> Is this just true for commercial software, or to free software as well?
> There are many dreadful free programs available on the net. Would you
> prefer that they _didn't_ work on Linux?
If the source is available, I can fix it! Didn't you notice that, after
all these posts. Let's not get circular here!!!
Quote:> Look, if you don't want to buy something, don't buy it. There's no
> need to demand that you (and others) don't have the option. Even if
> it's junk, it might be better than nothing. If nothing else, it
> adds depth to the market.
Yeah, and look at all the heartbreak and stress and everything people have
had to go through because of that attitude: houses that have bad
foundations, cars that KILL people, because the manufacturers LIE ABOUT
THEIR SAFETY, etc, etc, etc.
> : [wants a no questions Money Back Guarantee]
> A nice thing on any platform, but I can understand why many companies
> don't offer it. Some do, though.
I can understand why they SAY they shouldn't. We paid more money than we
could afford for a COBOL compiler once from Micro Focus, only to find out
that it was PURE SHIT and WOULDN'T EVEN DO WHAT IT WAS ADVERTISED TO DO.
Sorry, but I'm damn tired of it.
Look, people; I'm not trying to discourage people from making money on
their hard work. Please understand that. Here's an example, though, of
what I DON'T WANT TO SEE ON LINUX. I ESPECIALLY don't want to see it when
I can't get the source code!!!
This quote os from an article in the April, 1997, issue of NT SYSTEMS
magazine. It is from an article called "Managing NT and UNIX", by Garren
Shannon. It's about NT 4.0 workstations:
"So far, I have only encounterd one significant performance problem with
NT. Under high use (multiple logins and logouts) and high stress (running
Open GL applications, program testing and high level math computations,)
the workstations tend slowly to increase the amount of total RAM in use
(both physical and virtual) after the applications are closed. If left
unattended, this would become a problem. ... a simple shutdown and
restart takes care of the problem."
Almost everything I have been trying to bring out by my involvement with
this newsgroup is covered in just this little quote. In particular, notice
the word "significant." Notice how nicely it's covered up in the quote?
This is not just a significant problem; it's very serious. And this
particular problem may very possibly put a real crimp in the development of
an enterprise system I'm involved with. But people have been hyped so
badly by these blasted marketers that it's OK for a MAJOR OPERATING SYSTEM
to get re-booted every day.
And the folks at M$ aren't going to give me the source, so I can fix it.
I don't think I want this on Linux. No thank you.