P.S. Philosophy - that's a point!
The obvious imo is that he has different filosophy. Probably open source and the freedom to share doesn't meen too much for him or are very low in his priorities since he is so eager to buy and defend proprietary code, while for the most of us the very essence of a program's quality is how much freedom it carries in its package.
Anyway, filosophies are built on arguments and vary rarely eventuate to agreements. So I don't see any positive reason for anyone to continue this thread rather than argue till eternity.
P.S. Philosophy - that's a point!
Last edited by kraftman; 05-24-2009 at 09:23 AM.
I work at a place that deals with support for a wide array of server systems (although it's mostly windows/unix/linux systems), and I run into windows not being compatible with windows all the time.
At the end of the day, Wine is just translating native Windows applications. That can only get us so far, we need native software!
May have been true years ago, however your talking about running old windows programs he's run for years, and wine works perfectly well for that scenario and is rock stable. Hell some software run faster under wine than under windows (I remember I got higher fps running Q3 under wine than in windows).
And I imagine a lot of the same programs would fail on newer versions of windows aswell, anything not following standards properly/misusing api to produce a specific result etc.
Rock stable does not mean "will run program X that intentionally misused api on windows X to skip some checks to improve performance"... It was never WINE's mission to run windows software with better windows backwards compatibility than windows itself.
Originally Posted by neuronOriginally Posted by neuronOnly until recently, one of the high priority projects of the Free Software Foundation was GNU PDF. That's quite a contradiction with your 'better support for years' mythological truth. Fortunately, the FSF people don't lack the capacity of self-criticism and analysis that you cheerfully toss around. My problem is that knee-jerk replies like this, where you state nonsense like 'built-in linux ability to export pdf files' or 'windows requires software to read and write pdfs' make me wonder whether you actually have _something_ to say. That Acroread 'piece of crap' thing renders the text better than xpdf, Kpdf, Evince or Okular (I tried them all, thankyouverymuch), is faster at doing it, more flexible (try it and look at the options, or try to disable sub-pixel smoothing in Kpdf, for instance), and doesn't _miserably_ choke when loading BIG pdf files with high (as in high) resolution images. Filling pdf forms in linux was one of those exotic things people would try to do with pdftk or loading the file in Inscape, Gimp or Scribus, adding some text and exporting back, or some other braindead solution. Acroread can do this. In all fairness, it seems that Okular and latest versions of Evince have catched up with this, which IS good. There is, of course, a long way to what Adobe Pro can do, and unfortunately there's not a Linux version as of yet--so I have to do shit with, say, pdftk, to achive the simplest things. For a change, you could start realizing that there's a world beyond what you know that have some needs about which you may not have a clue.Originally Posted by Apopas
No, you have not got my point, and by a long shot. But I'll make it again because you look like a nice, honest guy. My point is that I want to have high quality applications and drivers available in my OS of choice--and why it is my choice I don't feel it's relevant. I named those two cases, pdf handling and Skype(*), as two examples of what closed source solutions can bring in terms of quality to this platform. You may disagree about the quality difference between Acroread/whatever and Skype/whatever. But, however great an affinity you have for open source applications and ideals, I want to believe that, at least, you don't really consider those two programs to be 'a piece of crap' in terms of how good they are at what they intent to. Now, skip all the trash and go back some pages in the thread; remember what was being said about stable ABI or not? There you have it, so again it goes: I want companies to consider Linux seriously and make their products available to this platform. I want the _enormous_ gap between Windows and Linux in terms of existing software to narrow. I think Wine is NOT a solution in any conceivable way--leave alone that it doesn't actually deliver--and what is needed, open source or otherwise, are native applications. So let's complete the chain: I also happen to believe that the fact that the Linux kernel (and distributions) appear to always be a moving target makes it harder for anybody to create and maintain code for this platform.Originally Posted by Apopas
Now, although quite generous, there's a limit to the amount of shit I'm ready to get from anybody. I have, directly or indirectly, been called stupid, idiot, troll, accussed of having some sort of agenda to promote god knows what and I apparently even have some psychological problems. I want to believe that this will stop now and here.
(*) If you asked me, I'd tell you that using a closed source protocol for something as inherently open as communication between people is quite a contradiction and a rather bad idea. And maybe you wouldn't expect that from a 'Windows troll'. The thing is that everybody and their cats, be it for lack of concentration, reading skills, capacity or pure intellectual dishonesty and propensity to self-deceit, seem ready to jump to conclusions without thinking for a couple of seconds before vomiting their junk all over the rest of us.