Netmaster wrote:Well , JS and it's products are a lightyear away from anything that could be anyhow described as "perfect"!
Please, you're souding really stupid just call them Microsoft as that is their name drop this JS crap.
I've been working with windows for about ten years and they have been a nightmare so far.
From the sound of it you are more than likely the issue and not the operating system, if it were the operating system which was at fault I seriously doubt we'd still have ~95% of PC users running their products.
to be honest , closed source is bad when it covers sensetive issues like OS programming etc.
I'm sorry you're going to need to explain why.
Could you plz explain the highlighted word?
Superior means greater than.
superior userbase? If i were you I would use the word "inferior" to describe the folks who use js's products .
I don't see how that could possibly be the case, as if you combined the userbases of say the top 100 products available on the market it would still be substancially less than the userbases of Microsoft's Windows operating systems as 97 out of those 100 products are probably Win32 programs which means they will require one of Microsoft's Windows operating systems to run. Therefore, Microsoft's userbase is superior.
anyhow , a good developer doesn't wait for the users to find the bugs for him!
Every developer has his users find bugs for him, a naieve developer thinks he can find them all himself. Everyone has a different configuration (be it software or hardware), and every configuration will produce different effects on software run on it, so a bug for one user very likely won't be a bug for another therefore the user has to be the one to find it, the developer then fixes it. The line I quoted above clearly shows you are not a developer of any nature (and that is not limited to computers either, the same goes for any other developer such as a property developer).
well feel free to quote the sentence where you think that I made that assumption , again you're mis-interpreting my words.
"first of all take any open source project , now if you look at there work and find bugs in it then that would be normal , Why? because it's an open source project! (i.e the folks involved in it aren't paid etc) on the other hand take a commercial project that produces software in the same category (JS as an example) So when you look at there work and find bugs in it.....(and you shall find alot of bugs int it (sigh) usually)
Then that would be in-accetable! because you've paid money money and alot of money , so nobody wants to see some junk in return for the hard earned cash. (ain't that obvious so far?)"
You just said open source means bugs (although acceptible bugs, which is dumb as no bugs are acceptible however they are unavoidable) and closed source should mean no bugs however they are there anyway (as they should as bugs are unavoidable). You also made an inaccuate correlation between closed source meaning paid and open source meaning free, open source is almost never "free" and closed source isn't necessarily paid.
Also, let's get this straight, "in-acceptible" is not a word, it's unacceptable - I'm sorry but that really bugged me in your earlier post, I appreciate english may not be your first language so here's a correction for you if that is the case.
This conversation is getting old really fast, I'd appreciate it if you actually came up with some facts or at least substancial arguments if you want to continue as I'm kinda getting bored of saying "you're wrong" over and over as I have done since you started your Microsoft bashing.
