much?

    Why do you object to being called names like 'weasel' and 'liar' when
    the hard facts are right there in your own words?

    ****ing weasel.

    Mart

    --
    "We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
    --- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

  3. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:5E6Pk.82837$XB4.79915@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    > After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    > check-boxes, *on Windows only*.
    >
    > So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and
    > zsh
    > don't have?


    It doesn't really matter as windows also has Pearl, Python, ruby, bash, etc.
    so power shell is in addition.
    You must realise that all the good open source is exactly that open source,
    and it runs on windows and other OSes not just the linux kernel.




  4. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 09:08:17 +0100, John Kloosterman wrote:
    >
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:30:49 -0500, Ignoramus27079 wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Interesting. You seem to live up to your name. See below:
    >>>

    >> [snipped a lot of crap]
    >>
    >> Dot't you get it in your thick scull?
    >>
    >> He Likes Linux and don't want to use Windows. Thats it!
    >> Nothing more, nothing less.

    >
    > I think the thickness is on yours. You've just succinctly stated my point.
    >
    > He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows, and he seemed to
    > deliberately engineer his solutions in ways that would make them perform
    > worse on Windows.
    >


    How you come to that conclusion i'm not sure. Looks to me like he
    (and his staff) have written some very transportable apps to avoid being
    locked in to any one solution - and that for him, Linux does the best
    job of running them.

    >> Why does he have to defend his choice as Linux is obviously
    >> working for him? Is it a crime not to use windows?

    >
    > Of course not, but don't claim Linux is "better" when you didn't use
    > Windows in the way it was designed to be used. It's like someone claiming
    > they tried to use Linux for their apps (running under Wine) and that things
    > just work better under Windows.
    >


    When the OP says under Windows CPU usage is ~60% and under Linux CPU
    usage is ~5%, that sounds like a hell of a lot of code rewriting just
    for Windows performance. And that's the obvious problem with
    Micro$oft... everything seems to have to be proprietary.

    > That's not the fault of Linux (though it may be partially the fault of
    > Wine).
    >
    >> It looks to me like you are trying to say that...

    >
    > That's because you can't seem to understand the point.
    >
    >> Seems to me like you are a arrogant (and maybe paid?)
    >> windows user trying to bash a Linux user for his (also in my
    >> opinion) good choice. Now - go home to your beloved Richmond
    >> an go play with the other brainless guys over there...

    >
    > Yes, of course. Why is it whenever peoples conceptions are challenged,
    > they immediately start calling people paid shills? Talk about "arrogance"
    > to believe that you matter so much to a company like Microsoft that they
    > would pay people to argue with you.



    --
    Norman
    Registered Linux user #461062

  5. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    > for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    > other scripting environment out there.


    Wanting to learn more about powershell, I went to the FAQ
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#

    I clicked on "How much will Windows PowerShell cost?"

    and it refused to answer. (It just pointed me to
    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    again. Clicking on "View all answers" doesn't help. )

    I'm using Firefox on Linux.

    > Sounds more like you're either ignorant (thus your name) or lying or maybe
    > both.


    Perhaps it's a conspiracy by Microsoft to keep us Linux people
    ignorant . :-)



  6. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > The problem is that standard C functions do not map well to the Windows
    > Async API's. The same is true of using Async API's under Linux or Mac. If
    > you want the best performance on any platform, you have to ditch portable
    > API's and use the platform specific stuff.


    Please drink this Kool-Aid.



  7. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Erik Funkenbusch writes:

    > He had a pre existing prejudice against Windows,


    Perhaps it's better to say that he has a prejudice against proprietary
    single-vendor solutions.


  8. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

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

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 20:45:55 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.

    >
    > Yes, it's windows only.
    >
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and zsh
    >> don't have?

    >
    > Actually, you are mixing shells with scripting languages. They're two
    > different things, though shells do have scripting languages in them (often
    > quite capable, but limited.. which is why full blown scripting languages
    > exist)


    No, I'm not mixing them up. Python and Ruby have their own shells you can
    run.

    > Also, you can use Perl, Python, Ruby, C#, VB, Eiffel, or any of the dozens
    > of other .NET languages with Powershell as well.
    >
    > The thing that makes Powershell so.. well.. powerful is it's universal
    > binding system (comparable at a certain level to the old Amiga ARexx
    > system) as well as it's object oriented nature. Powershell can use objects
    > from any .NET compiled library.


    There's the deal-killer.

    > Here's a quick review by a Linux oriented person.
    >
    > http://w3.linux-magazine.com/issue/7...PowerShell.pdf


    Cool two-pager.

    Conclusions

    In one respect, PowerShell relies on the Unix concept that many small
    utilities are preferable to one large, custom-ma utility. At the same
    time, it adopts an o ject-oriented approach that makes larg scale
    projects simpler at the cost of a steeper learning curve. The major problem
    with objects is that you need to invest significant time in
    discovering which function or object you need. The Get-Member cmdlet is
    likely to see much use in PowerShell.

    Bash is useful as a plain but straight-forward tool for most daily
    tasks. If it comes to the need for advanced uses and complex data
    structures, you can branch out into object-oriented Python or the
    graphical capabilities of Tcl/Tk.

    > While the actual shell window itself is pretty crude, there are several
    > replacements such as:
    >
    > http://sourceforge.net/projects/console/


    I tried that one on XP. It was a bit krufty, so I didn't use it for long.

    >
    >
    >> An extension repository such as CPAN? Numerical libraries like Python?

    >
    > You can use all of them.


    That's cool, but I think I'd rather use them standalone.

    >> Looking at this feature matrix, it looks comparable to zsh, Python and
    >> Ruby.
    >>
    >> Blows the doors off of any other scripting environment out there? Sounds
    >> like you're drooling again. It's a Windows-only tool.

    >
    > If your only requirement is cross platform capability, then maybe you've
    > got a point. Personally, I don't care, i'd rather use the best tool for
    > the job on any given platform.


    Well, I'd bet that PowerShell is a great tool for the post-Windows-2000
    sysadmin, once you get past the learning curve.

    However, for dealing with a broad set of tasks (e.g. dealing with
    file-manipulations or data), I'd rather have something I can take with me.

    I'm not sure either of our groups at work are using Powershell. I'll have
    to ask the "other" group. Our group uses DOS batch (with extensions that
    won't work for the die-hards that still use Win 2000) on the Windows side,
    and bash and perl on the Linux side. One of our perl tools that converts
    our source code to new coding conventions was developed on the Linux side,
    but works on Windows, too.

    --
    The only thing better than love is milk.

  9. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:5E6Pk.82837$XB4.79915@bignews9.bellsouth.net. ..
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, Erik Funkenbusch belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >>> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >>> other scripting environment out there.

    >>
    >> You crack me up. It might be able to fill in a greater number of feature
    >> check-boxes, *on Windows only*.
    >>
    >> So tell us, Erik, what Powershell has the Perl, Python, Ruby, bash, and
    >> zsh don't have?

    >
    > It doesn't really matter as windows also has Pearl, Python, ruby, bash, etc.
    > so power shell is in addition.
    > You must realise that all the good open source is exactly that open source,
    > and it runs on windows and other OSes not just the linux kernel.


    Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    "Well, I'm under house arrest, but at least I have internet connectivity."



    Damn, this sigmonster reads my mind so often it is positively *freaky*!

    --
    It is better to wear chains than to believe you are free, and weight
    yourself down with invisible chains.

  10. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

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

    > On Sat, 1 Nov 2008 21:16:25 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >>> Looking at this feature matrix, it looks comparable to zsh, Python and Ruby.

    >>
    >> Forgot the link:
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compari...omputer_shells

    >
    > comparable? Every category is green except spell checking, free software,
    > and platform independance. PythonShell and RubyShell are close, but it
    > lacks the basic interlanguage interoperability features of PowerShell.
    >
    > zsh is missing a lot, including named parameters, lambda expressions,
    > native CIM/WBEM support, Binary prefix notation, and again lacks the basic
    > interlanguage and interprocess interoperability.


    Whatever, Erik. The chart certainly "blows the doors off" of your claim
    that Powershell "blows the doors off" of the open-source alternatives.

    --
    Human beings were created by water to transport it uphill.

  11. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux



    "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..


    > Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?


    Why not?
    There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.




  12. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Nov 2, 7:26*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    > Whatever, Erik. *The chart certainly "blows the doors off" of your claim
    > thatPowershell"blows the doors off" of the open-source alternatives.


    Better/worse .. worse/better - does it really matter?
    What we are talking about here are TOOLs.
    Tools are useful or they are not.

    UNIX has a legacy and culture of producing great tools. We have not
    had that in Windows but with PowerShell we are working hard to fix
    that. We are pretty pleased with our V1 as a starting point but we
    have miles to go before we sleep. Version 2 (available in the Pre-
    Beta of W7 and WS08R2) is a huge advance as well. The culture at
    Microsoft has changed dramatically around this issue but you don't see
    it yet. Wait a product cycle and you'll see awesome coverage.

    There are lots of things that we think we do much better than Unix and
    there are also lots of things that Unix does much better than we do
    (though that list is getting shorter and shorter :-) ).

    But at the end of the day - who cares?
    The whole deal is about giving our customers the tools they need to
    succeed.
    If it happens to turn out that PowerShell is significantly better than
    Unix in a particular area - what do you think is going to happen? The
    Unix guys will eventually respond and their customers will benefit.
    If Unix gets signficantly better than WIndows in a particular area -
    we'll eventually respond (hopefully it won't take 25 years this time -
    ha ha) and our customers will benefit.

    It's all good.
    Best wishes.

    Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    PowerShell Architect
    Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at: http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell
    Visit the Windows PowerShell ScriptCenter at:
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr.../hubs/msh.mspx


  13. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    > news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    >> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >
    > Why not?
    > There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.


    Because it works better on Linux.

    Trust me.

    --
    Advice from an old carpenter: measure twice, saw once.

  14. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    After takin' a swig o' grog, jsnover13@hotmail.com belched out
    this bit o' wisdom:

    > On Nov 2, 7:26*am, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >> Whatever, Erik. *The chart certainly "blows the doors off" of your claim
    >> thatPowershell"blows the doors off" of the open-source alternatives.

    >
    > Better/worse .. worse/better - does it really matter?
    > What we are talking about here are TOOLs.
    > Tools are useful or they are not.
    >
    >
    >
    > There are lots of things that we think we do much better than Unix and
    > there are also lots of things that Unix does much better than we do
    > (though that list is getting shorter and shorter :-) ).


    You're confusing UNIX with a whole raft of open-source projects that, like
    Microsoft, work relentlessly on improving their software.

    Perl /might/ be considered "UNIX", but assuredly Python and Ruby are not.

    > But at the end of the day - who cares?
    > The whole deal is about giving our customers the tools they need to
    > succeed.


    Or selling them .

    > If it happens to turn out that PowerShell is significantly better than
    > Unix in a particular area - what do you think is going to happen? The
    > Unix guys will eventually respond and their customers will benefit.


    Well, "better" is pretty subjective here. The OSS community tends to write
    code that they need, not code that fulfills a particular "feature matrix".

    If a function is lacking, it is often simply because it is not regarded as
    necessary. (Of course, sometimes it is simply because the functionality is
    just difficult to implement.)

    > If Unix gets signficantly better than WIndows in a particular area -


    Such as multiple virtual consoles, multiple desktops, 3-D desktops, multiple
    file-system support, fast network stack, slim and flexible networked
    graphics, far broader hardware support (especially the number of CPUs
    covered), slim development environments and cross-compilers, third-party
    software updates, totally configurable kernel, superior multitasking,
    a large number of plugin window managers, better licensing, available source
    code with modification permission... need I go on?

    > we'll eventually respond (hopefully it won't take 25 years this time -
    > ha ha) and our customers will benefit.
    >
    > It's all good.


    For certain values of "good".

    > Best wishes.
    >
    > Jeffrey Snover [MSFT]
    > PowerShell Architect
    > Visit the Windows PowerShell Team blog at: http://blogs.msdn.com/PowerShell
    > Visit the Windows PowerShell ScriptCenter at:
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/scr.../hubs/msh.mspx


    Nice response, Jeff. Thanks! Nice to see a light touch for a change.

    Better not let Ballmer see ya posting here! I've heard those chairs /hurt/!

    --
    Your domestic life may be harmonious.

  15. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    > this bit o' wisdom:
    >
    >> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >> news:8SiPk.56808$bx1.52267@bignews1.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?

    >>
    >> Why not?
    >> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >
    > Because it works better on Linux.
    >
    > Trust me.
    >


    Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.

    So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being "most
    OSS". I guess it is not even half of it
    --
    A fool-proof method for sculpting an elephant:
    first, get a huge block of marble; then you chip
    away everything that doesn't look like an elephant.


  16. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 10:26:58 -0500
    Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > Whatever, Erik. The chart certainly "blows the doors off" of your
    > claim that Powershell "blows the doors off" of the open-source
    > alternatives.


    Feel free to use Google before considering Wikipedia to be
    authoritative.

    Open source PowerShell:
    http://sourceforge.net/projects/pash

    --- Mike

    --
    My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
    http://www.trausch.us/


  17. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 07:58:34 -0500, Maxwell Lol wrote:

    > Erik Funkenbusch writes:
    >
    >> Also utter BS. The single most advanced scripting environment available
    >> for general purpose computers is PowerShell. It blows the doors of any
    >> other scripting environment out there.

    >
    > Wanting to learn more about powershell, I went to the FAQ
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    >
    > I clicked on "How much will Windows PowerShell cost?"
    >
    > and it refused to answer. (It just pointed me to
    > http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserv....aspx?pf=true#
    > again. Clicking on "View all answers" doesn't help. )


    It's a free download. You need a windows license, of course, but there's
    no additional cost for it.


  18. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

    On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:38:00 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

    > Well, "better" is pretty subjective here. The OSS community tends to write
    > code that they need, not code that fulfills a particular "feature matrix".
    >
    > If a function is lacking, it is often simply because it is not regarded as
    > necessary. (Of course, sometimes it is simply because the functionality is
    > just difficult to implement.)


    Actually, it's often because an existing feature is "good enough". A
    classic example is threading. For years, Posix threads were 'good enough'
    and nobody bothered to use kernel threads. It wasn't until kernel threads
    became significantly better that work on utilizing them in standard
    libraries started.

  19. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

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

    > On Sun, 2 Nov 2008 12:38:00 -0500, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> Well, "better" is pretty subjective here. The OSS community tends to write
    >> code that they need, not code that fulfills a particular "feature matrix".
    >>
    >> If a function is lacking, it is often simply because it is not regarded as
    >> necessary. (Of course, sometimes it is simply because the functionality is
    >> just difficult to implement.)

    >
    > Actually, it's often because an existing feature is "good enough".


    I agree.

    > A classic example is threading. For years, Posix threads were 'good
    > enough' and nobody bothered to use kernel threads. It wasn't until kernel
    > threads became significantly better that work on utilizing them in
    > standard libraries started.


    Neat stuff, huh?

    --
    Running Windows on a Pentium is like having a brand new Porsche but only
    be able to drive backwards with the handbrake on.
    (Unknown source)

  20. Re: My employer completed migration of apps to Linux

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

    > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
    >
    >> After takin' a swig o' grog, dennis@home belched out
    >> this bit o' wisdom:
    >>
    >>> "Chris Ahlstrom" wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>> Yeah, but why bother running OSS on Windows?
    >>>
    >>> Why not?
    >>> There is a lot of OSS out there and most of it runs fine on vista.

    >>
    >> Because it works better on Linux.
    >>
    >> Trust me.

    >
    > Apart from the fact that not "most OSS" runs fine on windows (I seriously
    > doubt that *anything* runs fine on Vista). OSS running fine on windows is
    > for the most part *not* of the GUI type. Only the very best GUI apps are
    > ported to windows, since until relativly few years ago it was quite some
    > work to have a GUI app running on windows and X.


    Well, cygwin helps a lot with that.

    > So, most "fine on windows working OSS" is not GUI. And far from being "most
    > OSS". I guess it is not even half of it


    It would be interested to see some numbers.

    Do you think what you said is true even if you subtracted out the obvious
    system-specific stuff (drivers and stuff like Valgrind)?

    By the way, speaking of Cygwin:

    http://x.cygwin.com/

    Cygwin/X is without a maintainer and is currently in an unsupported
    state.

    How did this happen?!

    http://www.starnet.com/info/X-Win32V...FQIfswod_Evb1g

    X-Win32 vs. Cygwin/X

    At StarNet, we frequently hear that people download X-Win32 and then
    settle for Cygwin/X, despite its limitations and buggy performance. When
    we ask these users why they have made this decision, we typically hear
    "...well, Cygwin/X is free!"

    But, why give an engineer, developer, or network administrator who you
    are paying $100,000 or more per year a buggy X server with limited
    functionality and capability...just because it's free?

    As these users begin to realize this, we find that they come back and
    purchase X-Win32.

    So, if you are considering going with the free option of Cygwin/X,
    consier the following:

    * With X-Win32 you are getting the top-rated PC X server for about
    $200 or less
    * The increase in raw speed and the productivity gains through
    X-Win32's many features make it pay for itself many times over
    * At StarNet, we stand by our products and back them with
    superior technical support

    Cygwin/X was developed by a couple of brilliant X11
    programmers. We should know because we hired them, and they
    continued to develop X-Win32 into the best PC X server
    solution, offering unmatched performance, security and
    innovative features not found in other PC X servers such as
    the ability to suspend and resume sessions, recover sessions
    after a Windows or network crash, move sessions to another PC
    and share your sessions with others.

    --
    You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the
    Titanic had paying customers.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 13 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast