Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #343837
| From | DFS <nospam@dfs.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.os.linux.advocacy |
| Subject | Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code |
| Date | 2016-02-17 20:40 -0500 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <na378m$u8o$5@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <na0c59025os@news7.newsguy.com> <na0feb$8ob$3@dont-email.me> <fhug98d02.a0p@rooftop.invalid> |
On 2/16/2016 7:59 PM, owl wrote: > DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote: >> On 2/16/2016 6:42 PM, Fabian Russell wrote: >>> Microsoft Windows is so fscking wishy-washy in a number of ways. >>> But the pinnacle of MSFT asininity is that it distributes most >>> executables as byte code (or MSIL for Microsoft Intermediate >>> Language). >>> >>> Only after a program is loaded does it get translated into the >>> appropriate machine language (JIT), and the process is done piece >>> by fscking piece with many palpable lags. >> >> >> Which lags are you referring to? >> >> Win8 and later are very fast OSes. >> > > Fastest unwanted OSes ever. Win10: 11.85% user share after 6 months, free of cost to many Linux: 1.71% user share after 20 years, free of cost to all ouch! Win8 was a pile of crap, 8.1 offered some fixes, and 10 got them back on track. >> MS Office is far more snappy than LibreOffice. >> > > You misspelled far more crappy. LibreOffice: now with limited macro recording. No wonder - they've only had 13+ years of development... >>> What an idiotic scheme, but yet it is so typical of MSFT. But I >>> suppose that such schemes are necessary to not reveal their >>> precious source code. >> >> Do you give your work away for free? So why are you complaining, >> hypocrite... >> >> >> >>> (If Microsoft ever did publish its source code, it is most >>> certain that many would discover the overall design to be an >>> atrocious monstrosity with many, many egregious oversights.) >> >> >> "...the quality of the code is generally excellent. Modules are >> small, and procedures generally fit on a single screen. The >> commenting is very detailed about intentions, but doesn't fall into >> "add one to i" redundancy." >> > > Funnier in its entirety. > >> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/2/15/71552/7795 "the quality of the code is generally excellent" tells you all you need to know. But... do you mean every line of MS code isn't perfect? That it actually contains hacks to maintain many years of backward compatibility? No way...
Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-02-16 23:42 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-02-16 19:41 -0500
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-02-17 00:59 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-02-17 20:40 -0500
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2016-02-18 01:59 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-02-17 23:40 -0500
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-02-17 01:20 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code Desk Rabbit <me@example.com> - 2016-02-17 12:38 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code John Gohde <john.h.gohde@gmail.com> - 2016-02-17 04:52 -0800
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-02-17 22:57 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-02-17 20:38 -0500
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code Fabian Russell <fb@zen.info> - 2016-02-18 10:31 +0000
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2016-02-19 09:26 -0500
Re: Linux Compile; Windows Byte Code "Ezekiel" <zeke@nosuchemail.com> - 2016-02-19 11:29 -0500
csiph-web