Just plain fucked...
in [Design]
|
Prev: Freq. Independent Phase Shifter
Next: Please, DO NOT forget the only thing that matters on this planet........................……..
From: StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt on 11 May 2010 05:32 On Tue, 11 May 2010 07:28:29 GMT, asdf <asdf(a)nospam.com> wrote: >Nope, it doesn't have at all. They simply reverse engineered the >*behaviour* of Windows programs to the point that when a windows program >asks the operating system (what it believes is the hosting operating >system) for example to open a window, a Linux function is called instead >with appropriate translation of its parameters/behaviour. translation IS emulation, dingledorf. It is the very definition of the word.
From: JosephKK on 11 May 2010 06:02 On Mon, 10 May 2010 14:31:23 -0700, "Joel Koltner" <zapwireDASHgroups(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >"Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >news:84rb16F5kuU2(a)mid.individual.net... >> I doubt it. I get around a lot because I am a consultant and have yet to see >> one single incidence of a Linux PC at a client. It's all Windows. > >For desktop PCs, Linux has something like 5% penetration so... yeah, I'd agree >that it's not really eating Bill's lunch (I expect Bill is far more worried >about Steve Jobs...). For embedded systems however it's a hands-down >winner -- something like 75% market share these days. > >Also note that while a desktop Linux PC is an unusual thing, I'd bet a nickel >that at least one of your clients was running Linux back in their server room >somewhere, and probably most of them have their web sites on machines running >Linux. Heck, *your* web site is run on a Linux server! :-) Where i work the back ends are mostly Sun servers, with a couple of marginally compatible large IBM systems. > >> What eats their lunch is guys like me who stay with legacy SW and OSes. > >He's doing his darnedest to force you to upgrade. :-)
From: John Devereux on 11 May 2010 06:06 Archimedes' Lever <OneBigLever(a)InfiniteSeries.Org> writes: > On Tue, 11 May 2010 08:18:49 +0100, John Devereux <john(a)devereux.me.uk> > wrote: > >>StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt <Zarathustra(a)thusspoke.org> writes: >> >>> On Mon, 10 May 2010 22:13:21 GMT, asdf <asdf(a)nospam.com> wrote: >>> >>>> WINE *does not run under a vitual machine or emulated >>>>hardware*. >>> >>> >>> Total bullshit. >>> >>> You took their claim as fact. You are a gullible twit. >>> >>> It MUST run UNDER a virtual machine and hardware MUST be emulated to do >>> so. >> >> >>What, they secretly implemented a virtual machine instead of just >>replacing the windows DLLs with their own ones like they claim? >> >>The sneaky bastards! > > Linux uses "DLLs"? I was unaware. There are a couple of hundred of them right now in my /usr/lib/wine. E.g. comcat.dll.so comctl32.dll.so comdlg32.dll.so commdlg.dll16 comm.drv16 compobj.dll16 compstui.dll.so control.exe.so credui.dll.so crtdll.dll.so crypt32.dll.so cryptdlg.dll.so cryptdll.dll.so cryptnet.dll.so cryptui.dll.so ctapi32.dll.so ctl3d32.dll.so ctl3d.dll16 ctl3dv2.dll16 Look familiar? >> >>Thanks for exposing this conspiracy! > > Translation IS emulation. Get thyselfeth a clueeth. You claimed: >>> It MUST run UNDER a virtual machine and hardware MUST be emulated to do >>> so. Nowhere is there a virtual machine or hardware being emulated. I suppose you are going to start redefining words now. -- John Devereux
From: Nico Coesel on 11 May 2010 06:19 Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: >Joel Koltner wrote: >> "Joerg" <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote in message >> news:84rb16F5kuU2(a)mid.individual.net... >>> I doubt it. I get around a lot because I am a consultant and have yet >>> to see one single incidence of a Linux PC at a client. It's all Windows. >> >> For desktop PCs, Linux has something like 5% penetration so... yeah, I'd >> agree that it's not really eating Bill's lunch (I expect Bill is far >> more worried about Steve Jobs...). For embedded systems however it's a >> hands-down winner -- something like 75% market share these days. >> > >5%? Who did that statistical analysis? I have never seen a computer >running Linux, only a few with Mac-OS. You don't have to see the computer. I use Linux almost daily. The computer itself is tucked away in a server cabinet. I share it with a few colleagues by using the Xming X-windows server. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico(a)nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
From: JosephKK on 11 May 2010 06:34
On Mon, 10 May 2010 15:29:55 -0500, Frnak McKenney <frnak(a)far.from.the.madding.crowd.com> wrote: >On Sun, 09 May 2010 18:31:45 -0700, John Fields <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> So, I went down to Fry's and bought an HP p6310f PC... > > [...] > >> Oh well, there's always LTspice. > >Which, by the way, runs really nicely on Ubuntu Linux 9.04 via Wine. > >Just in case, y'know... <grin!> > > >Frank McKenney Actually, the programmers responsible made a point of it running in wine. |