Comments on: I Love Windows!

By: Nerdbeard

Nerdbeard — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 19:42:53 +0000

So?
"Linux" is hardly a complete platform. It’s scarcely even a meaningful word, let alone a development target. "KDE" is a platform comparable to Windows, and (as you note) it *does* have a standard component architecture, as well as a boatload of excellent components. Better yet and unlike COM, you can run it on a wide range of hardware and OS environments. IIUC, you can even use DCOP components on Windows, if you are so pathologically inclined.

Saying Windows is better than Linux or *BSD is a bit like saying wagons are better than wheels.

By: Nerdbeard

Nerdbeard — Wed, 22 Feb 2006 18:07:47 +0000

Ego vs Profit
What’s worse, an ego-driven standard, or one that will ultimately be leveraged in every possible way to wring as much money out of you as possible? I’d rather not use a component architecture that only works on one OS — and a commercial one at that.

By: Philipp von Weitershausen

Philipp von Weitershausen — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 18:41:06 +0000

Do you like anything else than COM?
Yes, having lots functionality from other Windows programs and Windows services available via COM and making functionality available that way is pretty cool. I think .NET is even cooler and it looks like Microsoft is seriously propagating IronPython as a first class .NET platform language. That rocks.

Component models are not everything, though. And it’s not like OSX or KDE don’t have a component model either which brings me to the question: Do you like anything else about Windows other than COM? There’s not too much more to like I’ve found.

By: Florian

Florian — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 00:13:33 +0000

wtf?
Dude I seriously wish you would get a clue.

By: Jo�o Marcus

Jo�o Marcus — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:12:08 +0000

COM is good because Microsoft has complete control…
Microsoft can make their own standards, because every Windows developer will use them. The same applies to Apple. Linux has competing standards, and some developers have giant egos. Such developers can’t stand using what’s already there, they want to build a better alternative. I’m not saying it’s always bad.

By: Sidnei da Silva

Sidnei da Silva — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:47:19 +0000

twisted, filesystems
I’m not Mark Hammond-level on Windows expertise, but I surely hope to get there someday. Then I could volunteer for mantaining twisted on Windows.

As for filesystems, I haven’t benchmarked anything but certainly NTFS feels faster than OS X’s HFS+/UFS. ;)

By: Glyph Lefkowitz

Glyph Lefkowitz — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 16:39:47 +0000

Hello!
I am tempted to reply to this with a screed about how awful Windows is (and I can’t resist this one snark: it’s not just the networking; have you ever SEEN how badly Windows’ filesystem performs???)

I’ll try to resist others though, and say: Hello! Twisted needs a Windows maintainer badly. Are you interested? :)

By: Sidnei da Silva

Sidnei da Silva — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:58:44 +0000

of course
Yeah, I know CORBA. But a component architecture is nothing without components. Best I can tell, CORBA is pretty much abandoned these days.

The problem as I see it is that Linux doesn’t have yet agreed on a standard component architecture. KDE has DCOP, Gnome has bonobo, and now there’s also D-BUS. It will take a while until we get mature components for some enterprise-level tasks.

By: Tim Olsen

Tim Olsen — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 15:38:11 +0000

there are other component technologies out there
COM is not the only component technology out there. Have you heard of CORBA? (It runs on Linux too). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_componentry for an overview of the available technologies.