Its also ironical that there was a time when linux was also known as a poor mans OS, while today that term is totally forgotten. Actually to tell the truth I liked that term.

Its sad that the idea of linux was totally spoiled by desktops like gnome and kde(no doubt they are good but well too many cooks just spoiled the broth) and desktops idea. When linux started it wasn''t meant for desktops and I don''t think linux lost a desktop war. In my opinion it was never should have been in the desktop war.

Isn''t the future of OS''s in desktops/client configs? I think Linux should try to win that market share over for several reasons. I think it at least needs to gain a better handhold in the workstation arena if not desktops.

I think Linux has a long way to go in that regards, but I hope it keeps trying. Just as I don''t think M$ belongs on the average company''s server, I don''t think Linux is ready yet for the average home user. In time, both situations may change.

Maybe someday, I''ll get good enough at programming to help Linux be a little more user-friendly. Although I''m torn between developing games on Linux. I''d like to, but realistically, it just seems like such an awful nut to crack. First off, the market seems like it''s almost nill...or rather the market willing to PAY for games. Secondly, it just seems harder to program for. In Windows it seems like you just write or include all the DLL''s necessary for the program to run. In Linux, I really don''t understand why they don''t take the same approach. Why have static, dynamic and shared libraries? I can understand if you just want the program to call the library at run-time (for dynamic libraries), but what I mean is, why not include ALL the necessary libraries in the RPM package instead of making the user run a configure script to make sure there aren''t any dependencies?

That part alone is really confusing me. Oh well, nothing worth anything in life is easy Looks like Linux must be a gem then, hehe

quote: Original post by Dauntless
Isn''t the future of OS''s in desktops/client configs? I think Linux should try to win that market share over for several reasons. I think it at least needs to gain a better handhold in the workstation arena if not desktops.

Not really. Our current OSes are still very non-intuitive and large, as are our interfaces and hardware. The ideal computer can be spoken to and understand exactly what you mean based on the nuances of your inflection, pauses and actual lexicon. Obviously, that is still a far ways off. Furthermore, there are hundreds of places that computers will expand into as "silent helpers" - a small computer in your fridge that notices when you don''t put the milk back and automatically adds it to your shopping list; a computer that regulates the temperature, lights and active speakers in your house... the list goes on (a computer in your toaster that keeps your bread "lightly browned"). These are ideal places for Linux to expand into, and they don''t require GUIs. Not one of them.

quote: I think Linux has a long way to go in that regards, but I hope it keeps trying. Just as I don''t think M$ belongs on the average company''s server, I don''t think Linux is ready yet for the average home user. In time, both situations may change.

Linux was born for the server. It''s the direct decendant of the most popular server architecture ever ! It''s free, open, extensible, customizable... perfect for the wide variety of data service solutions. However, IIS is overtaking Apache on a per-box basis (as opposed to per-domain), and getting all the money in the web serving sector! What''s going on? Dissipation of effort on spurious goals, that''s what.

quote: ...[Linux] just seems harder to program for. In Windows it seems like you just write or include all the DLL''s necessary for the program to run. In Linux, I really don''t understand why they don''t take the same approach. Why have static, dynamic and shared libraries?

But Windows does.

"DLL" stands for "Dynamic Link Library," and that should indicate to you that there was some form of "Static Link Library" (.LIB files). And .LIB files are still very much in use in Windows. In fact, you often have to link to a .LIB file which invokes (loads and unloads) the DLL. Under Linux you use one or another. Never two or three.

Linux is a superb development system that has so many more tools and features than any Windows environment has every provided - it just doesn''t come with a candy colored IDE.

quote: I can understand if you just want the program to call the library at run-time (for dynamic libraries), but what I mean is, why not include ALL the necessary libraries in the RPM package instead of making the user run a configure script to make sure there aren''t any dependencies?

Partly because the primary method of software distribution in Linux is the internet - downloads. If every RPM contained all the necessary libraries then a ton of time and disk space would be wasted downloading code you already had. The dependency system works well in theory, it''s just the practical aspects that need some reworking. Then again, maybe packaging is a waste of time if we wish to focus squarely on servers and embedded platforms (both really require you to compile everything yourself). A dependency system is a good idea, and RPM does a fair job - except for when the database gets corrupted.

hey, hey, more than one AP here. The first AP has only posted that message including this note

Im sorry not the first, the second. The one with the fattest AP post hasn''t posted anything else, it was me, Gosh darn it, people need to register on gdnet

Oluseyi

Thanks for all the contributions. It''s helping me get a better grasp of the limitations (and strengths) of Linux.

I guess I''m one of those guys that can see the pros of using Microsoft, I just can''t tolerate their business ethics which is why I''m torn in my learning. On one hand, it seems like it''s much easier to program for Windows not to mention the vast user base. But I guess the idealistic side of me is churning at the thought.

I''m also still a little confused between dynamic and shared libraries in Linux. If I understand correctly, dynamic libraries are called at runtime when a function needs them, but a shared library is called at load time? That''s the problem when you are learning by yourself, no teachers around.

But again, thanks for the pointers.

quote: Original post by Drizzt DoUrden
I havent even gone to school yet, for C++ I mean. Yesterday someone asked me to write thier program for them so they could get a C in school.

LOL

People who take classes arent serios about what goes on with thier programming career, and they are still hired to work. Thats why todays games suck.

"I''ve sparred with creatures from the nine hells themselves... I barely plan on breaking a sweat here, today."~Drizzt Do''Urden

I had the same thing happen to me but the verry cute lady wanted to get an A. Weirdest thing about it is that she did get an A even if the code wasn''t to my liking....




"And that''s the bottom line cause I said so!"

Cyberdrek
Headhunter Soft
A division of DLC Multimedia

Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!

"gitty up" -- Kramer

quote: Original post by Oluseyi

Original post by cMADsc
Majority of the people in one of my classes do not even know what Linux is.

Because they don''t need to. It sucks for most things.


I guess you probably never tried Linux before posting idiotic remarks like that. Instead of putting down other OSs, real programmers are actually learning the way they work and are coding for them. Maybe you should try it before talking.



"And that''s the bottom line cause I said so!"

Cyberdrek
Headhunter Soft
A division of DLC Multimedia

Resist Windows XP''s Invasive Production Activation Technology!

"gitty up" – Kramer

quote: Original post by Cyberdrek
I guess you probably never tried Linux before posting idiotic remarks like that. Instead of putting down other OSs, real programmers are actually learning the way they work and are coding for them. Maybe you should try it before talking.

There were 36 posts in this thread prior to yours. Don''t you think the issue would have been raised, seeing as this is a Linux forum? Furthermore, on page 2 I give a lengthy analysis of Linux'' strengths and weaknesses for Dauntless and my opinions on the markets that it should be aiming to conquer.

Here''s a universal rule on internet forums: read the fucking posts. And RTFM, too. It''s the infants like you who react from their egos and not from their brains, who send hate mail to HP employees testing the Open Source waters (because they haven''t open sourced their drivers), who bash Microsoft vehemently at every opportunity - it''s people like you who realy marginalize Linux. I am a Linux enthusiast. I like - no - I love Linux. But the plain and simple truth is that Linux sucks as a desktop operating system. Wake up and smell the fucking coffee.

Linux will not go mainstream as a desktop OS. That''s my prediction. I think Linux will go mainstream as the OS people don''t know is there: the "secretary" software that replaces the word processor; the "accountant" voice recognition interface with TTS output that banishes Excel forever; the Home Control Console that monitors your power consumption, automatically turning off lights and appliances if there''s no activity in a room, adding items to your grocery list, redirecting the sound from your audio system to whatever room you''re in - that''s where Linux will excel and people will not be able to live without it. Reliable, invisibile, just there.

Scott Hassan, the founder of eGroups (sold to Yahoo!), is busy debugging a 42-inch robotic sailboat with an Intel 486 processor, Linux-based OS, GPS and navigation software that he wrote himself. The boat sails itself, and stays on course better than a human can. His plan is to make 6- to 10-foot vessels capable of ferrying a half-ton of cargo across the oceans and lakes... innovation. Invisible. Linux.

So before you dare flame me in your ignorance again, check your facts, cos I''m always armed with mine.

quote: Original post by Dauntless
I guess I''m one of those guys that can see the pros of using Microsoft, I just can''t tolerate their business ethics which is why I''m torn in my learning.

Ask yourself this: do you really know the business practices and ethics of every company from whom you purchase goos and/or services? Do you even care? We like to make Microsoft''s ethics a larger issue than it is. MS is trying to make money while innovating their product. You have to respect what they''ve done, considering that (home versions of) Windows started as a graphical shell for DOS less than 20 years ago. UNIX, OTOH, has been arround for over 30.

quote: On one hand, it seems like it''s much easier to program for Windows not to mention the vast user base. But I guess the idealistic side of me is churning at the thought.

Temper idealism with pragmatism. Windows isn''t evil. Even Microsoft, oppressive and abusive as they were/are, aren''t intrinsically evil. Hell, Ma Bell was once a monopoly, as was Big Blue. It''s an intrinsic part of market mechanics that if you are in a position such as MS is in, you milk it for all it''s worth. Besides, what grievances do you actually have against MS/Windows in terms of functionality and performance, or even customer support?

It''s "cool" to bash MS, so lots of people do so to gain "cred." It doesn''t wash with me.

quote: I''m also still a little confused between dynamic and shared libraries in Linux. If I understand correctly, dynamic libraries are called at runtime when a function needs them, but a shared library is called at load time? That''s the problem when you are learning by yourself, no teachers around.

Honestly, I can''t help you there. Shared objects I am familiar with, but as far as I can remember shared objects are dynamic libraries. The idea behind them is the same as DLLs udner Windows - to reduce program size and memory usage by placing common functions in a package that can be accessed by several applications simultaneously. A static library (.o file) is compiled into your application while a shared object sits independently. At build time your application obtains "hooks" into the SO file (essentially instructions on how to call functions in it - name mangling and all that). At runtime the relevant portions of the SO are loaded into memory. The advantage is that if two applications need the same function, only one copy of that code will reside in memory.

I''m sure others will step in to provide more complete explanations and correct my errors. I''ve never heard of UNIX dynamic libraries, though.