OpenEuphoria

Re: Problem with binary files

• Posted by jbrown105 at HotPOP.com Apr 29, 2001
• 592 views

A little off thread: When I searched the net for free windows-os clones,
most had no downloadable code, and the only one that was realy complete
was commercial and cost as much as M$ windows, with less features.
The only real alternative to M$ windows, as I see, would be something
like the long-gone generalwindows.com project: take Linux (or FreeBSD),
XFree86, and Wine, and set it up so that the os will load, run X,
and then X will load Wine, which in turn will load a bunch of free windows
programs that replace M$ ones. Wine isn't complete enough for this yet,
which is why generalwindows.com died off, I think. The next best thing
is Linux+XFree4.0+KDE2.1, which is what I use. After all, the only way
to beat M$ is to outdo them at their own game, i.e. have a clone of
M$ windows that is actually better.

jbrown

On Sun, Apr 29, 2001 at 04:24:10PM -0500, Irv Mullins wrote:
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, jbrown105 at HotPOP.com wrote:
>=20
> > > > IMHO, Microsoft is far too anti-POSIX. Why?
> > > >=20
> > > Isn't POSIX some kind of a standard?=20
> > > Doesn't that explain the M$ attitude?
> > >=20
> > > Regards,
> > > Irv
> >=20
> > Why?
>=20
> It's very simple, really. They (M$) will never support a standard that=20
> they don't control.  Controlling the standard means they can change=20
> it whenever they wish. Why would they want to do that? Let's just=20
> suppose, for example, that jbrown software comes out with a new=20
> program that everybody thinks is wonderful. jbrown is selling copies=20
> like crazy. M$ can't understand why they aren't getting the money=20
> instead of jbrown. So they change the underlying software (windows)
> so that jbrown's program no longer works. But, surprise, surprise,=20
> guess who has a "very similar" program that does work?
>=20
> Of course, I'm not saying M$ would do something like that.
> I agreed not to say anything bad about them before I even opened=20
> the software package - why is that sort of binding agreement totally=20
> illegal and unenforceable except when Micro$oft does it?
>=20
> Maybe I ju$t an$wered my own que$tion.
>=20
> Regards,
> Irv
>=20
>=20
>=20
>=20
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

--=20
Linux User:190064
Linux Machine:84163
http://jbrown105.1avenue.com