Perhaps you misunderstood. I was asking for primary source material. Would you happen to have a link to internal strategy documents?
The howtogeek.com article had no citations to internal strategy memos and the winbeta.org article reiterated a PR tweet.
My entire point of asking for these memos was that what the PR machine or third-party analysts say is not the same as the actual process Microsoft used to make it's choice. That's what I'm after. Why did Microsoft make the choice, not why do others think they made the choice and not what did Microsoft say to clarify the choice.
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
Please, go read his comments once more: "Sounds like another great reason to move over to OSX (or any flavor of Linux)...". I don't see anything suggesting HE would change but rather is speaking for everybody.
At the end of the day the/. users voted his comment inflammatory because it wasn't a founded opinion.
I never said it wasn't inflammatory. It was. I don't disagree with the moderators.
What is a founded opinion? One where one uses something, like say Microsoft adding subscription options to Office, to found an opinion, such as they might add subscription options to Windows?
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings
The information is out there. There's another user that linked it in the thread for people to get informed before making an unfounded statement.
I had not seen these internal strategy memo links. Would you care to provide a citation?
Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
But you did through suggestion. Your comments: "I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies"
And what does that comment have to do with Windows 10 being free? I don't see the connection.
What I mean is there are here, for the sake of argument, two systems of pricing an application suit, say Office. One way is sell a license to a particular version in perpetuity. Let's call that way L. Another way is to sell a subscription to only the latest version for a limited time. Let's call that way S. In the past Microsoft offered the following set of pricing models {L}. In a potential future, they might offer another set: {S}. The current state is {L, S}. The current state is a step between {L} and {S}.
Does that clarify what I mean by taking a step towards a subscription-only model? I am asserting nothing about the likelihood they will take the next step, only that they have taken *a step* down a path that leads to subscription-only.
As to the iOS platform situation, I do wish they would offer their applications for a one-time fee rather than subscription.
I agree we don't know what will happen. All we have is Microsoft's past behavior to go on, and that's changed over the decades and under different leadership. It would be folly to assume anything about their actions a year from now, regardless what they say, because they are not particularly consistent.
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
The end of his comment was inflammatory, as simple as that. In addition he wasn't speaking an opinion, he's instead telling people it's time to move on which is completely absurd to do without a proper reason.
He was not telling anyone it was time to move on. He was saying it was time for him to move on. He is doing that because of his opinion. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course, but don't put words in his mouth.
The fact that you think Windows 10 being free is the same as Office being on subscription is telling me you haven't understood why MS is offering Windows 10 for free.
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings and I rather not assume that my guess as to why they are giving it out for free is the actual reason they've used to make that choice. That said, I didn't bring up Windows 10 in any of my posts and I have not equated that with anything Office related. Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
He made an opinion and was attacked for misstating "facts", which he did not state. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course. I, also, do not agree completely with his opinion. We don't know where Microsoft is heading. Or at least, I don't.
I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies: something they did not do years ago. On some platforms, such as the iPad, a subscription is requirement to have Office be anything other than a viewer only.
Again, no one said Microsoft is guaranteed to move to a subscription model for Windows. We don't know if they will or will not. It is possible, though, to interpret some of their recent moves and past philosophies in such a way such that it's a possible path for them to take.
Yes it is. I did not say it was *only* available in a subscription, but they are *moving* in that direction. As in, years ago, one bought a boxed copy and had it for as long as one wanted to use it, but now they offer both. It's a step in that direction. Maybe they'll take the next step; maybe they won't. We don't know, but they took the first step.
Track record of strong-arming their OEMs, moving towards a subscription model for Office, onerous piracy-prevention mechanism using a central authority to permit their operating system to run.
Whether you trust microsoft or not, the fact remains that trying to push the "you need to buy it every year" line as a fact is in direct opposition to what Microsoft is publicly stating at this point.
Yes, that's true, but this whole thread is not about trying to push that as a fact. It was in response to, and I quote, "Seems like this is heading toward a yearly paid subscription model for an OS from Microsoft?" I would emphasis *seems like*. That is an *opinion* and quite a reasonable opinion given Microsoft's track record of
In order to succeed as a scientist, one must be of above-average intelligence.
Could not one of average intelligence yet above-average perseverance perform an experiment building on another's experiment and be called a "successful" scientist. You did not show that above-average intelligence is a necessary condition for success as a scientist.
the Windows version [of Safari] is flaky in my experience.
(Emphasis mine).
Do you mean the three-year-old, discontinued, non-supported, version 5.1.7 of Safari for Windows? By citing such dated information, you make me wonder on what basis you've formed the rest of the opinions expressed in your post.
No, but they tend to have more influence than most individuals, hence being a good reply to 'enough people that mattered', with emphases on the word 'mattered'.
Does Robocopy do integrity checking of the copies? Also, with zero retries, what happens on a failed backup? Are you notified? While your solution only takes a moment to set up, there are far better solutions that take as little (or less time) but offer more robust copying, to multiple destinations, with encryption, and without needing to copy over exact copies.
TIL is a fairly common, in recent years, initialism for "today I learned." The very first result I got for a Google search for "til" is the TIL Reddit. The very second result was an urban dictionary entry. I don't know why I bothered to do the work for you; I suppose I felt generous being your Google-bot.
You did not answer my question. I asked "What are the patent issues with the C++ standard?". You answered that something one implements might infringe on someone else's patent, but that is irrelevant to the question.
When I was young I had an old Saab. I guess I have always been odd. Anyhow, that Saab was terrible and I had little money or expertise to repair it. I could not trust it to get me to my destination. Yet, strangely enough, I still used it. I could not trust it to start, trust the brakes to work, or even trust the lights to remain on for very long. (I did fix the brakes.)
You do not need to trust something to use it.
You do, to some degree. You trusted the Saab not to explode when you attempted to start it, for example. Trust is not a 0% or 100% thing, it's more complicated than that. When someone says they don't trust X, they really mean they don't trust X to do Y. That Y is important, if sometimes implied. You did not trust your Saab in many regards, but you did trust it in some regards. If you did not trust it in *ANY* regards, you wouldn't use it.
That is not to say I don't use products, but use does not imply 100% trust. It implies just enough trust to use something.
You seem to contradict yourself there. You cannot trust nobody but then trust somebody just enough to use something. My entire point was that non-zero trust was impossible when using anything you did not build yourself. A point you seem to agree with despite your protestations that you completely disagree.
What am I "trusting" Slashdot (or "the readership".. wtf?) with exactly?
You are trusting Slashdot with your username, your password, and the text you submitted in any comments or stories you may have written. If you do not use this username or password anywhere but here, (and good for you on that), then you are making the data you give them less valuable. That's a sensible thing to do, but you do trust them with that.
If you had zero trust in Slashdot, you wouldn't even give them that. They could, if they were malicious, alter your submitted posts to make you out to be a pathological monster vowing to murder a world leader and alert authorities of that country. Those authorities might not believe in the rule of law and send agents after you.
A far fetched example of course, which means you don't have to trust them very much, but it cannot be zero, or you wouldn't give them the little information you did.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll be happy to provide. A simple search on Windows 10 Free strategy found these two links. Was it that hard to be informed before putting BS online like all the trolls of this world?
http://www.winbeta.org/news/st...
http://www.howtogeek.com/22095...
Perhaps you misunderstood. I was asking for primary source material. Would you happen to have a link to internal strategy documents?
The howtogeek.com article had no citations to internal strategy memos and the winbeta.org article reiterated a PR tweet.
My entire point of asking for these memos was that what the PR machine or third-party analysts say is not the same as the actual process Microsoft used to make it's choice. That's what I'm after. Why did Microsoft make the choice, not why do others think they made the choice and not what did Microsoft say to clarify the choice.
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
Please, go read his comments once more: "Sounds like another great reason to move over to OSX (or any flavor of Linux)...". I don't see anything suggesting HE would change but rather is speaking for everybody.
At the end of the day the /. users voted his comment inflammatory because it wasn't a founded opinion.
I never said it wasn't inflammatory. It was. I don't disagree with the moderators.
What is a founded opinion? One where one uses something, like say Microsoft adding subscription options to Office, to found an opinion, such as they might add subscription options to Windows?
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings
The information is out there. There's another user that linked it in the thread for people to get informed before making an unfounded statement.
I had not seen these internal strategy memo links. Would you care to provide a citation?
Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
But you did through suggestion. Your comments:
"I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies"
And what does that comment have to do with Windows 10 being free? I don't see the connection.
What I mean is there are here, for the sake of argument, two systems of pricing an application suit, say Office. One way is sell a license to a particular version in perpetuity. Let's call that way L. Another way is to sell a subscription to only the latest version for a limited time. Let's call that way S. In the past Microsoft offered the following set of pricing models {L}. In a potential future, they might offer another set: {S}. The current state is {L, S}. The current state is a step between {L} and {S}.
Does that clarify what I mean by taking a step towards a subscription-only model? I am asserting nothing about the likelihood they will take the next step, only that they have taken *a step* down a path that leads to subscription-only.
As to the iOS platform situation, I do wish they would offer their applications for a one-time fee rather than subscription.
I agree we don't know what will happen. All we have is Microsoft's past behavior to go on, and that's changed over the decades and under different leadership. It would be folly to assume anything about their actions a year from now, regardless what they say, because they are not particularly consistent.
You read and assume an awful lot that neither me nor Zymergy has actually said.
The end of his comment was inflammatory, as simple as that. In addition he wasn't speaking an opinion, he's instead telling people it's time to move on which is completely absurd to do without a proper reason.
He was not telling anyone it was time to move on. He was saying it was time for him to move on. He is doing that because of his opinion. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course, but don't put words in his mouth.
The fact that you think Windows 10 being free is the same as Office being on subscription is telling me you haven't understood why MS is offering Windows 10 for free.
You are correct, I do not know why Microsoft is offering Windows 10 for free. I am not privy to their strategy meetings and I rather not assume that my guess as to why they are giving it out for free is the actual reason they've used to make that choice. That said, I didn't bring up Windows 10 in any of my posts and I have not equated that with anything Office related. Please don't put words in *my* mouth either.
He made an opinion and was attacked for misstating "facts", which he did not state. You are free to disagree with his opinion, of course. I, also, do not agree completely with his opinion. We don't know where Microsoft is heading. Or at least, I don't.
I can see, though, how one would feel that they are going towards subscription models for their products. They've taken the first step to do so with Office by offering subscriptions in addition to boxed copies: something they did not do years ago. On some platforms, such as the iPad, a subscription is requirement to have Office be anything other than a viewer only.
Again, no one said Microsoft is guaranteed to move to a subscription model for Windows. We don't know if they will or will not. It is possible, though, to interpret some of their recent moves and past philosophies in such a way such that it's a possible path for them to take.
Yes it is. I did not say it was *only* available in a subscription, but they are *moving* in that direction. As in, years ago, one bought a boxed copy and had it for as long as one wanted to use it, but now they offer both. It's a step in that direction. Maybe they'll take the next step; maybe they won't. We don't know, but they took the first step.
Track record of strong-arming their OEMs, moving towards a subscription model for Office, onerous piracy-prevention mechanism using a central authority to permit their operating system to run.
Whether you trust microsoft or not, the fact remains that trying to push the "you need to buy it every year" line as a fact is in direct opposition to what Microsoft is publicly stating at this point.
Yes, that's true, but this whole thread is not about trying to push that as a fact. It was in response to, and I quote, "Seems like this is heading toward a yearly paid subscription model for an OS from Microsoft?" I would emphasis *seems like*. That is an *opinion* and quite a reasonable opinion given Microsoft's track record of
The fact that men don't even get the option of "sit on my ass and force my spouse to pay for everything".
If you think there are not arrangements like that, you are mistaken.
I don't like Ads. I use Mobile Safari. Those need not be mutually exclusive. I don't browse ad-supported websites very often.
He said she should have the power to choose a career for herself. Where is the inequality?
They are free to believe what they want, but they are not free to consider their beliefs as factual as actual facts.
In order to succeed as a scientist, one must be of above-average intelligence.
Could not one of average intelligence yet above-average perseverance perform an experiment building on another's experiment and be called a "successful" scientist. You did not show that above-average intelligence is a necessary condition for success as a scientist.
Are AdBlock Plus and Ghostery available for MobileIE?
the Windows version [of Safari] is flaky in my experience.
(Emphasis mine).
Do you mean the three-year-old, discontinued, non-supported, version 5.1.7 of Safari for Windows? By citing such dated information, you make me wonder on what basis you've formed the rest of the opinions expressed in your post.
No, but they tend to have more influence than most individuals, hence being a good reply to 'enough people that mattered', with emphases on the word 'mattered'.
On the internet, nobody knows if one is a dog, or a 'bot; they assume one is a "guy".
Does Robocopy do integrity checking of the copies? Also, with zero retries, what happens on a failed backup? Are you notified? While your solution only takes a moment to set up, there are far better solutions that take as little (or less time) but offer more robust copying, to multiple destinations, with encryption, and without needing to copy over exact copies.
TIL is a fairly common, in recent years, initialism for "today I learned." The very first result I got for a Google search for "til" is the TIL Reddit. The very second result was an urban dictionary entry. I don't know why I bothered to do the work for you; I suppose I felt generous being your Google-bot.
You did not answer my question. I asked "What are the patent issues with the C++ standard?". You answered that something one implements might infringe on someone else's patent, but that is irrelevant to the question.
Then just stop developing anything, period.
There are patent issues with *everything*
What are the patent issues with the C++ standard? Please, cite a specific patent.
When I was young I had an old Saab. I guess I have always been odd. Anyhow, that Saab was terrible and I had little money or expertise to repair it. I could not trust it to get me to my destination. Yet, strangely enough, I still used it. I could not trust it to start, trust the brakes to work, or even trust the lights to remain on for very long. (I did fix the brakes.)
You do not need to trust something to use it.
You do, to some degree. You trusted the Saab not to explode when you attempted to start it, for example. Trust is not a 0% or 100% thing, it's more complicated than that. When someone says they don't trust X, they really mean they don't trust X to do Y. That Y is important, if sometimes implied. You did not trust your Saab in many regards, but you did trust it in some regards. If you did not trust it in *ANY* regards, you wouldn't use it.
I trust nobody
That is not to say I don't use products, but use does not imply 100% trust. It implies just enough trust to use something.
You seem to contradict yourself there. You cannot trust nobody but then trust somebody just enough to use something. My entire point was that non-zero trust was impossible when using anything you did not build yourself. A point you seem to agree with despite your protestations that you completely disagree.
What am I "trusting" Slashdot (or "the readership".. wtf?) with exactly?
You are trusting Slashdot with your username, your password, and the text you submitted in any comments or stories you may have written. If you do not use this username or password anywhere but here, (and good for you on that), then you are making the data you give them less valuable. That's a sensible thing to do, but you do trust them with that.
If you had zero trust in Slashdot, you wouldn't even give them that. They could, if they were malicious, alter your submitted posts to make you out to be a pathological monster vowing to murder a world leader and alert authorities of that country. Those authorities might not believe in the rule of law and send agents after you.
A far fetched example of course, which means you don't have to trust them very much, but it cannot be zero, or you wouldn't give them the little information you did.