I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you. :)
> 2) no, I do not believe screen-sharing Windows apps is superior to running
> them locally (i.e. they both suck :-)
In time, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
> 3) WINE is an emulation of a very restricted subset of Windows,
> essentially only the gui calls. Win32 consists of *hundreds* more:
WINE is like the French resistance of Win32 emulators. And Microsoft's
Vichy France will be defeated.
I hope, I hope, I hope...
> COM, notification, file system, security, network sharing, socket
> layer, mangement, printing, you name it.
Every war has to have its battles. Now all we need is a good four-star
general whose first name sounds like something anal...
> It's the same overwhelming suite of added capabilities that ActiveX
> could clobber Java with -- it's a race for apis far beneath the
> pixelated surface.
Maybe Joe is right. One well-placed bomb could free the world.
> Just trying to visualize and untangle all the layers of MS APIs would be a
> great exercise for a real-life Prime Radiant [see Asimov's Foundation].
Ooooo... keen reference. Better than Aragorn.
> 4) The 85-15% rule is a theorem of Cringley's. There's no really
> compelling evidence it will remain true.
Especially since the current 15% is MacOS, which is really only 6%.
> It is *possible* for a Windows world to win. The competition may be
> non-computer-based: after all, personal computers may be on the losing
> side of 85-15% vs. Nintendo-style game boxes.
Duke Nukem first, all other apps second.
> Bzzzt. Go back and try a better analysis, Adamn... :-)
I'm giving 'er all I've g't, kiptin... the dilithium and diprozac
crystals won't hold out much l'nger... I c'nnot change the laws
of physics, you know...
> Geez, choosing between Internet Explorer and Netscape is like choosing
> between Clinton and Dole. IE, like Clinton, is slick on the outside,
> but they lie nonstop and are continually changing in an effort to beat
> their competition. Netscape, like Dole, has been around forever (in
> Internet years, at least), is clumsy, is unlucky enough to lose to
> Microsoft or Clinton, is bringing in all kinds of others to play on his
> "team" and pays lip service to the "pro-choice" group even though
> he's... shit, my analogy is breaking down.
I forgot to mention that the W3C is like Ross Perot's Reform Party...
you really WANT them to succeed, but there's no way the two major
parties are gonna let them have any pull at all...