|
On April 30 2009 01:08 FreeZEternal wrote:Show nested quote +
It's jaw dropping to me when I read on this thread people saying "Visual Studio is a beast and code:blocks wasn't good enough". One is a proprietary software with at most a dozen of developers updating it once every couple of years on market demands and the other is an open source application that has hundreds of active developers updating it every day. Which one is is better?
Give me a break, name one IDE that has all of VS features and framework integration with .NET that's free and open source? I'm not sure if I understand you correctly, so pardon me if I'm mistaken. But you do know that .net integration is simply a matter of telling your compiler where the libs and includes from the sdk are so it can see it's structure and do w/e with it. Which is something that any of the dozens of compilers around can do, you know that right? Please correct me if I didn't understand your question. As for which one has more 'features' I already told you that.
On April 30 2009 01:32 L wrote: Lazy or not doing work that doesn't need to be done. Take your pick. That's where you're missing an important detail. While it's work that doesn't need to be done, it's work that could be done to increase your efficiency. On the long run, you'd have more profit. Most people tho, do think like you "why would I move my ass if it's more comfortable to be inefficient?". At the end of the day, you do are being inefficient. But, like I said before. Most humans being go for the "the shortest term profit for the lower amount of work", regardless if they're an end user playing games or the head of a large corporation. And that's open source software takes so slow to overcome commercial competitors.
|
it's work that could be done to increase your efficiency. Well, not if windows provides everything I need. If windows is a complete solution for me as an end user, then spending time looking at alternatives is lost time and wasted energy. Setting up a system and learning how to do so in order to make a first hand comparison, again, is wasted time and lost energy if I don't actually get something I need out of it. It has nothing to do with efficiency on a per user basis, and it will never have anything to do with efficiency on a per user basis.
The net gain from open source software is the collective efficiency gain when everyone switches to it. The fact that most people don't isn't out of laziness, its that they simply have no reason to switch. The people who need to invest the least into the switch are the ones that have done it, and are the ones pushing for others to do it because a larger user base means more free code for them.
|
On April 30 2009 02:55 L wrote: Well, not if windows provides everything I need. If windows is a complete solution for me as an end user, then spending time looking at alternatives is lost time and wasted energy. [...] The net gain from open source software is the collective efficiency gain when everyone switches to it. Well if you do understand the collective efficiency gain. Don't you think it would be smarter to contribute to the collective as an individual who is part of it? Even if it's in the long run?
Also, everything you need is a little bit relative. Food and water is everything you need in life, but it could be better. Windows might provide everything you 'need', but it could be better, it could be more efficient. There is no limit to 'efficiency', it always could be better. You could say you don't care, but you can't say it wouldn't be more efficient if you did care. What if whatever is it that you use on windows had hundreds of developers updating it daily instead of dozens updating it only once a couple of years when the market demands it? Doesn't that sound more efficient to any end user?
|
On April 30 2009 00:33 VIB wrote:
1) But that is exactly the advantage of linux, what you produce on it is compatible with everything else.
First, that's an advantage many don't need. What's important for most is how they produce it (how fast and convenient), but not in which format, because they have the app to read it anyway.
Second, the people who *do* care about the format can relax in many cases: open standards are being used more and more even in proprietary programs.
Third, as an example, what good is encoding your stuff in Ogg when you can't play it on many devices. This happens a lot in the IT world: the best thing is often not the best choice. In this case, the theoretically most compatible choice (Ogg) is the least compatible choice in practice because almost no manufacturer implements support for it, so MP3 is "the" standard even though it's not a completely open standard.
The reason why is still ignorance and laziness, I've experienced that first hand and saw it many times with my own eyes. Many companies already increased their profits changing their whole workflow to free softwares. Why many others still didn't? From my experience: mostly ignorance, secondly laziness from some people inside who doesn't want to move their arse even if it would make them more money in the long run.
There certainly are a lot of users who simply don't know anything else than Windows, are too lazy to try out something different, and thus may be using what's worse for their job.
But I'm more concerned about people who have tried out Linux but now use Win or OSX on purpose, and about their reasoning.
2) You missed the point completely about the quality of open software. It has nothing to do with googling it and finding stuff that you never used. I work everyday with code:blocks, blender, inkscape and gimp. I know them well enough to the point that I touched the source code of the first two a few times to patch it for my needs. I work with them and make money with them. I know some of these from the inside out.
It's jaw dropping to me when I read on this thread people saying "Visual Studio is a beast and code:blocks wasn't good enough". One is a proprietary software with at most a dozen of developers updating it once every couple of years on market demands and the other is an open source application that has hundreds of active developers updating it every day. Which one is is better?
That has nothing to do with what is better.
And I've never really used VS and Code:Blocks, so I can't comment on that, but I do know that VS is the favorite IDE of many programmers, many famous ones included.
Since I only write smaller things and scripts, a good text editor is more than enough for me, and an IDE would only add in more needless complexity. I like Eclipse though.
3) When you said that windows will not go away because everything from linux works on windows. You just missed the point by liiiight years away. You got it all completely inverted. That reason you pointed is exactly the reason why, one day, open source will win. That is the reason why proprietary software are doomed to extinction. Every time you use gimp or blender on windows. That is a HUGE victory for linux. You are untying your chains you are becoming free. Soon you'll be able to move to linux and say "hey, I don't miss anything!". That's the whole point!
Look at the broader picture. Think about the long term for once instead of the short term as everyone does as usual.
No, that just means Open Source gains ground (which is good of course), but not Linux...
Ironically, Windows is the #1 platform for not only CSS but OSS as well. Some very high quality OSS apps (e.g. the Miranda IM program) are only available on Windows, most other high quality OSS apps are cross-platform including Windows. So you can't go wrong, and you have access to everything with Windows.
In some older thread, I have already written an opinion about how the Linuxland developers hurt Linux themselves: by making all their good stuff available on Windows as well, they further reduce the incentive for people to switch away from Windows. And most people have almost no incentive at all to do so in the first place.
And CSS doomed to extinction? Never.
In the future, more OSS apps will be available and used, but CSS will never go away... it'll be a "together", not "either or". And Windows will remain the platform of choice.
|
United States47024 Posts
On April 30 2009 05:39 0xDEADBEEF wrote:
And CSS doomed to extinction? Never.
In the future, more OSS apps will be available and used, but CSS will never go away... it'll be a "together", not "either or". And Windows will remain the platform of choice.
IMO its MUCH to early in the lifetime of the computer for us to be saying that things will "never" go away. We've only had them for less than 40 years, and much more can change. "Never" is a strong term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
