Hey Francis, Windows 2003 Server and Windows XP are very similar operating systems. The only differences worth to mention for the scope of this discussion are: 1. Security - Windows 2003 have a bigger emphasis on security than Windows XP has. 2. The TCP/IP stack. The Windows XP network stack has been 'limited' in many ways to keep people from using it as a server. Evil huh? 3. License requirements. Some high-performance computing features are only avaiable for Windows 2003.
Eric Raymond's "The Art of Unix Programming" is worth reading. It is more a discussion of the 'culture' of Unix than Unix programming as such and should give some insight into the real differences with the Windows world. Available free at http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/
You are a truly immature kid with an ego of a overgrown wise guy. In my corrective reply, I simply repaid you in kind.
I'm sorry, but it still sounds like a sales pitch to me. Key word "deep pockets' linked to Unix. Truth is Linux is free, the BSD's are free and you can now have Solaris for free also. And development tools, databases, Office Software and many. many other things for free. The 'you're a small guy, I'm on your side' pitch Oh come on. Regardless of whether VS 2005 is or is not the best IDE around, 6 weeks to 6 months comparison is ridiculous. Are we to believe that by the single stroke of releasing VS 2005 MS has advanced the art of software engineering by that much ? And the clincher. The financial carrot -
Hi Craig, He certainly must have been a toddler at the time M$ was nervously hopscotching from one 'great' thing to the other. You remember those VS4, VS5, VS6 standards of excellence? Remember MFC? Later we got that splendid rose lined migration path to still even 'greater' tools. Talking about the Art of Software Engineering. Look at Borland over this time stretch. They made M$ nervously scramble for some kind of clone of their environment. Right now, Borlands' C/C++ compilers are still among the top, possibly 'the' top. You keep on stumbling on warnings about NOT compiling apps for win32 using MSVC compilers. Borland, among others, is always with the 'good' list. Compare Guido Van Rossum's or Yukihiro Matsumoto's contributions to that of the C# & .NET circus. Further, somebody will still have to write a bookie about C# rivaling 30 years from now with the still revered reprints of "The C Programming Language". Talking about "deep pockets", a guy with such kind of pockets in Redmond ought perhaps try to "buy" themselves a fellow like Guido or Yukihiro and make him the dictator of that place. Unfortunately, these guys may prefer not to get stuck in that goo.
Well, it would be if Microsoft was paying me to be here Now, that is soooo funny. A pro-Linux person has 'opinion' and a pro-Windows person has 'sales pitch'? That sounds like some serious bias to me Oh, I am talking UNIX, not Linux. It isnt like you can really have a cheap Solaris or HP-UX setup. The fact that Solaris is free doesnt make Sun hardware any cheaper, does it? One big benefit of using Unix is the access to a caliber of hardware that isnt available to Windows. Taking the hardware out of the equation makes even harder to justify an anti-microsoft posture. Why dont you try it decide it for yourself? It is very 'healthy' to be well-versed in all different platforms. I am currently using Windows but I have tested and tried everything that comes out for Linux. Its a good thing.
Oh my, you are such a trouble maker! Are you able to share your opinion like an adult? Either you are really young or really immature... Why are you so eager to create conflict?
Now, that is something we wouldnt hear from a mature human being Nononsense = trouble maker / forum warrior