What happens when all the software is written that you would write for money, what happens to programmers, do they end up configuring software, do they become system administrators? Isn't that the same plight of those taking on Windows platforms? I would rather stear everyone into open source object oriented systems, so at least we have ways to interface with proprietary designs without comrpomising integrity of a working process for software. The problem with proprietary software is it tends, for business purposes, to leverage in bad designs or designs that are not logical in the interest of making money in some unreasonable way, and usually down the road when 100% of your trust is in the software.. With objects, at least the software can be rewritten, but there is no way to leverage in a new design, unless we use XML which unlike CORBA, doesn't uphold a consistency of interfacing or a consistent upgrade path (how many interface schemes in XML allow for inheritance of existing interface standards?). Where Windows rules the world is on the subsystems (the operating system) and integration with the hardware, our file formats (container formats), and where we interface with others (communications).. That's how its not possible to move to linux and remain independent of Windows.. Also all our file formats are data based, chunks and headers, isn't it about time the files could maintain their own contents like objects? Microsoft relishes the adoption of pure text based and binary based file formats, they don't want you to adopt standardized open source objects, that would put them on a level playing field with everyone.. Just to think that interfaces to communication, files, operating systems, API, etc.. could be openly described and set in stone, that would be the end of the world for them, and that is precisely how to are able to keep people on Windows..
Does Linux have its own container format for movies, documents, sounds, presentations, spreadsheets, etc.. Does Linux's files maintain their own integrity, or is this in the operating system (the data is made an object and the applications interface with it as an object, not as a data file), or does each application use the files in different ways, inconsistently? If its the last case, I can guarantee you 100% Windows will continue, no matter what you say about linux.. But Linux was not designed as a user's system.. To make it as such, we should outline what makes Linux a user's system and make those the goals for open source development. But what works against open source is also, its being made for little or no money at all, at best the only software that comes out of that is software people like to do, and software they can do themselves, but generally without guidelines, planning, agreement.. You have many programmers making the exact same thing, and changing it a little.. So people have a choice, but of what, 3000 versions of some skin, or 5 versions of the same source code with various modifications? Where is the consistency? There is none with linux, its rather inconsistent, so you are asking Windows users to accept inconsistency in design with the freedom to choose.. Its this not being able to decide what is the correct thing to do for Linux that is acting against it, too much choices, not enough focus, not enough perfection, not enough decisions on what to do.. So how is linux going to save us from system administration tasks? Its the same problem with Windows, its just open source.. Determine what a operating system must do absolutely, what file formats it should have, design program to convert Windows and Mac formats to the Linux platform, design it so that there is one well thought up interface to do Internet communications, one well thought up one for file formats, one well thought up for interfacing with the API, and so on.. Eventually you will come up with something that can't be disputed and will be used by everyone because it simply does everything that needs to be done, simply.. It is possible, just we are working against programmers who are watching their future dwindle away to developing database applications and writing legacy software.. I'm sick of humpteen gillion libraries that all do the same thing, with each trying to make a buck somehow, and no way to take the application in my head and make it real because of all the dependence on low-level libraries and bloated standards, and so few programmers with a faith in objects.. Java failed because it was designed to leverage SUN's hardware.. Smalltalk failed because it didn't allow for binaries to be sold apart from the operating system, to distribute your application you have to distribute modifications of the environment or the system image (that's also why Java was created).. CORBA failed because they left the interface standards open just enough to allow vendors to leverage proprietary partially non-compliant ORB's, and the OMG favors vendors (where does the money come from?), not users, also how do you arrive at a standard without a consensus of approval of how to do things (OMG does this by committees, but really shouldn't it be determined by the users/programmers?).. XML will fail eventually because its open enough to be leveraged proprietarily, unless we quickly determine a working information process that can be standardized, and its a question, is XML extensible really, is there a format for inheritance or multiple inheritance, could a XML file reformat itself to be properly interpretted by a older applications that had used a minimal version of the standard, do we have to replicate the same data in each format under the same tree, do request information in a particular format , is there standards for asking of this information, how do we denote object oriented relationships, can the objects in XML format maintain their own contents or do we need libraries to determine the data format and maint them appropriately for the objects in XML? I see a future of objects, basically every movie file, document, spreadsheet, what have you, is an object, and if you want those objects in any other format, you just ask the objects: of a movie -> getFrame(123), storeFrame(123), getName, getHeader, etc.. of spreadsheet -> getCell(123,345), getName, getHeader ... Rather than asking a library, the library executes the object, in a sandbox, and asks this of the object.. Maybe the object calls services in the library to handle interpretation, but in essence its possible and it would be much harder to leverage commercially in the interest of moving people to a proprietary platform. Because the objects (the files) can interpret themselves independent of the operating system using them and of the libraries interfacing with them (try to get rid of the notion that you read and write to a file, think of it that you are interfacing with the file!). And that's where Linux should go.. But I have lost faith in Open Source already.. I think mostly due to what I'm seeing in Linux users and this muted pride in having something alternative but not being able to really point out what is so significant about it (okay I'm challenging you, but if you ask yourslef, what trully is linux doing that makes logical [in terms of computer science] sense and is simple, axiomatic and will be impossible to leverage proprietarily, and you will find something that hasn't been found yet). Its just that nagging feeling, how is this going to help me get a job in the future, that is the evil.. You should think, how is what we have now not answering the problems that could be answered more simply, and what other challenges await that we don't know about yet, all because we choose to play int he muddy details of semantics and proprietary interfaces.. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.bl3nder.com/ _______________________________________________ VNC-List mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To remove yourself from the list visit: http://www.realvnc.com/mailman/listinfo/vnc-list
