Has anybody else noticed that, recently, Microsoft has been releasing mroe source code/making more projects open source that I've noticed in the past?

They released open source sample applications with the Whidbey beta, and have made a lot of other things open source such as Cassini. Then, what made me decide to post this topic, today the announcement was made that their ASP.NET forums, which in my opinion are very nice, are now becoming open source.

Perhaps this is Microsoft trying to appeal to more pro-open source developers and appear less like a monopolizing company?

Or maybe they are hoping by releasing source they are increasing .NET development?

microsoft is slowly but definatly making a move towards open source I think. I have noticed it too. Infact I read an article about it a while back that speculated that windows would go open source in the future. I guess open source is just the way to be.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73331 date=1091163990]
microsoft is slowly but definatly making a move towards open source I think. I have noticed it too. Infact I read an article about it a while back that speculated that windows would go open source in the future. I guess open source is just the way to be.
[/quote]

Well, more people want open source programming. What'd you expect?

They'll probably give away, half the source code, and you'd have to buy the rest. lol.

I don't think Windows should be open source. There'd be a lot of security holes found instantly and it'd really hurt Microsoft since Windows is one of their top selling software.

If it were open source, more people are reviewing the code. Thus, a larger pool of people are available to:

1. Spot bugs before they affect performance or security
2. Repair bugs once they are discovered



I think the real reason Microsoft is doing opensource stuff is to prove that their programmers can really write code. Windows Me was pretty slipshod. ;)

[quote author=Stealth link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73337 date=1091168646]
I think the real reason Microsoft is doing opensource stuff is to prove that their programmers can really write code. Windows Me was pretty slipshod. ;)
[/quote]

That's definitely not the reason.

The winky-face implies that I'm making a poor attempt at a joke. =)

I thought you were refering to "Windows Me was pretty slipshod."

[quote](01:19:02) Trust: Microsoft <3 Open source :p
(01:19:19) iago: Microsoft </3 losing money to Linux[/quote]

I think that explains everything :)

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73351 date=1091175972]
[quote](01:19:02) Trust: Microsoft <3 Open source :p
(01:19:19) iago: Microsoft </3 losing money to Linux[/quote]

I think that explains everything :)

[/quote] I don't think they are loosing much to linux. Maybe possibly in the web server market, but they still completely dominate the desktop world. Hell my next door neighbor though windows was the only operating system, she didn't know what linux was, never eaven heard of it. Or unix. She had heard of macs before though... but they advertise.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73364 date=1091203170]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73351 date=1091175972]
[quote](01:19:02) Trust: Microsoft <3 Open source :p
(01:19:19) iago: Microsoft </3 losing money to Linux[/quote]

I think that explains everything :)

[/quote] I don't think they are loosing much to linux. Maybe possibly in the web server market, but they still completely dominate the desktop world. Hell my next door neighbor though windows was the only operating system, she didn't know what linux was, never eaven heard of it. Or unix. She had heard of macs before though... but they advertise.
[/quote]

I know a lot of people who've never heard of Linux. I have also heard of a lot of people who have changed over to using Linux instead of Windows (myself, for one). More and more people are using Linux at home. Maybe not a large percent, but some people.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73331 date=1091163990]
microsoft is slowly but definatly making a move towards open source I think. I have noticed it too. Infact I read an article about it a while back that speculated that windows would go open source in the future. I guess open source is just the way to be.
[/quote]

I think a good part of the reason that Microsoft is going open-source is that .NET is decompilable, even after obfuscation (although I have to say, Dotfuscator really messes you up sometimes. It makes looks like:
[code]
while (true) {
return;
}
[/code]
isn't that retarded-looking?)

Even if Windows went open-source, though, how many changes would they take as suggestions?

Plus, Windows is made up of so many other programs, how would you keep track? They can't make Windows Media Player open-source because it would make it possible to find ways to crack the media protection.

Linux doesn't present remotely any threat at all to the Windows desktop. Period.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73373 date=1091206644]
[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73364 date=1091203170]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=0#msg73351 date=1091175972]
[quote](01:19:02) Trust: Microsoft <3 Open source :p
(01:19:19) iago: Microsoft </3 losing money to Linux[/quote]

I think that explains everything :)

[/quote] I don't think they are loosing much to linux. Maybe possibly in the web server market, but they still completely dominate the desktop world. Hell my next door neighbor though windows was the only operating system, she didn't know what linux was, never eaven heard of it. Or unix. She had heard of macs before though... but they advertise.
[/quote]

I know a lot of people who've never heard of Linux. I have also heard of a lot of people who have changed over to using Linux instead of Windows (myself, for one). More and more people are using Linux at home. Maybe not a large percent, but some people.
[/quote]

And I'm sure for every person that switches to Linux on their desktop computer a new one buys a new desktop PC with Windows (maybe even more?). And of those people who do switch to Linux, probably have to switch back to Windows quite a bit for compatability reasons with their programs and what their friends and family use. I'm sure even hardcore Linux users have to use Windows sometimes (iago?).

Not really. It's getting to a point where if something can be done on windows, there is an open source equivalent for linux. There are already plenty of linux zealots who will refuse to use windows at all and can get along fine without it, and programs like Wine are supporting more and more windows apps every day.

If I can't use my printer, minidisc player, digital camera, some PCI device, etc, then I won't use it.

The two reasons people use Windows are being used to it and compatibility. First point doesnt matter; I've converted many people to use opera instead of IE. Second point, well...good luck.

Yes, Iago switches over to windows when he wants to watch people on webcam.

He's a nasty perv!

I've used WINE to run Win32 programs. From my experience with it, the program either looks horrible GUI-wise, crashes occasionally, and lacks support for many Windows apps. It's also important to understand, based on your needs will determine whether you truely need to switch between the operating systems. I doubt you would ever *need* Linux for something Windows couldn't do (correct me if I am wrong) even if Linux could do it better (highly arguable). An example, an IT professional would be more likely to have to switch between the two OSs based on consumer/customer needs than a home user who has familiarized themselves with Linux. But for another example, a regular home user who just switches to Linux probably wouldn't be able to adapt as well from Windows and would likely switch back permanently or for things they don't know how to do, or you can't do on Linux.

Also, on the subject of Linux vs Windows in the desktop area. Windows is simply easier for people to use and deploy as a home user (let's not get into business). And the consumer market is Windows, and most home users are capable of dishing out a $100 - $400 bucks for an operating system, or a $1000 for a new computer. And because Windows, and Microsoft apps are in the consumer market as basically #1, the mainstream of programming is going to be for Windows in the consumer market, not Linux. Until that changes, and Linux is made more user-friendly and aimed towards the consumer market/home user, I doubt very much Linux would ever take that position away from Windows.

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73428 date=1091245164]
I doubt you would ever *need* Linux for something Windows couldn't do (correct me if I am wrong) even if Linux could do it better (highly arguable).
[/quote]

Try installing Windows on a 1.44mb floppy. You can have a functional Linux installation that size.
Try booting a functional Windows shell off the installation cd.
Try making changes to the kernel for extra functionality (in a book I read, it explained how to fix SYN portscans by making a small change the kernel's source).
Try setting up Windows so it can be remotely administered (via telnet or ssh). I know it's possible, but it's a lot more difficult and troublesome.
Try running Linux programs from Windows.
Try reading Linux's filesystem.
Try using Windows as a router (port forwarding, etc). Linux does that quite easily.
Try using Windows as a firewall. Actually, a default Windows install NEEDS a firewall.
Try getting Windows to delete itself whlie running (thanks to Hitmen for this)
Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).
Try writing your own front-end to Windows (like Kde, Gnome, BlackBox, WindowMaker, etc).

Hmm, I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but those are many things I can do on Linux but not Windows.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73423 date=1091241644]
Yes, Iago switches over to windows when he wants to watch people on webcam.

He's a nasty perv!
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm too lazy to find the right software for my webcam. IT's recognized, I just don't have software to use it.

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73432 date=1091245986]
[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73428 date=1091245164]
I doubt you would ever *need* Linux for something Windows couldn't do (correct me if I am wrong) even if Linux could do it better (highly arguable).
[/quote]

Try installing Windows on a 1.44mb floppy. You can have a functional Linux installation that size.
Try booting a functional Windows shell off the installation cd.
Try making changes to the kernel for extra functionality (in a book I read, it explained how to fix SYN portscans by making a small change the kernel's source).
Try setting up Windows so it can be remotely administered (via telnet or ssh). I know it's possible, but it's a lot more difficult and troublesome.
Try running Linux programs from Windows.
Try reading Linux's filesystem.
Try using Windows as a router (port forwarding, etc). Linux does that quite easily.
Try using Windows as a firewall. Actually, a default Windows install NEEDS a firewall.
Try getting Windows to delete itself whlie running (thanks to Hitmen for this)
Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).
Try writing your own front-end to Windows (like Kde, Gnome, BlackBox, WindowMaker, etc).

Hmm, I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but those are many things I can do on Linux but not Windows.
[/quote]

Grandma doesn't care; she wants to scan pics of the grandkids, write a card, and print it out. Linux can't do that.

[quote]
Grandma doesn't care; she wants to scan pics of the grandkids, write a card, and print it out. Linux can't do that.
[/quote]
Last time I checked:
1) You could use a scanner in linux
2) You could use a printer in linux
But I'm sure you just mean that the grandma couldn't do that in linux, not that linux can't do it :)

First off, why are you even arguing about something you know nothing about? You have said you know nothing about Linux, so I think you should just sit on the sidelines during these kinds of discussions.

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73428 date=1091245164]
I've used WINE to run Win32 programs. From my experience with it, the program either looks horrible GUI-wise, crashes occasionally, and lacks support for many Windows apps.[/quote]

Ah yes, crashes occasionally. I guess that's better than windows that crashes, for me at least, on a regular basis. It lacks support for many windows apps? Kind of like windows lacks support for all Linux apps?

[quote] It's also important to understand, based on your needs will determine whether you truely need to switch between the operating systems. I doubt you would ever *need* Linux for something Windows couldn't do (correct me if I am wrong) even if Linux could do it better (highly arguable). [/quote]

I think iago answered this best.

[quote]An example, an IT professional would be more likely to have to switch between the two OSs based on consumer/customer needs than a home user who has familiarized themselves with Linux. But for another example, a regular home user who just switches to Linux probably wouldn't be able to adapt as well from Windows and would likely switch back permanently or for things they don't know how to do, or you can't do on Linux.[/quote]

That makes little to no sense whatsoever so I will leave it at that.

[quote]Also, on the subject of Linux vs Windows in the desktop area. Windows is simply easier for people to use and deploy as a home user (let's not get into business). And the consumer market is Windows, and most home users are capable of dishing out a $100 - $400 bucks for an operating system, or a $1000 for a new computer.[/quote]

First off why not get into business? Second, I don't know what world you live in but I highly doubt the bulk of the population can fork out $100-400 for an operating system. I for one know plenty of college students who cannot. Most of my family and friends cannot. The US is loosing its middle class my friend, so that means there will soon only be very poor and very rich. Unfortunately there will be more poor than rich, so I think what you're saying is wrong.

[quote]And because Windows, and Microsoft apps are in the consumer market as basically #1, the mainstream of programming is going to be for Windows in the consumer market, not Linux. Until that changes, and Linux is made more user-friendly and aimed towards the consumer market/home user, I doubt very much Linux would ever take that position away from Windows.[/quote]

See my first statement.

[quote]Try installing Windows on a 1.44mb floppy. You can have a functional Linux installation that size.[/quote]
Is it necessary to be able to install an operating system on a floppy? Besides, is it even a full version of Linux? Would you use it if you had the option to install the one on the CD?

[quote]Try booting a functional Windows shell off the installation cd.[/quote]
What's the point of this? I'd rather have the full operating system installed and use it afterwards, not use the CD to produce a functional environment that probably lacks features from the full installation of Linux (or Windows).


[quote]Try making changes to the kernel for extra functionality (in a book I read, it explained how to fix SYN portscans by making a small change the kernel's source).[/quote]
Windows is closed source, you know that. :) But I suppose anything that relates to open-source that you can do, then you can't do it on Windows if it pertains directly to the software associated it, and the OS itself.

[quote]Try setting up Windows so it can be remotely administered (via telnet or ssh). I know it's possible, but it's a lot more difficult and troublesome.[/quote]
You can already do this on Windows.

[quote]Try running Linux programs from Windows.[/quote]
The major software that is native to Linux is avaliable on Windows (different software). For instance, Linux's development environment -> Visual Studio.

[quote]Try reading Linux's filesystem.[/quote]
?

[quote]Try using Windows as a router (port forwarding, etc). Linux does that quite easily.[/quote]
? A router is a piece of hardware...I don't think I quite understand what you mean here. And if it's what I think you mean, why not get non-native software and use it on Windows for the same effects? Does it really matter if it's built into Windows or not? Isn't the main point if you can do it on Windows or not?

[quote]Try using Windows as a firewall. Actually, a default Windows install NEEDS a firewall.[/quote]
Windows has a built-in firewall. The one for SP2 is far better than the original flawed one, though...

[quote]Try getting Windows to delete itself whlie running (thanks to Hitmen for this)[/quote]
? You mean delete your system files? Why would anyone want to do this? And I'm sure there's ways of doing it, and in earlier versions of Windows there's no protection for this.

[quote]Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).[/quote]
I guess you got me on that one. Maybe someone else knows how to do this on Windows. But software that really needs to be ran as a service can be specifically made to be a service. If you're making your own programs, it's quite easy in VS.NET 2003. Also, quite a few of the programs I use to run on a Linux server I once used couldn't run in the background...I had to use screen.


[quote]Try writing your own front-end to Windows (like Kde, Gnome, BlackBox, WindowMaker, etc).[/quote]
What's the point of this? And you could do it if you wanted to, it wouldn't necessarily be integrated into the operating system, but you could use it as your frontend...

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73434 date=1091246249]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73432 date=1091245986]
[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73428 date=1091245164]
I doubt you would ever *need* Linux for something Windows couldn't do (correct me if I am wrong) even if Linux could do it better (highly arguable).
[/quote]

Try installing Windows on a 1.44mb floppy. You can have a functional Linux installation that size.
Try booting a functional Windows shell off the installation cd.
Try making changes to the kernel for extra functionality (in a book I read, it explained how to fix SYN portscans by making a small change the kernel's source).
Try setting up Windows so it can be remotely administered (via telnet or ssh). I know it's possible, but it's a lot more difficult and troublesome.
Try running Linux programs from Windows.
Try reading Linux's filesystem.
Try using Windows as a router (port forwarding, etc). Linux does that quite easily.
Try using Windows as a firewall. Actually, a default Windows install NEEDS a firewall.
Try getting Windows to delete itself whlie running (thanks to Hitmen for this)
Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).
Try writing your own front-end to Windows (like Kde, Gnome, BlackBox, WindowMaker, etc).

Hmm, I'm sure I've missed some stuff, but those are many things I can do on Linux but not Windows.
[/quote]

Grandma doesn't care; she wants to scan pics of the grandkids, write a card, and print it out. Linux can't do that.
[/quote]

I don't see anything about Grandma in Mephisto's point that I was arguing against. I was giving him examples where what he says doesn't hold up.

<edit> let me expand on that. I don't know what we're arguing about, I just saw a blatent mistake that I had to compain about. I will admit that Linux isn't for everybody. Some people shouldn't use it. Windows does have a market. I choose to use Linux for 98% of what I do because I like it more, and if some people don't, I guess that's their problem :). *I* think linux is better, for what *I* do. If others don't, that's fine too. But you can't say that windows can do anything Linux can, because that's just not true.

My big beef with linux and unix is the fact that it is hard to configure for gameing. I have used suse and never could game on that. But my frieond got gameing on debian, took him all weekend to configure it though. Linux maybe fine for server use, but I would not want to use it here at home.

[quote author=Hitmen link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73436 date=1091246451]
[quote]
Grandma doesn't care; she wants to scan pics of the grandkids, write a card, and print it out. Linux can't do that.
[/quote]
Last time I checked:
1) You could use a scanner in linux
2) You could use a printer in linux
But I'm sure you just mean that the grandma couldn't do that in linux, not that linux can't do it :)
[/quote]

Last time I checked, Linux didn't have drivers for my printer OR my scanner.

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73441 date=1091247130]
My big beef with linux and unix is the fact that it is hard to configure for gameing. I have used suse and never could game on that. But my frieond got gameing on debian, took him all weekend to configure it though. Linux maybe fine for server use, but I would not want to use it here at home.
[/quote]Funny you should mention that. The only time I use Winders (edit- for personal use) is to game or click-along as I help others troubleshoot problems. For everything else, there's Masta-Charge,

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73440 date=1091247119]I will admit that Linux isn't for everybody. Some people shouldn't use it. Windows does have a market.[/quote]

You forgot the people for whom no OS is appropriate -- i.e. the people who shouldn't even be using computers, but are able to do so because certain systems are excessively user friendly. :)

This is drifting into a Linux vs. Windows debate and not a discussion of Microsofts recent open source releases!!! 8)

Anyway, no matter how powerful it is, face it, Linux is too hard for 97%+ of the worlds population. There's no point in arguing about that, until Linux has more native support for things (hardware, applications, etc.) and a more friendly native user interface (meaning not having to type a command just to boot a front end) it's not going to surpass Windows. Even if it is, or isn't, better Linux wasn't made for the general public, Windows was, stop beating a dead horse..

No OS is excessivly user-friendly. My parents/grand parents still can't operate the "double-click" feature correctly.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73451 date=1091248742]
... stop beating a dead horse..
[/quote]

This bastard just won't die! >:(

I think Linux functions just as well as Windows for everyday computing. I don't game much anymore, and if I need to I can just use Cedega or boot into Windows 2000 if absolutely neccessary. It supports all of my hardware and peripherals. I like the ability to choose my window manager and access my computer remotely. Plus, it's something different.

Why is the fact that you can access your pc remotely a big deal? I mean windows can do it. Even if there were not an integrated way to do it, there are now light weight servers that act like big file managers and all.

Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73463 date=1091258775]
Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.
[/quote] yes but you can do that with windows too... remote desktop.

Hell, get VNC. ;)

[quote author=peofeoknight link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73464 date=1091259242]
[quote author=Maddox link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73463 date=1091258775]
Because I can send files, install programs, update my system, reboot, etc, all without having to be there.
[/quote] yes but you can do that with windows too... remote desktop.
[/quote]

Can I run remote desktop on Linux, BSD, OSX, or Solaris?

You can run vnc, if you don't mind very slow updates.

I do stuff remotely all the time. When I'm on my breaks at school, I'll compile/install software at home. It's really handy.

Mephisto -- most of your points are pointless, basically "windows is better so this point doesn't matter". The only thing I really want to respond to is using Linux as a router (gateway).

I used to have Windows set up with internet sharing before Tmp sent me a router. It was pretty crappy, it didn't handle usb properly (I couldn't play Starcraft) and there was no way to forward ports. On Linux, you can do neat things like forward ports, and other router functionality. Additionally, you can have filters, IDS's, and other things. If you put a Linux box between your network and the Internet, you get an extra highly-configurabe level of security. Part of my job (this fall) is to maintain the IDS system.

I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.

linux is easy to use for the general public/

I can speak affirmatively about this.

The group of people that would use Windows alone is decreasingly small.

I have reccomended, several times, people use Linux -- no particular distrobution or kernel, just Linux.

I've seen an increased number of people that call in with LILO or A dual boot situation.

So, Mephisto, coming from a technical support aspect, Windows popularity is dieing.
People just have way too much trouble with it.

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73476 date=1091278625]
I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.
[/quote]

If you only knew how much shit Norton breaks.

[quote author=cefx- link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73489 date=1091286483]
[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73476 date=1091278625]
I agree with iago on that point, it's much easier to make your own custom firewall for Linux than Windows. However, the majority of the world would just rather get Norton.
[/quote]

If you only knew how much shit Norton breaks.
[/quote]

Who's to say I don't. I wasn't talking about me getting Norton, I don't use a software anti-virus or firewall and I've never had a problem. Anyway, the majority of people see and know of Norton/McAfee and would get those just because of their popularity. Just like with AOL.

[quote author=$t0rm link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73479 date=1091282378]
linux is easy to use for the general public/
[/quote]

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about or who you're arguing with..

I wasn't saying you don't.

I was saying if you only knew how many times I have customers uninstall Norton or Zone Alarm and it fixes the problem.

I've never had a problem with zonealarm. Maybe they just configure it wrong. What firewall do you have them use instead?

[quote author=hismajesty[yL] link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=30#msg73451 date=1091248742]
Anyway, no matter how powerful it is, face it, Linux is too hard for 97%+ of the worlds population.
[/quote]

[quote author=Mephisto link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73428 date=1091245164]
I've used WINE to run Win32 programs. From my experience with it, the program either looks horrible GUI-wise
[/quote]

I figured I'd take some screenshots of some common programs running under Wine.

http://www.valhallalegends.com/iago/wine/ida.jpg
The font is a little different, but that's nothing special.


http://www.valhallalegends.com/iago/wine/opera.jpg
I can't even tell the difference.


http://www.valhallalegends.com/iago/wine/winamp.jpg
I can't tell the difference


http://www.valhallalegends.com/iago/wine/trillian.jpg
Font looks a little different.


Now if you really have experience with Wine, how can you say the gui looks much worse? I'm confused..

Why would you run Opera under wine?

[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73432 date=1091245986]
Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).
[/quote]
Poweroff does that.

[quote author=Maddox link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=45#msg73529 date=1091317747]
Why would you run Opera under wine?
[/quote]

Because I have very few Windows programs, and that was one of them. Shut up. :)

I did it because I can!!!

[quote]Because I have very few Windows programs, and that was one of them. Shut up.

I did it because I can!!![/quote]

Lol

Back on topic: If they become open source, I might actually have a motivation to learn programming.

[quote author=j0k3r link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=45#msg73530 date=1091318311]
[quote author=iago link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=15#msg73432 date=1091245986]
Try getting any program to run as a "service" (although in Linux, there is no concept of a service, just a program that runs in the background).
[/quote]
Poweroff does that.
[/quote]

hmm? I don't know what you're talking about.

But if you mean that they stop, just run the programs you want in /etc/rc.d/rc.local -- that is the last thing executed on startup.

[quote author=deadly7 link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=45#msg73535 date=1091318949]
[quote]Because I have very few Windows programs, and that was one of them. Shut up.

I did it because I can!!![/quote]

Lol

Back on topic: If they become open source, I might actually have a motivation to learn programming.
[/quote]

What does Windows being open source have to do with you learning to program?

[quote author=deadly7 link=board=2;threadid=7961;start=45#msg73535 date=1091318949]
[quote]Because I have very few Windows programs, and that was one of them. Shut up.

I did it because I can!!![/quote]

Lol

Back on topic: If they become open source, I might actually have a motivation to learn programming.
[/quote]

Why -- so you can make "Deadly Windows" and talk about how leet your OS is?

LOL +1