Ichthux

Bug #1 (liberation)
Comment #1193

Comment 1193 for bug 1

Revision history for this message

Faldegast (faldegast) wrote on 2010-05-07: RE: [Bug 1] Microsoft has a majority market share

#1193

> Good morning, sir.
>
>
> > What? Can you be more specific in how you come to this ramblings out of what i wrote? How would having a standard rather then (at least) two incompatible solutions create such a mess?
>
> It wouldn't, but all sorts of idiots abusing it would. I guess we can
> all agree that good open standards are good thing for everyone except
> bastards using proprietary crap to create vendor lock-ins so that they
> could keep their stranglehold on ICT industry. I just don't like the
> whole embedding idea very much because "when you create something that
> even an idiot can use, only idiots will use it". That's how I got to the
> point where I started rambling about undesirable effects of these
> technologies.
Stil, these technologies are currently around in Linux. All i suggest is that we standardize it. It should actually be a part of my original suggestion to merge Gnome and KDE, as this require them to use each others components. Of course there is also the issue of remote objects. There are replacements for DCOM in Linux, however there are no standard here either. For this i think i prefer the binary webservice model, it is standardised and fast. However it still is only available in a few languages. There is a good Java implementation, but we also need a good C implementation.

I don't care if idiots use development tools and use them incorrectly. If its not quality software its going to fade away, if it even gets used in the first place. Also i don't care if there are a few proprietary for reporting, diagrams as such. Good luck selling components that does stuff already available as free components. The only reasons components for stuff like TCP/IP is commercially available in Windows is because developers of free software never took on that platform, after all why bother when writing good components for OSS platforms is more important.

Would it really be so bad if Gecko, OpenOffice and VLC was available as custom controls that could easily be added to an application, in a standardized way? Like Trident, MS Office and Media Player can be added in a VS application?

> > So how do i use libmysql to connect to my postres database again? None of those are database libraries. They are database-specific client libraries. The only C database lib i know that is actively developed i libzdb (http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/documentation.html).
>
> You don't. As you've said, libmysql is a client library for MySQL server
> and libpq is it's PostgreSQL equivalent. I guess you're talking about
> some wrapper library which serves as another abstraction layer built on
> top of various database libraries, but I believe using this kind of
> stuff is a very bad idea, because it only introduces more bugs and it's
> definitely less efficient than using selected database directly, but if
> you really need this then there's libdbi, libyada, UNIXODBC and others
> so this shouldn't be a problem.
>
>
> > In what way is it different? Most things i suggest are already in the programming model. The OLE/ActiveX-component type of component model for OO programming does exist. It exists in the form of beans, kpart and bonobo. The only difference with creating a standard is that kde objects would be usable in gnome and gnome objects in kde.
>
> Again - cooperating to create a solid common open standard is good
> because it removes a good deal of otherwise duplicated efforts (which is
> very common across free software landscape). It's just that for example
> Bonobo has been deprecated since GNOME 2.4 so it's not just me, but even
> those brilliant guys programming the whole desktop environment thing
> don't think it's such a good idea, you know…

> As far as IDEs go, I've personally tried at least Eclipse and NetBeans
> and they're definitely on the right track. Anyway - although I agree
> that the lack of native applications for various purposes is one of the
> main reasons why GNU/Linux has a significant disadvantage to Winblow$ in
> terms of it's adoption by end users, I don't think this is the right
> place to discuss software development topics and as far as attracting
> more so called "software developers" who don't give a rat's ass about
> free software, I think we're better off without them.

Both Eclipse and NetBeans has its bright sides. NetBeans has some good RAD GUI editing tools and Eclipse has a very good UML tool. If they was merged they would be more then a match for VC C#. However C/C++ is still an issue.

I do not agree that we would be better off without developers that makes commercial software. I think we need the whole spectra of developers to embrace Linux as a excellent development platform.

One way I have started is to tell developers that using the VirtualBox images with pre-installed Linux is a good way to get Eclipse up and running without much problem. Those that have used eclipse on Windows knows that configuring Eclipse can be a bitch, but in Linux its you just install packages. After trying this they usually stick with VirtualBox+Linux or change to Linux completely. Thus of course their code will be fully tested for Linux.

_________________________________________________________________
Surfa tryggt med Internet Explorer 8
http://www.microsoft.com/sverige/windows/internet-explorer/default.aspx

> Good morning, sir.
> 
> 
> > What? Can you be more specific in how you come to this ramblings out of what i wrote? How would having a standard rather then (at least) two incompatible solutions create such a mess?
> 
> It wouldn't, but all sorts of idiots abusing it would. I guess we can
> all agree that good open standards are good thing for everyone except
> bastards using proprietary crap to create vendor lock-ins so that they
> could keep their stranglehold on ICT industry. I just don't like the
> whole embedding idea very much because "when you create something that
> even an idiot can use, only idiots will use it". That's how I got to the
> point where I started rambling about undesirable effects of these
> technologies.
Stil, these technologies are currently around in Linux. All i suggest is that we standardize it. It should actually be a part of my original suggestion to merge Gnome and KDE, as this require them to use each others components. Of course there is also the issue of remote objects. There are replacements for DCOM in Linux, however there are no standard here either. For this i think i prefer the binary webservice model, it is standardised and fast. However it still is only available in a few languages. There is a good Java implementation, but we also need a good C implementation.

> > So how do i use libmysql to connect to my postres database again? None of those are database libraries. They are database-specific client libraries. The only C database lib i know that is actively developed i libzdb (http://www.tildeslash.com/libzdb/documentation.html).
> 
> You don't. As you've said, libmysql is a client library for MySQL server
> and libpq is it's PostgreSQL equivalent. I guess you're talking about
> some wrapper library which serves as another abstraction layer built on
> top of various database libraries, but I believe using this kind of
> stuff is a very bad idea, because it only introduces more bugs and it's
> definitely less efficient than using selected database directly, but if
> you really need this then there's libdbi, libyada, UNIXODBC and others
> so this shouldn't be a problem.
> 
> 
> > In what way is it different? Most things i suggest are already in the programming model. The OLE/ActiveX-component type of component model for OO programming does exist. It exists in the form of beans, kpart and bonobo. The only difference with creating a standard is that kde objects would be usable in gnome and gnome objects in kde. 
> 
> Again - cooperating to create a solid common open standard is good
> because it removes a good deal of otherwise duplicated efforts (which is
> very common across free software landscape). It's just that for example
> Bonobo has been deprecated since GNOME 2.4 so it's not just me, but even
> those brilliant guys programming the whole desktop environment thing
> don't think it's such a good idea, you know…

Bonobo is deprecated and partially replaced by DCOP. However it is still being used for some graphical components. There are discussions on how to expand on DCOP or other technologies to remove Bonobo completely. Its mainly its CORBA dependency that is being questioned, not its high-level function.
 
> As far as IDEs go, I've personally tried at least Eclipse and NetBeans
> and they're definitely on the right track. Anyway - although I agree
> that the lack of native applications for various purposes is one of the
> main reasons why GNU/Linux has a significant disadvantage to Winblow$ in
> terms of it's adoption by end users, I don't think this is the right
> place to discuss software development topics and as far as attracting
> more so called "software developers" who don't give a rat's ass about
> free software, I think we're better off without them.

I do not agree that we would be better off without developers that makes commercial software. I think we need the whole spectra of developers to embrace Linux as a excellent development platform.