mIRC Homepage

Linux MiRC

Posted By: kenshin83

Linux MiRC - 17/01/03 10:56 AM

Hi i'm kenshin from the Phil. I would just like to suggest to the miRC developers to have a miRC for Linux version.I have been using LInux now for few months and Linux is boring without miRC.Hope you consider my request.
Posted By: Poppy

Re: Linux MiRC - 17/01/03 11:01 AM

This has been suggested many times before. Read here for more information.
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 17/01/03 11:23 AM

Linux is boring because it pretends to be something it will never be. As for mIRC, as Poppy said, it's not on the cards and probably never will be. One man makes mIRC tick. Khaled doesn't have a whole floor in an office building chokkas with coders hammering away at mIRC's source code on Linux boxes.

To Khaled's credit, he does an excellent job with the Windows version and I would not like to see mIRC suffer in quality or development terms simply because a few people want to run it on Linux.

If you like mIRC, run Windows XP or 2000.
Posted By: babyorphan

Re: Linux MiRC - 17/01/03 12:20 PM

Go to the Linux Wine webpage and download that..
it should allow you to run mIRC without modifications on Linux.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 06:10 PM

Linux is boring because it pretends to be something it will never be

Linux doesnt pretend to be anything - it just so happens that some people prefer the stability/license/interface of the various linux distro's than windows

but u dun wanna get me started on why windows is bad :P u really dont :P

And while you may think that linux is pretending to be something that it will never be, a very large number of people (including most at microsoft) see it as a strong competitor to the windows monopoly

One man makes mIRC tick. Khaled doesn't have a whole floor in an office building chokkas with coders hammering away at mIRC's source code on Linux boxes

He could have - I know of atleast 3 people who would be interested in assisting porting the best windows irc client over to linux - and I personally have offered to assist in porting it wink but its his choice not to accept help with his program from the community - which is fair enough

To Khaled's credit, he does an excellent job with the Windows version and I would not like to see mIRC suffer in quality or development terms simply because a few people want to run it on Linux.

Yes, khaled does a good job with mIRC for windows, but there is absolutely no indication that mIRC would "suffer" in any way if he were to port it over to the ever-growing world of linux

If you like mIRC, run Windows XP or 2000.

I have to say, that is the most stupid thing u said in that post. Some people dont have the option, or money, or any number of things to run windows - not to mention those who dont wish to support a convicted abusive monopoly... but I digress

And as a reply to someone elses post + information for the original poster...

Go to the Linux Wine webpage and download that..
it should allow you to run mIRC without modifications on Linux.


Unfortunately, there are still bugs in either wine or mIRC which cause it to hang after an extended period of use under wine (a couple of hours) - but if you can live with that, then mIRC runs reasonably well (although the irc displays are very slow to update...)
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 06:39 PM

Unfortunately, there are still bugs in either wine or mIRC which cause it to hang after an extended period of use under wine (a couple of hours) - but if you can live with that, then mIRC runs reasonably well (although the irc displays are very slow to update...)

Sorry to say this but... This is the very reason (according to some regular posters here who know what they are talking about) as to why mIRC will never appear as a .tar.

The other reason is that Khaled probably doesn't want to either do this task or even hand the task to others. He does seem quite defensive about dishing out mIRC's source code and I can't blame him.

Invariably the motion for a Linux mIRC always ends up in a Windows v's Unix debate. The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability. Proof of this is that I chat on a Windows based network and all four servers have been up for the last 8 months so get a clue.

The next issue is the continued questions when Khaled has a personal homepage with his signature in BLACK INK which clearly states that there will NOT BE A UNIX/LINUX/APPLE/ATARI/C64/WINDOWS-CE versions of mIRC. The l337 coders you say are forming an orderly queue to assist with this will therefore be waiting for a long time, I hope they packed a lunch or two and took a chair.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 07:16 PM

Sorry to say this but... This is the very reason (according to some regular posters here who know what they are talking about) as to why mIRC will never appear as a .tar.

Uhhh, I'd never suggest that a windows program should be provided as a tarball - and if it were ever to be ported to linux, such issues as the two I mentioned would be imaterial

The other reason is that Khaled probably doesn't want to either do this task or even hand the task to others. He does seem quite defensive about dishing out mIRC's source code and I can't blame him.

Of course - neither do I - this is his project and he has every right to do what he wants

Invariably the motion for a Linux mIRC always ends up in a Windows v's Unix debate. The Unix brigade are happy to live in denial about Windows NT being able to match it for stability. Proof of this is that I chat on a Windows based network and all four servers have been up for the last 8 months so get a clue.

The majority of people who post on here "demanding" a linux version are clueless about how difficult it can be to convert such a project, and think if they shout loud enough people will do what they want.
I am not going to partake in a windows/linux argument, but the fact that you have achieved a stable network with windows NT is in no way proof that it is as stable / more stable than linux. There are linux machines that I'm aware of with uptimes of over 3 years, but similarly, thats no proof that linux as a whole is more stable than windows NT - just that that particular configuration is highly stable.

The next issue is the continued questions when Khaled has a personal homepage with his signature in BLACK INK which clearly states that there will NOT BE A UNIX/LINUX/APPLE/ATARI/C64/WINDOWS-CE versions of mIRC.

Fair enough - I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself, the continued interest by new users does show that there is a real demand for mIRC on linux

The l337 coders you say are forming an orderly queue to assist with this will therefore be waiting for a long time, I hope they packed a lunch or two and took a chair.

I resent that comment and indeed several others in that post and your previous one.
While there are some very loud *nix users who claim to be "1337", complain about windows, and want to have their cake and eat it, there is also a large portion of the linux community that does none of those things
Stereotyping everyone who uses linux by your experiences with a few "1337 kiddies" do is like saying that only black people drive BMW's because the black drug lords in manchester do

I would be grateful that if you reply to this post that you try to refrain from inflamatory remarks like "get a clue" (which I presume are the type of remarks you dislike from the "1337" people you've encountered in the past)
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 08:49 PM

Fair enough - I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself, the continued interest by new users does show that there is a real demand for mIRC on linux.

There is no "real demand" for a Linux version of mIRC. How many times does it have to be said to you? I've been a member of this forum for about a year and the subject has/was brought up around 12 times that I know of in that time. Among 1,000's of other posts I fail to see who that can raise an arguement of "real demand".

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), it's like you believe everyone still uses Win 95 (which was iffy, stability-wise) the way you carry on.

It is a simple request that people do some reading before posting a new thread here. I mean no malice towards the original poster and the proof of that is in the manner I originally replied. I just pointed out that the only option is to use what is available as nothing is likely to change. It's when those of your ilk barge in with...

but u dun wanna get me started on why windows is bad :P u really dont :P

... then you have no-one to blame but yourself when others decide to get defensive. grin

I'm not trying to convince anyone to develop a linux version of mIRC. I offered to help once, and have left it since then; however, while it may be annoying to yourself,

To be frank with you, I don't mind if Khaled changed his mind and made a Linux version. Every man and his dog in the joint knows and respects the fact that the decision is his and his alone. 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?

If you want to use mIRC, use Windows. If you like Linux better then use programmes made for it like X Chat, which is also a good programme.

Lastly, 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. :tongue:
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:04 PM

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 enough

Lastly, 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 a counterclaim?)

Anyhow, someone should stick a big warning at the start of this thread that it has gone slightly off topic wink
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:15 PM

Anyhow, someone should stick a big warning at the start of this thread that it has gone slightly off topic

It was you that took it there.

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares? They were first to mass-distribute an OS that had a GUI, had a stack of applications to go with it, was ready for the net, came with a browser, and ran on a IBM compatible PC (don't here that term used much now ay) which was the type of computer making the most inroads in the market share stakes. It was only a matter of time before it would take over from Commodore and Atari and who wouldn't expect the OS most used on it to go along for the ride? Hell you can even still get Browser/Dialler/LAN applications for DOS which was also popular at the time and before it.

Jealousy is a curse mate. Leave the tall poppy syndromefor those with nothing better to do with their time. I'll admit I wouldn't mind a fistfull of Uncle Bill's booty but either way I just get on with life and use my computers in the easiest and most efficient way possible. Ohhhhhh and by the way, I do have a Unix box, FreeBSD to be exact. It doesn't get much use though, mIRC only runs on Windows. grin
Posted By: _D3m0n_

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:21 PM

lol ive got both ...... i cant stand chatting on a linux system because its got nothing to offer either ..... hell yeah its stabole tho .... but u cant hardly find things for it ...... if there isnt stuff available to cause instability of course it wont become unstable ..... its like buyin new snow tires for winter and not being able to drive cause ur transmission dont work ...... its a waste of time ...... but um sorry were talking bout Nix windows comparison so um since there isnt a comparison ill just stop now ..............
Posted By: Necroman

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:28 PM

I could tell you why Linux sucks big time, but I don't really want to get into this religious war.

mIRC for Linux won't happen in the nearest future (just one more argument in favor of Windows smile
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:32 PM

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares?

The united states governent
The european union
AOL
Sun
Apple
Me wink

Its not that they HAVE a monopoly thats inherently bad, its the way that they have and are using that monopoly to squash competition (netscape, java, etc...)

Jealousy is a curse mate

Sure, I wouldnt mind some of billys money - and to deny that I'm jealous of someone with so much money would be a lie wink
but my opinions arent based on jealousy but rather things like the fact that microsoft is a convicted monopoly abuser which harms competition (which is therefore bad for everyone who doesnt have the kind of choices over what they use that I have)

[edit]whoops, changed <i> to bbcode[/edit]
Posted By: _D3m0n_

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:38 PM

well [censored] if i were bill and his money id try to squash anyone who stood in my way too its simply good business sense ........ i mean really this has turned into a debate now of which is better linux or windows and um now its not even about mirc ........ pointless arguement ........ again khaled chooses to only work on a windows based mirc and its his "baby" so to speak so give him the leeway to do with as he pleases ...... if ur unhappy with linux chat programs and there are a few well build ur own ........... shocked
as they say necessity is the mother of invention and heck for all we know khaled could hate linux OS for some reason or another ....... its all his choice and it has been said several times not to get hopes up about mirc for linux ........ debate should be over with that much said
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:41 PM

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares?

The united states governent
The european union
AOL
Sun
Apple


The five examples listed there are monopolies in their own right. Sun leads the way in the enterprise server market, AOL is the world's largest ISP (About 30 million customers or there-abouts) and happily distributes a ripped version of MICRO$OFT Internet Explorer with their internet access CD's. Apple (which I humbly refer to as Crapple) are the leading opposition force to the PC market. The EU seems to dictate all non-military world policy and the US Govt dictates all military policy and is about the only country that has army bases in countries that belong to someone else (albeit with that country's approval). Any country with 20 aircraft carriers would be silly not to claim that stake I suppose.

Now what was that you were saying about monopolies?
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 10:53 PM

if i were bill and his money id try to squash anyone who stood in my way too its simply good business sense

Yes, it is good business sense

but, it is also highly illegal
Its illegal because if not it would be possible for one company to ensure that everyone used their non-monopolistic product (IE) due to the users reliance on their monopoly product (windows)

The five examples listed there are monopolies in their own right.
Sun, AOL and apple are not monopolies...
AOL may be the largest ISP, but I severly doubt they serve more than 50% of the entrire online world - which completely prevents them being a monopoly in the ISP business
A monopoly isnt just bigger than any competators - its bigger than ALL competetors added together
Ditto apple - u cant say their second place so their a monopoly to the rest. Perhaps there is another market which I dont know about where they ARE a monopoly - but they certainly arent in personal computers
I dont have any figures for Sun's penetration in the server market, but I know they face strong competition from HP - and I've never heard their position described as monopolistic before...

Sure... there is only one united states govenement, but you can hardly say they have used their "monopoly" to kill competition

Now what was that you were saying about monopolies?
That the abuse of a monopoly was illegal - and microsoft have illegaly abused their monopoly
Posted By: _D3m0n_

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 11:10 PM

now are u sayin illegal in us standards or world standards cause im pretty sure the us is the only one who makes monopolies illegal ...... maybe its unethical imoral to the rest of the world but um microsoft is operated in exactly the same way a japanese business would be run ..... ruthless and totally for profit no matter what ....... how do u think they put nearly half the tv companys in the us out of business??? the sold thier product for less than it cost to make and ship the product here to the us ..... therefore under bidding every us manufacture in the same technology .... sure they lost money for a few years but lok at them now ....... u can say microsoft is illegal but whats the difference???? was microsoft illegal before linux????? of course not they didnt have competition ....... now ur turning a mirc discussion into a defimation of character of microsoft ...... man just get over it mirc wont port to linux ...... does that make mirc illegal?
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 18/01/03 11:20 PM

now are u sayin illegal in us standards or world standards cause im pretty sure the us is the only one who makes monopolies illegal ......
Monopolies arent illegal that I know of - only the abuse of those monopolies is illegal

And it is illegal in both the US, all European Union countries and australia - I cant say anything about others, because I dont know

how do u think they put nearly half the tv companys in the us out of business??? the sold thier product for less than it cost to make and ship the product here to the us ..... therefore under bidding every us manufacture in the same technology .... sure they lost money for a few years but lok at them now

A loss leader is perfectly legal and is not the same as abusing one monopoly to create another
Microsoft are currently trying to get into other markets (mobile phones, games consoles) using loss leader tactics - which is all perfectly legal

was microsoft illegal before linux
I dont know tbh - but linux is irrelavent in my eyes in terms of microsofts monopoly - the only monopolistic practices that I'm aware of have been windows specific

man just get over it mirc wont port to linux
I have wink a long time ago wink
does that make mirc illegal?
No

It would probably be better to read up on the microsoft anti trust trial to understand just why microsoft have abused their monopoly and why its illegal, because I've only been an interested spectator - I'm not a lawyer or even someone who is "very much in the know" - just an interested ordinary bloke wink
Posted By: starbucks_mafia

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 12:35 AM

So, to sum up then.
- mIRC won't be available on non-Windows systems anytime soon
- Some people on this board really have too much time on their hands.
Posted By: GrimZ

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 02:50 AM

Sun/AOL/etc are not monopolies.

Linux vs. Windows is a stupid debate. People who typically carry them out are completly idoitic and have no understanding of Linux. Linux is not meant to be a desktop. It would suck for a desktop. It's meant to be a server. Those who want to chat, play mp3s, etc, Linux is a waste of time. Why? Because that's stuff for personal use not a server (running your own dns, services, etc on a secure/stable envorniment) Why people have this debate I'll never know. I use Linux often in the server envorniment and I have Windows 2k on my personal computer. Both are equally great in their own right. I'd never use 2k to run as a server and I'd never run Linux to be a desktop.

mIRC demand in Linux is not popular for many reasons:
1) Look how bad fwaggle/etc got treated for merely replying? I'd steer clear also.
2) Not many people use linux for personal usage as people do for Windows. If they do, they prefer simplicity (as Linux is quite simple ... there's no lets open 50 dialogs to change a setting) -- xchat, bitchx, etc are fine for them.
3) Most Linux users dislike mIRC. Not all, but most I've met do.
4) There's many, many, many more ...

How's AOL/Sun a monopoly? They do not force you to use their stuff, cut out compatability of others products in their own. I can name atleast 20 instances where microsoft has tried to make it virtually impossible for their mainstrea marketting products to work with nothing else (Netscape Navigator, for example)

As far as "Including a rip of IE" I would hope you're not calling Netscape a rip of IE. They're totally different. If that's the case you're clearly mistaken ... I could even provide you a lot of facts to prove that it's completly not IE related at all.

If anyone is "ripping" software that is Microsoft. They've ripped everything they made damn near. Only they copyrighted it first. Hrmm... isn't Windows ripped? Sure is, it was stolen from Xerox/Apple in the 80's. JScript? Ripped too, atleast, it's all JavaScript with some newer functions and guess what?! They only work on IE! So yet Microsoft pushes developes to stick to "Microsoft only"

That is the funny thing about Windows. .EXE executables hide who is really ripping what. As far as monopolozations go no one you mentioned is guilty but Microsoft. Last I heard they're even trying to shutdown various contributors of the open source movement (like getting PHP eliminated, etc). I've also heard that MS is going to be working with people like Intel to develop chipsets/software that makes it virtually impossible to leech/warez stuff but the way I read about it (on some news site months back) it's going to be a burden for anyone using a computer who isn't running Microsoft products. Could this happen? It could, MS could easily toss Intel 25 billion dollars and make them do whatever they want. Technically, it wouldn't be a monopoly then because MS Does not own Intel.

Back to topic though ... Windows is Windows, Linux is Linux, completly different and intended for completly different things. I agree it should not be ported at all. It would lose a lot of functionality I'm sure and take ages to port (by Khaled that is) considering all the API would change.

Out of simple logic, Khaled killed 16 bit because he wanted to write one program ... I think asking for two versions is a bit harsh. C/C++ is a GOOD language to learn, and certainly if people can sit on IRC and chat away or come here and debate with people for long periods of times they could easily learn it, write their own for Linux, and be happy.
Posted By: SergioNL

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 04:12 AM

linux is great.. for servers(http,ftp,irc,game,router) etc (and a few fps shooters that are supported lately)
windows is great... for games, gameservers, administrating aps, music proggys, mirc,graphics editing/rendering etc etc etc

now 1 gues why your bored:)

have a nice day
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 06:13 AM

Monopolies arent illegal that I know of - only the abuse of those monopolies is illegal

Give me an example of how Microsoft have abused their position in the software market. I would have thought that if there's only one company able to market it's product well then that company will certainly do better than it's competitors. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a Micro$oft advocate. They don't need me or any other unpaid user of their products to help them along in any way. But given that you pay for Windows and are able to get most, but not all, Linux distributions for nothing it must say something about the userfriendliness of the whole range of products. Grimz made a good point about Linux, it's okay for servers because a server just sits in a corner and gathers dust. Windows is a far better environment for the desktop or workstation. Why? because it is user-friendly. If you talk about domination then look at all the freeware you can get for Linux and then discover that it has specifically been made to be as compatible as possible with things like Micro$oft Office. This of course is a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Back to mIRC - you got your answer on that before you even uttered a word, I'm not going to bother repeating it. Also, if you want to get technical about the meaning of the word monopoly then you'd realise that it doesn't apply to Micro$oft anymore than it does to any other large company or company with a large market share. "Mono" is a Greek word meaning one or single. Source: Macquarie Dictionary. So I can safely assume that by using the term monopoly you are referring to a company with a large market share, not a company with 100% of the market share.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 08:11 AM

Give me an example of how Microsoft have abused their position in the software market

Theres probably a better webpage than this, but heres one that has several questions and answers
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec97/microsoft_10-21.html

Microsoft have used their monopoly in windows to create (/attempt to create) a monopoly in various middleware
including Internet Explorer - which is the only thing that they have been convicted of so far.

Also, if you want to get technical about the meaning of the word monopoly then you'd realise that it doesn't apply to Micro$oft anymore than it does to any other large company or company with a large market share

I was talking about the way the term monopoly is used in the eyes of the law - which I believe I read as being a 95% market share being termed a monopoly

The absolute non-arguable fact is that microsoft DID abuse their monopoly on windows to create an illegal monopoly in internet browsers - that fact was upheld on appeal
Much more information on the microsoft anti trust trial can be found on google
The slightly arguable question is whether microsoft continue to abuse it (.net vs java, other middleware) - since they have not been convicted as of yet
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 01:03 PM

I was talking about the way the term monopoly is used in the eyes of the law - which I believe I read as being a 95% market share being termed a monopoly

In the eyes of what law?

That website you pointed to is just a news portal anyway not a government website. This may not occur to you but no court in the world (except perhaps the UN and only if they had jurisdiction over this, which I believe they don't) could enforce a world-wide split up of Micro$oft. The worst-case scenario is that they'd split in the US and carry on as per usual elsewhere.

At the end of the day I don't care either way because I don't intend on spending my life stressing about one man controlling the computer world. Someone has to do it in the name of compatability and if it's gunna be Uncle Bill then so be it.

No matter how much Gates is hated by anti Micro$oft people he's not gunna go away, so it's best just to think about something else. Like chatting with mIRC, a great chat programme with extras on Windows, a great user-friendly OS.
Posted By: codemastr

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 05:02 PM

Wow, hold on there. Now we are drifting away from "opinions" and drifting towards "false facts"

The idea of a GUI was not a Microsoft invention, Microsoft stole the idea from Macintosh. Machintosh widely distributed their version of a GUI OS long before MS even dreamed of it.

Also, FreeBSD is NOT Unix. Saying something like this is equivilent to saying "Windows XP is DOS" sure there might be some features in XP inspired by DOS but it certainly is not DOS. In the same respect FreeBSD is not Unix. It has features in common with Unix, but it isn't even based on any of the Unix code (which is copyrighted and can not be freely distributed or modified).

Now before you go and call me a "Windows hater" let me just say I have currently 4 machines running Windows (98,Me,NT4,and XP) I am quite happy with it. But this doesn't mean I think *nix OSes are bad. I think they are great. Personally all software I write is capable of running on both Windows and *nix. And really I don't see a reason not to. Sure it is more work, but in the end it means more users. And more users means more money. So where is the downside there? And also I want to comment on the "not bringing this up often" remark. Yea you are right it has been discussed only about 12 times or so. But notice how this particular thread has about 30 posts because discussion was generated by it. That means people are interested in it. And I agree with what was said. *nix users are more apt to read the rules and follow them than Windows users are. If you don't believe that let me know I and I'll give you proof of the matter. I think if Khaled changed his thoughts to "if enough people request it I will make a Linux version" you would see hundreds of posts here.
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 05:24 PM

Microsoft has got a huge monopoly. Everyone knows that but who cares? They were first to mass-distribute an OS that had a GUI, had a stack of applications to go with it, was ready for the net, came with a browser, and ran on a IBM compatible PC (don't here that term used much now ay) which was the type of computer making the most inroads in the market share stakes.

That is what I said re: your accusation of untruths. Please don't insult my intelligence by ripping a sentence apart to suit yourself. Take note of MASS DISTRIBUTE and the other things included in the sentence please. When you then consider Apple's effort you'll realise their systems, by comparison, were never mass distributed. Nor did anything else apply that I mentioned.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 05:40 PM

In the eyes of what law?
In american law - and probably european too (since these things seem to be pretty global). It wouldnt supprise me if the actual number varied - but I would be shocked if anywhere claimed that anything with less than 75% market share was legally defined as a monopoly

This may not occur to you but no court in the world could enforce a world-wide split up of Micro$oft. The worst-case scenario is that they'd split in the US and carry on as per usual elsewhere.

Wrong
The US governemt could without a doubt split up microsoft - worldwide. It is an american company which has a world wide presence, but its still american.
I am unaware of the capabilities of the EU over whether they could enforce a split order, but there is no doubt that the US government could enforce a global split (for example, if non-US divisions broke off to form their own "united" company, they would not be able to use/sell the code developed by the US company on any other terms than those of normal resellers) - However, they could certainly prevent microsoft from trading in europe unless they split, which would effectively kill the company if they did not split

btw, that article is really quite old - I could possibly have found a better source of information
A judge DID order the split up of microsoft (Judge Jackson) but that was overturned on appeal because of some out-of-work comments that jackson made which indicated that he was biased against microsoft; but the original conviction was upheld, just the punishment was sent back for re-negotiations

A second judge (cant remember her name) was tasked to decide on the punishment, then bush got elected and the DoJ accepted/proposed a very much watered down rememdy with microsoft - which the 2nd judge accepted

Feel free to check out the official (but difficult to read) DoJ website...
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm

Actually, the overview is a pretty reasonable starter for all anti trust cases (not MS specific)

At the end of the day I don't care either way
Fair enough - everyone can choose whether they find the current situation acceptible or not wink

because I don't intend on spending my life stressing about one man controlling the computer world.
Also fair enough - who cares if billy is gonna charge everyone 150 for windows? Sure, we HAVE to buy it because everyone else uses it, and he's just doing it in the name of compatibility, but so what? 300 isnt too much for an operating system - if he wants to charge 400, we still have to pay because its a monopoly which we cannot get out of due to the compatibility requirement...

The only difference is that microsoft know that if they charged that much then everyone would realise that their monopoly is BAD for the consumer

No matter how much Gates is hated by anti Micro$oft people he's not gunna go away, so it's best just to think about something else.

True, Gates wont go away for a long time - and very few anti microsoft people hate the man gates, their just jealous of his money - no, they hate the illegal practices that he and his company used to squash competition, 'cause competition is good - right?
Posted By: vcv

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 06:59 PM

Just a quick point I would like to make...

The notion that Windows somehow sucks or is any less because of Microsoft's monopolistic ways is complete and utter BS. Yes, MS has a monopoly.. No, that doesn't make Windows not any good. It has NO effect on how good Windows is.

It reminds me of people to refuse to like any music from a certain band because they dsont like the people in the band (for selling out or whatever else).. it's so stupid. It's illogical block association.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 07:40 PM

The notion that Windows somehow sucks or is any less because of Microsoft's monopolistic ways is complete and utter BS. Yes, MS has a monopoly.. No, that doesn't make Windows not any good. It has NO effect on how good Windows is.

Depends what you mean by "good"
Their monopolistic practices dont make windows XP crash or difficult to use - but their monopolistic practices DO make windows bad for consumers in terms of choice of what they use and dont use...
An example is webpages coded to work for IE - if windows werent such a huge monopoly, then IE wouldnt be as widespread and web designers would be forced to follow standards which work for everyone - rather than making do with what works on IE and not even checking anything else
Posted By: vcv

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 07:59 PM

As a choice.. yeah..maybe you do have a point... the product itself though? NO.
Posted By: Cobra

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 08:55 PM

I'm in NO WAY geting into this argument, i refuse to lol

however i will make a comment on the logistics of not useing a product because you disagree with the actions of those who produce that product.

when i'm at a resturont that gives bad service, i never go back, when i'm trying to return something to a bussness that doesnt work and they give me a hard time i just dont buy anything from them again (recently a cd-burnering i bought from stables didnt work, the have only a 14 day return policy on there hardware can u beleive that!!!!!!!!!!!, i wont never buy nothign from them again)

if enough ppl followed this patern it would force these ppl to clean upthere act and do things the right way.

i just dont suport crapy bussnesses, dont raise a fuss, or cause trouble its just simply i wont be back or wont purcahse from them anymore plain and simple :P

Cobra^
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 09:22 PM

if enough ppl followed this patern it would force these ppl to clean upthere act and do things the right way.

The vast majority of people are unaware of why microsoft illegaly abused their monopoly, why it was illegal, why it hurts consumers, and what the other alternatives are (and whether they are realistic for them)
So its like the microsoft resteraunt is the only one on the high street (all others are in back alleys that ya dun know about) and most people either dont realise or dont care that they cook food without washing their hands after going to the loo

:P

but I think I've posted more than enough in this thread already, so I'll be leaving it alone now wink

Posted By: vcv

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 09:36 PM

Here's a better analogy: If the restaurant was cruel in their business practices, would you not go there? What if you enjoyed their food most out of all restaurants, but they did things that were "wrong", but did NOT directly affect you or the service/product you were getting?

If you choose not to support MS because of their business practices.. that's all fine and well.. but to imply that the product and/or service is somehow altered is retarded, IMHO.

I myself do not agree with some of the things MS has done and does, but it does not directly affect me..and I am NOT going to use alternatives for that reason... when their product suits me just fine and I enjoy using it.
Posted By: vcv

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 09:37 PM

So fraggle, you're saying by using MS products, I could be hurt.. and how? Please enlighten me.
Posted By: kfreak

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 09:52 PM

I'd have to say that out of everyone, I agree with GrimZ the most. I run a 266 next to me with Slackware on it, and it stays in console mode all day long, and I love. I use to for all kinds of stuff. I dual booted this computer with Slackware, and I've only used it like twice. I just cant get use to using Linux as a desktop enviroment.

btw, vcv, you damn cat stealerL!@
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 09:53 PM

just to let everyone know that I wasnt ignoring him, I've sent vcv my reply in private wink

I have no objection to anyone requesting that vcv forward my reply to them
Posted By: Cobra

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 10:23 PM

Here's a better analogy: If the restaurant was cruel in their business practices, would you not go there? What if you enjoyed their food most out of all restaurants, but they did things that were "wrong", but did NOT directly affect you or the service/product you were getting?

would i not go there? absolutly, i cant stand the idea that some bussness/people/etc think they are so large that the public is forced to do things there way.

back to the resteront anaology, i dont care how good there food is, if there involved in junk like that i will not suport them, fo me to eat there would be me giving them money, basicly finding activity that i dont agree with.

just as anouther example, i live very close to cederpoint .. i've been there only 2 times, then i learned somethign about them that causes me to make the determination that i will never ever pay to enter there again .. now its neve rhappened but if i was with a group and had a free ride in there somehow i'd be fine with that, as long as my money isnt suporting them.

i'm very stubrner about this. bussnesses can either clean up there act or they dont need my bussness .. i'm only one person though so i'm sure they dont care. but even so i stick to my guns regarding this.

If you choose not to support MS because of their business practices.. that's all fine and well.. but to imply that the product and/or service is somehow altered is retarded, IMHO.

Correction i didnt not even refrence MS, nor imply anything in regards to them.. dont put words in my mouth. i made a generalistic opnion on the point of logic.

i'm purposly avoiding the whole ms vs linux thing .. i run both, use linux as a server, use windows for my workstations (although the leagal copy of the windows os that i obtained i was not required to pay for)

i'm outa this descusion now lol

Cobra^
Posted By: vcv

Re: Linux MiRC - 19/01/03 10:33 PM

Correction i didnt not even refrence MS, nor imply anything in regards to them.. dont put words in my mouth. Well I wasn't talking to just YOU.. I was talking in general.. so no, I did not put words into your mouth.
Posted By: GrimZ

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 03:58 AM

Damn this thread has got big grin
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 06:44 AM

The US governemt could without a doubt split up microsoft - worldwide. It is an american company which has a world wide presence, but its still american.

Completely wrong wrong wrong.

Any decision made by a US court could only ever be enforced in the US. Or does whoever wants M$ split up plan on filing claims in the high courts of all 200-odd sovereign nations?

Corporate law differs vastly in many countries. Read some legislation before you make such statements. Did it ever occur to you that in this world of globalisation (Of which the US Govt is a proud supporter) the idea is to rationalise and make the remaining entities as big as possible? I don't necessailry agree with this way of playing the game but that is the general idea of globalisation.

As an example: Royal Dutch Shell wanted to take over Woodside Petroleum (a dominant oil exploration company with rigs on the Australian North West Shelf). The Dutch Govt had no problem with the idea, that I was aware of. The Australian Commonwealth Govt did have a problem and blocked the takeover and is able to enforce it because the handshake would have taken place down here. When gold mining Co. BHP launched it's merge offer with Billitons in England it went ahead because the respective Govt's approved of it. When Campell's soup Co. bought out Arnott's biscuits it was approved because both respective Govt's approved of it, and most likely because Australia has more biscuit companies than oil companies.

To vcv: I agree wholeheartedly with your reply.
To Grimz: Yep, it seems that a monster has been created. grin
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 08:42 AM

Completely wrong wrong wrong.

Any decision made by a US court could only ever be enforced in the US. Or does whoever wants M$ split up plan on filing claims in the high courts of all 200-odd sovereign nations?

Corporate law differs vastly in many countries. Read some legislation before you make such statements.


As I said earlier, I'm not a lawyer and I dont know everything, however, I expect that your statement is wrong
A split was ordered - if there was any chance that that split was not legally enforcable, i doubt it would have ever got that far. There was also talk of the EU also having the jurestiction(sp?) to split microsoft, but they chose not to

I have been following this case for several years, and I've not seen any serious comments that the split ordered back in 2000(?) would not be enforcable - were it not overturned on appeal.

I have done several searches but havent yet been able to find a page that explains the proposed remedy - but I shall look for more information for you tonight which will explain more
Posted By: Angua

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 01:15 PM

well, it was interesting to see cuch a long thread here about windows/linux. as it is, there aren't any perfect operating systems, yet, in the world. Windows has undoubtely the better GUI, at the moment anyway ( not talking about MacOSX here, i like that too, but i haven't worked with it, so i can't say anything else than i like how it looks wink

but there are a few facts here which either aren't exactly correct, or haven't been said ... for one, it is not true that linux is not useable as desktop machine. the last releases of RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake and Xandros prove indeed that it is very useable. among other things, i hold linux courses here at the university, not for students, but for the scientific and normal employees, and especially among the scientific emplyoees, more and more tell me that after they got into contact with linux as desktop OS, they are more and more using it, for many everyday things, OpenOffice can replace MsOffice sucessfully for most users.

but, undoubtely, linux has still some way to go, until it's gui will be as potent and easily useable as Windows. OTOH, it gathers ground very quickly.

however, that is not the real problem. at this moment, M$ is on a course, which is more or less dangerous in many ways, for many of us here, especially if you do NOT live in the US ... but even then, i would say it is bad enough. i do not know how many of you have followed the ideas M$, along with Intel, and many other large companies has, about TCPA ... TCPA Homepage ... of course, on the website, they say how good it will be for every user, the machine will not be able to run any code which hasn't been allowed to run, documents can be encrypted and only read on specific machines, or sound and video files won't be copied from machine to machine, and M$ will be able to tell your machine which programs may be run, or not, it can install automagically updates, and the user won't need to bother, remove what isn't needed ... oops .. i am sure that many of you recognise what this means. DRM will be enforceable, at last, and whomever thinks that your data will be actually safe, i ask you something. do you really think the US governement will give any user such a OS, where noone else than the owner can read a file, because it will be automagically encrypted ? surely not, it means that there will be some Master-Key which law-enforcment agencies can use to decrypt every file you have created. and PGP won't run anymore, since M$ won't simply let you run it. ok, now some of you will say i am paranoid. perhaps i am wink OTOH, it gets worse. imagine .. files aren't readeable anymore on other systems, ok, so what happens if you fry some integral part of your hardware ? how can you re-use your DRM encrypted files ? by re-inputting the same key ? oops, but that means it is probably hackeable. and what of non US companies, or even worse Countries ? i tell you, as European citizen, i do not like the idea at all, that my governement should use an OS which has these restrictions, and possible holes. hacking will find a way to get past it, it was proven in Hamburg, at the CCC ( Chaos Computer Club ) meeting, where a new DRM system of M$ was hacked ... and once you've hacked a TCPA system, you can abuse computers much worse than today. you can't boot a virus-program from a CD-ROM anymore, since this CD-ROM would have to be able to unlock the TCPA chip ... etc. etc.

Trusted Computing doesn't mean that you can trust your computer, it means that M$ can. i do use WinXP at work and home, next to my windows machines. as long as TCPA won't be part of the OS ( the palladium module of the new Windows, codename LongHorn ) .

but till then, linux will be as useable as windows, seen from a GUI point of view wink
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 02:52 PM

There was also talk of the EU also having the jurestiction(sp?) to split microsoft, but they chose not to

They do have the jurisdiction, but only over inside their own sovereign borders, the same as any other place. The point I was trying to make is that one court in one country cannot make a world-wide ruling for a company just because their head office is in the same country as the relevant court. Sure they could split Micro$oft into an OS company and an Applications company. They couldn't, in the same ruling split Micro$oft's overseas operations though, because they come under the coporate laws of the other countries. There would ahve to be seperate hearings in all countries where Micro$oft has operations. it would also be easy enough for the currently singular Micro$oft to bring it's overeas operations under the umbrella of a new corporate entity which could infact (depending on US corporate law) evade any decision currently under consideration.
Posted By: fraggle

Re: Linux MiRC - 20/01/03 08:58 PM

(replying to myself 'cause I dunno who to reply to anymore!)

Quote:
Originally posted by codemaster
But notice how this particular thread has about 30 posts because discussion was generated by it. That means people are interested in it.


tbh, I've done half of the posts ;P
But, in all seriousness...
On this forum there are 3 mirc in linux questions, and they have got 1st place, 4th place and 6th place in the most-read threads - I think that shows that theres continued interest in mirc in linux (even though khaled has stated that there will not be a version)

Quote:
Originally posted by Angua
it is not true that linux is not useable as desktop machine. the last releases of RedHat, SuSe, Mandrake and Xandros prove indeed that it is very useable.

Yes, linux has made some great improvements (KDE 3.1 is pretty darn good) - but linux is still not ready for joe consumer (whether it will be or not is a different question) - try stuff like USB webcams and less than half of them can be used in linux
If you only need to do "normal" stuff, then linux is as usuable as a desktop OS as windows is

Quote:
Originally posted by Angua
i hold linux courses here at the university, not for students, but for the scientific and normal employees, and especially among the scientific emplyoees, more and more tell me that after they got into contact with linux as desktop OS


The more intelligent or computer literate have no problems using linux - the main problems are when something "goes wrong" (because its designed for windows) - u could easily be screwed wink
Until more companies make the same stuff for windows and linux such as drivers, support documents and applications *cough*mirc*cough* then the world of linux wont be ready for joe consumer

[even_more_offtopic]
Quote:
Originally posted by Angua
TCPA... Palladium...

What will happen with developers? some people are saying that you wont be able to turn this stuff off... what happens when I want to write my own program?
Anyway, IMO the only way this initiative would work is if linux was not an alternative (e.g. it became law that you HAD to have it)
[/even_more_offtopic]

Quote:
Originally posted by Watchdog
The point I was trying to make is that one court in one country cannot make a world-wide ruling for a company just because their head office is in the same country as the relevant court


microsoft-UK, microsoft-germany and microsoft-france all use/sell/profit from the software made by microsoft-US (even though some is written in india)

This what would happen if they were split all came from the statement you made...

Quote:
Originally posted by Watchdog
The worst-case scenario is that they'd split in the US and carry on as per usual elsewhere.


Any split in the US would have drastic effects for all other microsoft-US owned companies since it is the US company which owns the rights for windows and office (and prolly the others too, but I dunno tbh). I have to admit that I dont know all the details of what the UK presence of microsoft does (apart from organising educational licenses etc) but their core business of selling the microsoft-US produced software would be hugely affected
Posted By: Angua

Re: Linux MiRC - 21/01/03 06:34 AM

Quote:
[even_more_offtopic]

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Angua
TCPA... Palladium...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


What will happen with developers? some people are saying that you wont be able to turn this stuff off... what happens when I want to write my own program?
Anyway, IMO the only way this initiative would work is if linux was not an alternative (e.g. it became law that you HAD to have it)
[/even_more_offtopic]


of course you won't be able to turn it off. that is the point of it ... as for developers, they will have a hard time, since they will have to buy from one of the companies of the TCPA alliance a key to sign your programs ... and this will cost some $$. as for initiative, that is not an initiative. Dell and Intel already sell notebooks with an inbuilt TCPA chip. of course, right now, it remains dormant. until for example, the next update of the media-player, which might start using it for DRM management. and then, you will update to the new version of windows, codename longhorn, which will suddenly take possession of your TCPA-ready machine, and suddenly ... ohmy ... and no, i am not paranoid, that is how it is planned. no consumer will feel it at once, or it wouldn't work at all. TCPA is a danger to our personal freedom. but if you think that this is bad, imagine how bad it will get, if someone manages to actually bypass it. it means this person will be able to bypass all the security measures on the machine. he can do everything without a chance to know what happens.

the "Trusted" in TCPA doesn't mean you can trust your machine. it means M$ can trust it.
Posted By: Watchdog

Re: Linux MiRC - 21/01/03 06:53 AM

(replying to myself 'cause I dunno who to reply to anymore!)

That's actually quite amusing. Perhaps if you'd have stuck to the original topic the thread wouldn't have stretched half way around the world. grin

I'll show some leadership here and reply in this thread no longer. Well I will attempt to anyway... :tongue:
Posted By: d00dman

Re: Linux MiRC - 21/01/03 08:02 PM

Eesh. I'm closing this thread. Any future "why isn't there a Linux version of mIRC" posts will be deleted as soon as I spot them. There's no debating this issue.

-chris
© 2022 mIRC Discussion Forums