Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 01:51:52 10/28/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 28, 2001 at 00:33:09, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >As a programmer who wrote a lot of code for the different systems, let me >suggest the *real* nightmare. At one day, you and Ed will decide to write the >wonderful GUI chess application that includes everything chess user may want, >i.e. product that competes with Chessbase GUI (you like the competition, right >:-)). And you'll go to your statistics page to find out for which OS you want to >write. And you'll see something like > > Windows 12.5% > MacOS 12.5% > BeOS 12.5% > PalmOS 12.5% > Linux, GNOME 12.5% > Linux, KDE 12.5% > Solaris 12.5% > Unknown 12.5% :) Your point is well understood. However the complaint is not MS dominant position in the market but the intentions of your bosses what they want to do with their power. Looking at history I am not positive and I will buy myself a bottle of champagne the day MS becomes under government supervision, or something like that. Ed >Standartization on one platform was a necessity for the consumer device. >Probably DOS/Windows was not the best platform. But it won, and won due to the >simple fact: MS made much less errors than competitors. > >And why you don't like WMP? Nobody forces you to use it. You can go and buy any >other player. > >Eugene > >On October 27, 2001 at 16:56:26, Christophe Theron wrote: > >>On October 27, 2001 at 11:15:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On October 27, 2001 at 04:19:47, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On October 26, 2001 at 20:43:14, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 26, 2001 at 19:12:03, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>OK, then you definitely work for MS. Most observers mention the need to have >>>>>>256Mb of memory and a very fast processor in order to run XP. >>>>> >>>>>Question the observers. Most memory companies have gone so far as to say that XP >>>>>will only run well with 512MB RAM or more. Hmm, I wonder why they say that? And >>>>>if you see an article saying something similar, ask if the author is only saying >>>>>it because of the noise that memory companies have made. The Register has >>>>>written a few columns on how much memory XP really needs, and the consensus is >>>>>that it will perform just fine with 64MB, which I have witnessed personally and >>>>>consider to be true. >>>>> >>>>>>Windows 95 runs on my 386sx 20MHz, and it has only 5Mb of memory. I just have >>>>>>to >>>>>>wait a little minute every time I want to open an explorer window. But I swear >>>>>>W95 works on my 386sx 20MHz notebook. >>>>> >>>>>I don't doubt that. But I remember running 95 on a 486/80 (WAY faster than a >>>>>386sx) with 8MB RAM and it was a DOG when running any more than one program. >>>>> >>>>>WinXP will run just fine on any Pentium (including 60MHz) with 64+MB RAM. I have >>>>>seen it myself running just fine on a P5/133 and a P5/60 isn't so much slower as >>>>>to make it unusable. >>>>> >>>>>>Why should I let a chance to Microsoft to have a look at what's going on >>>>>>inside >>>>>>my computer? >>>>>> >>>>>>The question "are they going to have a look or not" is totally secondary. >>>>> >>>>>By running a Microsoft OS, you are giving MS the opportunity to do that no >>>>>matter what, whether you like it or not. MS could upload every single keystroke >>>>>you enter without your knowledge, if it wanted. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Hey, you finally got it! >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>Same for any other operating >>>>>system you might use. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>Please mention another operating system I could use. >>> >>>There is an alternative. I don't run windows on _anything_ I personally >>>use. From the laptop I am using right now to post this, to the quad in >>>my office, to the file servers and firewalls at the office, to the >>>workstations used by faculty there... >> >> >> >>Yes, I know someone would point out Linux, and I do not disagree with you. >> >>However it is not an alternative for me. >> >>I write programs to be sold to as many customers as possible. When I look at the >>current state of the market, it scares me. >> >>I have a relatively reliable way of evaluating which OS my potential customers >>are using. I look at the statistics of my Chess Tiger site (www.chesstiger.com). >>At least it gives me a picture of my market segment. >> >>What I see on today's statistics is: >> Windows 97.0% >> MacOS 1.3% >> Unknown 1.0% >> Linux 0.7% >> WebTV 0.3% >> >>Does it make any sense for me to use Linux then? >> >>This has nothing to do with the quality of the OS. I consider Linux (and Unix in >>general) as THE reference OS of all times. After all, Unix and its flavors have >>successfully been used since more than 30 years on many different platforms. >>What other OS can beat that? >> >>Naturally I could use Linux to develop my chess algorithms and port the >>resulting code to Windows when it is ready. But coding Chess Tiger only takes a >>marginal amount of time (testing it is what takes 90% of the developpement time, >>but most of this is done with automated procedures). >> >>Tom was joking about "living in the woods". Well, using Linux would be like >>living in the woods. I don't want to live in the woods, because I need to live >>the same life as my customers. I have to live the same experience as they do, so >>I can feel their needs and improve my products accordingly. >> >>If all my customers are using Windows and I'm using Linux, I don't think I am >>living the same experience as they do. If I do that, then I live in the woods, >>and they live in town. >> >>I do not know what to do about this situation, and that's why I hate it. >> >>I am forced to use an operating system which is 90% driven by commercial >>considerations: forcing people to buy more powerful computers to do the same >>thing as they did before (bloated OS), directing people to use selected >>commercial services instead of cheaper or even free alternatives (the ".NET" >>propaganda, Windows Media Player hold up, forcing people to download selected >>partners updates and services), forcing people to pay regularly to renew their >>software license (which allow to get money without actually improving the >>software), and so on... >> >>But as you only use Linux, you probably do not have any idea of what I am >>talking about. Lucky you... :) >> >> >> >> Christophe >> >> >> >> >>>>Hint: there is no other alternative. >>>> >>>>Still not understanding my concerns? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> The question is not whether or not you're giving them a >>>>>chance to do it, it's what they're actually doing. And it has been independently >>>>>confirmed that MS is NOT uploading personal information about you. Just a hash >>>>>of your hardware. >>>>> >>>>>>>I'm the last person to tell somebody to use Windows, but if you don't use it, >>>>>>>I'd prefer that your reasons be based on accurate information. :) >>>>>> >>>>>>Come on. I have seen where Microsoft is taking us over the years, and as the >>>>>>justice is not willing to stop them, the only way to keep a little bit of >>>>>>privacy and control over our information systems is to realize what's going on >>>>>>and to resist. >>>>> >>>>>Or just use something else. I don't see why you're getting so worked up about >>>>>this product activation scheme (which is presumably what you're talking about). >>>>>Look at it from other viewpoints. >>>>> >>>>>1. A lot of the more expensive software requires dongles. Would you prefer a >>>>>dongle over a fairly harmless/painless "product activation" scheme? Or how about >>>>>programs that require you to insert the CD every few times you use them? >>>>>Microsoft doesn't make you do that, either. In terms of copy protection, the >>>>>product activation scheme is not as bad as many alternatives in use by companies >>>>>that you would probably consider less evil than MS. >>>>> >>>>>2. If MS does not take actions within their means to prevent piracy, it becomes >>>>>legally very difficult to prosecute pirates. In effect, our legal system is >>>>>_forcing_ MS to do something in the vein of product activation. >>>>> >>>>>I often enjoy reading your posts a lot because I think they are very well >>>>>thought-out, balanced, and objective, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. >>>>>If you really believe in all this Brave New World, Orwellian sort of stuff about >>>>>Microsoft, you are free to go live in the woods and send letter bombs to people. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>If I express my concerns so loudly it is precisely because I do not opt to live >>>>in the woods and act as you say. >>>> >>>>It beats me to see how the sheep tries desperately to protect the wolf. >>>> >>>>Stockholm syndrom? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.