Linux vs Windows

This is a discussion on Linux vs Windows within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by laserlight Neither Bazaar nor Mercurial are quite ready for Windows either, though Bazaar comes closest of the ...

  1. #31
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    Neither Bazaar nor Mercurial are quite ready for Windows either, though Bazaar comes closest of the three, but is also still the slowest of the three.
    Probably because of its python codebase.

    It's an unfortunate characteristic of windows this apparent lack of initiative regarding SCM. Everything that mattered (at least to my knowledge) was ported from Linux. However both CVS and SVN are widely used now; despite torvalds criticism I find SVN almost everywhere I look.

    Baazar would indeed be a great addition to windows. It's philosophy of providing compatibility with other SCMs may still prove to be its biggest asset in both the Linux and Windows world.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  2. #32
    Ethernal Noob
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,901
    Quote Originally Posted by laserlight View Post
    Just don't use ReiserFS and you're safe

    But one MUST!

  3. #33
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,235
    Quote Originally Posted by indigo0086 View Post
    Hans Reiser used Linux...

    Think about it.
    Can you at least wait until the man is convicted?

  4. #34
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    I think the last quote refers to that to that Linux isn't as compatible as Windows and it's usually more difficult to get things done, such as installing and using on Linux than on Windows.
    Last time I checked windows runs on 2 CPU architectures (32 and 64 bit variants of the same arch actually) and linux runs on over 40. Compatability is in the eye of the beholder.

  5. #35
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,437
    Compability with programs, hardware, drivers, etc. Windows runs 'em all, but Linux is sometimes left in a pinch.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  6. #36
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    "Compatibility with programs" is left for the programmers to decide. It's not a trait of the operating system. In fact, it has been the Open Source project and similar movements born out of *nix die hards that allowed the widespread of porting philosophies that Microsoft always shunned.

    As for drivers, I concede there. However, you'll have an hard time finding one that isn't developed yet these days and won't be available within the month.
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  7. #37
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Compatability with X number of architectures is irrelevant to most users. Compatability with my existing software is what is important.
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  8. #38
    Crazy Fool Perspective's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Compability with programs, hardware, drivers, etc. Windows runs 'em all, but Linux is sometimes left in a pinch.
    Programs are OS dependent (or if written in an OS independent language, linux has no problem with them). Drivers are written for specific hardware, and my last posts illustrates that linux is compatible with an order of magnitude more CPU archs than windows, and thus is compatable with all of the drivers for those hardware architectures.

    As I said before, it really depends on the point of view, if you want to count every keyboard and webcam that windows is compatible with, you might get a big number. But if you look at the big picture, linux can run in many more places with many more hardware devices than windows.

  9. #39
    Cat without Hat CornedBee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    8,893
    Is this thread going anywhere the last one didn't?
    All the buzzt!
    CornedBee

    "There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any programming language in which it is the least bit difficult to write bad code."
    - Flon's Law

  10. #40
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Is this thread going anywhere the last one didn't?
    My magic 8 ball says - Doubtful...
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  11. #41
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,437
    Hey, I didn't write the signature, I was merely reporting what I perceived it as.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  12. #42
    (?<!re)tired Mario F.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    7,412
    Quote Originally Posted by CornedBee View Post
    Is this thread going anywhere the last one didn't?
    Does it need to? Or you have something to say that will make it go somewhere?
    The programmer’s wife tells him: “Run to the store and pick up a loaf of bread. If they have eggs, get a dozen.”
    The programmer comes home with 12 loaves of bread.


    Originally Posted by brewbuck:
    Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

  13. #43
    Malum in se abachler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,189
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    Hey, I didn't write the signature, I was merely reporting what I perceived it as.
    Which signature woudl that be?
    Until you can build a working general purpose reprogrammable computer out of basic components from radio shack, you are not fit to call yourself a programmer in my presence. This is cwhizard, signing off.

  14. #44
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,437
    Manav's:
    WinDoes MacOwes LinSucks
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  15. #45
    CSharpener vart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Rishon LeZion, Israel
    Posts
    6,473
    Last time I checked windows runs on 2 CPU architectures
    You should recheck...
    It is Pro version that is limited to 2 cores...
    Data Center is able to work on 64 Core system
    The first 90% of a project takes 90% of the time,
    the last 10% takes the other 90% of the time.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. windows .dll vs. linux .so - global static objects
    By pheres in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 11-23-2010, 12:29 PM
  2. Thinking of upgrading to linux...
    By Yarin in forum General Discussions
    Replies: 37
    Last Post: 07-24-2009, 11:40 AM
  3. Build linux on windows
    By baash05 in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-19-2008, 09:12 PM
  4. Why can't Windows run Linux binary executables?
    By Kleid-0 in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 12-04-2005, 10:44 PM
  5. Linux and Windows Duel Boot
    By The15th in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-26-2002, 04:59 AM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21