Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> , and linux's network capabilities are surperior to
> windows in all respects.
*All* respects? Not quite. There is nothing in Unix-land (or anywhere
else, AFAIK) that even begins to compare with the capabilities of COM+ for
writing distributed applications.
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> or that the
> currently available UIs are no good (Irrelevant, you can put any UI on
> top of Unix you want. Hopefully soon open source UIs will achieve ease
> of use parity with Windows (e.g., <http://www.eazel.com/>) and some
> developers will move on to more radical interfaces.)
Now, I thought it was supposed to be the evil Micro$ofties that tried to
treat vaporware like a current feature. :-) I could say the same thing
about Windows with equal accuracy (after all, it runs POSIX applications,
DOS programs, and all the major Unix shells, and Microsoft could easily slap
other interfaces on top if they wanted to). The questions are:
1) Is there anything decent you can use now (and if you have to compile it
yourself, you've completely missed the point as far as the mass market is
2) Is there reason to think that X years of improvement in Linux UIs will
yield better results than X years of improvement in Microsoft UIs? (And it
would be nice if the reason amounted to more than 'oh, open source will
automatically make everything wonderful'.)
> I don't see this changing anytime soon. I expect that the vast
> majority new applications rolled out in the near future will reuse
> parts of the existing XML/HTTP infrastructure and be platform neutral.
> Some will even be truly innovative.
For the client, probably. But for apps that interact with a database you
can get about a factor of five cost savings by writing the server app on top
of COM+ and running it across clusters of cheap boxes, as opposed to going
with the one-big-box approach or trying to hand-code a distributed app on
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:04:48 MDT