1. Regarding Dot NET
Vincent wrote:
>
> ...there is no future with Euphoria on Microsoft Windows. The
> next version of Windows: Windows Vista, has a completely new development
> platform based
> on .NET (WinFX), while the Win32 API will still be supported (Win16 not
> supported),
> people will quickly see the advantages using WinFX and stop using the Win32
> coding
> base. By 2008, Microsoft expects that all development revolving around Windows
> will
> be .NET based, and may remove Win32.
I don't know much about dotNET. Doesn't really concern me much, yet. I don't
see how it's going to be a radical department from the current paradigm. But
I see that Ruby has a "bridge" for it, and looking at the code sample, I won-
der really how difficult it will be to bring Euphoria into the .Net platform.
http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/
Please note the paragraph above is completely justified. :)
> Windows won't be so inferior to Linux anymore.
That's a good one, V!!! <wiping tears>
> That will prevent Linux or BSD from ever dominating the desktop domain.
I think (and hope) that Vista is too little too late. M$ does have a hold
on the personal desktop, but with more and more corporations switching to
Linux/BSD, I think that marketshare will erode over the course of the next
10-20 years. That's good news for the generation below me. :)
> There could be an Euphoria.NET, but it would have to become a full object
> oriented
> language.
Can you tell me why or point me to relevant articles?
> I probably would still prefer C# over Euphoria.NET anyway, because of the
> support for pointers and structures.
Is it because I come from a non-pointered, non-structures programming language
background that I don't find the lack of these to be issues?
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
2. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
cklester wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > ...there is no future with Euphoria on Microsoft Windows. The
> > next version of Windows: Windows Vista, has a completely new development
> > platform based
> > on .NET (WinFX), while the Win32 API will still be supported (Win16 not
> > supported),
> > people will quickly see the advantages using WinFX and stop using the Win32
> > coding
> > base. By 2008, Microsoft expects that all development revolving around
> > Windows will
> > be .NET based, and may remove Win32.
>
> I don't know much about dotNET. Doesn't really concern me much, yet. I don't
> see how it's going to be a radical department from the current paradigm. But
> I see that Ruby has a "bridge" for it, and looking at the code sample, I won-
> der really how difficult it will be to bring Euphoria into the .Net platform.
>
> <a
> href="http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/">http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/</a>
>
Well if your a Linux user then .NET probably wont effect you much yet.
I guess it would be pretty difficult because Euphoria isn't even
object-oriented, where as Ruby is completely object-oriented!! I do however find
that interesting, since I asked Mario if Ruby were to have a place in the .NET
world, and he said "probably not". I'll have to look at that bridge more
carefully, perhaps I may actually check out Ruby.
> Please note the paragraph above is completely justified. :)
Congradualations!
>
> > Windows won't be so inferior to Linux anymore.
>
> That's a good one, V!!! <wiping tears>
>
Well ofcourse you would disagree if your anti-microsoft. But the fact is
Microsoft is working hard to greatly improve security, and realibilty of their
future OSes. It may not turn out as quite as strong as some Linux or BSD distros,
but it sure is a huge welcome to Windows users. It is also important to point out
that the biggest reason Windows has these problems is become it is by far the
most widely used operating system. I'm sure there would be many more problems if
all this malicious software was targeted on Linux and BSD systems.
> > That will prevent Linux or BSD from ever dominating the desktop domain.
>
> I think (and hope) that Vista is too little too late. M$ does have a hold
> on the personal desktop, but with more and more corporations switching to
> Linux/BSD, I think that marketshare will erode over the course of the next
> 10-20 years. That's good news for the generation below me. :)
That may be true currently, but once Vista is released at the end of 2006, I
suspect that outlook will change. But currently the fact alone that 95% of new
computers come with Windows pre-installed, and the fact that I cant go to just
any computer retail store, and purchase Linux is a poor indication of your point.
Stores dont want to sell software that you can legally get for free elsewhere.
10 to 20 years from now, Windows will probably be a completley different entity,
not even called Windows. Vista may be a little too late, but Microsoft will spend
billions of dollars in marketing to get back in the game. Microsoft has huge
amount of power because because of its money. Billions of dollars is little more
than ice-cream money to Microsoft.
Microsoft has had a long history of falling behind and then catching up. In the
end the one with the most money always wins.
>
> > There could be an Euphoria.NET, but it would have to become a full object
> > oriented
> > language.
>
> Can you tell me why or point me to relevant articles?
Well there could be an Euphoria to MSIL translator, but since the language isnt
even OO, having the programmer handle .NET namespaces, classes, objects, etc.
would be a big problem now wouldnt it. Anything is possible, but if it was done
it would be an awful hack that everyone would want to avoid.
>
> > I probably would still prefer C# over Euphoria.NET anyway, because of the
> > support for pointers and structures.
>
> Is it because I come from a non-pointered, non-structures programming language
> background that I don't find the lack of these to be issues?
Try VB.NET, unsafe code isnt possible in that language. You cannot use pointers,
or any advanced memory handling. Operator overloading, and generics are new for
version 2005. Most programmers like the terse syntax, and pointers of the C
derivents. It makes them feel better about themselves, as if they were smarter.
C# is a much more popular language than VB.NET and infact its alarming Microsoft.
>
> -=ck
> "Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
> <a
> href="http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/">http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/</a>
>
Regards,
Vincent
3. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
cklester wrote:
> Vincent wrote:
<snip>
>> I probably would still prefer C# over Euphoria.NET anyway, because of the
>> support for pointers and structures.
>
> Is it because I come from a non-pointered, non-structures programming language
> background that I don't find the lack of these to be issues?
Just a few hours ago, I got a mail from a user of one of my programs
('mbx2eml').
He periodically needs to split large mbox files into separate mail files.
He writes:
"... after extensive searching a year ago, mbx2eml was the only utility
I could find ANYWHERE that did not freeze, skip mails etc."
Although this is of course partly due to my care 
, it is Euphoria
that made it possible to write the program. And as far as I can see,
one reason (among others) why Euphoria is so robust is the absence of
pointers.
Regards,
Juergen
4. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by "Juergen Luethje" <j.lue at gmx.de>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
Vincent wrote:
<snip>
> But the fact is Microsoft is working hard to greatly improve security,
> and realibilty of their future OSes.
M$ is working hard to get monopoly. That's all.
<snip>
Regards,
Juergen
5. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by D. Newhall <derek_newhall at yahoo.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
Vincent wrote:
>
> cklester wrote:
> >
snip
> >
> > > Windows won't be so inferior to Linux anymore.
> >
> > That's a good one, V!!! <wiping tears>
> >
>
> Well ofcourse you would disagree if your anti-microsoft. But the fact is
> Microsoft
> is working hard to greatly improve security, and realibilty of their future
> OSes. It
> may not turn out as quite as strong as some Linux or BSD distros, but it sure
> is a
> huge welcome to Windows users. It is also important to point out that the
> biggest reason
> Windows has these problems is become it is by far the most widely used
> operating system.
> I'm sure there would be many more problems if all this malicious software was
> targeted
> on Linux and BSD systems.
A lot of it is. BSD is used by most commercial web servers and would be the
prime target for malicious code if you wanted to interfere with a large company's
buisness. Yet BSD has still survived these past 30 years being the most secure
and stable OS available outside of the government.
> > > That will prevent Linux or BSD from ever dominating the desktop domain.
> >
> > I think (and hope) that Vista is too little too late. M$ does have a hold
> > on the personal desktop, but with more and more corporations switching to
> > Linux/BSD, I think that marketshare will erode over the course of the next
> > 10-20 years. That's good news for the generation below me. :)
>
> That may be true currently, but once Vista is released at the end of 2006, I
> suspect
> that outlook will change. But currently the fact alone that 95% of new
> computers come
> with Windows pre-installed, and the fact that I cant go to just any computer
> retail
> store, and purchase Linux is a poor indication of your point. Stores dont want
> to sell
> software that you can legally get for free elsewhere.
You can get copies of SuSE, Novell, and Red Hat Linux at Best Buy and Staples.
> 10 to 20 years from now, Windows will probably be a completley different
> entity, not
> even called Windows. Vista may be a little too late, but Microsoft will spend
> billions
> of dollars in marketing to get back in the game. Microsoft has huge amount of
> power
> because because of its money. Billions of dollars is little more than
> ice-cream money
> to Microsoft.
> Microsoft has had a long history of falling behind and then catching up. In
> the end
> the one with the most money always wins.
>
> >
> > > There could be an Euphoria.NET, but it would have to become a full object
> > > oriented
> > > language.
> >
> > Can you tell me why or point me to relevant articles?
>
> Well there could be an Euphoria to MSIL translator, but since the language
> isnt even
> OO, having the programmer handle .NET namespaces, classes, objects, etc. would
> be a
> big problem now wouldnt it. Anything is possible, but if it was done it would
> be an
> awful hack that everyone would want to avoid.
You wouldn't need to. It's completely possible to write a Euphoria (or any other
language) interpreter and have the user never even know it's using .NET.
> >
> > > I probably would still prefer C# over Euphoria.NET anyway, because of the
> > > support for pointers and structures.
> >
> > Is it because I come from a non-pointered, non-structures programming
> > language
> > background that I don't find the lack of these to be issues?
>
> Try VB.NET, unsafe code isnt possible in that language. You cannot use
> pointers, or
> any advanced memory handling. Operator overloading, and generics are new for
> version
> 2005. Most programmers like the terse syntax, and pointers of the C derivents.
> It makes
> them feel better about themselves, as if they were smarter. C# is a much more
> popular
> language than VB.NET and infact its alarming Microsoft.
Actually, last I checked http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm 6% of all programmers use
VB whereas only 3% use C#.
The thing I don't know if you realize is that no one's going to switch to .NET
immediately. Companies still need to make their stuff backwards compatible and
rarely completely reengineer their software unless they have to. In fact, I
HIGHLY doubt that by 2008 everybody will be using .NET. Plus Microsoft is well
know for their hyping the "new technology of the future" and end up going back to
what they've done before. The hyped OS/2, tried to get a new internet protocol
they designed standardized (and Bill Gates got laughed out of the commitee while
doing so), and said they'd never add DOS compatability to NT (which they
eventually did for backwads compatability). I expect MS to get a LOT of angry
customers if they don't handle this well.
Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X? That's
probably MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
The Euphoria Standard Library project :
http://esl.sourceforge.net/
The Euphoria Standard Library mailing list :
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion
6. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Gordon Webster <gwalias-bb at yahoo.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
... while we're at it, let's not forget the 100MB+ overhead that using dot
net will cost you by forcing you to install it's bloated runtime library on
every machine your app needs to run on ... and don't even try the "library's
an integral part of the Windows OS" argument - anyway you cut it, it's a
huge VM that needs to support the entire gamut of the CLR's functionality,
whether or not your modest app really needs it - and M$ have made it clear
that there's already a successor to dot net in the pipeline so get your
porting hats on boys!
... oh and there's also the minor inconvenience that all your dot net code
is effectively Open Source whether you intended it to be or not. I like Open
Source as well as the next man, but I also like to have the choice. Yes, yes
you can decompile C if you really want to - a thief can break into my car
even if I lock it, but that's hardly an argument for making it easy for them
by leaving it unlocked all the time. If my car were like dot net, it would
have no locks. It would also weigh a thousand tons, but on the positive side,
it would be capable of laying subterranean cable under the ocean, in case I
should suddenly need that particular functionality while I'm out shopping 
Gordon
7. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Mannequin <mannslists at invigorated.org>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
D. Newhall wrote:
...
> Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X?
> That's probably
> MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
Not to mention one of the BSDs itself...
-Mannequin.
8. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Mannequin <mannslists at invigorated.org>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
Mannequin wrote:
>
> D. Newhall wrote:
> ...
> > Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X?
> > That's probably
> > MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
>
> Not to mention one of the BSDs itself...
That should be, "Not to mention IT BEING one of the BSDs itself..."
-Mannequin.
9. Re: Regarding Dot NET
Mannequin wrote:
>
> D. Newhall wrote:
> ...
> > Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X?
> > That's probably
> > MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
>
> Not to mention one of the BSDs itself...
>
> -Mannequin.
>
No. It's not BSD. It's *based* on BSD.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
10. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by cklester <cklester at yahoo.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
Vincent wrote:
> cklester wrote:
> > Vincent wrote:
> >
> > I don't know much about dotNET. Doesn't really concern me much, yet. I
> > don't
> > see how it's going to be a radical department from the current paradigm.
> > But
> > I see that Ruby has a "bridge" for it, and looking at the code sample, I
> > won-
> > der really how difficult it will be to bring Euphoria into the .Net
> > platform.
> >
> > <a
> > href="http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/">http://www.saltypickle.com/rubydotnet/</a>
>
> Well if your a Linux user then .NET probably wont effect you much yet.
Which is, what, over 90% of corporate web sites at the moment? (I don't know
for sure...) If .NET is for web-enabled apps (actually, I don't know what it
is for!), then how's that gonna work on all those FreeBSD boxes out there?
> > > Windows won't be so inferior to Linux anymore.
> > That's a good one, V!!! <wiping tears>
> Well ofcourse you would disagree if your anti-microsoft.
I'm only anti-evil... :D
> But the fact is Microsoft
> is working hard to greatly improve security, and realibilty of their future
> OSes.
I agree with whomever said "M$ is working hard to secure their monopoly."
> may not turn out as quite as strong as some Linux or BSD distros, but it sure
> is a
> huge welcome to Windows users. It is also important to point out that the
> biggest reason
> Windows has these problems is become it is by far the most widely used
> operating system.
> I'm sure there would be many more problems if all this malicious software was
> targeted
> on Linux and BSD systems.
I'm sure Linux/BSD systems get tagged plenty. The reason we don't hear about
disruptions or breaks is because THEY ARE SECURE OPERATING SYSTEMS, unlike
that crapalicious Windows OS.
> That may be true currently, but once Vista is released at the end of 2006, I
> suspect
> that outlook will change. But currently the fact alone that 95% of new
> computers come
> with Windows pre-installed, and the fact that I cant go to just any computer
> retail
> store, and purchase Linux is a poor indication of your point. Stores dont want
> to sell
> software that you can legally get for free elsewhere.
I think it's important to distinguish between the personal desktop, the
corporate desktop, and the server. I don't know the numbers, but I know
M$ does not have majority share in each niche. And while the personal
desktop has been the most lucrative, the virtual desktop will probably
replace it one day (that is, a PC running whatever OS running some kind
of internet app).
.NET might still be a M$ over-hyped dream, right? We'll see...
-=ck
"Programming in a state of EUPHORIA."
http://www.cklester.com/euphoria/
11. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Vincent <darkvincentdude at yahoo.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
D. Newhall wrote:
>
> Vincent wrote:
> >
> > cklester wrote:
> > >
> snip
> > >
> > > > Windows won't be so inferior to Linux anymore.
> > >
> > > That's a good one, V!!! <wiping tears>
> > >
> >
> > Well ofcourse you would disagree if your anti-microsoft. But the fact is
> > Microsoft
> > is working hard to greatly improve security, and realibilty of their future
> > OSes. It
> > may not turn out as quite as strong as some Linux or BSD distros, but it
> > sure is a
> > huge welcome to Windows users. It is also important to point out that the
> > biggest reason
> > Windows has these problems is become it is by far the most widely used
> > operating system.
> > I'm sure there would be many more problems if all this malicious software
> > was targeted
> > on Linux and BSD systems.
>
> A lot of it is. BSD is used by most commercial web servers and would be the
> prime target
> for malicious code if you wanted to interfere with a large company's buisness.
> Yet
> BSD has still survived these past 30 years being the most secure and stable OS
> available
> outside of the government.
>
There is a whole bunch aimed at typical user too.. In fact 100,000's of trojans,
worms, virues, adware, spyware, keyloggers, etc. all aimed at Windows users. Now
lets consider the average user, who just doesnt want the complexity of Unix based
systems. There are only a few Linux distros that I believe are friendly to use:
SuSE and Linspire. But if Windows is already installed, the typical user will
just live with it.
> > > > That will prevent Linux or BSD from ever dominating the desktop domain.
> > >
> > > I think (and hope) that Vista is too little too late. M$ does have a hold
> > > on the personal desktop, but with more and more corporations switching to
> > > Linux/BSD, I think that marketshare will erode over the course of the next
> > > 10-20 years. That's good news for the generation below me. :)
> >
> > That may be true currently, but once Vista is released at the end of 2006, I
> > suspect
> > that outlook will change. But currently the fact alone that 95% of new
> > computers come
> > with Windows pre-installed, and the fact that I cant go to just any computer
> > retail
> > store, and purchase Linux is a poor indication of your point. Stores dont
> > want to sell
> > software that you can legally get for free elsewhere.
> You can get copies of SuSE, Novell, and Red Hat Linux at Best Buy and Staples.
>
SuSE and Novell? arnt they using the basiclly the same core?: "Novell Linux
Desktop powered by SUSE LINUX". Red Hat and Fedora... I can download them for
free, I'm sure they are just flying off the selves ;). Unfortunatlly there
happens to be no Best Buy in Southern Oregon, or Frys Electronics :(.
>
> > 10 to 20 years from now, Windows will probably be a completley different
> > entity, not
> > even called Windows. Vista may be a little too late, but Microsoft will
> > spend billions
> > of dollars in marketing to get back in the game. Microsoft has huge amount
> > of power
> > because because of its money. Billions of dollars is little more than
> > ice-cream money
> > to Microsoft.
> > Microsoft has had a long history of falling behind and then catching up. In
> > the end
> > the one with the most money always wins.
> >
> > >
> > > > There could be an Euphoria.NET, but it would have to become a full
> > > > object oriented
> > > > language.
> > >
> > > Can you tell me why or point me to relevant articles?
> >
> > Well there could be an Euphoria to MSIL translator, but since the language
> > isnt even
> > OO, having the programmer handle .NET namespaces, classes, objects, etc.
> > would be a
> > big problem now wouldnt it. Anything is possible, but if it was done it
> > would be an
> > awful hack that everyone would want to avoid.
> You wouldn't need to. It's completely possible to write a Euphoria (or any
> other language)
> interpreter and have the user never even know it's using .NET.
>
Heh, right good "BS". You will still need the framework, and it would be one
huge internal wrapper.
> > >
> > > > I probably would still prefer C# over Euphoria.NET anyway, because of
> > > > the
> > > > support for pointers and structures.
> > >
> > > Is it because I come from a non-pointered, non-structures programming
> > > language
> > > background that I don't find the lack of these to be issues?
> >
> > Try VB.NET, unsafe code isnt possible in that language. You cannot use
> > pointers, or
> > any advanced memory handling. Operator overloading, and generics are new for
> > version
> > 2005. Most programmers like the terse syntax, and pointers of the C
> > derivents. It makes
> > them feel better about themselves, as if they were smarter. C# is a much
> > more popular
> > language than VB.NET and infact its alarming Microsoft.
> Actually, last I checked <a
> href="http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm">http://www.tiobe.com/tpci.htm</a> 6% of all
> programmers use VB
> whereas only 3% use C#.
>
July Headline: C# at new all time high, Visual Basic at lowest level of last 4
years. Besides I was talking about VB.NET (big difference). VB.NET rating is:
0.954%.
> The thing I don't know if you realize is that no one's going to switch to .NET
> immediately.
> Companies still need to make their stuff backwards compatible and rarely
> completely
> reengineer their software unless they have to. In fact, I HIGHLY doubt that by
> 2008
> everybody will be using .NET. Plus Microsoft is well know for their hyping the
> "new
> technology of the future" and end up going back to what they've done before.
> The hyped
> OS/2, tried to get a new internet protocol they designed standardized (and
> Bill Gates
> got laughed out of the commitee while doing so), and said they'd never add DOS
> compatability
> to NT (which they eventually did for backwads compatability). I expect MS to
> get a
> LOT of angry customers if they don't handle this well.
>
Well perhaps microsoft will extend support for Win32 a little longer, who knows.
Microsoft has lots of resources on migration to .NET, and those who wish to get
ahead with Vista, will have to move. According to Microsoft, 1000's of companies
are migrating to .NET each year.
> Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X?
> That's probably
> MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
>
Apple's OS X Tiger is very impressive, but Apple computer market represents 1.8
percent of the worldwide desktop market and 2.9 percent of the global portable
market. In the United States, Apple’s strongest region, share is only 3.7
percent. Microsoft is competing with their OS, but Apple does not represent a
threat to Microsoft. In fact Apple could be herting themselves by the switch to
Intel architecure. Could a PC crack of MacOS X become available? Maybe.
>
> The Euphoria Standard Library project :
> <a href="http://esl.sourceforge.net/">http://esl.sourceforge.net/</a>
> The Euphoria Standard Library mailing list :
> <a
> href="https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion">https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/esl-discussion</a>
>
Regards,
Vincent
----------------------------------------------
___ __________ ___
/__/\ /__________\ |\ _\
\::\'\ //::::::::::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //:::_::::_:::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\ |'|::|
\::\'\ //::/ |::| \::\\|'|::|
\::\'\__//::/ |::| \::\|'|::|
\::\','/::/ |::| \::\\|::|
\::\_/::/ |::| \::\|::|
\::,::/ |::| \:::::|
\___/ |__| \____|
.``.
',,'
12. Re: Regarding Dot NET
Vincent wrote:
>
> D. Newhall wrote:
> >
> > A lot of it is. BSD is used by most commercial web servers and would be the
> > prime target
> > for malicious code if you wanted to interfere with a large company's
> > buisness. Yet
> > BSD has still survived these past 30 years being the most secure and stable
> > OS available
> > outside of the government.
> >
>
> There is a whole bunch aimed at typical user too.. In fact 100,000's of
> trojans, worms,
> virues, adware, spyware, keyloggers, etc. all aimed at Windows users. Now lets
> consider
> the average user, who just doesnt want the complexity of Unix based systems.
> There
> are only a few Linux distros that I believe are friendly to use: SuSE and
> Linspire.
> But if Windows is already installed, the typical user will just live with it.
Nowadays the setup of most distros has gotten really smooth. An exception to
this is quite often installing drivers for some stuff that doesn't have a Free
driver and therefore cannot be included in a Free (as in free beer) OS.
> > > > > That will prevent Linux or BSD from ever dominating the desktop
> > > > > domain.
> > > >
> > > > I think (and hope) that Vista is too little too late. M$ does have a
> > > > hold
> > > > on the personal desktop, but with more and more corporations switching
> > > > to
> > > > Linux/BSD, I think that marketshare will erode over the course of the
> > > > next
> > > > 10-20 years. That's good news for the generation below me. :)
> > >
> > > That may be true currently, but once Vista is released at the end of 2006,
> > > I suspect
> > > that outlook will change. But currently the fact alone that 95% of new
> > > computers come
> > > with Windows pre-installed, and the fact that I cant go to just any
> > > computer retail
> > > store, and purchase Linux is a poor indication of your point. Stores dont
> > > want to sell
> > > software that you can legally get for free elsewhere.
> > You can get copies of SuSE, Novell, and Red Hat Linux at Best Buy and
> > Staples.
>
> SuSE and Novell? arnt they using the basiclly the same core?: "Novell Linux
> Desktop
> powered by SUSE LINUX". Red Hat and Fedora... I can download them for free,
> I'm sure
> they are just flying off the selves ;). Unfortunatlly there happens to be no
> Best Buy
> in Southern Oregon, or Frys Electronics :(.
Novell is the corporation that makes SuSE linux.
Red Hat Linux is commercial, and cannot be downloaded, if you aren't
referring to some warez site ;).
Also, if you ask nicely, some corporations that you can purchase linux from over
the net will even ship world-wide. So it doesn't matter if you live in Bangladesh
or the US. And I believe that many will ship to the whole US.
> >
> > > 10 to 20 years from now, Windows will probably be a completley different
> > > entity, not
> > > even called Windows. Vista may be a little too late, but Microsoft will
> > > spend billions
> > > of dollars in marketing to get back in the game. Microsoft has huge amount
> > > of power
> > > because because of its money. Billions of dollars is little more than
> > > ice-cream money
> > > to Microsoft.
> > > Microsoft has had a long history of falling behind and then catching up.
> > > In the end
> > > the one with the most money always wins.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > There could be an Euphoria.NET, but it would have to become a full
> > > > > object oriented
> > > > > language.
> > > >
> > > > Can you tell me why or point me to relevant articles?
> > >
> > > Well there could be an Euphoria to MSIL translator, but since the language
> > > isnt even
> > > OO, having the programmer handle .NET namespaces, classes, objects, etc.
> > > would be a
> > > big problem now wouldnt it. Anything is possible, but if it was done it
> > > would be an
> > > awful hack that everyone would want to avoid.
> > You wouldn't need to. It's completely possible to write a Euphoria (or any
> > other language)
> > interpreter and have the user never even know it's using .NET.
> >
>
> Heh, right good "BS". You will still need the framework, and it would be one
> huge internal
> wrapper.
Does it really need to wrap the full framework? Ain't it enough to know that it
is possible?
> > The thing I don't know if you realize is that no one's going to switch to
> > .NET immediately.
> > Companies still need to make their stuff backwards compatible and rarely
> > completely
> > reengineer their software unless they have to. In fact, I HIGHLY doubt that
> > by 2008
> > everybody will be using .NET. Plus Microsoft is well know for their hyping
> > the "new
> > technology of the future" and end up going back to what they've done before.
> > The hyped
> > OS/2, tried to get a new internet protocol they designed standardized (and
> > Bill Gates
> > got laughed out of the commitee while doing so), and said they'd never add
> > DOS compatability
> > to NT (which they eventually did for backwads compatability). I expect MS to
> > get a
> > LOT of angry customers if they don't handle this well.
> >
>
> Well perhaps microsoft will extend support for Win32 a little longer, who
> knows.
Microshaft Winblows XP is even partly compatible with DOS. Win32 compatibility
will last many years or even decades into the future.
> Microsoft
> has lots of resources on migration to .NET, and those who wish to get ahead
> with Vista,
> will have to move. According to Microsoft, 1000's of companies are migrating
> to .NET
> each year.
Do you really believe what the marketing part of Microsoft is saying? Come on,
it's a big corporation that just wants you to buy their product!
> > Also, in regards to your last post, why no mention of Apple and Mac OS X?
> > That's probably
> > MS's biggest competitor right now (and IMO have a much better product).
> >
>
> Apple's OS X Tiger is very impressive, but Apple computer market represents
> 1.8 percent
> of the worldwide desktop market and 2.9 percent of the global portable market.
> In the
> United States, Apple’s strongest region, share is only 3.7 percent. Microsoft
> is competing
> with their OS, but Apple does not represent a threat to Microsoft. In fact
> Apple could
> be herting themselves by the switch to Intel architecure. Could a PC crack of
> MacOS
> X become available? Maybe.
>
I'd say that two percent is a big threat against Microsoft's monopoly.
Also, prices will go down and/or performance will increase if they use intel
cpus, just because there's a huge amount of such cpus made every year.
And there will probably be some crack available, as with any other product.
Regards, Alexander Toresson
13. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Greg Haberek <ghaberek at gmail.com>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
> > But the fact is Microsoft is working hard to greatly improve security,
> > and realibilty of their future OSes.
>
> M$ is working hard to get monopoly. That's all.
How true. My only argument to those against Linux is this: What is
Microsoft's ultimate goal? Profit, that's why they charge for a
liscence to their OS. What is the goal of all the Linux programmers in
the world? A better OS, that's why they *give* you a *copy* of their
OS. Who do you want designing your OS? The people who want to make a
quick $150 or the people who want to see everyone using a better,
safer, more secure OS?
(I'm not a current Linux user because I had to sell my extra computers
for cash, and I needed Windows to develop apps for work. But darn it
if I don't absolutely love Fedora and Mandrake, and Knoppix is
awesome, too.)
~Greg
14. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Ferlin Scarborough <ferlin1 at bellsouth.net>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
Vincent wrote:
>
<snip>
> July Headline: C# at new all time high, Visual Basic at lowest level of last 4
> years.
> Besides I was talking about VB.NET (big difference). VB.NET rating is: 0.954%.
>
The reason the VB.NET usage is so small, is simply because .NET is a piece of
crap.
Why would you want to take Euphoria and completely RUIN it by adding pointers
and structures, that would make it confusing for a hobbiest programmer to use, or
a newbie, why take something that is DESIGNED to be SIMPLE, and completely muck
it up?
As for WinFS, that is a Hackers Dream waiting to happen, M$ has already taken it
out and put it back in Vista a bundle of times. Just think of it a DATABASE
driving file system, no longer will the newbie hacker have to figure out how to
get into the File Allocation Table, and change things in it, all they will have
do is get into a database and mess pointers up and screw up the entire system.
Going with a database is also causing a need for Microsoft to have to design a
whole new security system, and Microsoft has proven over and over again, that
their NEW security systems, are full of holes.
I have an OLD Macintosh G3 running Mac OS 7.2 that I booted up 21 1/2 months
ago, and have not had to reboot once in that time, and it is used on a daily
basis. (And I was told my a lot of Mac users that 7.2 was one of Macintosh's
worst OS Versions.) Now, that should say something for other OS's besides
Windows!
Later.
Ferlin Scarborough
Learn To Program Games in Free Courses
Now contains an Introduction To Euphoria Programming Course At
http://www.gameuniv.net
My Euphoria Home Page
http://mywebpage.netscape.com/shadetreesoft
My Free Games Page
http://freewebtown.com/ferlin
15. Re: Regarding Dot NET
- Posted by Pete Lomax <petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk>
Aug 01, 2005
-
Last edited Aug 02, 2005
On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 13:19:34 -0700, Vincent <guest at RapidEuphoria.com>
wrote:
>I'm sure there would be many more problems if all this malicious software was
>targeted on Linux and BSD systems.
)!
>In the end the one with the most money always wins.
Tell that to IBM.
>C# is a much more popular language than VB.NET and infact its alarming
>Microsoft.
Didn't M$ invent C#? )
Regards,
Pete
16. Re: Regarding Dot NET
What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't
reach, so you get what we had here last week which is the way he wants
it. Well, he gets it. And I don't like it any more than you men.
Cool Hand Luke
17. Re: Regarding Dot NET
Greg Haberek wrote:
>
> (I'm not a current Linux user because I had to sell my extra computers
> for cash, and I needed Windows to develop apps for work.
Greg:
You can still run Linux in a windows directory.
Bernie
My files in archive:
w32engin.ew mixedlib.e eu_engin.e win32eru.exw
Can be downloaded here:
http://www.rapideuphoria.com/cgi-bin/asearch.exu?dos=on&win=on&lnx=on&gen=on&keywords=bernie+ryan
