Stop Microsoft
Operating Systems => Linux and UNIX => Topic started by: SAJChurchey on 19 May 2003, 20:13
-
You know what really pisses me off . . . M$.
They're trying to buy rights to UNIX just so they can take on Linux. Those arrogant bastards. They never wanted anything to do w/ UNIX b4 this shit. So, now they decide to hop on the band wagon temporarily to fight "the greater evil."
And that's another thing...M$ PR.
Whenever they make a statement to the masses regarding their business strategies against Linux, they always try to make it sound like it's US (Consumers & M$) v. them. Trying to make themselves sound like the protectors of the American citizens, trying to make themselves seem like a gov't figure even.
The only person Linux is a threat to are the crooked business men up at M$ . . .the money-hungry yet lazy programmers that sold out to M$ . . . NOT...I repeat...NOT the consuemers that the open source community is trying the damnedest to save from inferior software and unethical, illegal, and unfair business practices.
I spit at you Bill Gates...I would love to shit in a paper bag light it on fire and throw it on the front steps of M$...b/c you bastards sicken me to the very pit of my stomach.
Sooner or later the sheep that they call the American public will sooner or later be forced to realize that they are not free...they are forever slaves to the company that keeps the nations computers running, and eventually they shall overthrow the tyrant
DOWN W/ M$?
No longer will I boot up my computer and start up Windoze. No longer will I log in to my computer and say "Hail Gates!!!"
-
quote:
Sooner or later the sheep that they call the American public will sooner or later be forced to realize that they are not free...they are forever slaves to the company that keeps the nations computers running, and eventually they shall overthrow the tyrant
Oh when will people realize that the 13th amendment did not abolish slavery, it only changed masters to one big new master (14th amendment) and then the master started collecting money from most everyones paycheck.
And the more productive the slave is, the bigger the cut the master gets.
-
This is more than just about the American gov't letting M$ slide on a whole bunch of shit. They are partly to blame.
Unfortunately, the slaves aren't as productive as they could be, but then again the "masters" wouldn't be making the profit. A new master would begin to make more money. . . the users themselves.
-
quote:
Originally posted by SAJChurchey:
...they are forever slaves to the company that keeps the nations computers running, and eventually they shall overthrow the tyrant
...keeps the nations computers running? haha. unless you call the reset button the power button...Micro$hit computers dont run.
i defentally agree with what you say here though. u made a good point
!!!DOWN WITH M$!!!
-
quote:
Originally posted by ArmTheHomeless:
...keeps the nations computers running? haha. unless you call the reset button the power button...Micro$hit computers dont run.
i defentally agree with what you say here though. u made a good point
!!!DOWN WITH M$!!!
in all of this antiM$ religous/cultist ferver, remember: M$'$ os does <i>run</i>, just doesn't run well. oh, and my computers don't have reset buttons anymore : )
we all have negative feelings toward microsoft (cept zombie), but nothing will happen. people do not see anything wrong with microsoft, and they will continue to see nothing wrong with it. i can't wait for the day that they realise there are better choices out there then the bloated and overpriced MS products
-
quote:
Oh when will people realize that the 13th amendment did not abolish slavery, it only changed masters to one big new master (14th amendment) and then the master started collecting money from most everyones paycheck.
Hmmmm, well I should look up that 14th amendment.
[ May 19, 2003: Message edited by: lazygamer ]
-
quote:
Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
You whacky Americans... I can't understand wtf you d00dz are talking about! ;
What is a summary of this amendment?
Section 1-Sounds good, understand it.
Section 2-WTF does this mean? It sounds like it's saying something stupid, and also saying that people who are criminals(no concern over what crime was commited) or took part in rebellion, are denied voting rights. About the crime thing though, does this mean criminal record or being in jail?
Section 3-I get it. Basically, if you want to hold civil or military office in the US, you must not of aided or comforted enemies or engaged in rebellion or insurrection. Ok I find it funny that the founding fathers are all concerned about governments being unstopable, and this ammendmant basically says that rebellion is a very bad thing to do. Didn't the founding fathers think that rebellion is a sign of government corruption, and the people have the right to overthrow any government that is corrupt? You also get into the "Who's to say that is rebellion" can of worms. Oh, and by this section, the red cross is comforting the enemy by treating their wounded during a war. (http://smile.gif)
Section 4-I get this also. Ok so if the US government spends money on aiding insurrection or rebellion against itself, it is illegal to pay it back as the national debt. But spending money on preventing rebellion and insurrection is debt... WTF?! There is no need to spend such money! Preventing rebellion is for dictatorships, not democracy.
Section 5-Oh goody, a vague statement open to interpretation. This would be fine, except 14th amendment is mostly bullshit that should not exsist!
Ok so when was this amendment passed, and why was it allowed to pass? Quite a stupid and terrible amendment...
-
From our happy train of Linux/Open Source development we look up to see that not all is right in our world, one of our biggest supporters is being attacked by the owner of a proprietary operating system, saying that they breached their contract and copied code from the Proprietary to the Free, without the permission of the ailing owner. This is laughable to most of us, and it is discussed valiantly by members of the Open Source community. It looks as though, in it's last dying breath, the Lesser Enemy has tried to make one last use of it's Weapon, the rights to the source code of UNIX. This isn't that disturbing past the fact that this could stunt the growth of, or destroy, Open Source adoption rates (which, needless to say, _is_ pretty disturbing). Many of the gifted Seers predict that the Greater Enemy is behind this attack on our humble but growing world. Sure enough the Red Mounded Evil announces it's stock in the dark plan to destroy the pure, moral Linux and it's brethren Open Source projects, great and small. Whether it's part in this battle is direct or caused _by_ the battle is yet to be seen, but it is a disturbing event for the Open Source Community.
And now we speak of the Greater Enemy's involvement here in this place devoted to it's destruction. Yet, we do not speak of ways to destroy the Red Mounded Evil and to shatter the 'Windows' to Hell that it has opened. Valiant projects (http://www.openopen.org/) are trying to promote our Open Source world in general, but our MES is only speaking mildly of the evils it was created to destroy.
It is time for MES to eradicate Microsoft. Here is what I propose:
We create a set of workgroups that will research and plot each part of Microsoft's downfall.
- Antitrust/OEM Licensing: Research the exact reasons OEMs cannot/have reason to be afraid of Microsoft revoking their Windows licenses, and perhaps investigate how to present this in a court setting to make it obvious that Microsoft is illegally preventing alternative products from gaining ground. Also discuss with any OEMs that are willing to the reasons behind their not supporting Linux/Other OSes (perhaps there are other motives/problems with Linux/Other OSes)
- Lobbyists: More of a network of people willing to lobby for alternative software style legislation in countries that allow such lobbying. This network should be able to move quickly and have a central elected government that can mobilize the network very quickly
- Feature Fighters: Another network of people willing to help implement features in Open Source software in a quick manner, so that Feature Fighter troops can be mobilized to implement important features that may be important to obtaining new users on Linux/Open Source platforms, like drivers (provided specs are available)
- Partner Fighters: A group that works with 3rd party companies to negotiate support for Linux/Other OSes, convince device manufacturers to write drivers for Linux, or to open source drivers they have written but that are inconsistent with the OS's/Xserver's license, thus creating problems.
More ideas later. The idea is that FMS is a big place, why dont we begin actually eradicate MS?
-
To lazygamer:
The 14th Amendment passed in 1868, and was a part of Reconstruction after the "Civil" War. Its intent was to basically dilute States' Rights and consolidate Federal power to attempt to prevent a repeat of seccession amoung the states. The Southern states were essentially blackmailed into voting for it, as that was a condition for re-entry into the Union and the end of the Reconstruction occupation. All references to "rebellion" and "insurrection" are references to participation in the Confederacy. Either in the revolution that led to the Confederacy's establishment, or participation in its government or military. quote:
Section 2-WTF does this mean? It sounds like it's saying something stupid, and also saying that people who are criminals(no concern over what crime was commited) or took part in rebellion, are denied voting rights. About the crime thing though, does this mean criminal record or being in jail?
As for what this section means, its intent was to prevent the denial of voting rights to the emancipated Blacks. If any state denied the Blacks the right to vote, that state could not then count those same Blacks as being part of the state's population for tax purposes, nor could they count towards seats in Congress. As for "...excluding Indians not taxed...", this provision existed as various Indian tribes were recognized by treaty as being semi-autonomous national groups. As such, the states had no authority over them. The exclusion from voting for having a criminal record is something left up to the individual state to determine. It refers to conviction in a court of law. quote:
Section 3-I get it. Basically, if you want to hold civil or military office in the US, you must not of aided or comforted enemies or engaged in rebellion or insurrection. Ok I find it funny that the founding fathers are all concerned about governments being unstopable, and this ammendmant basically says that rebellion is a very bad thing to do. Didn't the founding fathers think that rebellion is a sign of government corruption, and the people have the right to overthrow any government that is corrupt? You also get into the "Who's to say that is rebellion" can of worms. Oh, and by this section, the red cross is comforting the enemy by treating their wounded during a war.
Here, again, "rebellion" refers to having participated in the Confederacy. Another provision designed to stick it to the Southern states. quote:
Section 4-I get this also. Ok so if the US government spends money on aiding insurrection or rebellion against itself, it is illegal to pay it back as the national debt. But spending money on preventing rebellion and insurrection is debt... WTF?! There is no need to spend such money! Preventing rebellion is for dictatorships, not democracy.
Actually, this section is a repudiation of debts the Confederacy racked up. Basically, Southerners were prohibited from suing if they lost slaves, nor could they sue the Federal government to have Confederate bonds honoured: they were just plain SOL on that account. OTOH, the Feds would honor whatever debts it had incurred in order to fight the "Civil" War. quote:
Ok so when was this amendment passed, and why was it allowed to pass? Quite a stupid and terrible amendment...
Actually, most of the power of the 14th Amendment was diluted in a series of cases before the Supreme Court in the 1870s. However, this amendment would prove quite useful during the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s -- 60s. It served as a basis for the Brown v. Board of Education ruling that put an end to the legalized apartheid "Jim Crow" system, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965.
It may sound like so much legalese gobbldy-gook, and be difficult to understand unless you know something about the times, the issues involved during the "Civil" War era. In that context, it does make sense.
____________________________________
Live Free or Die: Linux
(http://www.otakupc.com/etsig/dolphin.gif)
"There: now you'll never have to look at those dirty Windows anymore"
--Daffy Duck
-
Thanks for clearing that up JT!
I assumed that rebellion and insurrection would refer to a point where the government started to become more corrupt and take away the power of the people. The way you describe it makes this amendment seem more mundane and make alot more sense. But the way the US government is nowadays, such first reactions would make sense.
-
I read that not only was MS going to buy roghts to use UNIX, but they might buy out SCO
Then they would have Unix and Caldera
Creepy no?
-
Unfortunately Solo,
I'm not sure how many computer engineers we actually have as members here. As a comp. sci. major going into my sophmore year, I do not personally have the capabilites to make drivers, as much as I would like to, but I plan on supporting open source however I can.
I've done some lobbying about TIA and open source to local governments, and I have e-mailed congressmen. Legal research is not my strong point either, but I'm sure if anyone here is capable and willing to use up good deals of their time in research. I certainly welcome it, and will help out if I can.
I think it is time for MES to take a more pro active stance then bitching about M$ in these forums. I think it's time to lobby and try to convert people to the superior platforms of Linux and Mac.
I am glad to see RH has taken a stance in the SCO matter, shortly after the proposal by M$ (and they say we are the only ones that see a conspiracy brewing ;). RH has not been officially sued yet,but they see the storm coming.
Let us rally the troops and create a plan of action. I say we start listing our skills, finding a way to consolidate them to this cause, and begin doing what we can.
-
I certainly dont have a computer science degree (I am still in high-school) but I believe if I took some time to learn how the drivers worked, how the interfaces worked etc I could write them. Not to say that the first ones I wrote would be good (http://smile.gif) . I do understand what you are saying though, all with the not many people able to do drivers. But maybe more in general we could have a network of general coders. Let's say Microsoft/Apple comes up with some good feature or in M$'$ ca$e buy the $oftware that ha$ the cool feature. We could direct the community to help the important projects implement the features quickly (one of the big reasons features take awhile is because most of the developers that contribute are busy or not interested. If we had a large base of developers willing to code more generally on projects, we could get a killer feature implemented in KDE/GNOME or Redhat/SUSE/Mandrake/Slack etc very quickly and synchronously.
Ok let's pretend people are just getting the XP leak builds now (travel back in time people). There are reports of a cool multi-display system for multiple users. A proper group of people are recruited from the developer network to research and implement a similiar feature in XFree86. Each member in the group is assigned a position, such as Research leader, Engineering (implementation) leader, and coders. The positions would be based on the skill and amount of free time the developer has. The Engineering leader instructs the coders to wait for further instructions, and gives them the email address of the Research leader. Meanwhile the research leader is looking through the code and looking for the ways it could be done, designs an X extension, etc, and brings his/her ideas to the Engineering leader. The engineering leader creates a report on the way it will be implemented, and takes feedback from the coders. The coders begin implementing the changes (perhaps on a different CVS server for the dev network). Once the code is stable, the engineering leader performs the proper steps to submit the code to XFree86.
-
You realize that when it comes to major projects such as KDE, GNOME, and Linux in general, there are hundreds, if not thousands of developers working on the many features. There is close to 3 million or so lines of code to GNOME alone. To add a feature takes familiarity w/ the code, and massive amounts of time to spend on getting it to work w/ everything else, and just working on the projects is not going to get rid of M$ and quicker.
People have to start widely using and standardizing on open source projects.
-
quote:
Originally posted by SAJChurchey:
Unfortunately Solo,
I'm not sure how many computer engineers we actually have as members here. As a comp. sci. major going into my sophmore year, I do not personally have the capabilites to make drivers, as much as I would like to, but I plan on supporting open source however I can.
I've done some lobbying about TIA and open source to local governments, and I have e-mailed congressmen. Legal research is not my strong point either, but I'm sure if anyone here is capable and willing to use up good deals of their time in research. I certainly welcome it, and will help out if I can.
I think it is time for MES to take a more pro active stance then bitching about M$ in these forums. I think it's time to lobby and try to convert people to the superior platforms of Linux and Mac.
I am glad to see RH has taken a stance in the SCO matter, shortly after the proposal by M$ (and they say we are the only ones that see a conspiracy brewing ;). RH has not been officially sued yet,but they see the storm coming.
Let us rally the troops and create a plan of action. I say we start listing our skills, finding a way to consolidate them to this cause, and begin doing what we can.
That is the aim of OpenOpen, where have you been ;)
Read through this (http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=7&t=001149) thread.
Links to their page are toward the end.
Happy reading :D
-
quote:
Originally posted by Solo:
I certainly dont have a computer science degree (I am still in high-school) but I believe if I took some time to learn how the drivers worked, how the interfaces worked etc I could write them. Not to say that the first ones I wrote would be good (http://smile.gif) . I do understand what you are saying though, all with the not many people able to do drivers. But maybe more in general we could have a network of general coders. Let's say Microsoft/Apple comes up with some good feature or in M$'$ ca$e buy the $oftware that ha$ the cool feature. We could direct the community to help the important projects implement the features quickly (one of the big reasons features take awhile is because most of the developers that contribute are busy or not interested. If we had a large base of developers willing to code more generally on projects, we could get a killer feature implemented in KDE/GNOME or Redhat/SUSE/Mandrake/Slack etc very quickly and synchronously.
Ok let's pretend people are just getting the XP leak builds now (travel back in time people). There are reports of a cool multi-display system for multiple users. A proper group of people are recruited from the developer network to research and implement a similiar feature in XFree86. Each member in the group is assigned a position, such as Research leader, Engineering (implementation) leader, and coders. The positions would be based on the skill and amount of free time the developer has. The Engineering leader instructs the coders to wait for further instructions, and gives them the email address of the Research leader. Meanwhile the research leader is looking through the code and looking for the ways it could be done, designs an X extension, etc, and brings his/her ideas to the Engineering leader. The engineering leader creates a report on the way it will be implemented, and takes feedback from the coders. The coders begin implementing the changes (perhaps on a different CVS server for the dev network). Once the code is stable, the engineering leader performs the proper steps to submit the code to XFree86.
You do realise this system already exists?
Perhaps not word-to-word as you have described, but these open-source projects don't just fall together through some form a hacker black magic you know ;)
The different project have different command organisation, for example Xfree has an elected board, the kernel team has several hot-shots under Linus, Kde and Gnome have their own things too.
-
So,
What should we do in the light of all this? We can't just stand to the side and let Linux be taken down by M$. We'd be just as guilty as them for our inaction.
quote:
When they came to take the jews, I said nothing. When they came to take the catholics, I said nothing. When they came to take the homosexuals, I said nothing. When they came to take Linux, I said nothing. When they came for me, nobody was there.
Or something like that, the point is they're Nazis or some other form of fascist dictatorship waiting to happen in some form or another.
-
Open Source software is the future. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth before then but who cares? Sit back and spectate. Oh and as we all know, Unix Labs tried this exact same lawsuit already against Berkely System Design and they lost. Microsoft's involvement will change nothing unless it is to pay off a corrupt judge and jury.
-
It was Martin Niemoller - he was a German pastor or something.
I love that quote, although SCo can only harm the Corpaorate view of Linux at the moment.
They can't even do that well as their case is going to get shot out of water and they are a laughing stock. A little like Claire Short...
In the words of Atticus Finch 'It's not time to worry yet'
-
I hope you are right, the both of you. I agree Open Source is the future, but until M$ is gone, there will always be a threat, and my Tux, aren't we the historian and book-full-of-quotes :)
-
Ahh I feel another long post coming on (http://smile.gif)
I am a member of OpenOpen and have been for quite awhile thank you.
It is absolutely NOT the time to "sit back" and watch. We *must* *never* let Linux lose it's track. Yes, we will always have Linux, but it is so important that Linux makes it to desktop and the server market. Not only because it is a superior system, but to triumph over Microsoft's illegal and immoral business practices.
We need an open source development organization. One that can command MASSES of freelance-type developers to work on certain open source projects. I know all open source projects have a system like that but we need a system that would equal the 'management' part of SomeSoft that would look over Linux/KDE/GNOME and other parts of the typical Linux-related open source projects and offer large amounts of help to improve that OSS product to better Linux. It would take time, but the longer we wait, the more time Microsoft has to pay developers to work full time to get something half-assed, and the more time they have to rub it in our faces because we don't have it yet. If we can improve on the proprietary model and keep OSS development's current form (volunteer development) while putting out quality source code, we could beat Microsoft much quicker.
Perhaps this idea could materialize into something like a minutemen militia. Volunteer coders sign up, and they outline their skills, then when they are needed they are called upon to code.
Do I have any supporters? Even if this doesn't work, we have to try. We'll never know if it will work until we've tried.
-
I have been and will always support open source in any way I can. Although I do not have technical skills or resources for such a massive endeavor at this time.
Open source if full of volunteers who are also faced w/ the same dilema of time and other resources. Are you talking about centralizing open source into one large body, where the leaders dictate the speed of development. Such a thing like that would not work for the simple reason that these are volunteers doing this on their own time and of their own volition (if I spelled that correctly).
Centralizing all of the projects would be too chaotic b/c there are so many of them. That is what GNU is here for anyway. Right now, I advocate and convert/educate people when I get the chance. I do back open source 110%, and my actions reflect such.
More management is really not necessary in most areas. Kernel 2.6 is expected out soon, and KDE and GNOME are already gr8 desktop environments where the features even surpass that of Windows (Virtual Desktops, Tabbed Filemanager, stability, etc.).
The real work needs to be done in advocacy and on the legal front. The developers are not the problem it's the uneducated public blinded by M$, and perhaps the lack of proprietary companies (i.e. Macromedia and gaming companies) not porting key software to Linux. The weakness lies there.
Hardware is another significant issue. People do not want to have to manually set up their internet connections and configure hardware. Linux will need to be plug and play and have an easier driver installation system, and I believe such tools could be easy to make in Python or Java and shellscripting.
Maybe we should get a project of our own together aimed at making these hardware config tools and getting them to distros. It may seem small and insignificant but it is the first significant step in achieving the goals that you are outlining.
-
I definitely do not want to create a dictatorship system that forces all OSS projects to comply. My idea is to offer a place where volunteer developers can sign up, and when features are implemented in competing operating systems, we can mobilize troops to work on getting it in Linux. So when someone says "Does Linux have feature xxxx?" we can tell them honestly that there's a team working on it, and we can have the feature in quickly. A lot of times developers in open source projects work on features they would benefit from (or think many people could benefit from).
If the OSS project is already working on it and is fully-staffed then we wouldn't have to deal with it. If they are understaffed we could contribute a few willing developers.
When a developer signs up, he/she would create a profile of the skills they have, how much time they would be willing to devote, etc.
The users would log on to the organization website and see that their are two feature requests that they have been mobilized on. They can accept or decline any of them, but perhaps there would need to be a minimum on contribution. It would be like sponsored OSS developers from commercial companies except without the money (http://smile.gif) .
If the developer accepts the feature request, he/she will be added to the workgroup and will get a notification email about who else is in the group. A discussion-starting email (defined by the creator of the request) would be sent to all participating members and discussion would ensue. The request would be subject to review every two weeks or so by two or three independent developers, who would check if planning/discussion/development is happening smoothly and the request is being fulfilled (a strict system of deciding this should be posted to the website, any breaches of the system could be contended by any developers registered in the organization). OSS projects would delegate one or more feature request managers. Anyone could create feature requests, but they must be reviewed by the project's request managers. The project would decide how to elect/appoint request managers. If the projects decline to appoint someone a request manager when the project started, I'm sure we could find people from the project's community who would take care of it until the project decides to officially delegate one/two/three etc.
Collaboration could be done on Freenode/temporary feature request mailing lists.
If this were to catch on, and work correctly, maybe some commercial companies would tack on some moola for developers of feature workgroups.
The point isnt to make people work on projects, but to encourage them and inform them about what needs to be done. A lot of people don't keep up on all of the projects they could contribute to, having a centralized organization that posts feature requests and organizes developm
-
Comment on hardware config stuff: better driver system yes, we need a versionless driver system so drivers can be closed-source (i would MUCH rather have open source ones but closed source ones become impossible because it needs to be recompiled for each kernel).
hardware detection is doing quite well, I've installed redhat 9 on two computers, one an HP and one a generic bargain PC and it worked great on both. Only thing I had to set up was the printer: by clicking Printers, Add->HP 712c lol.
I never touched the shell (http://smile.gif) .
I want to see an in-kernel device detection system. That would standardize device detection and perhaps developers from other device detection projects could contribute.
-
kudzu is an adequate hardware detection system for Linux, and that's the reason that RH is so good about hardware changes. It would be better if the LSB made it a standard to package kudzu with LSB compliant distros.
We have the various tools out there. The Linux community just needs to pick a good one and standardize on it.
In the meantime, I've decided to try my hand at the Software Installation Wizard. I'm probably going to write it in Java and will probably need to use some shell scripting. Most GUIs like these are written in Python, but i see no problem in using Java.
[ June 07, 2003: Message edited by: SAJChurchey ]
-
Yea i've had this epiphany before and i hate microsoft to.
(http://tongue.gif)
-
Sry. Didn't read all of the posts.
You do have to hand it to MS and Bill Gates though. They came from the (near bottom) and got to the top. Now they can hold the top and make even more money. They have smart business strategies. They know what they are doing and they do it well.