Oh boy, a chance to stir the Windows/Linux pot! But seriously:
We use both Linux and Windows 9X, 2K. Linux is used so far only as the LAN server/gateway. All of the desktop work is done on Windows. Linux is a great server OS, but still needs a lot of GUI and API work before it can be a Windows desktop replacement. Windows is easy to configure, not flexible, and difficult to troubleshoot. Linux is difficult to configure, very flexible, and easy to troubleshoot. Windows is the "one size fits all, if we don't have it, you don't need it" philosophy. Linux is the "swiss army knife, custom built with the blades/tools you want" philosophy. Microsoft was finally getting its act together with W2K. It's very stable (compared to previous versions) and I like it. Unfortunately, M$ got too greedy and decided to put activation in their new releases. This is the straw that breaks this camel's back. I refuse to embrace XP products because of the activation issue. Where does M$ get the idea that they are being ripped off? Every PC is bundled with a licensed copy of Windows when it's sold as new. So where's the ripoff? If your PC dies, you wipe the hard drive, and install a copy of the same version of Windows from another CD other than the one that came with that PC, it still is not a ripoff, because the original CD doesn't become "unbought". No real theft (monetary loss) has occurred. Where does M$ get off charging ever more money for their products in the middle of cash crunches and recession? They need to get with the austerity plan just like everyone else is right now. If M$ doesn't listen to public outcry against activation and get rid of it, we will have no choice but to protest by ceasing to buy new M$ products. This means adopting Linux on the desktop. Unfortunately, there are still big barriers to overcome before Linux can replace Windows. The biggest problem I see is getting developers to write for Linux. As far as I know there is no Visual Studio equivalent for Linux. And those developers have spent a lot of time learning the Win32 API. They won't want to learn some other API. What is needed is a Win32 API shell for Linux. WINE is supposed to be that, but of course, since there are undocumented Win32 API calls, how complete can it be? Hopefully, the DOJ ruling will force M$ to document their undocumented API calls. Wanna bet? My interest in having Protel available on Linux has been lukewarm up to this point. Now that the Redmond Nazis are searching and seizing everyone they can, I am very much more interested in Protel on Linux. This shouldn't be too difficult for Protel, since Protel is written in Delphi, and Borland Kylix is essentially Delphi on Linux. Best regards, Ivan Baggett Bagotronix Inc. website: www.bagotronix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "robi artwork" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 4:29 AM Subject: [PEDA] MS versus Linux > Talking about Operating Systems !!!!! > > To my knowledge - > Linux is a much-much faster and a lot-lot more stable Operating System as > any of Microsofts Op's will ever be. > > Simply said - it's a much better Platform. > > Talking to Protel about a year ago, why "Protel-Tools" aren't available to > operate under Linux-Operation System. > The answer I was give - " We don't have that many customers requesting it - > should more customer asking for this, we may consider it". > > Well well well - > Maybe the time has come to ask Altium to get "Protel running under Linux". > > I specifically posted this mail, to this forum, to attract not only your > but also Altiums, Protels attention and thoughts. > > Robi * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * To leave this list visit: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html * * Contact the list manager: * mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] * * Forum Guidelines Rules: * http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html * * Browse or Search previous postings: * http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected] * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
