If only Microsoft started to adhere to the W3C specification, the world would be a better place.
If only Mozilla started to adhere to MS's specifications, the world would be an equally better place. I don't really think that there's anything particularly special or important about the W3C that makes their arbitary standards better than somebody else's arbitrary standards.
Besides, who knows what the future will bring? Fifteen years ago, if someone told you that you should start developing for Microsoft NT/AS because Novell wouldn't be a factor in the NOS business, would you have believed them?
You're right. But your example also proves the point that you simply cannot tell what the IT world will be like that far in the future, so why bend over backwards trying to develop for some platform that may or may not exist in the future? SOME foresight is a good thing, but it's simply not possible to look into the future to figure out what you'll need much further than, hell, a year or two, I'd say.
Sure anyone can open MS Access or Visual Studio and build a little database app for a 5 person company, but the data is now locked up in windows, building in web access is a pain, and you can't run anything but windows on your desktops.
Data doesn't have anything to do with an OS. 'Fred Smith' = 'Fred Smith' on any platform. I don't understand how data has anything to do with OS.
Many companies don't run anything except for Windows on their desktops (mine included). Spending an extra day to do the same thing in case, one day in the future, years down the road, we *may* be a Mac box in the business is a waste of time and money for me. Actually, I probably would never allow another platform in my business because of things like longer development time, and other such headaches.
I think that the assumption that every program has to run anywhere, anytime is a false assumption, at best. It's kind of like a suburban homeowner buying a Mack Tractor-Trailer to drive to work every day in case one day he has to move (at which point, it would still be cheaper and easier to hire somebody else to do it). If I have to build an app for my business that needs to scale to millions of users on all kinds of devices, I think that I might have a bit of notice, and I could plan for it then. Spending that kind of time and money NOW, when it's not needed, would be a very dumb business move, especially considering how quickly technology changes. And you have to realize, that there are many, many, MANY businesses in the same boat as myself, for which Visual Studio is "da bomb".
Write an application that uses an OS-standard GUI to access any database. I'll use Visual Studio. You can use anything else. I can write a working application in a matter of minutes. I'm not aware of anything else out there that comes close to speed and ease-of-use for such things.
For many of us writing applications, it IS the best tool. I have exactly *zero* users running anything else than Windows, so for me, Visual Studio does kick ass.
I don't think that meta-validatino can *ever* work.
It's a lazy shortcut to somebody with a brain doing the editing/moderating themselves. The masses are NOT always right and are often wrong, in fact (Wikipedia). Meta-validation is a way to let "the users" do the work, even though those users are generally not qualified to do so. The whole value in say, a web site, is offering useful, accurate information to other people who don't already know that information. Meta-validation is essentially mod rule, with no order or methodology. Meta-validation is a shortcut to profit, and as a result, it will never result in good, long-term information.
... it's about all of Yahoo's cool stuff. Mail, Music, Shopping, Finance, Auctions, etc. Yahoo has the best personalized web experience, in my opinion, and it doesn't have anything to do with their search.
If it wasn't for 20 some years of MS indifference towards security, there wouldn't be botnets like this, being used for DDOS attacks and forwarding billions of spams a day.
Uh, wrong. No software is completely secure, especially something as complicated as an operating system. This would still be happening, except it would be on Unix/OS2/Apple boxes instead of Windows. Get over it.
Wait... you just said that PC's are just a tool that should work consistently over a long period of time. I agree with you. Then you say, "This will prompt more people to look for alternatives to MSes greed and insanity." That doesn't make sense. All it does is make people not want to upgrade. They're certainly not going to go running to find a non-Windows product, because their Windows stuff is already working just fine, as is.
What you say would be true if MS was going to send some kind of "self-destruct" instruction to every Windows 2000 machine out there once Vista is released, which ain't gonna happen.
So who makes up the rules as to what is "Fair"? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Hell, it seems completely immoral to me, actually: A company becomes so incredibly successful that most of their competitors go under, so that success is attacked by the very government that is supposed to protect private property. Fucking twisted, if you ask me.
"Standards"? According to whom? God? You? The Council of Dorks? Any "Standards" are arbitary, anyway. MS has no reason to submit to anybody else's standards.
It astonishes me that anyone would stand up for them.
There are some people who belive in the the inherent right to private property, and the importance of maintaining those rights, no matter who the subject is. Private property being inviolate is critical to a civilized society. I do not think that the government has any right, whatsoever, to take private property for completely arbitrary reasons, especially when those reasons are revolve around punishing hugely successful people or organizations out of spite. If I want my private property to be mine: my land, my house, my possessions; without the government interfering, I have to support the same for anybody else or any other orgranizations, else I'd be a hypocrite. You sir, either have no possessions, or a hypocrite.
That also means that OSS projects won't ever be able to sell software because none of them can take the hits from punitive lawsuits like the big boys (MS, IBM, Sun, Oracle) can.
Not necessarily. If all you're doing is rendering HTML or reading XML or something basic like that, it doesn't change. I dunno. I'm not any kind of systems architect. I just know that it's mind-boggling easy to embed IE in any Windows app (drag and drop), and that makes developing apps incredibly easy. Right now, I have open two shrink-wrapped applications (business apps that I purchased) that also use IE heavily.
Actually, having sex (or looking like you're having sex) on a plane will send you straight to a federal prison by men with big guns pointed at your head. Welcome to the People's Republic of America!
I would love to see the Libertarian Party gain enough influence to get their ideas out there in public debate. Unfortunately a lot of the Libertarian candidates that I've met would rather blame the Republicans and the Democrats for "shutting them out".
That's because the way that states keep ANY party off of the ballot is no less than Consitutionally wrong and simple conspiracy between the Repubs and the Dems. The Libertarians will not compromise on having a free and open democratic system that allows anybody on the ballot. I'm collecting signatures to the the Libs back on the ballot in my state because I happen to agree with that. I'd do the same for the Greens, the Reforms, or whoever else has to fight the currently very corrupt election system to get on the balance and get their voice heard.
The Big Two want nothing more than to absorb these slowly growing parties, which they do successfully with Nader's people, but Libs tend to be pretty staunch about not selling out by buying into the "throwing away your vote" bullshit.
I agree. I'd prefer that as well. But then they'd have to switch to a subscription model which would go over like a dead, rotten cat with home users. They DO do that on a few of their products (I'm thinking of MS RMS right now), and it's actually cheaper and easier than the current model. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm moving from our current POS system to MS RMS.
Slashdot Mirror
It just so happens that that place for them is in a back room, away from all customers.
If only Microsoft started to adhere to the W3C specification, the world would be a better place.
If only Mozilla started to adhere to MS's specifications, the world would be an equally better place. I don't really think that there's anything particularly special or important about the W3C that makes their arbitary standards better than somebody else's arbitrary standards.
Besides, who knows what the future will bring? Fifteen years ago, if someone told you that you should start developing for Microsoft NT/AS because Novell wouldn't be a factor in the NOS business, would you have believed them?
You're right. But your example also proves the point that you simply cannot tell what the IT world will be like that far in the future, so why bend over backwards trying to develop for some platform that may or may not exist in the future? SOME foresight is a good thing, but it's simply not possible to look into the future to figure out what you'll need much further than, hell, a year or two, I'd say.
Sure anyone can open MS Access or Visual Studio and build a little database app for a 5 person company, but the data is now locked up in windows, building in web access is a pain, and you can't run anything but windows on your desktops.
Data doesn't have anything to do with an OS. 'Fred Smith' = 'Fred Smith' on any platform. I don't understand how data has anything to do with OS.
Many companies don't run anything except for Windows on their desktops (mine included). Spending an extra day to do the same thing in case, one day in the future, years down the road, we *may* be a Mac box in the business is a waste of time and money for me. Actually, I probably would never allow another platform in my business because of things like longer development time, and other such headaches.
I think that the assumption that every program has to run anywhere, anytime is a false assumption, at best. It's kind of like a suburban homeowner buying a Mack Tractor-Trailer to drive to work every day in case one day he has to move (at which point, it would still be cheaper and easier to hire somebody else to do it). If I have to build an app for my business that needs to scale to millions of users on all kinds of devices, I think that I might have a bit of notice, and I could plan for it then. Spending that kind of time and money NOW, when it's not needed, would be a very dumb business move, especially considering how quickly technology changes. And you have to realize, that there are many, many, MANY businesses in the same boat as myself, for which Visual Studio is "da bomb".
Write an application that uses an OS-standard GUI to access any database. I'll use Visual Studio. You can use anything else. I can write a working application in a matter of minutes. I'm not aware of anything else out there that comes close to speed and ease-of-use for such things.
For many of us writing applications, it IS the best tool. I have exactly *zero* users running anything else than Windows, so for me, Visual Studio does kick ass.
I don't think that meta-validatino can *ever* work.
It's a lazy shortcut to somebody with a brain doing the editing/moderating themselves. The masses are NOT always right and are often wrong, in fact (Wikipedia). Meta-validation is a way to let "the users" do the work, even though those users are generally not qualified to do so. The whole value in say, a web site, is offering useful, accurate information to other people who don't already know that information. Meta-validation is essentially mod rule, with no order or methodology. Meta-validation is a shortcut to profit, and as a result, it will never result in good, long-term information.
... it's about all of Yahoo's cool stuff. Mail, Music, Shopping, Finance, Auctions, etc. Yahoo has the best personalized web experience, in my opinion, and it doesn't have anything to do with their search.
If it wasn't for 20 some years of MS indifference towards security, there wouldn't be botnets like this, being used for DDOS attacks and forwarding billions of spams a day.
Uh, wrong. No software is completely secure, especially something as complicated as an operating system. This would still be happening, except it would be on Unix/OS2/Apple boxes instead of Windows. Get over it.
Wait... you just said that PC's are just a tool that should work consistently over a long period of time. I agree with you. Then you say, "This will prompt more people to look for alternatives to MSes greed and insanity." That doesn't make sense. All it does is make people not want to upgrade. They're certainly not going to go running to find a non-Windows product, because their Windows stuff is already working just fine, as is.
What you say would be true if MS was going to send some kind of "self-destruct" instruction to every Windows 2000 machine out there once Vista is released, which ain't gonna happen.
If this doesn't drive more companies to Linux, I am not sure what will.
... and that's off the top of my head
For my business:
1. Applications, applications, applications
2. Developer tools that are as easy to use and functional as Visual Studio 6.0
3. The ability to administer and fix a machine without having 20 years worth of Unix experience.
4. A sane release schedule (not every 6 months).
5. Complete and seamless ability to integrate with Windows.
6. Reasonable pricing.
7. Some kind of liability insurance.
8. Distributions that work with as much hardware as Windows currently does.
I would say so, yes.
He had a monopoly position in operating systems that made it literally impossible to buy computer equipment without giving Microsoft money.
You're slandering one of the greatest philanthropists of our generation with an outright lie.
Fuck you.
So who makes up the rules as to what is "Fair"? Seems pretty arbitrary to me. Hell, it seems completely immoral to me, actually: A company becomes so incredibly successful that most of their competitors go under, so that success is attacked by the very government that is supposed to protect private property. Fucking twisted, if you ask me.
"Standards"? According to whom? God? You? The Council of Dorks? Any "Standards" are arbitary, anyway. MS has no reason to submit to anybody else's standards.
It astonishes me that anyone would stand up for them.
There are some people who belive in the the inherent right to private property, and the importance of maintaining those rights, no matter who the subject is. Private property being inviolate is critical to a civilized society. I do not think that the government has any right, whatsoever, to take private property for completely arbitrary reasons, especially when those reasons are revolve around punishing hugely successful people or organizations out of spite. If I want my private property to be mine: my land, my house, my possessions; without the government interfering, I have to support the same for anybody else or any other orgranizations, else I'd be a hypocrite. You sir, either have no possessions, or a hypocrite.
They really need to be sat down and told to play nicely with the rest of the software world.
You're not too keen on private property, huh?
That also means that OSS projects won't ever be able to sell software because none of them can take the hits from punitive lawsuits like the big boys (MS, IBM, Sun, Oracle) can.
Well as of right now, OSS in no way would work for my business (none of the software I need exists), so it's a moot point.
Not necessarily. If all you're doing is rendering HTML or reading XML or something basic like that, it doesn't change. I dunno. I'm not any kind of systems architect. I just know that it's mind-boggling easy to embed IE in any Windows app (drag and drop), and that makes developing apps incredibly easy. Right now, I have open two shrink-wrapped applications (business apps that I purchased) that also use IE heavily.
by persistently competing with each other and achieving near-perfect parity for long periods of time
That's the problem. That's terribly unlikely unless there is some kind of collusion going on.
But your logic of MS="evil" monopoly and AMD+Nvidia="good" monopoly... well, I guess there is no logic.
Actually, having sex (or looking like you're having sex) on a plane will send you straight to a federal prison by men with big guns pointed at your head. Welcome to the People's Republic of America!
d ex.html
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/14/sex.plane.ap/in
The scary thing is that half of the people in this country would seriously agree with you 100%.
I would love to see the Libertarian Party gain enough influence to get their ideas out there in public debate. Unfortunately a lot of the Libertarian candidates that I've met would rather blame the Republicans and the Democrats for "shutting them out".
That's because the way that states keep ANY party off of the ballot is no less than Consitutionally wrong and simple conspiracy between the Repubs and the Dems. The Libertarians will not compromise on having a free and open democratic system that allows anybody on the ballot. I'm collecting signatures to the the Libs back on the ballot in my state because I happen to agree with that. I'd do the same for the Greens, the Reforms, or whoever else has to fight the currently very corrupt election system to get on the balance and get their voice heard.
The Big Two want nothing more than to absorb these slowly growing parties, which they do successfully with Nader's people, but Libs tend to be pretty staunch about not selling out by buying into the "throwing away your vote" bullshit.
I agree. I'd prefer that as well. But then they'd have to switch to a subscription model which would go over like a dead, rotten cat with home users. They DO do that on a few of their products (I'm thinking of MS RMS right now), and it's actually cheaper and easier than the current model. In fact, that's part of the reason I'm moving from our current POS system to MS RMS.