There is no "real demand" for a Linux version of mIRC...the subject has/was brought up around 12 times...It is a simple request that people do some reading before posting a new thread here
Perhaps the sticky post at chance that due the top of some of the forums, plus the chance that due to the current linux market more people are likely to read documentation / search before posting/requesting/etc are factors in that.
I suspect that only a few would argue that mIRC was an inferiour client to those available on linux
What do you expect to demostrate real demand for a client that it has been made clear has no plans for existance? those "1337" people who dont read up before asking questions or search to make more noise?My mention of "get a clue" was obviously in reply to your flame of Windows (fashionable I know but a little tiring at times especially when you have no valid evidence to support it)
I have not flamed windows. I stated that some people prefer it to windows and listed three of the reasons that some people have used to justify their preference. Perhaps I should have worded it slightly differently.
My reference to windows being bad has nothing to do with its stability, or anything to do with the actual program itself, but rather its monopolistic position in the market place and the effect that any monopoly has on consumers - and in particular with the way that microsoft continues to abuse that monopoly
I personally use windows for a large portion of the time I'm using a computer (both NT and 2K) due to the applications that I need to use and have only had a few stability problems (mostly due to the USB drivers, but I digress yet again) But he has plainly said before that HE DOES NOT WANT TO MAKE ONE AND DOESN"T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO EITHER. What part of this do you not understand?
You could also quote my sentance before the one you quoted...Fair enough
or perhaps from my first post...but its his choice ... - which is fair enoughLastly, it was you that first started the Windows v's Unix debate with that slop about instability. You reap what you sow in this world. Both OS's have their purposes and both do the job well. Your insinuation about Linux being more stable than NT emphatically false. Please note that I didn't make any counterclaim.
I said that some people have cited stability as the reason that they prefer linux
I understand and accept that a well configured windows machine could probably run for as long as a well configured linux machine
(Oh, and isnt The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability
Anyhow, someone should stick a big warning at the start of this thread that it has gone slightly off topic