Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Mxsmanic wrote:

I'm not a fanatic by any stretch of the imagination. If I were, I wouldn't
still be running XP.

You're running Vista then, because it's great?
Or running 7, because it's even geater?

Perhaps you missed the words "I wouldn't still be running XP."

Sorry, I misread 'wouldn't' for 'would'.

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Linux isn't a geek system any more. Hasn't been for years.

Linux has always been a geek system. It is still that way today, and from the
looks of it, nothing is likely to change in the foreseeable future.

Then I'd like to see your definition of "geek system".

Those of us who are paid to give sound advice in the realm of IT do not
recommend Linux on the desktop.

One point is "are paid" as in "do not want to redundandize their well paid
position". Another is "inertia against change". Yet another is "noone is
fired for recommending Windows".

True, if you have applications that cannot be shifted to a Linux desktop
even using RDP or virtual machines, then Linux is probably not the right
solution.

But then I've seen and used systems where you use a Windows to citrix[1] to a
windows to putty to a Unix on which all the work was done ...

It works well enough for servers, but so do
many versions of actual UNIX.

'actual UNIX' as in?

So the claim "Linux has no vendor/commercial support" (which is
utterly wrong, btw.) should have zero impact, as most people never
use it. Right?

Unfortunately, Linux needs far more user support than Windows, since most
people are unfamiliar with Linux,

This can be changed easily.

and since Linux by design is less
user-friendly than Windows.

Linux is by design congruent and doesn't run every malware with
a click.
That may be seen as less user friendly.

Tell me, if I lend my laptop to my wife, how long does it take
me to add an account and home directory for her and do I have to
shut down my GUI interface to prevent her from changing things
there and to give her her own --- under Windows and under Linux.
(Yes, that's a real world example.)

Mac
support can sometimes be more difficult than Windows support because so much
of the Mac is a closed system, controlled entirely by Apple, which may or may
not elect to recognize and fix problems.

Ah, and Windows is an open system? And Macs don't have 3rd party
programs? And MS always elects to recognize and fix problems?

But with Linux --- which is an open system --- support is worse
because it is an open system?

In which production environment do you need "Flight Simulator"?

A flight school, for example.

And you think the MS flight simulator is just right for them?
Yes, Linux has several flight simulators, some very useful to
flight schools.

So MS itself bought something you don't need, since Windows already
contains all the system software you need?

Essentially nobody uses SysInternals, except geeks. They are hardly necessary
to Windows.

I'm anything but a windows geek, and I use Sysinternals.

I see you stand silent.

The vast majority of your posts do not merit a reply.

read: "Mxsmanic cannot even offer a lame counter to the truth"

-Wolfgang

[1] with cut and paste disabled

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Then I'd like to see your definition of "geek system".

Linux is a good example.

I see, you cannot even define "geek system", you probably use it
as a hate term on no rational basis.

[snipped: paid 'advisors' also have non-technical and personal
reasons for advancing Microsoft]

But then I've seen and used systems where you use a Windows to citrix[1] to a
windows to putty to a Unix on which all the work was done ...

Not everyone is skilled at design.

But they design Windows that way. Layers over layers.

This can be changed easily.

No, it cannot. People gain experience throughout their careers, and most of
that experience is with Windows. An employer cannot change that.

Most people don't know how to drive bikes and cars, never
mind trucks, planes, motorbikes, jetskies etc. at birth either.
Doesn't hinder them to become able to drive a car, and quite a
few learn driving other stuff.

Linux is by design congruent and doesn't run every malware with
a click.

Congruent with what?

You have to ask?
How much experience do you have with Linux?

Tell me, if I lend my laptop to my wife, how long does it take
me to add an account and home directory for her and do I have to
shut down my GUI interface to prevent her from changing things
there and to give her her own --- under Windows and under Linux.
(Yes, that's a real world example.)

Next time, time it.

Windows: doesn't work. Time == infinite.
Linux: 3 minutes, mostly checking adduser (and not useradd) was
the easier command (man adduser, scan page, yes.) Comes from
not adding users often.

[restoring context]
Mac
support can sometimes be more difficult than Windows support because so much
of the Mac is a closed system, controlled entirely by Apple, which may or may
not elect to recognize and fix problems.

Ah, and Windows is an open system?

No.

Then Windows is a closed system, and thus difficult to support,
by your logic.

And Macs don't have 3rd party programs?

Far fewer than Windows systems, but more than Linux desktops.

So how does Apple entirely control the Mac?

And MS always elects to recognize and fix problems?

Most problems get fixed.

And some stay for decades.
And you cannot fix them at all, short of buying MS.

But with Linux --- which is an open system --- support is worse
because it is an open system?

Because it has no accountable owner,

Of course it has. Unlike Windows: MS isn't accountable even to
justice, else it would have been split up long ago. And had to
be shamed into fixing security bugs by finally publishing them.

and little or no profit motivation to
make the OS adapt to user requirements. And other reasons.

Distributions that *live* from offering good support and so on
have *tons* of profit motivations to make the OS adapt to user
requirements. Unlike MS, who doesn't improve unless there is
serious competition.

And you think the MS flight simulator is just right for them?

That's their decision, not mine.

Evading, evading, evading.

Yes, Linux has several flight simulators, some very useful to
flight schools.

I think they choose the flight simulator and then just get whatever OS is
required for it, not the other way around. They have no religious obligation
to install Linux.

No, but they have no obligation at all to install Windows.

I'm anything but a windows geek, and I use Sysinternals.

You're a geek.

My wife uses Sysinternals, and she's not a geek at all.

read: "Mxsmanic cannot even offer a lame counter to the truth"

No. The problem is simply that you aren't intelligent enough to hold my
interest, or even to maintain a coherent discussion. Sorry.

Sure. That must be why you answer my postings all the time.

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Same for proprietary, no longer supported systems.

Not true. Even "unsupported" products can often be supported via special
support contracts.

Really? What if the company went away?
What if the company doesn't have an interest? (If they had,
it would be supported.)

*All* open source cen be supported via special support contracts.
No matter what the age. No matter if everyone who created it died.


And with proprietay systems, you can't even hire someone to
untangle that mess ...

You don't have to. You've already paid the vendor for that.

Mu-ha-ha-ha.

No, you didn't.


and often enough can't move your data to a better system.

No answer means I'm right.

[random development in unwanted directions]

This is no different with propietary systems.

It's very different with proprietary systems. Software vendors have a direct,
financial motivation to move development in the directions preferred by paying
customers, and that's typically exactly what they do, if they want to survive.

Microsoft.

And yes, you can give the same financial motivation to open
source systems: just pay money for it.


Fortunately,
you can often pay the developer to implement your whishes, or,
failing that, pay another expert to do so. Try that with
closed source.

With closed source, you've already done that.

No, you haven't. Else they would promptly and completely implement
your wishes. They don't.

Proprietary software sometimes does not even fix security bugs,
and some companies have to have their security bugs published
repeatedly until they learn to fix them within months.

Sometimes. Not always.

But according to you you paid them for it --- you should bring
them to court for non-compliance and breach of contract.

After all, features sell ... bugfixes don't bring morey

The users are themselves to blame for that. If they start buying based on
freedom from bugs instead of features, then vendors will start concentrating
on eliminating the bugs rather than adding new features.

In other words, as a user of commercial software, I'm completely
dependent on the wishes of the unwashed masses and I cannot even
throw money at the problem to solve it.

See, if XP was open source, it would still be available, up
to date and improved where it lacked and you'd have commercial
support from dozens of companies, competing with each other on
good support and low prices.

If XP were open-source, it would be a moving, unreliable target, constantly
tinkered with by immature, pimple-faced teenage boys. I prefer that it remain
proprietary.

I see you have your prejudices and nothing can shake them.
I take your tinkering teenaged boys (and the much vaster army
of grown, pimple-free(!), well-educated adults) over almost all
corporate code monkeys.
At least the boys know what they are doing and have a personal
interest in the job, not to mention much better code fu.

And yes, Windows is a moving, unreliable target. After XP it
swerved on to Vista ... now it's Windows seven, tomorrow it's
Windows eight, ...

There are a handful of open-source projects that are moderately disciplined,
but there are many more that aren't, and there are in any case still the other
problems I've mentioned.

The same that plague many, most, all but a handful of commercial
projects?

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Really?

Yes, really. It happens quite often.

More likely once in a blue moon.

What if the company went away?

The same thing that would happen if the authors of open-source software went
away: no support.

Wrong, for obvious reasons.
Hint: Third parties can give you all the support you want,
since they too have the code.

What if the company doesn't have an interest?

If the check is large enough, the company has an interest.

Buying Microsoft is outside the budget for almost all companies
and people.

*All* open source cen be supported via special support contracts.

Open source lacks the accountability of proprietary code

Ever read an EULA?
That's no accountability for proprietary code. And you have to
agree to it to use the code.

if it is free for anyone to modify

Well, yes, that's the point of FOSS.
What you don't seem to understand is that not all changes need
to be included in a project or distribution.

And how good it is to be able to modify is clearly shown by
the thriving mod or plugin ecology surrounding even commercial
software. Photoshop as one example ...

and has no clear owner.

Practically all FOSS has a clear owner (look at the copyright
statements), often several people and/or companies co-own the
software.

Compare that to proprietary software, where ownership is
complicated, in many cases unknown[1] and noone can come in and
pick up the pieces.

No, you didn't.

It happens all the time.

.... that you think you paid for the development of the software
.... only to find out you paid for a license and the developer
isn't particulary interested in your ideas how to improve the
software for *you*. Yes.

See above re mods and plugins --- they wouldn't be needed if the
owners of the software was developing such stuff.

Microsoft.

Yes, amongst others (Microsoft was hardly the first).

Microsoft doesn't care for Joe Average or Joe Average Company.
If you are a whole country, you can pay by the ton to get Windows
translated.

Worse for wanting features from MS.

If I want FOSS translated, there are excellent tools anyone who
speaks the language in question can use to translate or help
improving the translation.

And yes, you can give the same financial motivation to open
source systems: just pay money for it.

No, you still lack accountability.

| Definition of ACCOUNTABILITY
| : the quality or state of being accountable; especially : an
| obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for
| one's actions public officials lacking accountability

| Definition of ACCOUNTABLE
| 1 : subject to giving an account : answerable held her accountable for
| the damage
| 2 : capable of being accounted for : explainable
| — ac·count·able·ness noun
| — ac·count·ably adverb
| See accountable defined for English-language learners »
| See accountable defined for kids »
| Examples of ACCOUNTABLE
|
| If anything goes wrong I will hold you personally accountable!
| the owner was held accountable for his dog's biting of the child

| Definition of ANSWERABLE
| 1 archaic : suitable, adequate
| 2 : liable to be called to account : responsible
| 3 archaic : corresponding, similar
| 4 : capable of being refuted
| — an·swer·abil·i·ty noun
| See answerable defined for English-language learners »
| See answerable defined for kids »
| Examples of ANSWERABLE
|
| a powerful businesswoman who seems to think that she's answerable
| to no one
| you are answerable for your own conduct at all times

| an·swer·able adjective
| 1 not used before a noun a : required to explain actions or decisions
| to someone
| â–ª Political leaders need to be answerable to [=accountable to] the
| people they represent.
| â–ª a powerful businesswoman who seems to think that she's answerable
| to no one
| b : responsible for something
| â–ª The company is answerable for [=accountable for] any damage caused
| by its employees.
| 2 : capable of being answered
| â–ª an easily answerable question

| Student Dictionary (wordcentral.com)
| Main Entry: an·swer·able
| Function: adjective
| 1 : getting the credit or blame for one's acts or decisions : RESPONSIBLE
| 2 : capable of being answered or proved wrong
| - an·swer·abil·i·ty noun

(Merriam Webster, except where noted)

Pray tell, where does it say that FOSS cannot be or will not be
accountable, except in your prejudices?


No, you haven't. Else they would promptly and completely implement
your wishes. They don't.

Actually they do.

Only if your wished are the wishes of many others.
If your company is average --- you are lucky. If your
company is better than just average, you're on your own.

Countless changes and improvements to proprietary software
have been the direct result of customer requests and feedback.

You're writing 'I cannot count higher than a very small natural
number' in rather complicated terms.

Whether
something specific gets implemented depends on how many customers want it, and
how badly (and on how many customers _don't_ want it).

In other words, you even admit that your personal or corporate
wishes don't matter much, you've got to bow to the owner's decision.
Like having to go from XP to Vista (or staying with XP) or going
from XP to 7 (can't stay much longer with unsupported XP).

But according to you you paid them for it --- you should bring
them to court for non-compliance and breach of contract.

The contract does not guarantee that all bugs will be fixed.

The contract guarantees exactly nothing --- so much for
accountability of proprietary software.

In other words, as a user of commercial software, I'm completely
dependent on the wishes of the unwashed masses and I cannot even
throw money at the problem to solve it.

Almost. If you have enough money, you can get a solution even if nobody else
wants it.

Unless you have a few billions, you are stuck. Or adapt FOSS to
your liking.

But otherwise, you're stuck with whatever the majority wants.

Not even what the majority wants, but what the developer wants.
Proof: Vista. Who wanted that? About nobody.
Yes, sometimes the developer will heed what he thinks will give
him the most money.


I see you have your prejudices and nothing can shake them.

No, I've actually dealt with the pimple-faced, teenage losers.

I see. And all pimple-faced, teenage losers are programmers of
FOSS. I doubt you have even the experience to understand whether a
given program is coded well or badly, but you *must* feel superior
to such sad people who are the groups internet millionaires come
from most often.

I take your tinkering teenaged boys (and the much vaster army
of grown, pimple-free(!), well-educated adults) over almost all
corporate code monkeys.

You are welcome to them.

Fine.

At least the boys know what they are doing and have a personal
interest in the job, not to mention much better code fu.

Unfortunately, they do not know what they are doing, they lack professional
work habits, they lack ethics, they lack honesty, and they lack maturity. The
code they produce is garbage.

I see. You are not prejudiced in the slightest, you have sampled
a statistical relevant subset of them, and are qualified to judge
on ethics(!), honesty(!) and code quality. Pray tell, where did
you learn all that?

You are a perfect middle manager who doesn't understand a thing
of what his people do and care about, and for whom it is important
that the people are all there at seven hundred sharp and that they
don't talk back or (worse) dare tell you you are wrong, (especially
if they have experience in the field and you don't). Stable,
maintainable, expandable code is irrelevant, as long as it is
buzzword compliant to the buzzwords you read in manager magazines.

[alledged problems that alledgedly plague most open source
software]

The same that plague many, most, all but a handful of commercial
projects?

No, thank goodness. In the case of proprietary, commercial software, there's
always someone you can drag into court. That makes a big difference.

You should become a comedian. I laughed out loud at that,
because it's so perfectly absurd.

Not only does the EULA abolish all such nonsense as taking anyone
to court. Not only can't you take no longer existing companies
to court. You can also drag companies into court that offer any
promises for FOSS and break them --- and you'd have a much better
standing than against, say, Microsoft or Oracle. You can find
out exactly who, when, how, broke the code or added malicious
code and hold them personally responsible, rather than having
to claim a mysterious 'your program ate my data' which probably
cannot be proved in court anyway.

Of course in the minds of managers who cannot cope with the
information society of today, the (illogical and wrong) faith of
"I can always sue Microsoft" is soothing. Opium for deciders.
Religion for people like you.

-Wolfgang

[1] Try to track the ownership of software from disbanded
companies. Just try.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

I see, you cannot even define "geek system", you probably use it
as a hate term on no rational basis.

I have no emotional investment in information technology.

That's why you keep on saying "Use whatever works for you, no,
Windows often isn't the best solution. For many companies it
makes sense to use Macs or Linux or even BSD desktops."

I'm not a
pimple-faced teenager with testosterone in place of brains.

Then why do you behave like one?

paid 'advisors' also have non-technical and personal
reasons for advancing Microsoft

I don't.

Yep --- you aren't paid. You're also a fanatic.

But they design Windows that way. Layers over layers.

Many operating systems are designed that way.

Not with layers upon layers of dead code.

Doesn't hinder them to become able to drive a car, and quite a
few learn driving other stuff.

Most people know how to drive a car. Thus, it's better to provide them with
cars to drive rather than tractor-trailer rigs or bulldozers.

Let's tell that to farmers and construction workers: They're better off
with unsuitable tools because "everyone" can use them.


You have to ask?

Yes.

How much experience do you have with Linux?

It was an English question, not a Linux question. Congruent with what?

If you had experience with Linux, you'd understand.
In Windows, everything is different from each other.


Windows: doesn't work. Time == infinite.

It works if you read the documentation.

What documentation comes with Windows? Spartan .hlp files.
And they don't answer how to start up a second GUI.


[restoring context]
Mac
support can sometimes be more difficult than Windows support because so much
of the Mac is a closed system, controlled entirely by Apple, which may or may
not elect to recognize and fix problems.

Ah, and Windows is an open system?

No.

Then Windows is a closed system, and thus difficult to support,
by your logic.

There are other considerations besides the closed or open nature of the
system.

So you admit your logic is false. Thank you.


So how does Apple entirely control the Mac?

It controls all the hardware and all of the OS. It also constrains developers
much more aggressively than Microsoft.

This has been refuted already.

And some stay for decades.

Some are less important than others. I'm not aware of any significant bug that
has been around for decades. In fact, I'm not aware of any bug that has been
around for decades, offhand.

http://www.enterpriseitplanet.com/se...indows-Bug.htm
Or look at Wikipedia's entry for Outlook Express and see what
wasn't fixed all the time ...

Or just look at the posts that don't wrap to one line length but
to two. That's been around a long time, too.

Or look to incorrect QP encoding of headers.

Of course it has.

No, it does not. Even Linus would be difficult to hold liable for problems
with his invention.

Try it. Create some software as FOSS and add malicious code.
See how fast you can be sued.

Unlike Windows: MS isn't accountable even to
justice, else it would have been split up long ago.

There is no reason to split up Microsoft.

And MS never did anything illegal.

You're a proven fanatic.


And had to be shamed into fixing security bugs by finally publishing them.

That happens to many vendors.

To a few.


Distributions that *live* from offering good support and so on
have *tons* of profit motivations to make the OS adapt to user
requirements.

Which users? Certainly not ordinary desktop users.

They *offer* their goody to ordinary desktop users, so who else?


No, but they have no obligation at all to install Windows.

If they choose Flight Simulator, they need to install Windows.

Flight Siumulator 2004 works well with wine --- so nope.


My wife uses Sysinternals, and she's not a geek at all.

How do you know?

By knowing her faaaar better than you do.


Sure. That must be why you answer my postings all the time.

I ignore most of your posts.

Especially the ones where you cannot refute the truth.

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

Buying Microsoft is outside the budget for almost all companies
and people.

There are many companies that have more money than Microsoft,

MS is Nr. 38 in the Fortune 500 --- which means that even on
that list, MANY MANY more companies are less worth than MS,
much less "can buy Microsoft".

and even those
that have less regularly pay Microsoft for support of products that have been
removed from general support.
^^^^^^^

Which is something completely different from "unsupported"
and "special support contracts".

It's expensive but not unaffordable, and often
it is cheaper than "upgrading" to something new.

I see: Microsoft updates are terrible, and they use that to extort
more money.

Ever read an EULA?

Yes. In fact, I've written them.

Interesting, now you are also a lawyer. Me thinks you copied
an EULA and replaced some names (breaching copyright) or you
blatantly lie.

That's no accountability for proprietary code. And you have to
agree to it to use the code.

Writing an EULA is one thing; enforcing it is another. A software company that
believes it can disclaim every obligation in a contract and still collect
money risks learning some painful lessons.

Sure, that's why MS and Oracle and all the others are successfully
sued all the time over the quality of their software. (That's
irony, btw.)

... that you think you paid for the development of the software
... only to find out you paid for a license and the developer
isn't particulary interested in your ideas how to improve the
software for *you*.

When you are effectively paying the developer's salary, he's interested.

Unfortunately, you are paying the sales' people salary. And the
developer does what the managers say.

If you have just a developer or two, you are still paying only a
tiny fraction of the salary.

However. with FOSS you can hire a developer and really pay his
salary ...

See above re mods and plugins --- they wouldn't be needed if the
owners of the software was developing such stuff.

Mods are not normally used outside of gaming and certain types of application
environments (mainframes come to mind, at least traditionally).

And smartphones, and and and.

Plug-ins are
often deliberately provided for by the developers.

Because the developers cannot provide, and know that.
Which was my point.

Microsoft doesn't care for Joe Average or Joe Average Company.

Microsoft, like any other company that wants to stay in business, cannot
refuse to listen to its customers. It listens to them as a whole, not
individually.

Which is what I said.

Like having to go from XP to Vista (or staying with XP) or going
from XP to 7 (can't stay much longer with unsupported XP).

XP doesn't require support, so you can stay with it as long as you want.

That must be because XP is bug free and noone could uncover a new
security relevant bug. There are also no devices anyone would want
that don't have XP drivers.

The contract guarantees exactly nothing --- so much for
accountability of proprietary software.

There's no such thing as a valid contract that guarantees nothing.

Oh, it "guarantees" that you may use the software, as is, and that you
don't do things MS dislikes, like benchmarks that aren't in *their*
best interest. Or maybe use a cheaper version of the OS in a VM.
Or use any MS DRM 'protected' stuff in a VM. Or move the licence
more than once from machine to machine.
(Examples taken from the original Vista EULA)

It doesn't give any guarantees that the software is even sort of
functioning.


Unless you have a few billions, you are stuck.

And again you change the context by removing original material.

No, it costs many orders of magnitude less than that. I've worked directly on
such arrangements on many occasions. Everything is negotiable. Large,
publicly-owned software vendors are not religiously committed to anything,
even though some of their employees might be.

Microsoft is religiously committed to it's own wellbeing, which for
them means money --- for which they'll try staying a monopoly and
crush everyone else. They've done so since almost forever.

And that means forcing people to pay as much money as MS can get for
as little work as MS can get away with. MS isn't in the business of
supporting e.g. XP forever.

Not even what the majority wants, but what the developer wants.

That is a problem with open source and freeware, but not with proprietary
commercial software.

Liar.

In the first case, the developer has no incentive to care
about what users want.

Liar.

In the second case, he has a strong incentive (money
for groceries and rent, namely).

He's being paid by the management, not by the users. So: Liar.

Proof: Vista. Who wanted that? About nobody.

Vista was motivated by the prospect of lucrative side deals with media
companies. So they wanted it, even if users didn't.

Proof that "what the developer wants" (in this case MS) trumps what
the users want and Vista is proprietary commercial software. So you
yourself contradict yourself.

It was nevertheless a very
poor decision, but poor decisions have been the norm at Microsoft ever since
Bill left.

Apologist.

Yes, sometimes the developer will heed what he thinks will give
him the most money.

He will always do whatever is necessary to stay in business.

Wrong, see "poor decisions" above.


And all pimple-faced, teenage losers are programmers of FOSS.

Not necessarily, but it's hard for them to get real jobs, because of their
immaturity and incompetence.

For the progamming ones of them it's hard, because they are still
in school (hence the pimples) (or university) and your 'real jobs'
of flipping burgers interferes with their lessons. The rest of the
time they mostly program, instead of dissing others and being seen
with the cool types to maintain some oh-so-valuable social status.
No wonders others see them as losers.

Upon entering the job world, they already have proven that they
understand programming and have years of experience ... and they
find irreal jobs, which are often much better paid than what
their non-loser comrades get, and they get to do the things they
love, too.

Sometimes a naive employer will buy into the
"whiz kid" illusion, but he often comes to regret that.

Microsoft hires heavily from colleges.

I doubt you have even the experience to understand whether a
given program is coded well or badly, but you *must* feel superior
to such sad people who are the groups internet millionaires come
from most often.

Internet millionaires don't come from that group; if they did, there would be
a lot more Internet millionaires.

Your statement is stupid. "Lottery winners don't come from lucky
people, if they did, there would be a lot more lottery winners."

Please revisit elementary logic 101 and learn that "Kings come
from the group of male humans" doesn't imply that many male humans
become kings, but is never the less true.

The geeks who cannot mature or learn from
experience never really serve as much more than coders.

Obvious, but non-sequitur. The geeks as a rule mature and learn
from experience and *have* lots of experience. People like you
might not, though.

And yes, I do have the experience to recognize good and bad software when I
see it, often even without looking at the code.

Changing the goalposts, I see. Thinking GUI design is code quality
automatically disqualifies you. You have no understanding of code
quality.

I see. You are not prejudiced in the slightest, you have sampled
a statistical relevant subset of them, and are qualified to judge
on ethics(!), honesty(!) and code quality.

I have not sampled a subset of them. They are all like that, by definition.

Then you are a prejudiced, inhonest, unethical person, by
definition.

They are coders (and bad coders at that). They will never be real software
engineers. A lot of them can't even spell.

Yep, like one certain Linus Torvalds, for example.


Pray tell, where did you learn all that?

When you work long enough in an industry, you learn all sorts of things.

If you really worked in any industry, you might have learned
something, that's true.


You are a perfect middle manager who doesn't understand a thing
of what his people do and care about, and for whom it is important
that the people are all there at seven hundred sharp and that they
don't talk back or (worse) dare tell you you are wrong, (especially
if they have experience in the field and you don't). Stable,
maintainable, expandable code is irrelevant, as long as it is
buzzword compliant to the buzzwords you read in manager magazines.

You have it backwards.

Let's see it backwards:
| .magazines manager in read you buzzwords the to compliant buzzword
| is it as long as ,irrelevant is code expandable ,maintainable
| ,Stable .don't) you and field the in experience have they if
| (especially ,wrong are you you tell dare (worse) or back talk don't
| they that and sharp hundred seven at there all are people the that
| important is it whom for and ,about care and do people his what of
| thing a understand doesn't who manager middle perfect a are You

Nope. Didn't have it backwards.


You should become a comedian. I laughed out loud at that,
because it's so perfectly absurd.

There's an inverse correlation between how easily amused a person is and how
intelligent he is.

I happen to be very intelligent, that's why I tell you to become
a comedian.


Not only does the EULA abolish all such nonsense as taking anyone
to court.

There are some things that an EULA cannot override, and one of them is the
freedom to sue either party.

Sure --- you can sue MS. And be laughed out of court, after all
you agreed to the EULA.

-Wolfgang

Mxsmanic wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

I have no emotional investment in information technology.

That's why you keep on saying "Use whatever works for you, no,
Windows often isn't the best solution. For many companies it
makes sense to use Macs or Linux or even BSD desktops."

I would say that if it were true. I do indeed tell clients that they should
use whatever works best for them, but on the desktop, that is never Linux or
BSD, although sometimes it's a Mac. Usually it's Windows.

Sure, because the desktop of a programmer for Linux machines
needs to have a Windows --- or maybe a Mac --- at his desktop.
Because he'd be completely lost without Windows and terribly
puzzled by a modern GUI, not to mention a command line.


Then why do you behave like one?

I don't.

Right, more like a true-believer with unshakeable faith, murdering
heretics and unbelievers to save their precious souls.


Yep --- you aren't paid.

I've been paid for giving advice. My advice in certain domains, such as IT, is
usually pretty good, and historically it has proven correct on many occasions.

Sure. I'll also buy the brigde you have to sell.


You're also a fanatic.

Nope. It's a job, not an adventure.

Being a fanatic is a job --- something you do earnest --- not an
adventure you do for fun and can leave if you want to.


Not with layers upon layers of dead code.

You didn't say anything about dead code originally. Windows does not have
layers and layers of dead (unused?) code, no more so than any other OS.

And you know that because you reviewed the code.


Let's tell that to farmers and construction workers: They're better off
with unsuitable tools because "everyone" can use them.

Most people are not farmers or construction workers.

That's why farmers and construction workers must take cars. No
extra-wished allowed.


If you reflect more and post less, you may find that your arguments become
more persuasive and harder to invalidate.

You should follow your advice.


Flight Siumulator 2004 works well with wine --- so nope.

That's a bit like saying that there's no reason to use diesel locomotives
because steam locomotives can be converted to use diesel fuel.

True --- on a track where steam locomotives are the attraction.

There is no reason to use wine when you can simply use Windows.

There's no reason to use Windows when you can simply use wine.


Especially the ones where you cannot refute the truth.

That hasn't arisen thus far.

Really? How comes I don't believe a word of it?

I ignore most of your posts because they are not
intelligent enough to merit a reply.

"The grapes are sour" said the fox.

-Wolfgang

On 6/30/2011 2:13 AM, John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote:

On 5/26/2011 7:19 PM, John Turco wrote:
PeterN wrote:

edited for brevity

When I went back to get a degree in Computer Science, I was able
to get MS development tools for very reasonable prices.

edited

So, you were a lawyerand a computer scientist?

I have my degree. I never really practiced CS and I don;t consider
myself a computer scientist. I enrolled to increase my personal
knowledge. At my age, even at the height of demand, it would be tough to
find a job. I have no desire to build another business. I had considered
studying some form of Asian art history. But I couldn't convince the
exchequer of the value. my knowledge of CS, law and accounting though
keeps me in demand for consulting work, without the aggravation of
running a full blown practice.


By the way, I forgot to congratulate you on your successful pacemaker
operation.

(Unless, the device in question, is of Chinese manufacture?)

thanks. And no,

it was not made in China.

--
Peter

On 6/30/2011 2:13 AM, John Turco wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:

John Turco writes:

This PCer prefers Microsoft's "rodents" -- and irrespective of brand,
I no longer buyanything, with fewer than 5 buttons (including the
scroll wheel, itself).

I'd neglected to add, "optical" and "cordless" as my personal requirements.


I agree with optical, cordless no. I don't like replacing batteries.
More importantly, harder to lose a corded mouse. The only cordless
device I use is my Wacom pen.



--
Peter