On May 3, 2004 02:56 pm, Willibald Krenn wrote:
"Basically they offer significant threading improvements in order to solve the " C10K" problem."
Sure it has a positive side too - Linux seems to be a very good choice for Servers today..
Oh, so we should just ignore the little problems that happen on the server and instead go with the "no-fixes-but-perfectly-backward-compatible" way for the desktop? I really appreciate it when users are not separated into categories of extremely low and extremely high priority, independent of their platform and demands. IM very HO the developers did the right thing(afaics now) and if there's a proprietary vendor who doesn't care about what they have to say/do, it's his own damn fault when their software stops working properly as here. Complain just to Borland, please. I'm pretty sure they knew what kind of market they're getting into.
Ok, to stop the thread I've started right here: I would love to see Linux getting on the Desktop! Otherwise I wouldn't have purchased a development tool that produces desktop applications for Linux (and is now several generations behind). Unfortunately it seems that no one (except IBM and SCO perhaps ;-) ) has come up with a concept of making money from Linux based applications.
I wouldn't even try to guess that before actually doing some research.
AFIU costs for testing in all possible distribution, kernel/glib combinations plus supplying frequent updates is too high and sale figures too low.
Why bother, then?