Re: [dylug] (Firefox/linux really worth the switch ?)

Firefox or no firefox is I think now is the matter of personal
experience. I felt it pretty descent, good themes, slick and worked fine
for me whenever I wanted it to, unlike IE, which I used for ages....I
mean why should I go to that sucking MS Update website if I don't want
to? IE does take you to those sites for any MS updates periodically and
I couldn't find a way to stop it. And the fun part (or a billion dollar
fun that MS invests in) is that site never opens up simply because that
link is not there! Its frustrating!

I find gmail performance similar on both IE and FF. But I'd disagree
that gmail is popular just because it is more hyped or its having a
restricted number of users. I did try Spymac, but sorry to say it isn't
_any_ faster than gmail, not even close. Gmail works on the simple
mechanism, apart from it being entirely cgi-based, it keeps its entire
cgi-engine on the client side, and almost all frequent operations are
done on the fly and without contacting the server every single time.
Just take a simple example, you have the gmail open, when any new mail
arrives, gmail doesn't update the entire page, just the list of emails,
you see here everthing is modularized and optimized so as to minimize
the client-server talking, whereas in say, Spymac or even Yahoo email,
you have two options - refresh the page or let yahoo page refresh itself
by every say 2 minutes...but in gmail only the email list is updated,
not the entire page. Lot many examples on this...just see the reply and
forward button...I mean why should you go to server and get another page
for just forwarding the email? I'd say gmail does it smartly.

Also did you have anything like YahooFS or SpymacFS for using your email
account space as your harddisk? You can actually do this with your gmail
account using GmailFS, try googling on that, you'II get the links.


On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 15:03, varunone wrote:
> But the Question i want to ask after all the bullshit is ... Is
> freeware software really better than the ones microsoft is producing
> after billion $s of research ??? Or is it just in our mind ... Just
> because using freeware is cool and the "in-thing" and all the money
> saving mumbo jumbo.

Spending billion dollars != producing great piece of code

Its world known how monopolistic MS is and on what (swampy) grounds it
has laid its foundations on. I'm not entirely against MS, but the only
thing that can be learned from them is how to make marketing and
monopolistic policies. They are, I'd say, kiddos when it comes to
coding. Just try to figure out as to how many times a MS server has been
successfully compromised against that of a linux server. You'II find it
yourself. 

Yes, MS is kinda free too, as Viv. said, no one pays for it anymore. And
why do you think MS is allowing that? It just want to keep people on
their side. The moment they become strict on the licensing
issues...they'II carve the grave for themselves.

... Anyone can develop application for windows at will to ... have we
> really forgotten VC/VB ..etc.. and their simplicity ??? 

For VC and VB we have KDevelop and Qt, they are much simple, more
intuitive and more powerful. I'm not just putting up any words coming in
my mind, I really mean it. You don't have all the power that you should
have to develop an application in VB. Is the parent child process
relations transparent to you in windows? Its again very well known that
VB cannot handle timers well, there _are_ definite problems with
concurrency, especially when using multiple forms and MDI. In Linux, you
have the holistic view of the entire system, right from what signal your
process received to why a process is waiting as zombie....when you know
all, obviously you are in a better position to design systems and your
own software. 

> And as far as
> recompiling the kernel ... how many of us have really done it
> successfully and are really interested in it ???

*hand up*

Why? Because I want to learn it, or may be because I want to know what
actually my machine is doing in the background.

On Tue, 2004-12-28 at 09:42, kalyan wrote:

> 
> So I want to ask a question or say want ur views on what u support 
> 
> Open Source or Technology 
> 
> In the sense say 
> If windows was open source and Linux like windows is a propertiary
> tech 
> then which will u buy , will u buy Linux or use freeware Windows 
> 
> Now everyone will say that open source is best so no other
> properitiary tech cannot beat it , but still considering the proposal
> , say a 
> properitiary  tech is far better than a open source which will u
> prefer 
> 
> Open source or the best technology 
> 

Why open source is good or more supported? If MS says its best, why
should we believe. Since the source in Linux is open, there are more
critics and since there are more critics and 'code-improvers' the source
eventually leads to perfection. In Windows, I'd suspect if for example,
scheduler in XP can't be optimized further, simply because I don't have
the source. Even people working in MS previously complain how ugly
Windows code is.If its that ugly, its bound to be buggy. Frequent MS
Updates is the testimony to this. In the name of enhancements, they fix
their old rotten bugs.

Given the option of open source and the best technology, I think I'd opt
for open source for the only reason of power - you have the source you
have the power!!!


AG
--
May the source be with you.




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$4.98 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Q7_YsB/neXJAA/yQLSAA/zCsqlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->