470,833 Members | 1,190 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,833 developers. It's quick & easy.

Re: Dev-C++ compiling problem in Vista

On May 3, 8:09*am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
I use Windows Vista Basic.

A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.
Jun 27 '08 #1
60 3663

"Tomás Ó hÉilidhe" <to*@lavabit.comwrote in message
A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.
The Java system works reasonably well, even though its from Sun and I had to
install it myself.
Can't get anything much out of the freebie C/C++/C# compiler, however.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jun 27 '08 #2
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
On May 3, 8:09 am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
>I use Windows Vista Basic.


A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.
After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card
2) Did not install X windows
3) you have to figure out that the system comes with a
mysterious root password. Since under unix you can't do
anything without the root password, you should know that
to change the root password you should open a shell and type
sudo passwd root
Obviously all unix exports will know that, but if you aren't...
4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.
5) First screen X windows shows a blank screen. No icons, no mouse,
no nothing. But if you reboot, the second time it will show you
a login screen , and then, the blank screen. Obviously you reboot
one time more and MIRACLE, you see a desktop. Nice isn't it?
6) If you left the screen saver run, you are doomed. Once the screen
saver takes over, there is NO AMOUNT of mouse clicks, keyboard
pressing, that will wake the machine up. Solution+
Type ctrl+Alt+F1, then you will see a text screen.
login.
type
ps ex
then see which process is the gnome display manager (gdm)
kill it with the command
kill -9 <gdm process number>
or just reboot...
7) The provided "media player" doesn't recognize the mp3 format.
You need to go to the internet, download some gizmo, install it,
see why it doesn't work, figure out if ubuntu still supports
"alsa" or if it only supports a new ubuntu sound standard... then
figure out which gizmo supports ubuntu mp3, etc etc.
8) Video playing doesn't work either.
9) But if you have an electric guitar you can tune it using some
provided software...

Happily I do not need ubuntu since I do not develop there.
By the way, the system comes without compiler. You have to download
gcc, then you have to figure out that you need the libraries, then gdb,
then you have

well, FORGET IT!

I rebooted into Vista.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #3
jacob navia wrote, On 03/05/08 14:17:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>On May 3, 8:09 am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
>>I use Windows Vista Basic.


A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card
I've had that with Windows and Linux. In both cases the answer is the
same, find the correct drivers if they don't come with the OS.
2) Did not install X windows
By default it does, so you must have told it (deliberately or not) to
not install it.
3) you have to figure out that the system comes with a
mysterious root password. Since under unix you can't do
anything without the root password,
Wrong. Ubuntu is designed so that you can do everything without the root
password. For instance run up the GUI package manager and it prompts you
for *your* password and *that* allows you to install packages.
you should know that
to change the root password you should open a shell and type
sudo passwd root
Obviously all unix exports will know that, but if you aren't...
If you aren't you won't be using the shell as root so it does not
matter. However, it's in the docs I'm sure.
4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.
Same as with the networking, if true you just install the correct
drivers, just as is the case with Windows.
5) First screen X windows shows a blank screen. No icons, no mouse,
no nothing. But if you reboot, the second time it will show you
a login screen , and then, the blank screen. Obviously you reboot
one time more and MIRACLE, you see a desktop. Nice isn't it?
You obviously bolloxed up the install. Obviously you were doing strange
things or point 2 would not have been true. Bollocks up a Windows
install and it doesn't work.
6) If you left the screen saver run, you are doomed. Once the screen
<snip>

See previous comments.
7) The provided "media player" doesn't recognize the mp3 format.
Works fine for me.
You need to go to the internet, download some gizmo, install it,
see why it doesn't work, figure out if ubuntu still supports
"alsa" or if it only supports a new ubuntu sound standard... then
figure out which gizmo supports ubuntu mp3, etc etc.
8) Video playing doesn't work either.
Works fine for me.
9) But if you have an electric guitar you can tune it using some
provided software...

Happily I do not need ubuntu since I do not develop there.
By the way, the system comes without compiler. You have to download
gcc, then you have to figure out that you need the libraries, then gdb,
then you have
Wrong again. It *is* part of the distribution, just not installed by
default. The same applies to various pieces of SW distributed as part of
Windows.
well, FORGET IT!

I rebooted into Vista.
Bollocks up an install of *any* OS and you will have major problems with
it. By default, however, Ubuntu and other Linux distros do a good job of
detecting HW and installing correctly.

All off topic here of course, so this will be my only post on the subject.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 27 '08 #4
In article <fv**********@aioe.org>, jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrote:
>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>On May 3, 8:09 am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
>>I use Windows Vista Basic.


A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card
2) Did not install X windows
<Etc.>

Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.

ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...

Jun 27 '08 #5
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
jacob navia wrote, On 03/05/08 14:17:
>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>>On May 3, 8:09 am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:

I use Windows Vista Basic.
A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Last ubuntu
1) did not recognize the network card

I've had that with Windows and Linux. In both cases the answer is the
same, find the correct drivers if they don't come with the OS.
>2) Did not install X windows

By default it does, so you must have told it (deliberately or not) to
not install it.
>3) you have to figure out that the system comes with a
mysterious root password. Since under unix you can't do
anything without the root password,

Wrong. Ubuntu is designed so that you can do everything without the
root password. For instance run up the GUI package manager and it
prompts you for *your* password and *that* allows you to install
packages.
>you should know that
to change the root password you should open a shell and type
sudo passwd root
Obviously all unix exports will know that, but if you aren't...

If you aren't you won't be using the shell as root so it does not
matter. However, it's in the docs I'm sure.
>4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.

Same as with the networking, if true you just install the correct
drivers, just as is the case with Windows.
>5) First screen X windows shows a blank screen. No icons, no mouse,
no nothing. But if you reboot, the second time it will show you
a login screen , and then, the blank screen. Obviously you reboot
one time more and MIRACLE, you see a desktop. Nice isn't it?

You obviously bolloxed up the install. Obviously you were doing
strange things or point 2 would not have been true. Bollocks up a
Windows install and it doesn't work.
>6) If you left the screen saver run, you are doomed. Once the screen

<snip>

See previous comments.
>7) The provided "media player" doesn't recognize the mp3 format.

Works fine for me.
> You need to go to the internet, download some gizmo, install it,
see why it doesn't work, figure out if ubuntu still supports
"alsa" or if it only supports a new ubuntu sound standard... then
figure out which gizmo supports ubuntu mp3, etc etc.
8) Video playing doesn't work either.

Works fine for me.
>9) But if you have an electric guitar you can tune it using some
provided software...

Happily I do not need ubuntu since I do not develop there.
By the way, the system comes without compiler. You have to download
gcc, then you have to figure out that you need the libraries, then gdb,
then you have

Wrong again. It *is* part of the distribution, just not installed by
default. The same applies to various pieces of SW distributed as part
of Windows.
He is right. The system does not come with a compiler. You must install
it via aptitude or synaptic.
>
>well, FORGET IT!

I rebooted into Vista.

Bollocks up an install of *any* OS and you will have major problems
with it. By default, however, Ubuntu and other Linux distros do a good
job of detecting HW and installing correctly.

All off topic here of course, so this will be my only post on the
subject.
?
Jun 27 '08 #6
On 3 May 2008 at 13:17, jacob navia wrote:
4) After that it goes to tell me that the only resolution you have
is 1280x1024. Even if my monitor natively supports 1900x1200. No
way to change it.
You can edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf and put all the supported modes onto the
obvious lines.

Jun 27 '08 #7
jacob navia wrote:
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
>On May 3, 8:09 am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
>>I use Windows Vista Basic.


A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

After downloading the last ubuntu, I stay with vista, sorry.
Strange considering leading PC makers like Dell are trying their hardest
to continue with XP and introduce Linux, but are more or less supplying
Vista only to please Microsoft.

Jun 27 '08 #8
Kenny McCormack wrote:

<snip>
Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.
Yes, Slackware obviously.
ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...
Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own Linux
system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!

Jun 27 '08 #9
santosh wrote:
Kenny McCormack wrote:

<snip>
>Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.

Yes, Slackware obviously.
>ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...

Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own Linux
system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!
Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #10
jacob navia wrote:
santosh wrote:
>Kenny McCormack wrote:

<snip>
>>Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.

Yes, Slackware obviously.
>>ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the
mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...

Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own
Linux system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!

Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks
Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult for
you.

Jun 27 '08 #11
santosh wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>santosh wrote:
>>Kenny McCormack wrote:

<snip>

Yes. Ubuntu is friggin' weird. Totally nuts in my view.
It's friggin' Windows calling itself Linux.

Obvious advice: Get yourself a real distro.
Yes, Slackware obviously.

ObParanoia: It is scary that Ubuntu seems to be getting the
mindshare
these days. Maybe it is an MS plot...
Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own
Linux system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!
Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks

Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult for
you.
Of course it is not "difficult", and I have been doing Unix since
1987... I can solve all those problems if I wanted to, but the point
is that now it just bores me, still in 2008 fiddling around with the
X config files, chasing drivers, installing this and that, fixing the
bugs...

What bothers me more is that the old versions of linux did not have
this kind of problems that often, and that now the point is not
to make a simpler system for everyone, but just to make server
side software that pleases the people that finance linux (IBM,
RedHat, and some others) but doesn't care at all of the normal user.

Microsoft software is much more user friendly not because they
have a BIG BUDGET, but because they care about the end user a
bit more... Unix has this problematic attitude of relying in the
"systems administrator", and just being unfriendly for no reason.

Personally I have tried to make a system that it is easy to use.
lcc-win tries (not always with success) to be easy to use, easy to
install, without adding features without need.

Microsoft had a different attitude towards the end user as the unix
people. Unix was for the "higher ups"... Microsoft choose to cater
the end user...

It was a strategic mistake from the Unix guys, and linux has taken that
wrong tradition, that is why it bothers me.

I thought that they would try to make what Steve jobs did: make
unix user friendly.

No, they choose to follow the old unix path: just suppose there is
a "system administrator" and do not care about the end user.

And that is why linux doesn't get any more market share.

The reaction from many people here is so telling:

"You screwed your installation". Always the fault of badly designed
software is in the end user!

I downloaded the ubuntu software, burned it into a DVD and followed
the instructions. Nothing else.

Gnome is not installed by default. Sorry. Nor KDE, nor nothing.

When it reboots after the first installation it shows you a
"login"
prompt, that is all. You have to call "aptitude" to install the
rest.

And after a while I know "aptitude", its quirks, etc.

But would my wife know how to use that?

And sorry, mp3 are not recognized by default because mp3 is NOT
an open format for music. OGG is, but mp3 is not. And the debian
based Ubuntu has the same "political" line of boycotting the formats
that are propietary or somehow not to the latest taste of GNU;

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #12
On May 3, 6:26*am, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <t...@lavabit.comwrote:
On May 3, 8:09*am, apati...@gmail.com wrote:
I use Windows Vista Basic.

A programmer that uses Vista? :O

Vista is a hog of an operating system. Downgrade to Windows XP or get
yourself a Linux distro.

I would eventually downgrade it to win xp but vista seems to have a
better wireless
software than my xp computer that I use.

When I try to connect my wireless with vista it does it automatically
while with
xp it may fail sometimes.
I am not a programmer myself, pretty obviously I just want to learn
these things
for myself, but I am sure there must be other folks out there trying
to configure the same
problems as in this topic
Jun 27 '08 #13
jacob navia wrote:
santosh wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>santosh wrote:
[ ... ]
>>>Deplorable indeed. I wonder why everyone doesn't build their own
Linux system like Gerard Beekmans. That's how real hackers do it!

Do you have a recommendation? (URL, best way to download it, etc?)
thanks

Sure:

<http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/>

but I doubt you'll like this when Ubuntu is apparently too difficult
for you.

Of course it is not "difficult", and I have been doing Unix since
1987... I can solve all those problems if I wanted to, but the point
is that now it just bores me, still in 2008 fiddling around with the
X config files, chasing drivers, installing this and that, fixing the
bugs...

What bothers me more is that the old versions of linux did not have
this kind of problems that often, and that now the point is not
to make a simpler system for everyone, but just to make server
side software that pleases the people that finance linux (IBM,
RedHat, and some others) but doesn't care at all of the normal user.
Try distributions like PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, CentOS, Ubuntu etc. They are
aimed at ordinary users for the desktop. They should be as easy to use
as Windows.
Microsoft software is much more user friendly not because they
have a BIG BUDGET, but because they care about the end user a
bit more... Unix has this problematic attitude of relying in the
"systems administrator", and just being unfriendly for no reason.
What you call problematic has saved Unix from the innumerable security
holes and exploits that plague Windows due to the latter failure to
strongly separate privileges (until 2000 appeared).

Systems like OpenBSD are even more secure by default.
Personally I have tried to make a system that it is easy to use.
lcc-win tries (not always with success) to be easy to use, easy to
install, without adding features without need.
Easy to use for newbies certainly. But rather frustrating for advanced
programmers that appreciate the wealth of command-line options and
tunable parameters that are supported by compilers like gcc, Intel C++
etc.
Microsoft had a different attitude towards the end user as the unix
people. Unix was for the "higher ups"... Microsoft choose to cater
the end user...
Yes. They realised the great potential of producing a GUI based system
that "Just Worked" for the then exploding PC market and the incipient
WWW.

Remember that Unix's origins are far earlier. During the 70s GUIs were
really rare and there was no concept of WWW, and non-technical users
using computers.

That's why Unix assumes are certain amount of technical knowledge and
aptitude for hacking around. It great for those who know (or have
learned) and love doing this, but admittedly hostile towards the
average Jane user. But recent Linux distros have covered a lot of
ground towards user-friendliness.

Soon they will be everybit as user-friendly as any Windows, and in
addition benefit from the advantages of being open source and secure by
default.
It was a strategic mistake from the Unix guys, and linux has taken
that wrong tradition, that is why it bothers me.
No. It was simply a different direction, different focus and priorities.
We don't want homogenisation and uniformity beyond where it is really
needed. In general, diversity is better.
I thought that they would try to make what Steve jobs did: make
unix user friendly.
Well, Steve Jobs did do that. Why should everyone else ape him or Bill?
No, they choose to follow the old unix path: just suppose there is
a "system administrator" and do not care about the end user.
You are not appreciating the constraints of multi-user systems. All
modern Windows too have an Administrator account. In fact one
consistent negative criticism of Vista is that it prompts the user
annoyingly frequently for granting privileges to processes or running
programs.
And that is why linux doesn't get any more market share.
No. The reason that Linux doesn't get more market share is because the
very vast majority of PC sold come bundled with Windows and it proves
adequate for most purposes for most users. The majority of computer
users don't know and don't care about things like system details,
programming, security, open source etc. They just switch on their
computer, work on Word and Excel, check mail, play Minesweeper and
switch off.

In addition most organisations demand Windows knowledge even if a
particular task is doable with other systems (often even better with
those other systems), accept only Word documents etc. Also uptil
recently most hardware devices were tailored towards Windows and there
were poor or no drivers for Linux. Now Linux actually has more drivers
and less driver issues than Windows Vista.

The big advantage of Microsoft is monopolisation of markets and
mindshare, in which they are a practised hand. Making gains in such a
situation is always difficult, not only for open source but even
commercial systems like say Apple or OS/2.
The reaction from many people here is so telling:

"You screwed your installation". Always the fault of badly designed
software is in the end user!

I downloaded the ubuntu software, burned it into a DVD and followed
the instructions. Nothing else.

Gnome is not installed by default. Sorry. Nor KDE, nor nothing.
Strange. Unless you specifically deselect it, X and GNOME are installed
automatically. Maybe you downloaded the server version of Ubuntu?
When it reboots after the first installation it shows you a
"login" prompt, that is all. You have to call "aptitude" to install
the rest.
And many of the programs you'll need are on the install CD itself. In
any case it's a matter of firing up your friendly package manager,
selecting what you want and hitting APPLY.

How is this any different from scouring the Web, downloading .msi
or .exe files and installing them. And official repositories provide
tested, certified versions of most software. With Windows you'll just
have to trust the site you download from.

Remember, a typical Linux install provides a complete desktop
environment. Almost all the functionality you want is instantly
available. With Windows a default install provides very little
utilities, no development s/w, very little PIM s/w, very little games,
no office or DTP s/w, no selection of editors, no scientific s/w, no
nothing.
And after a while I know "aptitude", its quirks, etc.

But would my wife know how to use that?
Learning to fully use something like Vista and all the additional
software that you download from the Net is also not a simple task.
Computing is not simple, period.
And sorry, mp3 are not recognized by default because mp3 is NOT
an open format for music. OGG is, but mp3 is not. And the debian
based Ubuntu has the same "political" line of boycotting the formats
that are propietary or somehow not to the latest taste of GNU;
No it's more subtle. They will have to pay royalties to the Fraunhofer
Institute. Systems like Windows, Apple, Linspire, PCLinuxOS etc., do
this for their users (because their s/w is sold, not free as in beer).
Free (as in beer) distributions can't do this (at least it's not very
feasible). That's why you must manually install MP3 codecs.

Jun 27 '08 #14

"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
No. It was simply a different direction, different focus and priorities.
We don't want homogenisation and uniformity beyond where it is really
needed. In general, diversity is better.
One GUI,one ascii,one system
One OS, one vendor, just one solution
One programming language yeah one Bill, one vision

One shell, one processor
One 64-bit integer
One web, one hope
wowwowowo gimme one vision.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jun 27 '08 #15
On May 3, 8:31*am, Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <t...@lavabit.comwrote:
I'll never EVER use Vista. Ever.
My current amployer is a Microsoft Gold Partner. However, we develop
in Linux or Windows or for that matter any platform that our clients
pay us to. We consultants may sleep around alot, but we do make loads
of money and get lots of vacation time and even time to run our own
businesses doing real things like commercial fishing which at my age
is better for my health than sitting on my rear end writing code 24/7.

One of my guys back several companies ago was the president of the
local linux users group and would ram GNU up my bum every chance he
got as he collected his paycheque after writing Windows code in Visual
Basic all week. I on the other hand would write Windows and Unix code
in C all week. Which just goes to show that you can have your cake and
eat it too. Or was it cake he was eating? He was much more principled
than I, since I was Manager of Product Devlopment and could be
forgiven for beiong a whore. But he could be forgiven too because he
had to eat and had a family to feed.

Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point. I understand it but
don't get it. This isn't a religion is it? VISTA is so different than
any of the other cr*p that we all know and love.

Bill
Jun 27 '08 #16
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us. Nobody will buy anything, linux distros
will make a war on you, etc. Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #17
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 27 '08 #18
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.

Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.
They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #19
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.

Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.
No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 27 '08 #20
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Ian Collins wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.
They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.
No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!
But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!

This is just playing with words. They do not sell any software for
linux. Their software runs under linux, as I said.

Nobody can sell any development software FOR LINUX. That's why there
isn't any decent IDE or debugger under linux. Nobody wants to pay for
them.

(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #21
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
>years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
>Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.

They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.
No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!

But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!
They also have native compilers, but I see your point. I wonder how
many compilers Intel sell?
>
(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.
I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 27 '08 #22
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Ian Collins wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Bill Buckels wrote:
>[snip]
>>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
>>years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
>>Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
>Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
>developers like most of us.
Try telling that the the embedded tool suppliers.
>
They do not sell any software under linux. They sell
a development system with linux, what is completely another
thing.

No, the likes of Green Hills sell compilers and tools that run on Linux
(as well as Solaris and windows). I know, I paid them $60K + support in
my last job!
But their compilers are cross compilers for the embedded system
they are supporting!
They also have native compilers, but I see your point. I wonder how
many compilers Intel sell?
>(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.
I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.
Strange, I thought both were free... How much does Eclipse cost?

What is the selling price of "NetBeans"?

I think you just confirm what I said. No software can be sold under
linux.

As IDEs goes, both of those software package are usable, of course,
since they have SUN/IBM behind them, that poured millions of
dollars into their development.

And both of them never go into 20% of what visual studio does.

Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #23
jacob navia wrote:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us. Nobody will buy anything, linux distros
will make a war on you, etc. Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.
Or emulate RMS and don't *have* a family. :-)

Jun 27 '08 #24
jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>(And please do not start with a long list of crappy IDEs because
IDEs that are able to call "make" and call gdb are there by the
thousands. None will support "go to definition", real debugging
etc. I tested dozens of them when I had to use linux.
I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.

Strange, I thought both were free... How much does Eclipse cost?

What is the selling price of "NetBeans"?
Where did I say they had a cost? If you look at what I quoted, it's
pretty clear which comment I was replying to.
>
And both of them never go into 20% of what visual studio does.
Ah, the good old 80-20 rule come into play there, both have been
developed by their respective communities to do what their users want
them to do.
Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it
NetBeans is fully integrated with Sun Studio (C, C++, Java and Fortran).

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 27 '08 #25
On 4 May, 12:38, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
Soon [Linux distributuions] will be everybit as user-friendly as
any Windows [...]
<laughter>
--
Nick Keighley
Jun 27 '08 #26
On 3 May 2008 at 20:26, jacob navia wrote:
Microsoft software is much more user friendly not because they
have a BIG BUDGET, but because they care about the end user a
bit more... Unix has this problematic attitude of relying in the
"systems administrator", and just being unfriendly for no reason.
I don't think even MS's most passionate defenders would honestly say
that they care about the end user. What they care about is their bottom
line, and unfortunately that means they always tend to give people what
they want, rather than what they need.

Of course, in the long term this can fall apart. Nowadays even end users
like my grandmother would actually quite like to run an operating system
that had been designed with security in mind, give that almost all
desktop computers are now exposed to the internet. Another good example
is X Windows - it was built from the ground up using a solid, scalable
client-server architecture. That good long-term decision at the
beginning means that if you want to pull back an X window through ssh -
piece of cake; have different users logged in simulataneously running
different window managers - no problem. Compare that to the utter
nightmare of MS's remote desktop.
Personally I have tried to make a system that it is easy to use.
lcc-win tries (not always with success) to be easy to use, easy to
install, without adding features without need.
That sounds more like the Unix philosophy than the Windows one...

Jun 27 '08 #27
Nick Keighley wrote:
On 4 May, 12:38, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
>Soon [Linux distributuions] will be everybit as user-friendly as
any Windows [...]

<laughter>
Cheers. But frankly, I expected a more substantial response. Guess you
don't have one.

Jun 27 '08 #28
On 6 May 2008 at 8:22, jacob navia wrote:
Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it
I'm interested to know what you think gdb is lacking. I've always though
of it as the Rolls Royce of debuggers - it certainly does everything I
want and more, and in an extremely usable environment.

Jun 27 '08 #29
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 6 May 2008 at 8:22, jacob navia wrote:
>Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it

I'm interested to know what you think gdb is lacking. I've always
though of it as the Rolls Royce of debuggers - it certainly does
everything I want and more, and in an extremely usable environment.
Ah, there is the point. I believe jacob doesn't believe gdb has
a "usable environment". Also he likes tight integration in IDEs, if I'm
right. Loose coupling is a Unix philosophy that many Windows people
just can't get themselves to appreciate or like.

Jun 27 '08 #30
On May 6, 12:38*am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Selling software under Linux is impossible, at least for
developers like most of us. Nobody will buy anything, linux distros
will make a war on you, etc. Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.
I have been programming in unix and C for about as long as you have
and I have seen your other posts here as well so I know full well to
take what you say very seriously.

This time you have really "hit the nail on the head"! But the kids
won't listen and walk around beating their young chests until they
can't smoke pot anymore (and can't afford it either) while hopping
around with both feet shot up including each others feet since nobody
knows whose team they are on. The commies are trying to win the soft
war as well as the cold war and now we are clerks and paid as such and
may as well have been domino delivery men (sorry ladies if there be
any listening, but most of you are economically smart enough to be
pyschologists and such and leave the manly art of programming to the
ideal but starving GNU developer).

The only money in the local market around where I am is no longer in
developing full blown verticals but fortunately the mouse masters
can't do the low level stuff and the GNU guys who could are too busy
giving away their intellectual property for free and complaining about
those who don't mind making real money.

I have personal involvment with one very large and smart development
team who should have been wealthy and because they GNUed and open
sourced lost most and now they are scratching.

Follow the money kids and the coding will still be there is what I
say, n'est ce pas? Forget the wars against VISTA and Windows.

And if you haven't already done Windows Mobile development and used
some of Microsoft's excellent programming tools for WEB development
like those of us who actively code in a whorish manner in all
languages and OS's that we are paid to, you are missing being paid for
your fun, and are behaving like fundamentalists.

Bill
Jun 27 '08 #31
On May 6, 2:10*am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
I don't think Eclipse of NetBeans (neither tied to one platform) can be
described as crappy.
Well perhaps not as such, but try developing a java and struts web
app, and writing all those stored procs and using reflection and all.
I mean a non-trivial one of course and not these little apps that all
the kids write before working for 20 years or so as a developer. And
oh yes you can conform to struts studio by exadel if you can get help
and even integrate CVS into eclipse if it suits you (it has always
suited me).

Then try writing and porting the same web app to Visual Studio using
ASP.NET and integrated VSS and such with a real framework and real
good debugging tools and watch your production increase magnificently.

Or try Windows Mobile development in eclipse. Like how do I step trace
through an RFID or Barcode Scanning application on a motorola handheld
device using whatever is in eclipse? The reason I am not an embedded
systems developer since I can write fluently in ASM as well as C is
because I generally don't need to be. I like the M$oft IDE and the
devkits that the embedded guys provide for Microsoft Development and
don't really care to reinvent wheels. I like money not changing tires.
I also like eclipse and netbeans. They like Java and are fun toys when
work is over or if my local univbersity wants me to teach a course
since they are free and the university doesn't need to provide
licences.

Imagine the silly thoughts that these students go into the work place
with:)

Bill
Jun 27 '08 #32
On May 6, 3:59*am, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
Loose coupling is a Unix philosophy that many Windows people
just can't get themselves to appreciate or like.
Tightly integrated IDE's are a joy to use. Try liking both and learn
as many languages as you can get paid to learn. Your client base could
very well expand and you could end-up cutting as much unix code as you
wish and hire the kids to write in the less agreeable languages.

There is no race on earth called "Windows People". There are those of
us who have written curses applications on AIX, HPUX, Sularis, XENIX,
etc AndAlso VB.NET apps that run in Mono on Linux, and everything else
between and who enjoy being well paid for having fun coding.

There are many children virtually fresh out of school that do not have
the breadth or the depth of experience to be citizens of the world so
speak only a single language and have no appreciation of other
coultries. While they write their resumes and look fgor work they give
away programs for nothing and since they cannot afford to purchase
compilers convince themselves that what they download for nothing is
just as good.

Bill
Jun 27 '08 #33
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 6 May 2008 at 8:22, jacob navia wrote:
>Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it

I'm interested to know what you think gdb is lacking. I've always though
of it as the Rolls Royce of debuggers - it certainly does everything I
want and more, and in an extremely usable environment.
1) GDB is a command line debugger. No real user interface, you have
to learn by heart a lot of obscure commands to do anything with it.
2) Even if it has been interfaced with every IDE in the world, it
doesn't have a real interface. The programs that use gdb just scan
gdb output...
3) edit and continue... That is one of the most challenging features of
Microsoft IDE. I haven't had the time to replicate it, it isn't very
easy to do :-)
4) My debugger scans the text around the current line, and shows the
variables automatically. This avoids the terrible
print myvariable
in 90% of the cases... Gdb hasn't got anything like it.
5) I have fixed bugs in it, but none of my patches was even
acknowledged. GDB developers do not give a dam about anybody else.

And a long list that better goes unpublished.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #34
santosh wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>On 6 May 2008 at 8:22, jacob navia wrote:
>>Eclipse just calls gdb, and is happy with it
I'm interested to know what you think gdb is lacking. I've always
though of it as the Rolls Royce of debuggers - it certainly does
everything I want and more, and in an extremely usable environment.

Ah, there is the point. I believe jacob doesn't believe gdb has
a "usable environment". Also he likes tight integration in IDEs, if I'm
right. Loose coupling is a Unix philosophy that many Windows people
just can't get themselves to appreciate or like.
See my reply to Antoninus. I am FOR loose coupling, but that doesn't
mean that integration of different components is absent!

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #35
On 6 May, 09:50, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
Nick Keighley wrote:
On 4 May, 12:38, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
Soon [Linux distributuions] will be everybit as user-friendly as
any Windows [...]
<laughter>

Cheers. But frankly, I expected a more substantial response. Guess you
don't have one.
Ok maybe you can read the future better than me. But Linux
is a very long way from the user friendlyness of Windows.
And I set the bar high "could my mum use it?".

I use windows and Linux regularly. And I know all about
the clean internals of Unix and the mess that is Win 32.
But from the outside you have to sweat to make Linux
usable by normal people. I may be wrong but I
can't see that being fixed any time soon.
--
Nick Keighley
Jun 27 '08 #36
Nick Keighley wrote:
On 6 May, 09:50, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
>Nick Keighley wrote:
>>On 4 May, 12:38, santosh <santosh....@gmail.comwrote:
>>>Soon [Linux distributuions] will be everybit as user-friendly as
any Windows [...]
<laughter>
Cheers. But frankly, I expected a more substantial response. Guess you
don't have one.

Ok maybe you can read the future better than me. But Linux
is a very long way from the user friendlyness of Windows.
And I set the bar high "could my mum use it?".

I use windows and Linux regularly. And I know all about
the clean internals of Unix and the mess that is Win 32.
But from the outside you have to sweat to make Linux
usable by normal people. I may be wrong but I
can't see that being fixed any time soon.
--
Nick Keighley

Obviously, making Unix user friendly is possible. Steve Jobs
proved it with the Next, then, the MacIntosh. You have all
the power of Unix and a GOOD GUI.

Instead of doing that, the linux people waste their time in
endless replication of each other's work. There are half a dozen
window managers (gnome, kde, but also a next step clone, fvwim,
and several others) and NONE is as tightly integrated and easy to use
as vista.

Why?

Because they do not cooperate, i.e. they are not integrated. The
clipboard will work with most of the applications but not
with all. Since linus decided that enforcing standards is bad,
there are no official standards and everybody has his/her own standard.

Result, applications cannot cooperate.

There are 3 different sound systems, and now Ubuntu decided to
develop a new one. This one will be a "standard", say the Ubuntu
people.

Result: You never know which one you have to use in your application.
And if you decide to use one, there will be always problems with some
other system where the sound system is not the one you decide to
support.

And I could go on repeating myself. The basic fact is that linux
is financed by companies that need good servers for cheap: IBM/SUN.
They do not care about GUIs, user intrface whatever. And the linux
developers have no commercial model so the only solution is to
work for those companies that decide what will be developed.

There was, several months ago, a discussion of this when one of the top
kernel developers wanted to introduce a patch that would have
been better for game developing under linux but possible a little
bit bad for servers. (a scheduler modification).

The developer was kicked out and that was it. Linus decided that,
since he is the only dictator there, and servers must pass, and
game developers can go to hell since they do not finance linux.

You get what you pay for.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #37
On May 6, 4:33*pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
You get what you pay for.

Or what you pirate for.

They should put a price tag on Linux so that it becomes better, and
then we can pirate it. They get money, we get a good OS. Both sides
win.
Jun 27 '08 #38
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe said:
On May 6, 4:33 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>You get what you pay for.


Or what you pirate for.

They should put a price tag on Linux
Nobody is stopping you from charging for Linux if you want.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Jun 27 '08 #39
On 6 May 2008 at 11:29, jacob navia wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>I'm interested to know what you think gdb is lacking. I've always though
of it as the Rolls Royce of debuggers - it certainly does everything I
want and more, and in an extremely usable environment.

1) GDB is a command line debugger. No real user interface, you have
to learn by heart a lot of obscure commands to do anything with it.
Well, to each his own, but there are many pieces of software (notably
one's text editor) that require a certain amount of learning to maximize
one's productivity with them. It's really an investment of time: by
learning how to use a tool well, you'll be saving time every day for the
rest of your life.

And most of gdb's commands are mnemonic, so I don't think it's fair to
call them obscure.
2) Even if it has been interfaced with every IDE in the world, it
doesn't have a real interface. The programs that use gdb just scan
gdb output...
This is a fair point.
3) edit and continue... That is one of the most challenging features of
Microsoft IDE. I haven't had the time to replicate it, it isn't very
easy to do :-)
Often this will simply be impossible in a compiled language, depending
on how complicated the edit is. You can call make from inside gdb, which
is something...
4) My debugger scans the text around the current line, and shows the
variables automatically. This avoids the terrible
print myvariable
in 90% of the cases... Gdb hasn't got anything like it.
It has "info locals", "info scope some_function", "info variables", etc.
And it's extensible - IMO it's well worth the effort to write gdb macros
for things you find useful: a few Kb for ~/.gdbinit is disk space well
spent.
5) I have fixed bugs in it, but none of my patches was even
acknowledged. GDB developers do not give a dam about anybody else.
I haven't sent any patches, so I can't comment on that. Did they
actually use your patches without acknowledging them, or just ignore
them completely?

Jun 27 '08 #40
jacob navia wrote, On 06/05/08 06:38:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible,
One of the biggest money spinners in my company currently runs on AIX
and Linux, with all but one customer on Linux and the code is even
written mostly in C. Oracle is sold for Linux. Plenty of other SW is
sold for Linux.
at least for
developers like most of us.
Maybe like you, but others are different.
Nobody will buy anything,
Wrong. As evidence the number of companies that sell SW to run under
Linux and the number that buy SW to run under Linux.
linux distros
will make a war on you, etc.
They don't seem to be making war on a lot of the successful SW sold to
run under Linux.
Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.
So you still don't understand about selling other services on the back
of the SW.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 27 '08 #41
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
jacob navia wrote, On 06/05/08 06:38:
>Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
>>Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.

Selling software under Linux is impossible,

One of the biggest money spinners in my company currently runs on AIX
and Linux, with all but one customer on Linux and the code is even
written mostly in C. Oracle is sold for Linux. Plenty of other SW is
sold for Linux.
No, not "plenty" at all. Some server stuff is about it. There is about
no desktop market is is obvious to anyone with a passing interest in SW
development and business.
>
>at least for
developers like most of us.

Maybe like you, but others are different.
A tiny minority perhaps.
>Nobody will buy anything,

Wrong. As evidence the number of companies that sell SW to run under
Linux and the number that buy SW to run under Linux.
i.e hardly any. Sorry. But at least asknowledge there is very, very
small market compared to Mac and Windows.
>
>linux distros
will make a war on you, etc.

They don't seem to be making war on a lot of the successful SW sold to
run under Linux.
What succesful SW? And please do no say "oracle".
>
>Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.

So you still don't understand about selling other services on the back
of the SW.
Other services like sys admin possibly. But designing a web for someone
and that web being put on linux is not really "developing sw for linux".
Jun 27 '08 #42
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote:
>
What succesful SW? And please do no say "oracle".
>>Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.
So you still don't understand about selling other services on the back
of the SW.

Other services like sys admin possibly. But designing a web for someone
and that web being put on linux is not really "developing sw for linux".
Oracle is precisely the software that confirms it: linux is for servers.
OBVIOUSLY you will find all data bases, (excluding Microsoft SQL server
maybe) represented under linux.

But tell me what popular games you can buy for linux?
There is Microsoft Office clone yes, but developed by SUN
and not for linux!

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #43
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote, On 06/05/08 19:04:
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
>jacob navia wrote, On 06/05/08 06:38:
>>Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible,
One of the biggest money spinners in my company currently runs on AIX
and Linux, with all but one customer on Linux and the code is even
written mostly in C. Oracle is sold for Linux. Plenty of other SW is
sold for Linux.

No, not "plenty" at all. Some server stuff is about it.
All depends on your definition of "plenty". In any case, Jacob said that
"selling software under Linux is impossible" so coming up with even
*one* example proves that he is wrong.
There is about
no desktop market is is obvious to anyone with a passing interest in SW
development and business.
The market is big enough that companies invest time, money and effort on it.
>>at least for
developers like most of us.
Maybe like you, but others are different.

A tiny minority perhaps.
Ah well, you admit that some do.
>>Nobody will buy anything,
Wrong. As evidence the number of companies that sell SW to run under
Linux and the number that buy SW to run under Linux.

i.e hardly any. Sorry. But at least asknowledge there is very, very
small market compared to Mac and Windows.
Even *one* person buying proves that Jacob is wrong. I'll acknowledge
that the market for desktop SW for Linux is smaller. Now will you and
Jacob acknowledge that it exists and that people *will* by things?
>>linux distros
will make a war on you, etc.
They don't seem to be making war on a lot of the successful SW sold to
run under Linux.

What succesful SW? And please do no say "oracle".
What is wrong with Oracle? Companies spend a *lot* of money on Oracle
licenses some for Windows and some for Linux (I don't know which is larger).
Well, there is the SW I have spent a lot of time developing which I
won't advertise here.
Livelink
VMWare (all versions)
Crossover Office
MatLab
Depending on how much you stretch it there is RedHat ES/AS

Some of the above are big names in their relevant domains. There is more
as well.
>>Software developers should be like
the ideal GNU developer: work for free for endless hours, and
work as pizza delivery man to feed your family.
So you still don't understand about selling other services on the back
of the SW.

Other services like sys admin possibly. But designing a web for someone
and that web being put on linux is not really "developing sw for linux".
Consultancy (some of my time is sold on consultancy and we sell a lot of
other consultants time)
Customisation
Support (companies will pay big money for support on the right product)
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 27 '08 #44
"Flash Gordon" <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote in message
news:sn************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk...
Eligiusz Narutowicz wrote, On 06/05/08 19:04:
>Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites:
>>jacob navia wrote, On 06/05/08 06:38:
Bill Buckels wrote:
[snip]
Well Microsoft and C have both fed my family and friends for about 30
years now evn though they may seem mutually exclusive like Military
Intelligence, so I don't exactly get your point.
Selling software under Linux is impossible,
One of the biggest money spinners in my company currently runs on AIX
and Linux, with all but one customer on Linux and the code is even
written mostly in C. Oracle is sold for Linux. Plenty of other SW is
sold for Linux.

No, not "plenty" at all. Some server stuff is about it.

All depends on your definition of "plenty". In any case, Jacob said that
"selling software under Linux is impossible" so coming up with even *one*
example proves that he is wrong.
At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but I am
not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Jun 27 '08 #45
Dann Corbit wrote:
At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but I am
not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.

This confirms what I say:
CONNX - Simplified Data Access Via ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB for RMS, VSAM,
CISAM ... ODBC RMS VSAM CISAM

Another server application. And of course you sell to the linux/windows
AIX, whatever market. Linux is done for servers, as I said several
times, and with each example this gets only confirmed!

The normal users, people that want a system to store their photos,
mp3, use the internet, and have a home/small office system are
left completely out.

No software for them. How many games can you buy? How you
manage your mp3 collection when you have to hunt the internet
to find the drivers for this and that?
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #46
jacob navia wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
>At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but
I am not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.


This confirms what I say:
CONNX - Simplified Data Access Via ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB for RMS, VSAM,
CISAM ... ODBC RMS VSAM CISAM

Another server application. And of course you sell to the linux/windows
AIX, whatever market. Linux is done for servers, as I said several
times, and with each example this gets only confirmed!
You are shifting the goalposts again, you originally posted "Selling
software under Linux is impossible, at least for developers like most of
us." Aren't the people who write server applications "developers like
most of us"?

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 27 '08 #47
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Dann Corbit wrote:
>>At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but
I am not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.

This confirms what I say:
CONNX - Simplified Data Access Via ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB for RMS, VSAM,
CISAM ... ODBC RMS VSAM CISAM

Another server application. And of course you sell to the linux/windows
AIX, whatever market. Linux is done for servers, as I said several
times, and with each example this gets only confirmed!
You are shifting the goalposts again, you originally posted "Selling
software under Linux is impossible, at least for developers like most of
us." Aren't the people who write server applications "developers like
most of us"?
Big corporations?

No, sorry, most corporations are NOT like small developers. There is a
small size difference :-)

And none of the server software is specifically for linux. It is just
server side software that will run in linux but also in other unices
and windows server 2003!

The main point of my argument, that has been ignored in all the
discussions until now, is that Microsoft produced cheap and user
friendly software for the personal computer user. That is why it
is the corporation of that size now. Because they targeted the
personal computer user.

Unix has always targeted the corporate user, the server market,
except in the version of Steve Jobs. He did what nobody else
has done: making a user friendly system for the average
person that is at the same time very powerful and easy to use.

Linux has produced yet another server platform that is cheap since
the developers work for free and the whole works by exploiting them

The work of the linux/GNU developer is completely taken from his/her
hands and sold later by other people that make relatively big profits
(SUSE/IBM/RedHat/) At least under the traditional model, the developer
doesn't keep his/her work but he/she receives a salary, normal health
benefits, retirement contribution, etc.

Under the GNU/Linux model, the developer doesn't receive *anything*.

No wonder I did not really like that model, sorry

:-)


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Jun 27 '08 #48
On May 6, 2:10*pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but I am
not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.

This confirms what I say:
CONNX - Simplified Data Access Via ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB for RMS, VSAM,
CISAM ... ODBC RMS VSAM CISAM

Another server application. And of course you sell to the linux/windows
AIX, whatever market. Linux is done for servers, as I said several
times, and with each example this gets only confirmed!

The normal users, people that want a system to store their photos,
mp3, use the internet, and have a home/small office system are
left completely out.
Actually, our tools enable exactly this sort of thing.
No software for them. How many games can you buy? How you
manage your mp3 collection when you have to hunt the internet
to find the drivers for this and that?
We sell Linux client components (notably ODBC drivers and tools for
Linux development).
This market is accelerating. There is no doubt about it.
Jun 27 '08 #49
On May 6, 2:15*pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.comwrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
At connx.com, we make lots of sales (I guess millions of dollars, but
I am not in sales so it is only a guess) to the Linux market.
This confirms what I say:
CONNX - Simplified Data Access Via ODBC, JDBC, OLEDB for RMS, VSAM,
CISAM ... ODBC RMS VSAM CISAM
Another server application. And of course you sell to the linux/windows
AIX, whatever market. Linux is done for servers, as I said several
times, and with each example this gets only confirmed!

You are shifting the goalposts again, you originally posted "Selling
software under Linux is impossible, at least for developers like most of
us." *Aren't the people who write server applications "developers like
most of us"?
We sell client stuff, server stuff, utilities and middleware stuff.
Notably, we enable Linux (and other POSIX type systems) to have the
same sort of data access as Windows machines that use ODBC.
So (for instance) you could embed an Adabas query into your OpenOffice
spreadsheet the same way as you could stick one into an Excel
spreadsheet on Windows.

Our Linux client stuff is definitely growing in popularity.
Jun 27 '08 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.