Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

KDE 2.2.1, On Win32/Cygwin

Posted by timothy on Sat Nov 24, 2001 09:59 PM
from the windows-with-a-small-w dept.
GUI KDE
m_ilya writes: "It looks like KDE 2.2.1 has been ported on Cygwin. More than year ago I was forced to use WinNT at work, and I've been missing the Linux desktop a lot. I hope if I will be ever forced to use Windows again I would be able to have more Unix-friendly desktop :). Here's the announcement. Kudos to all the KDE hackers." Check out the posting on the Dot for some more links.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

KDE 2.2.1, On Win32/Cygwin 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fault0 (514452) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:04PM (#2608817) Homepage Journal
    Nice, I'd be great to run a few KDE apps on Windows. However, IMHO, many of the same Windows equivalents would be better to use, as they are native. I'd take IE over Konqueror, for example.

    And what about KDE 2.2.2? Any plans to port that or are they just going to KDE 3?

  • KDE on windows (Score:2, Informative)

    by lavaforge (245529)
    I've used Cygwin to run X windows on MS windows, and it seemed a bit of a kludge. While it was nice to run apps, the integration with the rest of the system was messy at times.

    While I really do have to applaud the Cygwin folks for their work, I wonder if it would not be more effective (or possible?) to port Kde as a litestep style shell replacement.

    • Re:KDE on windows (Score:3, Informative)

      by fault0 (514452)
      > I wonder if it would not be more effective (or possible?) to port Kde as a litestep style shell replacement.

      I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively. This, fortunatly, wouldn't be hard for an experienced programmer who knows the Windows API AND xlib. Most of the platform specific code of Qt is pretty well split off from the rest of the code. They are in the QXXX_x11.cpp files. There are only about 20 of these files, and KDE doesn't even use/require all of them (like QSound).

      • Re:KDE on windows (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Spy Hunter (317220) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:35PM (#2608894) Journal
        I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively. This, fortunatly, wouldn't be hard for an experienced programmer who knows the Windows API AND xlib.

        I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.

        TrollTech has been very supportive of KDE's development since the beginning, and has bent over backwards to please Free Software advocates by GPLing their main, high-quality product. They took a risk in doing that. So far it has not come back to bite them, but if the GPL'd QT was ported to Windows against their will, it would be very bad for them. They couldn't stop anyone from doing it, but it would be bad. A lot of TrollTech's revenue comes from companies doing in-house windows apps. In-house apps can be GPL'd easily because the source only has to be distributed where the binaries go. If the program never goes outside the company, the source doesn't have to either. If there is a free, GPL'd QT on windows, all those people will stop paying TrollTech and simply use the free version. There is a reason TrollTech hasn't released a GPL'd QT for windows. There is of course a free as in beer version, but it is not GPL. It has a license forbidding commercial use, for this very reason.

        TrollTech has gone very far in its support of free software, but it is still trying to make money. It is trying to be a company that will balance Open Source and profit. Porting a GPL QT to windows would hurt TrollTech, and it would make the GPL look like poison for companies that want to make a profit. It would be more ammunition for Microsoft's "virus" analogy. It is the wrong thing to do.

        On the other hand, making XFree on Cygwin "rootless" would be a much better solution. Then there would be a high-quality, useable, Free X-Server for Windows, which would be great. Then you would have the ability to make KDE a shell replacement or whatever. It might still be less than optimal for TrollTech, but I think most companies would still elect to buy the Windows version of QT. Commercial X servers have had this capability for a while now, and it hasn't been a problem so far (that I know of).

        • Re:KDE on windows (Score:4, Insightful)

          by fault0 (514452) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:49PM (#2608930) Homepage Journal
          I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be necessarily bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free (as in Speech) Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.

          I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).

          • Re:KDE on windows (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Spy Hunter (317220)
            The point is that companies developing in-house software don't care about the GPL one bit. They could care less whether they have to give the source to their own employees. There's nothing in the GPL that says you have to make the source available to everyone who asks. You only have to make the source available to people who have the program. In-house programs never are distributed outside the company so the source isn't distributed outside either. Why do you think TrollTech has not yet released QT/Windows as GPL if they are not worried?
            • I don't think TrollTech is worried about that happening. I has been said elsewhere by TrollTech that they did not release Qt/X11 under the GPL for a long time because they were worried that someone else would take over Qt's development by outpacing them (although I can't remember where, I think this was said in the interview with TT's president).

              All in all, I think that it would have disadvantages and advantages, however, in this case, I think that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for TrollTech financially. It'd increase the popularity of Qt a lot.

              If TrollTech really didn't want this to happen, they wouldn't have released Qt under the GPL anyways. It'd be completely legal for anyone to do this, if he/she wanted to.

          • I don't think a GPL'd port of Qt for Windows would be... bad to TrollTech. People who used this port of Qt would have produce Free Software anyways. Since most companies could not accept this anways, they'd buy the commercial license anyways.

            I don't see many Free Software developers rushing out to buy commercial Qt licenses so they can produce Free Software for Windows. So, basically, TrollTech would not be harmed financially, and would probably gain more users (which could mean more Commercial licenses, if some of the Free Software developers wished to make non-Free Software).

            Amen!

            I'd have to hope Troll Tech is confident enough to GPL the native Windows version.

            Troll Tech keeps relaxing their licensing according to the successes of GTK and GNOME. Fine, competition is great. I have no doubt the Qt license will change AGAIN in the future...

            However the current COST of a Qt license is hurting Linux. By that I mean, they are hurting the small software developer. Troll Tech should have pity on low volume commercial software companies -- including shareware (what I call "mom and pop dot com") -- because the current licensing is way too expensive for the small guy. We want to encourage innovative, small developers... not just cheer and jeer for Oracle, and the latest game port. Qt licensing is like a head tax.. fair for some, but too steep for many.

            I'll give you a great example of Qt-like licensing:
            I lived in the state of New Hampshire. There in the land of "small government" the distribution of alcohol is a state-run monopoly. In order to have your alcoholic beverage "approved" to go on the wholesalers list, you pay a set tax regardless of the quantities sold. So, whatever Budweiser pays is also paid by Nutfield brewing company, or any outside brewer who wants access to the NH market.

            The result is, while the Northeast is a boom region for microbrews, New Hampshire lags the pack with just one midsized microbrew. This is artificial and due to the state tax, because NH consumes more microbrew per capita than anywhere in the northeast. The tax brings in income, but it's miscarried an entire industry.

            Anyone who thinks Linux on the desktop will "get there" without "shareware" is deliding themselves. There are just too many varied interests for the free software teams to fill.

            Now, you and I probabnly don't care about shareware... but these tiny niche apps will keep THOSE people on Windows forever. These apps COULD be ported to Linux if the right toolkit were available.

            Now, GTK gets around this totally by being LGPL. I don't think Troll Tech want to go THERE. So, they should address the vacuum by producing a low-volume commercial license. It will help the platform considerably!

        • Re:KDE on windows (Score:2, Insightful)

          by mlinksva (1755)
          In-house apps can be GPL'd easily because the source only has to be distributed where the binaries go.

          No company that doesn't want its source to get out is going to GPL its internal projects to avoid paying TrollTech. Too big of a risk. All someone has to do is anonymously post the GPL'd source someplace on the net, and the company's valuable, secret, internal (oooh, aaaah) intellectual property and probably lots about their business practices are revealed to anyone interested with no recourse.

          Long term, Troll Tech has to adapt to free software world domination just as much as any other company. If they can't make a good profit on training, consulting, custom development, and other services (see Cygnus), they better learn how.

          • All someone has to do is anonymously post the GPL'd source someplace on the net, and the company's valuable, secret, internal (oooh, aaaah) intellectual property and probably lots about their business practices are revealed to anyone interested with no recourse.

            Right.

            And not using the GPL will prevent some evil employee from posting the source anonymously.

            I don't care how low your UID is; you're still naive.

        • who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mj6798 (514047)
          TrollTech has been very supportive of KDE's development since the beginning, and has bent over backwards to please Free Software advocates by GPLing their main, high-quality product.

          TrollTech didn't do this out of charity, they did it to popularize a toolkit that otherwise wouldn't have had a chance in the market: at the time Qt came out, there were already several established commercial toolkits out there, with better tool support and much better documentation. The only gimmick Qt had was the QPL, and the adoption by KDE the popularized it.

          I hope they don't do this. If they do, they will just discourage companies from GPLing their products.

          The GPL is a two-way street. TrollTech has profited handsomely from the adoption of Qt by the open source community. If they didn't like the deal, they didn't have to take it--they were under no obligation to put Qt under the GPL. I hope any other company will take notice and think carefully about putting software under the GPL.

          • The whole point is, if you use the GPLed Qt, then you are obliged to GPL your code. Troll Tech obviously does not think their business customers will be prepared to do this.

            Then why haven't they released a GPL QT for Windows? If this was really the case, they would have no fears about GPLing QT for all their platforms. But still only the Linux version is open source. In-house software is the key.

      • Ummmm, qt has already been ported to windows natively... Actually, it's neve rbeen a port, since it was designed to run on both.

      • I think they'd have to port Qt to windows natively.

        But Qt already has a Windows port, and it has been there since the beginning of time. Perhaps it would be easier just to consult a licensed Qt user to build binaries rather than port the library? I hold a Qt/Windows license, and I wouldn't mind building a native Konqueror or something, as long as it isn't too much work.

  • Probably still has a ways to go... (Score:4, Funny)

    by mgkimsal2 (200677) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:23PM (#2608866) Homepage
    Their own project site says it's 'alpha'-level software. One of the guys in the office had played with Cygwin and Xfree86 running some stuff - nice idea, but seemed a bit kludgy at the time. Still, I suppose it can only get better. :)

    To those who ask "why bother?", at this time you might be right. However, as KDE matures, it'd be nice to know you could write apps that would run on many more boxes than just native Linux boxes. (Haven't seen KDE run on anything but Linux - I assume it might run on Solaris? *BSD?) Yeah, it's an early hack right now - if it matures to become a good alternative, it certainly can't be a bad thing in any sense of the word (unless you were to argue that that time could have been better spent developing some other apps).

  • The kde-on-cygwin homepage... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bflong (107195) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:26PM (#2608870) Homepage
    is here [sourceforge.net].

    There are a few screenshots of kde 1.2.x there, but very little on the kde 2.X port.

  • Commit to CVS? (Score:2, Redundant)

    by Mr. Sketch (111112)
    Will these ports of KDE make it into CVS so that windows will be just another build target for KDE? That would be really nice, however I heard that QT wasn't releasing a free version of 3.0 for windows which would prevent KDE 3.0 running under windows. Or maybe trolltech just wasn't releasing the source for QT 3.0 for windows.

    Anyways, great jobs guys!

      • Re:Commit to CVS? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Mr. Sketch (111112)
        It's a unix desktop, not a computer desktop

        Why can't it be a computer desktop? Pretty much all the programs except the control center are not unix specific. When you say "I sure won't be taking care to make it portable to Win32" is that implying you are a KDE developer/contributer? I wasn't implying that every developer would have to ensure their code will work on Win32. I was figuring a small porting team would work on that and make their commits and build binaries, etc, since after the project as a whole is ported, it shouldn't be too difficult to maintain new additions, maybe do nightly/weekly builds from cvs to see what (if anything) needs some work to keep it Win32 compatible.

        I think it would be nice to offer the KDE desktop as an alternative to the standard Win32 desktop, or at the very least offer the KDE applications as native Win32 apps (kinda like how the Gimp works, but it's GTK+).
  • Not KDE, though if you like Afterstep, this is an alternative to the Lose9x shell at least. http://www.litestep.net/

  • Other resources (Score:4, Informative)

    by Col. Panic (90528) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:39PM (#2608908) Homepage Journal
    I also am forced to use NT at work, but it is much easier with a few tools. Here are a few other ports:

    pstools [sysinternals.com]

    strings [sysinternals.com]

    grep [interlog.com]

  • I played around with the 1.2 port and it was darned slow. Looking at the sourceforge update it seems that performance problems still plague the 2.2.x port.

    Still, it's pretty darned cool to be able to run KDE in a window in NT/2000/XP. I look forward to the day when there is an entire cygwin distro. Won't have to dual boot or buy VMWare to try out linux apps.

    -josh
    • The problem is cygwin. Cygwin is very slow for some things (probably what has to go through the emulated API).
      • The problem is that a lot of the POSIX-style system calls don't map well to the Win32 system layer. One main example is fork():

        In Unix, it's fork and be done with it. The code's built in. Under Cygwin, fork() is emulated like in the first versions of Unix, involing some wierd scheme of memory address copying and process signaling, since Win32 has no need in itself for a function like fork.

        There was another in the similar line, I forget what exactly, but the cygwin FAQ or thereabouts said that those two system calls are what causes such a massive performance hit in emulation.

        Anything that has to do real-time conversions for an app is going to be slower than the native environment, even on a fast computer.

  • Linux Desktop (Score:2, Insightful)

    by meekjt (94667)
    I always find Timothy's posts a little odd... Why does he call KDE a "Linux desktop" when it runs on many versions of UNIX? And, how is KDE "Unix-friendly" when it is very much a clone of MS Windows?

    • Re:Linux Desktop (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Nailer (69468)
      KDE is a clone of MS Windows? How? Because it uses a list box widget to display a list of applications? Sorry to burst your bubble, the Start menu came from OS/2, not that it's especially unique or anything.

      KDE is findamentally different from Windows in a variety of ways - style guidelines word strongly against MDI apps, which are the standard for most Windows apps despite being confusing to end users. KDE is more focused around using multiple desktops than Windows is, Windows still encourages users to log on as someone else if they'd like to run a program as another user (runas is flaky) rather than KDE's kdesu approach.

      Windows looks like my AtariST. MacOS looks like Next, and older MacOS looks like Xerox porototype work.

      Everyone's stealing ideas from everyone else - XPs task grouping came about after GNOME had this feature for years. KDE grabs concepts from MacOS and OS/2 too, as does Windows.

  • hmm... (Score:3, Funny)

    by xmodfoo (538844) on Sunday November 25 2001, @01:30AM (#2609267) Homepage
    Can I use WINE to emulate win32 in Linux and run KDE with it?

    • Re:Too bad nobody will use it... (Score:4, Informative)

      by fault0 (514452) on Saturday November 24 2001, @10:06PM (#2608821) Homepage Journal
      Sure you can. Qt/X11 is gpl'd without any other restrictions other than what the GPL has. So you can port it to whatever you want, including distribute binaries of said Qt port.

      Afaik, these guys are using Cygwin, which has a X11 server anyways, so not even that applies here.
      • Yes, this is KDE running in a large window on your Windows desktop, not KDE applications running in their own separate windows. It uses the Cygwin port of XFree86, which doesn't allow applications to run in their own separate windows yet. The GPL'd QT hasn't been ported, it is just running in sort of an emulation window, kind of like Wine in desktop mode. This doesn't use the commercial Windows QT.
    • While its true that QT library can't be compiled,
      there are some ways to get around that. And while I like the way the Windows shell works, occasionally I find advantage in using other visual shells. I'd use KDE.

      HOWEVER, the big problems lie in the conversion.
      I love cygwin and use it as my main POSIX environment. I use it much more than Linux, and have added most of the best tools to my version of it.

      Icewm and twm have already been ported, and despite the simplicity of the two, both have problems in Windows, making a lot of other programs less workable (this is especially true of Icewm). In addition, configuration is based upon a series of workarounds, and is thoroughly unlike the elegant method used within Linux.

      KDE already somewhat slow, buggy, and complex in Linux - while Icewm and TWM are quite simple. There's no way KDE will even be usable considering its complexity. The ability to change the configuration will make it far too difficult to change, and it would be too slow to run on all but the fastest machines since cygwin versions of apps are all slower than their linux counterparts.

      In addition, having the Window manager is one thing, but having apps for it is something else entirely. That's what it'd really be good for. I'd love to use kdevelop under cygwin, but its not going to be joining Windows with KDE.

        • Re:whats the point (Score:3, Interesting)

          by mgkimsal2 (200677)
          Konqeuror, while perhaps not the best browser on the planet, DOES give you much better control over cookies than IE. The new IE6 privacy mgr stuff is, imo, just horrendous.
          • The new IE6 privacy mgr stuff is, imo, just horrendous.

            Actually, I prefer it over Konqueror's cookie management (which I also think is very good, don't get me wrong). With IE6, I have separate control over first- and third-party cookies. I can set all cookies to "block" except for harmless and sometimes useful single-session cookies. If I ever want to let one through, I simply click the little icon in the status bar, and it gives me a summary of what it has blocked. BTW, it blocks more than cookies: it's on to some other privacy-invading tricks as well (sometimes it blocks loading of certain apparently invisible .gifs). I can select any one of those blocked items and let it through.

            Konqueror doesn't really have anything comparable. The closest you can get is to make it ask you about cookies whenever you visit a new site. That generates lots of questions, which is annoying. You can set it to block always, but when you want to let a cookie through then, you have to go deep into the preferences, which is annoying. Especially because the preferences dialog takes forever to load and forever to go away afterwards. The cookie deleter dialog is nice, but I don't really find myself using it much. I'd like more convenient control over what gets in there in the first place.

            • konqueror the best? ha tahts funny

              Either you're just really tired because it's late where you are, or you're just stupid. My comment specifically stated that Konqueror was NOT the best browser. Sheesh...
                • Fair enough - tired is fine. :)

                  Yeah, aesthetically, it's coming along nicely, and as I mentioned before, cookie control is better than many other browsers. If they could do the tabbed browsing like in moz.9.6, and a few other things, it may become my default platform. As more of my work is done via just web browsers, I'm flirting more and more with using Linux/KDE as my primary environment, instead of secondary to W2k. I *really* don't want to get into the whole XP thing in the Windows world. By the time I need to upgrade again, fingers crossed, Linux/KDE will be a rock-solid alternative (close, but no cigar yet).
        • In some area's, Konqueror is a better file manager than Windows Explorer. For example, whenever I use explorer, I itch to have the menu that Konqueror pops up when moving around files. It's incredibly useful.

          On the other hand, Windows Explorer beats the shit out of all X11 in terms of speed, esp. Nautilus, and Konqueror to less off a degree. And no, I'm not counting ROX because it's not in the same field as Explorer in terms of features.
          • For example, whenever I use explorer, I itch to have the menu that Konqueror pops up when moving around files. It's incredibly useful.

            Drag with the right mouse button. I'd guess Microsoft is worried about usability so much they didn't think about real users. It's non-obvious what to do when you want to copy a program instead of "link" it. You have to use the right-mouse button to drag instead of the regular left button. I guess they thought a little pop-up was too confusing for people so they didn't make it the default. Right-mouse button dragging is all I ever use, that way I always get the result I want instead of the result Windows wants.

      • Didja actually try it? It's perfectly stable. This capability has been in Windows for years, though not exposed through UI. It's a shame that some folks are unable to take off their anti-ms blinders & evaluate technology objectively.
    • It'd called branding. It signifies that a particular program was written by a certain group, in case, the KDE developers.

      Microsoft does it too.

      Whats the html browser in Microsoft Windows called?
      MicrosoftMicrosoft's word processing application?

      Microsoft Word

      What is the name of Microsoft's C++ IDE?

      Microsoft Visual C++
      • Bah, messed up that last post.

        It'd called branding. It signifies that a particular program was written by a certain group, in case, the KDE developers.

        Microsoft does it too.

        Whats the html browser in Microsoft Windows called?
        Microsoft Internet Explorer

        What's the name of Microsoft's word processing application?

        Microsoft Word

        What is the name of Microsoft's C++ IDE?

        Microsoft Visual C++
      • Well, it's kinda branding, but the message it's sending isn't necessarily that "these developers wrote this program". "K" thrown in front of something seems to signify that it's written to work with KDE, not that any 'official' KDE developers worked on it. It's late, but "KBear" comes to mind as something which isn't 'officially' from the KDE team, but simply means that it's geared to work with KDE. Unfortunately, 'K' is too easy to tack on - I think the 'branding' message will be diluted, if it's not already to some degree.
    • If you want a stable, secure, and lightweight OS use Blackbox or XFce on top of OpenBSD. For all of KDE's huge footprint, tons of code, it doesn't even come close to the ease of use of XFce. Now why Linux companies don't introduct first time Linux users to XFce is beyond me. It would certainly change the reputation of Unix being dicciult to use...

    • Improvement in IE6 (Score:3, Insightful)

      by crisco (4669)
      It has a W3C standards compatibility rendering mode, triggered by the proper DOCTYPE declaration. More info here [gutfeldt.ch] and MS own pages [microsoft.com] on it (described as 'CSS Enhancements' by MS). From my perspective that is significant, though too long in coming.


      You're right though, choice is good, more browsers are good, standards compliance is good.

      • Did they expect people to turn around and suddenly pay for Navigator Gold or whatever?

        Yeah, they did. The free copy was technically only an evaluation copy for a long time. However, they had to make it totally free in order to compete with IE. There were lots of other channels which Netscape tried to use to make money, including partnerships with solution providers like Sun (Java in the browser - ugh), content providers (remember Netcaster? that thing was fucked up), licensees of the client software etc. They were fucked in almost every area by Microsoft, either because IE was free or because MS used its market power to stop people from entering any business relationship with Netscape. Netscape was also partially at fault because some things they did were really stupid.

        If we assume that IE had not existed (Microsoft realizing in 2001 that the Internet may be relevant, or something), Netscape would certainly be a highly profitable company by now, and a very decent web-browser.

        • Netscape was very much at fault for its failure in the browser market and in general. They thought they'd take over the world, developed and bought a a million different applications to do so -- and every single Netscape application I ever saw sucked. The browser and the company deserved to die. If Microsoft had never produced a browser and Netscape somehow held on to its dominant market share (I don't think it would have, someone else would've come along), we'd all really hate Netscape and its crappy products now. Not that any of this excuses Microsoft in any way, shape, or form ... but I don't care about excusing any proprietary software company any moreso than any other. The important thing is that we now have at least two viable free software engines (Gecko and khtml) and several browsers and platforms supported amongst them. That's real choice. Netscape vs. Microsoft wasn't ever real choice, even if they had evenly split the market 50/50.
        • Note he was talking about IE, which has a distinct lack of any MDI mode. But on the subject, I like being able to middle click and have a document load in a background tab. I can't display two pages at the same time in MDI, have to do SDI then, but that is a much rarer case. If Opera can do pop-under MDI, and have a "maximize by default" so it resembles a tab interface, I'd be much more interested. Having the option of windowed MDI is nice, but the tab paradigm has advantages..

    • Re:Forced to use windows? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by BlueUnderwear (73957) on Sunday November 25 2001, @05:23AM (#2609664)
      Whenever I read someone saying that they are forced to use windows at work I cringe.

      Does this company have a policy against using anything other than windows?

      At my former job (a bank), company policy was indeed that windows was mandatory. So those jobs do exists. Funny that anybody would doubt this, I always lived under the impression that most jobs required windows, and that places where you are allowed to run Linux on the desktop (such as my current job) were still the exception.

      If they do, I doubt that the poster will be permitted to run KDE even if it is win32.

      Good point. Indeed, during the first couple of month, while working on a java project, it was impossible to get permission to install Cygwin. However, after that I got involved in a project with Tcl, and as there is (fortunately) no Visual Tcl, I got permission to install Cygwin, Emacs, the works. Certainly, being good friends with the guy in charge of security helped too, but this experience shows that places which mandate Windows, while still allowing Cygwin do indeed exist.

      The fact of the matter is that this guy uses windows at work to be productive as his line of work is in win32 applications no doubt.

      Nope. In general such policies exist to make IT support more productive. If they only have to know one operating system, it's easyer for them. Although this may seem backwards (IT are there to support the users, not the other way round), this is unfortunately what happens in many places.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.