On 2008-06-20, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
><newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote
> on Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:25:15 +0100
><9490176.S0pIxlGL3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> ____/ The Ghost In The Machine on Thursday 19 June 2008 23:27 : \____
>>
>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote
>>> on Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:24:47 +0100
>>> <1556439.UUNQSIjRla@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>>>
>>>> The Ugly State of Windows Applications
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | There?s been a lot of talk about third-party software here at OSWeekly.com
>>>> | recently, and this trend is only going to continue. Third-party software
>>>> | is an important element of our operating systems, and it can really make
>>>> | or break an OS. Without it, we wouldn?t be able to get nearly as much done
>>>> | on our computers, so be thankful for those useful applications that you
>>>> | enjoy using.
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>>
>> http://www.osweekly.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2800&Itemid=449
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6xvlb7
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Days ago:
>>>>
>>>> Vista's big problem: 92 percent of developers ignoring it
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Such appreciation for history is not likely to warm the cockles of
>>>> | Microsoft's heart, especially when Linux is getting lots of love from
>>>> | developers (13 percent writing apps for it this year and 15.5 percent in
>>>> | 2009).
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-9969231-16.html
>>>
>>> OK, my pedantic side wants to get ugly here. Who really
>>> writes for Linux? At best, maybe a glibc developer or
>>> two who puts new POSIX calls into libc.so. Most of the
>>> rest of us develop on a higher layer.
>>>
>>> To be fair, Linux implements POSIX extremely well, and
>>> properly-written apps have the big advantage that they can
>>> be ported to Linux/64, Solaris, HP/UX, or even Windows
>>> (maybe with X).
>>>
>>> The issues with Windows are similar but different (as
>>> Windows refers to the entire enchilada, not just the
>>> kernel). At best, developers write to an SDK; that SDK may
>>> be implemented in XP or Vista. At worst, they disassemble
>>> certain files and try to guess what they need -- though
>>> for production quality apps that's hopefully rare.
>>>
>>> I'll admit to wondering if Vista has anything really special
>>> development wise. The only thing that looks even remotely
>>> interesting is PowerShell, and that looks like an interesting
>>> but otherwise not horribly tasty hack.
>>
>> Some developers needed to entertain DRM and other antifeatures/restrictions.
>>
>
> Heh....OK, how does one "entertain DRM"? Is one supposed
> to find a good restaurant, bake a sheet of cookies, or
> simply set up a slide projector and show DRM one's last
> vacation to Tahiti? ;-)
>
> (Or the nearest city park in lieu thereof?)
>
> But you're probably right; I suspect that many of the
> problems with Vista is with existing applications running
> into little roadblocks. If the app is lucky one just gets
> a UAC dialog that is annoying. If not, the app stops dead.
>
> Yeah, compatibility with Vista! (snort) There's nothing
> like Microsoft Windows -- and it's probably just as well.
> Blecch.
>
The main reason that applications fail on Vista are that developers
of those applications ignored Windows security and design guidelines
that have been in place since W2K....
--
Tom Shelton
|
|
