Rod Pemberton wrote:
>> 2008 *is* the 'Linux year", you know. For the first (?) time,
>> we have seen PCs sold with Linux on board. If the market share
>> does not reach over 5% at the end of such a year, don't hope it
>> before the next twenty years.
> I understand that Linux die-hards will always insist Linux can overcome
> Windows. But, why do non die-hards insist it's possible?
> Linux:
> -many average programmers
> -no money spent for intellectually bright programmers
> -small amounts of money spent on cor****ate programmers where
cor****ations
> want improvement, e.g., servers, security
> Windows:
> -largest collection of intellectually bright programmers on the planet
> -millions to billions of dollars spent paying programmers
> -rumored around 50Mloc for Vista
I see this a bit different, especially for the type of programmers
involved in the two ...
Most M$ programmers came from university with nothing else than a
CS-degree and a C-course, and seem to never read any CPU-manuals.
There just aren't several thousand 'bright' programmers on this planet.
And self-thinking folks usually never become employed by huge companies.
Linux is based on volunteers, which mean programmers who are personally
interested in hard and software. So I'd see much more 'bright' ones in
this camp.
Money may affect distribution-speed with advertising, but it will
hardly improve the quality of produced code.
Merchant ruled programming (enginering as well) always show:
due-dates (do it fast, we gotta sell it in time)
saleries (keep them as low as possible)
quality (don't care, if it worked once it might work forever)
performance (tell the user it's slow for being safe, or similar ..)
upgrades (damned we need to, perhaps we can make money out of it)
>... lack of Linux hardware drivers written by manufacturers
Agreed, manufacturers act like a swarm of flys, they sup****t (and
even design for) only thoose who got the most smelling heap :)
Recently we got some more information on hardware, so we once may be
able to write our own 'drivers', like we could in the pre-M$ aera.
> Linux needs money and stability.
Stability while still under construction is hard to achieve, so I
wait for a final agreed definition of mandatory OS+Lib functions.
And I'm almost with Rene here (I think democracy may work also),
it needs a leading instance to finally define 'one' standard. But
I don't think a worldwide community of volunteers need much money.
>...
__
wolfgang
|
