SDL
If a company changes the licensing on a code to not be proprietary, it doesn't make sense to call it proprietary anymore...
This seems to imply differently or perhaps it's a bit misguided. I can state everything as an uncertainty but that doesn't take away from the implied value of those statements.
You have <insert a million OS environments here> vs Windows.
You have OBS vs XSplit.
You have Chrome/Firefox vs Internet Explorer.
You have FileZilla vs various other proprietary alternatives.
You have a TON of media players like Mplayer and VLC vs Windows Media Player, Zoom Player, etc.
You're simply not looking.
| Almost all free software alternatives compared to proprietary ones seriously lack quality. |
This seems to imply differently or perhaps it's a bit misguided. I can state everything as an uncertainty but that doesn't take away from the implied value of those statements.
You have <insert a million OS environments here> vs Windows.
You have OBS vs XSplit.
You have Chrome/Firefox vs Internet Explorer.
You have FileZilla vs various other proprietary alternatives.
You have a TON of media players like Mplayer and VLC vs Windows Media Player, Zoom Player, etc.
You're simply not looking.
| You have Chrome/Firefox vs Internet Explorer. |
You are right on Firefox though Chrome is not open source (Though Chromium is).
| You have <insert a million OS environments here> vs Windows. |
Not sure what you are trying to point out with this? If you are trying to use the number of users of open source operating systems versus windows operating systems wouldn't windows come out ahead in that regard? Last time I checked the statistics windows holds about a 91% market share when it comes to desktop systems (Desktops and Laptops).
| You have a TON of media players like Mplayer and VLC vs Windows Media Player, Zoom Player, etc. |
Well I do agree with this one, open source personal media players are leaps and bounds ahead of almost anything else.
Last edited on
That's only to name a few.
Operating systems aren't used just on Desktops or Laptops. Popularity also doesn't necessarily represent being better than the alternative.
Operating systems aren't used just on Desktops or Laptops. Popularity also doesn't necessarily represent being better than the alternative.
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| If a company changes the licensing on a code to not be proprietary, it doesn't make sense to call it proprietary anymore... |
| Operating systems aren't used just on Desktops or Laptops. |
| Popularity also doesn't necessarily represent being better than the alternative. |
I personally prefer Windows over any *nix system, and OSX is my next favorite. Linux can be pretty involved when trying to just do your typical everyday task. A lot of programs you have to compile to simply run. Not everyone is a programmer, and they don't always want to compile some program of unknown quality just to use it. Driver support on Linux is dodgy to say the least, so some of your peripherals that you love might not be able to be even used.
Pretty much nothing on *nix has a debugger as powerful as VS's, and Photoshop makes GIMP look like MSPaint.
Last edited on
All i see is Windows and Linux warriors all around.
As a Arch Linux user i will say these. Yes OpenGL and Linux are on the rise. Thats a fact we can not ignore.
Thinking OpenGL NG and DirectX12 will be released at the end of 2015. OpenGL may have the upper hand for a next few years, maybe 5. But you never know, it is Microsoft we are talking about and lots of American Dollars.
But for Linux it will never be the choice of the users(Remember i am a Linux user). Why? Well, there are lots of reasons for this.
First of all, all the support Linux takes from companies such as RedHat, Google, Samsung goes to Linux. Remember Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
And all the big OS'es such as Ubuntu and Mint only cares about money. The donation button you see is what makes their mouths droll. Of course earning money for work is not a bad thing, but i can easily say this "Ubuntu is Windows of Linux World". They do not care about users. Only to an extent to keep their users donating them. Just like Windows(Windows dont care about users as long as it can get their money).
Programs in Linux sucks, really. @Avilius is right about Gimp. Also Libre office looks like a text editor compared to MSOffice.
Desktop enviroments are not complete. They lack lots of features and they are buggy. And yet developers do not add lacked features. Instead they add fancy animations and effects. When a desktop envirement is almost complete. I mean almost, they drop the project and start a new one.
Also Desktop Environment developers are obsessed about something. KDE developers are obsessed about effects, Xfce's about minimalistic, Gnome about animations and nice looking. But what do one get in the end. Not complete, buggy, just lots of bad choices.
Hell, what changed in Gnome 3.14 after 6 months of waiting. They added lots of animations. What about the notification system. Nothing. When you watch a movie. A notification jumps. And if you dont press the close button, it just stands there while disturbing you.
And it is no joke that community needs professional touch.
These are just my thoughts but i am very angry at Linux Desktop and program developers. If this keeps going i am going to start my own Desktop Environment. But one can easily say Linux is the best kernel that there is.
I got carried away, sorry.
As a Arch Linux user i will say these. Yes OpenGL and Linux are on the rise. Thats a fact we can not ignore.
Thinking OpenGL NG and DirectX12 will be released at the end of 2015. OpenGL may have the upper hand for a next few years, maybe 5. But you never know, it is Microsoft we are talking about and lots of American Dollars.
First of all, all the support Linux takes from companies such as RedHat, Google, Samsung goes to Linux. Remember Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
And all the big OS'es such as Ubuntu and Mint only cares about money. The donation button you see is what makes their mouths droll. Of course earning money for work is not a bad thing, but i can easily say this "Ubuntu is Windows of Linux World". They do not care about users. Only to an extent to keep their users donating them. Just like Windows(Windows dont care about users as long as it can get their money).
Programs in Linux sucks, really. @Avilius is right about Gimp. Also Libre office looks like a text editor compared to MSOffice.
Desktop enviroments are not complete. They lack lots of features and they are buggy. And yet developers do not add lacked features. Instead they add fancy animations and effects. When a desktop envirement is almost complete. I mean almost, they drop the project and start a new one.
Also Desktop Environment developers are obsessed about something. KDE developers are obsessed about effects, Xfce's about minimalistic, Gnome about animations and nice looking. But what do one get in the end. Not complete, buggy, just lots of bad choices.
Hell, what changed in Gnome 3.14 after 6 months of waiting. They added lots of animations. What about the notification system. Nothing. When you watch a movie. A notification jumps. And if you dont press the close button, it just stands there while disturbing you.
And it is no joke that community needs professional touch.
These are just my thoughts but i am very angry at Linux Desktop and program developers. If this keeps going i am going to start my own Desktop Environment. But one can easily say Linux is the best kernel that there is.
I got carried away, sorry.
Last edited on
I'm not saying Windows isn't good but that doesn't make Linux any less good. Windows is more established and Linux is still growing on the desktop market. That doesn't invalidate Linux or MacOSX because of marketshare, that's fallacious logic. I'm also not mix and matching, I'm saying that Linux and FreeBSD are probably more rampant in a server environment while Android and iOS is more rampant in a embedded environment. That doesn't invalidate Windows in either of those environments like it doesn't invalidate Linux for the desktop environment.
io Quake 3 is a great example of this and how development continues have a proprietary project opens its source. VirtualBox, ioDoom3, and Chrome and a few others are excellent examples of having a proprietary and open-source solution at the same time, all of which have some form of community contribution. How is this not an example I can use? What difference would it make if any of them started as proprietary-only or not?
Curious as to what makes you say this? Do you have a feature parity list you use?
| But you can't use it to support your claims. It's not like there was any period of development where it was open source. |
io Quake 3 is a great example of this and how development continues have a proprietary project opens its source. VirtualBox, ioDoom3, and Chrome and a few others are excellent examples of having a proprietary and open-source solution at the same time, all of which have some form of community contribution. How is this not an example I can use? What difference would it make if any of them started as proprietary-only or not?
| Pretty much nothing on *nix has a debugger as powerful as VS's, and Photoshop makes GIMP look like MSPaint. |
Curious as to what makes you say this? Do you have a feature parity list you use?
Last edited on
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| I'm also not mix and matching, I'm saying that Linux and FreeBSD are probably more rampant in a server environment while Android and iOS is more rampant in a embedded environment. That doesn't invalidate Windows in either of those environments like it doesn't invalidate Linux for the desktop environment. |
| io Quake 3 is a great example of this and how development continues have a proprietary project opens its source. VirtualBox, ioDoom3, and Chrome and a few others are excellent examples of having a proprietary and open-source solution at the same time, all of which have some form of community contribution. How is this not an example I can use? What difference would it make if any of them started as proprietary-only or not? |
Gimp isn't as established as Photoshop is. The fact that they have a dedicated team working on it (and money definitely boosts morales) is because of this. Pretty much with Gimp you work on it when you feel like it. Photoshop definitely feels more professional when using it.
Codeblock's IDE (arguably the best on *nix) is simply bad compared to Visual Studio's. I find Visual Studio's tools definitely better laid out, and Codeblock's auto-complete feature is far from ideal to use. AFAIK codeblocks doesn't have a toolchain for consoles as well.
There's a reason why both of these tools are preferred.
(These aren't the best arguments, but if I get a bit more time later on I'll write a better list.)
So GIMP is bad because it's less established?
One IDE which you choose means all free alternatives compared to VS is bad?
ioDoom3 and ioQuake3 started as closed-source proprietary products. Do you miss that?
Visual Studio isn't generally preferred. Hell, I know more people who use nothing but a text editor than I do VS (I know one person who likes VS and he calls it a guilty pleasure because that's what he learned in). It depends on the environment and I can argue that VS isn't a clear winner when it comes to an IDE, especially if you're looking for a C++ environment that provides latest and greatest. Where as other IDEs try and allow more than one compiler out of the box, VC++ well integrates with one. Flexible code generally needs to work with multiple compilers and while that includes VC++, it also includes things like Intel C++, GCC, and Clang.
Also, arguably the best? You're forgetting Eclipse, Netbeans, Qt Creator, CodeLite, and the million others that are of decent popularity and quality. I personally prefer Qt Creator over all other IDEs except I don't generally use an IDE. It has an excellent frontend for GDB and has a clear and flexible interface that can suit any project. Why would you assume that one application is the best on a given platform when there's so many different IDEs?
One IDE which you choose means all free alternatives compared to VS is bad?
ioDoom3 and ioQuake3 started as closed-source proprietary products. Do you miss that?
Visual Studio isn't generally preferred. Hell, I know more people who use nothing but a text editor than I do VS (I know one person who likes VS and he calls it a guilty pleasure because that's what he learned in). It depends on the environment and I can argue that VS isn't a clear winner when it comes to an IDE, especially if you're looking for a C++ environment that provides latest and greatest. Where as other IDEs try and allow more than one compiler out of the box, VC++ well integrates with one. Flexible code generally needs to work with multiple compilers and while that includes VC++, it also includes things like Intel C++, GCC, and Clang.
Also, arguably the best? You're forgetting Eclipse, Netbeans, Qt Creator, CodeLite, and the million others that are of decent popularity and quality. I personally prefer Qt Creator over all other IDEs except I don't generally use an IDE. It has an excellent frontend for GDB and has a clear and flexible interface that can suit any project. Why would you assume that one application is the best on a given platform when there's so many different IDEs?
Perhaps you should try out QT Creator.
Also, autocomplete != debugger (not even intellisense is a debugger)
Codeblocks and QT creator are not toolkits, but can be configured for console toolkits.
(Yes, actually you could've brought up better arguments - I can only share some of your GIMP hate, but as a lowbudget PC user I cannot afford PS and I am not going to crack it, so I just got used to GIMP and that's it)
Also, autocomplete != debugger (not even intellisense is a debugger)
Codeblocks and QT creator are not toolkits, but can be configured for console toolkits.
(Yes, actually you could've brought up better arguments - I can only share some of your GIMP hate, but as a lowbudget PC user I cannot afford PS and I am not going to crack it, so I just got used to GIMP and that's it)
| NoXzema wrote: |
|---|
| ioDoom3 and ioQuake3 started as closed-source proprietary products. Do you miss that? |
| I wrote: |
|---|
| But .Net hasn't had any major outside contributions as of yet AFAIK. It's different because ioDoom3 and ioQuake 3 has years of development in the open source community. |
| Visual Studio isn't generally preferred. Hell, I know more people who use nothing but a text editor than I do VS (I know one person who likes VS and he calls it a guilty pleasure because that's what he learned in). It depends on the environment and I can argue that VS isn't a clear winner when it comes to an IDE, especially if you're looking for a C++ environment that provides latest and greatest. Where as other IDEs try and allow more than one compiler out of the box, VC++ well integrates with one. |
| Also, arguably the best? You're forgetting Eclipse, Netbeans, Qt Creator, CodeLite, and the million others that are of decent popularity and quality. I personally prefer Qt Creator over all other IDEs except I don't generally use an IDE. It has an excellent frontend for GDB and has a clear and flexible interface that can suit any project. Why would you assume that one application is the best on a given platform when there's so many different IDEs? |
Do you think Qt Creator's debugger is better than Visual Studios?
QT Creator does not ship with a debugger.
Debuggers are part of toolkits: VC++ toolkit is supported by QT creator, as an example.
But it also supports clang and gcc (with gdb debugger).
It's only missing the edit-code-at-runtime feature, which i stopped using a lot of time ago anyways so I did not really care.
Debuggers are part of toolkits: VC++ toolkit is supported by QT creator, as an example.
But it also supports clang and gcc (with gdb debugger).
It's only missing the edit-code-at-runtime feature, which i stopped using a lot of time ago anyways so I did not really care.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.