Dear anonymous Slasdhot guy. The comment editing feature here on Slasdhot is, shall we say 'challenging'. Also, the posts are not terribly discoverable.
So, I read your posts (those that I could find) and replied to you on my blog here: http://foredecker.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/dear-anonymous-slashdot-guy
I am not going to reply to you again as Anonymous Coward on Slasdhot. Commenting on my blog requries a wordpress logon. It would be great if you got a Slashdot user name. This will enable people to follow you.
Oh... by the way I'm working on answers that I promised you. I have not forgotten. this is about the open network ports topic.
I'm talking to the right people and workign on gettin agreemtn to give you a public answer.
Given this is security related, I don't want to surprise anyone and get email from any VP's or Presidents as a result.
MSFT has a very liberal blogging and posting policy, but still, I'd like to avoid stepping in in a pile of poo if I can avoid it.
I have no insider knowledge, but I strongly suspect they had problems with both the HW and Softare.
I suspect the hardware actualy worked pretty well (it is Intel - the don't suck at all) but the problem was costs. Both ATI and NVIDIA have been at this a long time and producin cost effective graphics silicon is quite difficult.
The software is also quite complext. The rendering model is -very- different and nobody is goin to re-write all theitr software to accomodate someting alien. So, they had to make it work with existing models.
This is expensive. Both in terms of run itme efficiencey and engineering calendar time.
I suspect they figured out they simply couldn't compete in the mass PC graphics market.
I suspect Jen-Hsun Huang at NVIDIA is having a very, very good day.
Man, if that offends you, you must be offended quite often. Do you really think its that important that you should be offended?
Do you think things are so fragile that a mere product code name is important?
You have got to be kidding me... Slashdot is a "hot bed" of Microsoft critique.
Do you read the posts and replies?
note, I think this is perfectly fine and I like Slashdot quite a bit. But taken over by MSFT "shill's" it aint....
This has been tried before and it failed - anyone remember network appliances? How is this any different?
The client system itself could be infinity fast, and and still provide a poor user experience due to network and cloud latency an throughput issues. Most consumers will be on broadband or wireless connections with asymmetric speeds and flow control.
Such networks have poor up time - are people really going to be happy with any kind of system that are down a lot? My comcast connection just stops - for minutes - several times a week. With a 'real' computer (windows, linux, or mac) the user can still do things local - look at pictures, compose mail, read download mail, write documents, etc. etc.
In contrast, network appliances are useless if the network connection is dead.
Note, This isn't about Chrome versus Linux versus Mac versus Windows. This is the 'thick' versus 'thin' client thing all over again.
The old network appliance companies also tried this business model - it didn't work then. Do consumers really want such a limited device? Are there -really- enough consumers who will want this in addition to a 'real' PC or laptop? Or who will be satified with only a network appliance?
We shall see. I'm quite skeptical.
Hey Symbolset,
I don't disagree. I owe you a response to your overall point here. I haven't forgotten, but I've had a very busy few months with some personal things and haven't been spending time on blogging, reddit, digg, slashdot, etc.
Best Regards
Foredecker
that's a bad assumption. The example you give would be true for a native C Win32 API. But the code in question is manged (C#) code. This usually follows the coding style described in "Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable.NET Libraries"
I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows. Your right, this sounds made up. If the anonymous person is a real MSFT employee, then it doesn't sound like someone from the core product group (COSD or WEX).
I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate. There is no super secrete leak committee. Leaks are a big hassle.
No - we measure boot exactly the same way - time to a functioning desktop and idle resources. On a system with well optimized driver (e.g. ones that don't hang or have other synchronous bugs), and a good BIOS, W7 can boot very fast.
Certainly all the previous people replying would -never- download and keep a game that they never paid for, but that the should have. Only the other people do that.
Really? In the client space? Come on. Linux has always been free. Windows has always cost money. Even then, Linux still only has an almost immeasurably small percentage of the client computing market. Even in sever - where I completely agree it is technically competitive - it doesn't have a commanding market share.
If Linux was as awesome as the Linux fan boys thought it was, then for free it should be utterly dominating Windows. It clearly is not.
A good proof point is Apple - they have a product that costs real money and they have a real, sustained market share. Said another way - they are competitive. On the desktop Linux simply is not competitive. Never has been, and is a long way from being so.
Proof is in the pudding so to speak. In this case it is the numbers.
The netbook was supposed to be the big opening for desktop Linux. No material success for Linux there - people want Windows on netbooks as well.
Here is another way to look at it: A few OEM's sell some systems with Linux, but no OEM is making a major or committed business out of selling Linux based PCs.
Note â" none of this is because of technical limitations in the core Linux bits (like the kernel, networking stack, etc.) My personal opinion is that technically, core Linux is pretty groovy. But there is no organization that is prepared to ship Linux to millions of customers, let alone 10's or 100's of millions of customers. Even the best Linux client distributions donâ(TM)t deal with full consumer and enterprise end to end scenarios well. Microsoft (who I work for) has been doing this for years, and years. So has Apple.
The Linux community needs to figure out how to do that before Linux can be even moderately successful on the desktop.
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
Slashdot reply: This is just a plot to kill Linux.
Good golly molly. To be sure I see Linux as competition for Windows, but no more so than Apple or Google. Patents are a part of life. But there is no super complicated patent based grand scheme - its just business. From my point of view (I'm not an exec) we'll compete the old fashioned way - build stuff people will happily pay money for, and enable other people to run profitable businesses working with us.
sorry, I should have worded my question more clearly. Yes, I understand that some people belive that MS Office is more expensive in terms of total cost of ownerhip than OO. (that is a different argment....) What I'm asking is how would companies that invest money in OO development make a reasonble profit - this also means one that doesn't have high oportunity costs.
I'm not so sure: Companies like Oracle and Sun (who has not been succesfull for many years) would only invest in this if it would make them a decent return -and- if it was a better investment than other places they could spend the money.
How would companies like these profit from funding OO development? This is especially true if they do not have product level control over the project (features, schedule, quality, etc.)
Yes they could. But would they? If they tried, then how would they get paid? Contrary to popular believe - nobody works for free. Yes, someone may get paid for doing something other than contributing to a project, but they have to do something for a living. If a person is not getting paid to contribute to a project, then the time they get to spend on the project will be limited.
Slashdot Mirror
I am not going to reply to you again as Anonymous Coward on Slasdhot. Commenting on my blog requries a wordpress logon. It would be great if you got a Slashdot user name. This will enable people to follow you.
Best Regards
Foredecker
Oh... by the way I'm working on answers that I promised you. I have not forgotten. this is about the open network ports topic. I'm talking to the right people and workign on gettin agreemtn to give you a public answer. Given this is security related, I don't want to surprise anyone and get email from any VP's or Presidents as a result. MSFT has a very liberal blogging and posting policy, but still, I'd like to avoid stepping in in a pile of poo if I can avoid it.
agreed
I have no insider knowledge, but I strongly suspect they had problems with both the HW and Softare. I suspect the hardware actualy worked pretty well (it is Intel - the don't suck at all) but the problem was costs. Both ATI and NVIDIA have been at this a long time and producin cost effective graphics silicon is quite difficult. The software is also quite complext. The rendering model is -very- different and nobody is goin to re-write all theitr software to accomodate someting alien. So, they had to make it work with existing models. This is expensive. Both in terms of run itme efficiencey and engineering calendar time. I suspect they figured out they simply couldn't compete in the mass PC graphics market. I suspect Jen-Hsun Huang at NVIDIA is having a very, very good day.
well! You of course are perfectly correct! ahahahahah! I havne't been hanging around the marketing folks for a while...
Vaporware is not faster than existing products.
Man, if that offends you, you must be offended quite often. Do you really think its that important that you should be offended? Do you think things are so fragile that a mere product code name is important?
You have got to be kidding me... Slashdot is a "hot bed" of Microsoft critique. Do you read the posts and replies? note, I think this is perfectly fine and I like Slashdot quite a bit. But taken over by MSFT "shill's" it aint....
If people are moving from XP or Vista to Win7 then its upgrades almost entirely.
ummmm.... because silverlight is on its 4'th version and HTML5 isn't even a full standard yet.
This has been tried before and it failed - anyone remember network appliances? How is this any different? The client system itself could be infinity fast, and and still provide a poor user experience due to network and cloud latency an throughput issues. Most consumers will be on broadband or wireless connections with asymmetric speeds and flow control. Such networks have poor up time - are people really going to be happy with any kind of system that are down a lot? My comcast connection just stops - for minutes - several times a week. With a 'real' computer (windows, linux, or mac) the user can still do things local - look at pictures, compose mail, read download mail, write documents, etc. etc. In contrast, network appliances are useless if the network connection is dead. Note, This isn't about Chrome versus Linux versus Mac versus Windows. This is the 'thick' versus 'thin' client thing all over again. The old network appliance companies also tried this business model - it didn't work then. Do consumers really want such a limited device? Are there -really- enough consumers who will want this in addition to a 'real' PC or laptop? Or who will be satified with only a network appliance? We shall see. I'm quite skeptical.
Hey Symbolset, I don't disagree. I owe you a response to your overall point here. I haven't forgotten, but I've had a very busy few months with some personal things and haven't been spending time on blogging, reddit, digg, slashdot, etc. Best Regards Foredecker
that's a bad assumption. The example you give would be true for a native C Win32 API. But the code in question is manged (C#) code. This usually follows the coding style described in "Framework Design Guidelines: Conventions, Idioms, and Patterns for Reusable .NET Libraries"
Those are completely baseless claims. Don't make stuff up.
I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows. Your right, this sounds made up. If the anonymous person is a real MSFT employee, then it doesn't sound like someone from the core product group (COSD or WEX).
I'm a relatively senior development manager in Windows and no, they are not calculated or deliberate. There is no super secrete leak committee. Leaks are a big hassle.
No - we measure boot exactly the same way - time to a functioning desktop and idle resources. On a system with well optimized driver (e.g. ones that don't hang or have other synchronous bugs), and a good BIOS, W7 can boot very fast.
Certainly all the previous people replying would -never- download and keep a game that they never paid for, but that the should have. Only the other people do that.
Really? In the client space? Come on. Linux has always been free. Windows has always cost money. Even then, Linux still only has an almost immeasurably small percentage of the client computing market. Even in sever - where I completely agree it is technically competitive - it doesn't have a commanding market share.
If Linux was as awesome as the Linux fan boys thought it was, then for free it should be utterly dominating Windows. It clearly is not.
A good proof point is Apple - they have a product that costs real money and they have a real, sustained market share. Said another way - they are competitive. On the desktop Linux simply is not competitive. Never has been, and is a long way from being so.
Proof is in the pudding so to speak. In this case it is the numbers.
The netbook was supposed to be the big opening for desktop Linux. No material success for Linux there - people want Windows on netbooks as well.
Here is another way to look at it: A few OEM's sell some systems with Linux, but no OEM is making a major or committed business out of selling Linux based PCs.
Note â" none of this is because of technical limitations in the core Linux bits (like the kernel, networking stack, etc.) My personal opinion is that technically, core Linux is pretty groovy. But there is no organization that is prepared to ship Linux to millions of customers, let alone 10's or 100's of millions of customers. Even the best Linux client distributions donâ(TM)t deal with full consumer and enterprise end to end scenarios well. Microsoft (who I work for) has been doing this for years, and years. So has Apple.
The Linux community needs to figure out how to do that before Linux can be even moderately successful on the desktop.
Headline: Microsoft puts Windows source code into public domain!
Slashdot reply: This is just a plot to kill Linux.
Good golly molly. To be sure I see Linux as competition for Windows, but no more so than Apple or Google. Patents are a part of life. But there is no super complicated patent based grand scheme - its just business. From my point of view (I'm not an exec) we'll compete the old fashioned way - build stuff people will happily pay money for, and enable other people to run profitable businesses working with us.
So, Snow Leopard is now doing something Windows has always done... how is this news?
Both IE8 and Firefox take me to http://www.fatguyshirts.com/ if I type in donothijackme.com.
hi temporalBeing,
sorry, I should have worded my question more clearly. Yes, I understand that some people belive that MS Office is more expensive in terms of total cost of ownerhip than OO. (that is a different argment....) What I'm asking is how would companies that invest money in OO development make a reasonble profit - this also means one that doesn't have high oportunity costs.
I'm not so sure: Companies like Oracle and Sun (who has not been succesfull for many years) would only invest in this if it would make them a decent return -and- if it was a better investment than other places they could spend the money.
How would companies like these profit from funding OO development? This is especially true if they do not have product level control over the project (features, schedule, quality, etc.)
Yes they could. But would they? If they tried, then how would they get paid? Contrary to popular believe - nobody works for free. Yes, someone may get paid for doing something other than contributing to a project, but they have to do something for a living. If a person is not getting paid to contribute to a project, then the time they get to spend on the project will be limited.