On Wed, 15 Dec 2004 14:48:23 -0500 Christian Convey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jacob S wrote: > > I think the question answers itself when they have to stop adding > > features just so they can work on bugs and security holes. And they > > did make that announcement not all that long ago. > > I think I understand. You're saying that we only have 'x' programmer > hours, and we need to spend it getting the low-level plumbing in place > rather than making pure eye-candy. Right? Exactly. It's the choice between a fancy GUI that crashes all the time, or stuff that works reliably once you figure out how to set it up. (I understand Windows may not be that far behind any more, but then neither is Linux as far behind as they used to be.) As Jon Dowland said in a previous e-mail, the Linux programmers that have gotten us this far are doing the programming "Usually unpaid, in their spare time, after forking out for the device in question, without access to technical specs." And don't forget, we're arguing these points while comparing the "most popular operating system in the world" that has a huge budget, with one that experts said would "never work" because it's programmed by volunteers and paid for out of the programmers own wallets. Jacob -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
