Well, OK Danny.
I'm typing this on a laptop running WinXP (as the previous.)
Yes, Linux FTW, blah, blah, blah.
I have written some stuff in Cache MUMPS that I haven't yet converted to
GT.m. But then again, Cache runs on Solaris and RedHat (and Win*, and
VAX/VMS) so it isn't a reason to run on a Windows platform in and of itself.
Anything I port from my home Linux server or from my home WinXPpro, I have
to change directories, SQL connectors, ports, and the like for. The port
from WinXP to Linux is mainly switching "C:\" to "/home"....and
anyplace I've hard-coded a "\".
I am not as optimistic that River will _buy_ a cache license from
, as I am optimistic that he'll be able to get a version
(any version!) of GT.m (free beer/speech) installed for me. Both run
approximately as well in both environments.
Downstairs on my Linux boxen, I have shell scripts. I don't have a single
.BAT file on Windows that might be applicable on toolserver. Not one.
(That kindof makes sense, in that you'd use batch files to move files
around, perhaps. Even if you had equivalent files, they'd have to be
rewritten for toolserver.)
Converting my stuff from Fedora to Debian is challenging enough. The
directories, per se, are all different. (It's an exercise in proper
discipline, to make sure configuration stuff like that is /relative/ and in
a .config file. But a good discipline, no matter how you look at it.)
But converting from a single-user WinXP environment to a Vista Server
environment? Doing such a thing would be much more challenging and
difficult than just converting it to a Linux flavor.
(Oh, except for the fact that Cache 5 runs on WinXP, not Vista...that
requires Cache.2007b, with it's per-connection licensing. And some amount
of exhaustive testing to make sure things still work right in the version
for the new platform.)
Did I say Linux FTW? I guess I should now. I very strongly feel that
wherever possible, proprietary systems (anti-freedom) should be avoided.
(Again, typing this on one-such hated Windows OS, with Cache running in the
Windows, as a platform, has done everything it can to make command-line
programming something for "other" OSes. Well, whether Windows, Linux,
Solaris or something else, the toolserver shared environment is a
command-line environment. You really can't do anything useful on a
long-distance GUI. VNC or Remote Desktop work the same, bandwidth-wise.
Running AWB would copy the screen image frames to you slowly over teh
internets...that would be much, much slower than running AWB locally.
(Plus: it wouldn't take many VNC/RD connections to saturate the bandwidth to
On another note, someone devoted enough could probably port the IRC linkbot
code to Windows and we could exile the linkbots there. (That's almost
certainly been done by someone, somewhere.) But only if it has been a
I dunno - I just don't get where this request is coming from. Are there
disadvantaged programmers wandering around carrying signs that say "WILL
WORK FOR VISTA LICENSES" or something? If you're going to port
local-specific code to a command-line environment...why would you ever
choose Windows? You'd have to really like "\" and really haet
A "Windows programmer" would still have all the same barriers to entry -
none of their stuff would work on a shared WinTS, and the GUI would just be
slower than if they ran stuff locally. Much slower.
Connel (LFTW) MacKenzie