This, like nearly every Slashdot headline, is sensationalistic. If you read what Dave said it is clear that he is referencing support for *older* versions of WebKit;
"Even when they have been fixed in the latest Chrome or Safari, older WebKit implementations like PhantomJS and UIWebView still don't have the fix."
Think about it for a moment. IE has had 3 major releases in the past 10 years (I'm not counting IE10 just yet). Safari, on the other hand, has had 6. Chrome has had, what... 24 now? So, yeah... if you take a normalization library like jQuery and look at the amount of code needed to support the various iterations of browsers, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to realize that supporting the various bugs in 30 versions will take more code/effort than 3 versions. The latest versions of WebKit, as the title seems to suggest, is not "as broken" as older versions of IE.
Low yield/Low risk implies exposure to risk. You are saying is that GOOG is, what then? Medium risk? High risk? That's my point. If he views GOOG as risky, people should at least take that into consideration. Furthermore, it isn't like the guy came went directly from rags-to-Google. Prior to Google he was at both Sun and Novell. In addition to all of his stock options, salary and bonuses over the past decode -- Google gave the guy a $100 million gift when he vacated the CEO seat two years ago. I seriously don't think he's worried about retirement.
Is it "totally understandable"? Interest rates are basically zero, which means that taking money "here and now" doesn't gain him anything. He might want to invest elsewhere in order to diversify his portfolio but such a move would only make sense given an underlying principle that he a) suspects something may perform better than GOOG or b) has uncertainties about the future of GOOG (to the point where cashing out now and stuffing cash in his mattress is better than holding onto GOOG).
It isn't to say either of those reasons are "bad" from a savvy-businessman point of view, but it also doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the action as "totally understandable" either.
Slashdot Mirror
It's Google VS Microsoft. The first line of the link says as much. Apple only (rightfully) sided with Microsoft. They aren't involved in the lawsuit.
This, like nearly every Slashdot headline, is sensationalistic. If you read what Dave said it is clear that he is referencing support for *older* versions of WebKit;
... 24 now? So, yeah ... if you take a normalization library like jQuery and look at the amount of code needed to support the various iterations of browsers, you don't need to be a rocket surgeon to realize that supporting the various bugs in 30 versions will take more code/effort than 3 versions. The latest versions of WebKit, as the title seems to suggest, is not "as broken" as older versions of IE.
"Even when they have been fixed in the latest Chrome or Safari, older WebKit implementations like PhantomJS and UIWebView still don't have the fix."
Think about it for a moment. IE has had 3 major releases in the past 10 years (I'm not counting IE10 just yet). Safari, on the other hand, has had 6. Chrome has had, what
Low yield/Low risk implies exposure to risk. You are saying is that GOOG is, what then? Medium risk? High risk? That's my point. If he views GOOG as risky, people should at least take that into consideration. Furthermore, it isn't like the guy came went directly from rags-to-Google. Prior to Google he was at both Sun and Novell. In addition to all of his stock options, salary and bonuses over the past decode -- Google gave the guy a $100 million gift when he vacated the CEO seat two years ago. I seriously don't think he's worried about retirement.
Is it "totally understandable"? Interest rates are basically zero, which means that taking money "here and now" doesn't gain him anything. He might want to invest elsewhere in order to diversify his portfolio but such a move would only make sense given an underlying principle that he a) suspects something may perform better than GOOG or b) has uncertainties about the future of GOOG (to the point where cashing out now and stuffing cash in his mattress is better than holding onto GOOG). It isn't to say either of those reasons are "bad" from a savvy-businessman point of view, but it also doesn't mean you can simply dismiss the action as "totally understandable" either.
Flooz?