PDA

View Full Version : why windows is better



duffydack
October 21st, 2005, 12:33 PM
MS share your pain
http://msexp.streamnavig.com/msexp/player.asp?e=E9999&s=9999_en_w&f=9999_en&uid=0003BFFD82DDFD4E&lng=nl&cou=du#

ColinG
October 21st, 2005, 02:33 PM
You know, I have being trying to dump Windows for months now and the problem I have it that it is more robust than Linux. This maybe this is for the wrong reasons but the fact remains. nevertheless.

As an example I would recite dvdstyler. In a previous encarnation of Linux this worked well, letting me author dvds for burning via K3b. Now it does not work due to a problem with one of its major dependencies, mjpegtools. I don't begin to understand the problem but it is there nonetheless if the reports I read are to be believed (certainly dvd styler no longer works)

Why should this be I ask? Maybe the strength of Linux is also its weakness. Applications tend to rely on components that are developed under different streams; Dvdstyler relies on mjpeg tools but do the devlopers of mjpeg tools ever consider dvdstyer? What guarantee is there that a piece of software actually keeps abreast of the development of its dependencies and, importantly, how do we find out if there is an issue other than by bugs being identified?

Stand alone software that includes all its own sub-routines is possibly the only answer. The Linux way is, of course, far better but only if cohesion can be guaranteed. And it seems that it cannot be in all cases.

I won't ditch Linux, 'cause its fun. But for seriouse work on the video/digital imaging front (and possibly others) Windows/Mac still have it sown up.

My view anyway - hope it improves.
C

shakin
October 21st, 2005, 03:07 PM
Dvdstyler relies on mjpeg tools but do the devlopers of mjpeg tools ever consider dvdstyer?

Strong arguments have been made for most software to be statically compiled. This means that, for instance, DVDStyler would have the correct version of mjpegtools built in. Each program would be bigger, but dependency problems would not exist. There are good reasons for doing it both ways. System libraries are very useful when dynamically linked and they save RAM. You wouldn't want each of KDE, Kate, Konqueror and KMail to have to load separate QT and KDE libraries, would you?

Let's not forget that Windows suffers from a nearly identical problem. It's called DLL Hell. You'll also notice that programs which include most of their own libraries, such as Firefox, never run into this problem on any platform.

Many libraries co-exist with other versions of the same library. Look at libpng10 and libpng12, for instance. The (K)Ubuntu repositories are filled with different versions of the same libraries.

dcraven
October 21st, 2005, 03:18 PM
Maybe the strength of Linux is also its weakness.
I would say more that the weaknesses are also its strengths :)

~djc

ColinG
October 21st, 2005, 03:48 PM
I guess whether something is a strength or a weakness is dependent on what you are trying to do.

Using the KDE suite as an example its a strength, using dvdstyler its a weakness. As I need dvdstyler or its like to work (and qdvdauthor also fails) then I see it as a weakness;)

Ho hummm. Have to admit, I've never experienced DLL hell in Windows but maybe I have never pushed it enough. I still love Kubuntu but I have to stick with Windows for image work and that is a damned shame and must work against its overall aspirations for the dektop.

SamH
October 21st, 2005, 03:59 PM
... I've never experienced DLL hell in Windows but maybe I have never pushed it enough.

I work in IT for a local government. We've got about 2,500 desktop PCs scattered around our various locations. Hundreds of different apps. We are always running into DLL Hell where one application gets an upgrade and it steps on and breaks another app that is used on some of the same PCs. We try testing things like this ahead of time, but there are too many variations of PCs and application combinations out there.

Any way, my point is, DLL Hell is real and if the application vendor can't solve it for us we're usually stuck. Microsoft doesn't help much, we're too small a customer for them to care much about. Except when it comes to cashing our licensing checks.

xmastree
October 21st, 2005, 04:12 PM
MS share your pain
http://msexp.streamnavig.com/msexp/player.asp?e=E9999&s=9999_en_w&f=9999_en&uid=0003BFFD82DDFD4E&lng=nl&cou=du#
What is that supposed to be anyway? It looks like it ought to be some kind of video.
From the source, it looks like
http://microsofttech.fr.edgesuite.net/msexp/msexp/E9999/9999_w.smi
is the media. But what's a smi file?

aysiu
October 21st, 2005, 04:12 PM
Am I the only one who doesn't understand what the first post means? I tried to look at the link in Linux and Windows, and it doesn't work for me. What is the message? Can anyone sum it up, so people don't have to click on the link to figure out where this subject title comes from?

acejones
October 21st, 2005, 05:58 PM
its a joke video

blastus
October 21st, 2005, 07:40 PM
MS share your pain
http://msexp.streamnavig.com/msexp/player.asp?e=E9999&s=9999_en_w&f=9999_en&uid=0003BFFD82DDFD4E&lng=nl&cou=du#

If your gonna post a website about "why windows is better" please make sure that website follows web standards (http://validator.w3.org/) (XHTML, CSS, JavaScript etc...) Otherwise, I'm not even going to look at it. This is especially true of any website that proposes that Windows is better than Linux--otherwise I have no reason to believe anything they say.

Malphas
October 21st, 2005, 07:50 PM
Interestingly, Google doesn't follow the W3C's standards either.

aysiu
October 21st, 2005, 08:41 PM
If I don't hear any satisfactory explanation of why this thread is titled as it is or what the point of it is, I'm just going to close it. I repeat: I cannot play this supposed video in Windows or Linux. I have no idea what the point of this thread is--there's no commentary on it, either.

denisesballs
October 21st, 2005, 08:47 PM
If your gonna post a website about "why windows is better" please make sure that website follows web standards (http://validator.w3.org/) (XHTML, CSS, JavaScript etc...) Otherwise, I'm not even going to look at it. This is especially true of any website that proposes that Windows is better than Linux--otherwise I have no reason to believe anything they say.

You know this site doesn't follow standards either...

That being said, this thread reeks of troll.

bored2k
October 21st, 2005, 08:50 PM
Just like aysiu said, I don't see the reason why this thread is still active, which is why I am closing it. If anyone has any complaints with this decisions, be sure to private message one from the staff.