OT: Next Time you sing happy birthday

[Ian Petersen]

On 8/14/07, James Knott <james.knott-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org> wrote:
> JoeHill wrote:
> > Empires do not require an enemy to become pretty much ignored and ineffective.
> > They do it to themselves every time. Beautiful thing to watch.
> >
> >
> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,2168426,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K0000616

The general "feel" of that article is nice, but the details in it are
rather questionable.  From the article:

"[In a Linux-based OS there is] no such thing as a DLL, which Crawford
described as the second most evil thing in Windows behind ActiveX."

Doesn't an .so serve the same purpose as a DLL?  I don't know much
about DLLs, so there could be subtle differences in purpose that I'm
unaware of, but I though DLL stood for "dynamic link library", or
something similar, and is therefor basically the same as an .so
(shared object, right?).

Also from the article:

"We also need to get the different distributions to work on a common
release cycle,"

I suppose you might convince Suse, Red Hat, and Ubuntu to come up with
some kind of general intention to _try_ to adhere to a common release
schedule, but outside of that this suggestion seems like complete
lunacy to me.

It may be the case that Vista is driving Windows users to Linux, but
the article seems to have weak foundations....

Ian

-- 
Tired of pop-ups, security holes, and spyware?
Try Firefox: http://www.getfirefox.com
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists