In my view this last message *almost* touches the point. Which
is, Microsoft has for decades gone out of its way, using second-
rate programming choices just to be different from the unix
people who got there first and got it right. Examples are: using
backslashes in pathnames, calling ascii 'uuencode' (where if you
aren't an oldtimer you might not know the original uuencode was
a method to encode binary files for transmission over ascii-
only networks); amazingly obtuse formatting for text along with
*always* wysiwyg, deprecated command-line as if people
didn't "really" have any use for that unhandy and difficult to use
resource, and etc etc.
So recent change *lowers the wall* between Microsoft products
and Linux. The result I expect is users discover the Microsoft
Way isn't the Only Way at all, and by degrees they move over
to using better software. The lowered barrier is over the long
run, the water that wears stone. *That* I think, is the point not
quite touched here, and it's a very very important point.
The sand under Microsoft washes away, little by little....
Ha! I admit to mixed metaphor but I say what I said.
Cheers -- Martha Adams
"amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:45a5889d$0$9718$ec3e2dad@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:3738503.Ey93rREMxS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> CodeWeavers Unveils CrossOver Mac, Enabling Mac OS X Users To Run
>> Windows
>> Applications Natively
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>> | CrossOver Mac mirrors the release of CrossOver Linux 6.0, a new
>> | version of CodeWeavers? Windows-to-Linux compatibility product.
>> | CrossOver Linux is the new name for CrossOver Office, the company's
>> | flagship solution built on Wine, the open source Unix
>> implementation
>> | of the Win32 API.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20070109
>>
>>
> It is difficult to fathom the elation of the Linux advocates over this
> program's ability to run Windows programs and so lower the bar to
> change from Windows to Linux use on the desktop. A cursory review of
> program compatibility shows a deadful lack of functional support for
> many of the more popular Windows programs. Mos are in the "Untested"
> category and even the ones claimed to be compatible are rife with know
> defects that would surely preclude shipping the application if they
> were present in a true Windows environment. Accepting this poor level
> of performance is a sign of desperation on the part of the Linux (and
> Macintosh) fans.
>
> And it is not "free" at that. The price seems to be $70 which
> approaches the street pricing for a Windows upgrade and greatly
> surpasses any Microsoft "tax" deemed to be present due to OEM
> inclusion of Windows licenses. There is nothing here to persuade any
> reasonable individual to try to use Linux with legacy applications
> that may be owned and liked.
>
|
|
