All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
The Vandalisation of Windows
Aloone_Jonez:
I can agree to some extent but some things need to be stardardised (like packages for eaxmple) but they don't get standardised. Anyway theres no way of enforcing standards people just decide whether or not to use them.
worker201:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---I can agree to some extent but some things need to be stardardised (like packages for eaxmple) but they don't get standardised.
--- End quote ---
I disagree completely.
Mostly because I think you are misusing the term standard in a Microsofty way, ie, "standard" is really short for "what I think should be standard".
A standard for a communication protocol or file format is useful, since it helps you to share information with others through networking and file trading. Although there are like 50 different image formats, a jpeg is a jpeg on every computer. But other solitary systems should not necessarily be standardized. For example, packages. Each system designer has decided on his/her own which packaging system to use. And now you are going to decide once and for all which is "better" better? No, you don't get to decide that. Because it doesn't affect anyone except the person installing the packages. If you don't like rpms, or whatever, you don't have to use them. You can get a system that uses deb packages instead. Making someone else use your favorite packaging system is fascistic, since it only helps you when you go to use his computer. It doesn't do a fucking thing for him.
Same with desktop managers. And window managers. And filesystems. And most other things too. Standards help people share. Making everyone use the same program/system is what Microsoft does.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---By the way, object linking and embedding (OLE), which makes that possible, is one of the things that makes Windows so insecure. A virus can propogate from Outlook to Excel to Word to Powerpoint and back to Outlook without ever leaving your inbox. It's also a major cause of office suite bloat - an interoperability of a feature set that no one in their right mind would ever use. Plus, having each task centrally defined and apportioned, rather than peripherally, makes MSOffice unmodular and inefficient memory users. I'm glad that Linux doesn't have this kind of crap.
--- End quote ---
I wasn't meaning to say that Linux should copy Windows directly where OLE is concerned but provide a superiour implementation. One way would be not to link objects in documents to applications but to give each object a data type similar to MIME so when you import a gif into ABIWord and click on it up pops The Gimp or Xpaint depending on your system settings.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---I disagree completely.
Mostly because I think you are misusing the term standard in a Microsofty way, ie, "standard" is really short for "what I think should be standard".
--- End quote ---
No because MS standards are closed, I'm proposing an open standard.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---A standard for a communication protocol or file format is useful, since it helps you to share information with others through networking and file trading.
--- End quote ---
Just like having a standard package format would help people distribute thier software - they should have to worry about distributing it in 100 or so packages formats there should be just one or two.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Although there are like 50 different image formats, a jpeg is a jpeg on every computer.
--- End quote ---
Exactly 50 different formats but how many are used on the Internet?
--- Quote from: worker201 ---But other solitary systems should not necessarily be standardized. For example, packages. Each system designer has decided on his/her own which packaging system to use. And now you are going to decide once and for all which is "better" better? No, you don't get to decide that. Because it doesn't affect anyone except the person installing the packages. If you don't like rpms, or whatever, you don't have to use them. You can get a system that uses deb packages instead. Making someone else use your favorite packaging system is fascistic, since it only helps you when you go to use his computer. It doesn't do a fucking thing for him.
--- End quote ---
But its a fucking pain in the arse, I personally couldn't give a fuck whether it's a .deb or .rpm I just want to be able to download one file and install it on many Linux distros, this also puts many developers off writing Linux software, it'd certainly put me off.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Same with desktop managers. And window managers.
--- End quote ---
They are already going through a standardisation process but no one's ever going to force you to use KDE, Gnome, Xfce.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---And filesystems.
--- End quote ---
That's a biggy, fair enough there's no point in having a standard file system if all you're going to to do is format your hard drive, but putting your files on a USB stick is a completely different story.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Standards help people share.
--- End quote ---
And a standard package format will help people share software which is after all the spirit of the GPL.
--- Quote from: worker201 --- Making everyone use the same program/system is what Microsoft does.
--- End quote ---
Who said about making everyone use the same program/system?
Just the same format.
Differant pieces of software could be used to read the same package you know, just like I can open an .sxw in OpenOffice or ABIWord or you could edit a .jpg in The Gimp, Adobe Photoshop, Xpaint or even MS Paint.
worker201:
What's your beef against multiple package formats anyway? You should be using synaptic or smart or apt-get or something like that. If you need some program that's only available in an rpm, then you're probably not understanding what it is that you need. Learn how to build shit from source. The fact that many software distributors only build packages for a few distros and leave the source for everyone else is more than reasonable.
Personally, I have never been upset with packaging systems. I use an rpm distro, and I use a package manager program (smart at the moment) to get all the updates I need. If a package I want is not in a smart (apt, yum) repo, then I go get the source and build it myself. Never had any problems. So what are you doing wrong that has you so upset?
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---What's your beef against multiple package formats anyway?
--- End quote ---
Not being able to download one package and install it on many different distros.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Learn how to build shit from source.
--- End quote ---
Fine for small things but it's impractical for large programs especially on a low end machine.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---The fact that many software distributors only build packages for a few distros and leave the source for everyone else is more than reasonable.
--- End quote ---
How about proprietary software?
Oh fuck it it's evil anyway, but shit you support Mac and it's proprietary - just a shame that the forum software only lets me use 8 roll eyes smilies. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Oh fuck I've reached my limit.
--- Quote from: worker201 ---So what are you doing wrong that has you so upset?
--- End quote ---
Installing Opera and OpenOffice 2.0 on both Ubuntu and Vector Linux - I've fucked up both.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version