That would be a reasonable way to look at it if Google didn't start pointing fingers. How do we know that the same ambivalence doesn't exist within Microsoft?
After years of playing ball with China, Google has an epiphany and decides it's evil. Now they condemn anybody else who hasn't come to the same conclusion on their schedule.
"The problem with Microsoft is not the software they produce (bad as it may be) or the fact that they are successful, it's that potential competitors don't even have a chance to enter the market"
So that's why MS's financial software took over the lead from Intuit which is now out of business? You're just quoting chapter and verse from the anti-MS playbook.
Well, there's a lot of begging of the question in your historical summary, but you left out one obvious historical scenario:
PHB: Your web pages are late, what's the problem?
You: Well, everything works OK in IE but I'm still trying to get things to render correctly for standards-compliant browsers like Firefox.
PHB: Fire-what? Everybody uses IE. if you don't want it to be Fire-you, button this up and release it. Ha, Ha. Slaps you on the back and walks back to flirt with his secretary
It would be great if moderation could objectively rank posts (if that means anything) or even rank them according to an individuals tastes or beliefs, but the way it really works is a handful of people you don't know are deciding when the4 earplugs go on or off. So all you really get to choose is whether you want to evaluate posts on your own or eliminate those that other people don't want you to see.
Yes, I understood that, but I think it's related to the frequency that the various words are spoken rather than a greater tolerance for the "s" or "c" words over the "n" word.
IBM is a rather unique case. They have been around a long time and still benefit from their historical reputation. They still make a lot of their money from selling hardware and software. A lot of their "support" service is geared toward selling IBM stuff.
I don't think you could model a new company to emulate IBM and be successful.
It seems people keep pointing to special case companies like IBM and Red Hat as proof that the service model works. How many start-up companies are growing based on the service model?
"How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?"
One big reason is that the core technology used to start their business was created by volunteers rather than by burning their own money. (Yes I know they contribute code now but that's quite different from creating your product from scratch).
As I said earlier, there might be room for one big player to provide a "hand-holding" service to less sophisticated Linux shops, but as Linux grows in popularity the need for hand-holding will diminish.
How can someone with such a low ID make such a statement? Did you sign up for Slashdot and then come back a decade later?
Anyway, I don't see how questioning an obviously false statement qualifies as pedantic or nit-picking. What if I said that IBM, Intel, and MS single-handedly created the desktop computer market? Would you consider any criticism of that claim to be "pedantic nit-picking"?
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a reasonable way to look at it if Google didn't start pointing fingers. How do we know that the same ambivalence doesn't exist within Microsoft?
After years of playing ball with China, Google has an epiphany and decides it's evil. Now they condemn anybody else who hasn't come to the same conclusion on their schedule.
"So you don't understand what "Security through obscurity" means."
According to the GP, "Security through obscurity" is a myth. So we'd be arguing about the meaning of a non-existent thing.
Now, if you want to have a conversation without that assumption that's a different matter.
Did you perform a significant figures calculation to prove that your application would benefit from quad-precision?
I think our school systems are still structured as if everybody will be working in a factory some day.
"There is no such thing as "security through obscurity", it's a myth created by lazy programmers."
Right, that's why I give out my passwords to everyone I can.
"The problem with Microsoft is not the software they produce (bad as it may be) or the fact that they are successful, it's that potential competitors don't even have a chance to enter the market"
So that's why MS's financial software took over the lead from Intuit which is now out of business? You're just quoting chapter and verse from the anti-MS playbook.
You have to realize that these anti-trust actions were lobbied for and designed to benefit competitors, not to help the consumer.
For example, Sun probably lived an extra year thanks to MS's settlement.
"Because a browser with a majority market share gets to define de-facto standards."
Yeah, like Netscape creating JavaScript and MS creating XMLHttpRequest.
Well, there's a lot of begging of the question in your historical summary, but you left out one obvious historical scenario:
PHB: Your web pages are late, what's the problem?
You: Well, everything works OK in IE but I'm still trying to get things to render correctly for standards-compliant browsers like Firefox.
PHB: Fire-what? Everybody uses IE. if you don't want it to be Fire-you, button this up and release it. Ha, Ha. Slaps you on the back and walks back to flirt with his secretary
It would be great if moderation could objectively rank posts (if that means anything) or even rank them according to an individuals tastes or beliefs, but the way it really works is a handful of people you don't know are deciding when the4 earplugs go on or off. So all you really get to choose is whether you want to evaluate posts on your own or eliminate those that other people don't want you to see.
"Since when is slashdot about censorship?"
I've already expressed my opinion on that.
"Your UID is around 200k yet you don't realize 90% of the discussion around here is about privacy and censorship?"
You wouldn't want me to censor myself based on what other people on Slashdot think, would you?.
You've just given another argument to hard-liners in the middle east to push their countries to go nuclear.
Yes, I understood that, but I think it's related to the frequency that the various words are spoken rather than a greater tolerance for the "s" or "c" words over the "n" word.
I don't hear those words much in the US either.
To be honest I don't hear the "n" word much either. It's probably because in the real world insulting people in any way can be dangerous.
Sorry, I don't speak leet.
In a practical sense Slashdot is guilty of censorship on a daily basis. It provides the ability to hide any post that moderators don't like.
I've already heard Carlin's 7 dirty words routine, possibly before you were born.
Perhaps because nobody used those words here until today.
"At what rate of payment?"
Perhaps the Swiss could teach Slashdot programmers (if there are any) how to delete all posts with the "n" word in it.
IBM is a rather unique case. They have been around a long time and still benefit from their historical reputation. They still make a lot of their money from selling hardware and software. A lot of their "support" service is geared toward selling IBM stuff.
I don't think you could model a new company to emulate IBM and be successful.
It seems people keep pointing to special case companies like IBM and Red Hat as proof that the service model works. How many start-up companies are growing based on the service model?
"How do you explain the fact that RedHat is profitable?"
One big reason is that the core technology used to start their business was created by volunteers rather than by burning their own money. (Yes I know they contribute code now but that's quite different from creating your product from scratch).
As I said earlier, there might be room for one big player to provide a "hand-holding" service to less sophisticated Linux shops, but as Linux grows in popularity the need for hand-holding will diminish.
How can someone with such a low ID make such a statement? Did you sign up for Slashdot and then come back a decade later?
Anyway, I don't see how questioning an obviously false statement qualifies as pedantic or nit-picking. What if I said that IBM, Intel, and MS single-handedly created the desktop computer market? Would you consider any criticism of that claim to be "pedantic nit-picking"?
While I'm sure that there were people who did that, I wouldn't draw any broad conclusions from how unpopular that move was on sites like Slashdot.
I'm sure there must be many Linux users who aren't really all that interested in the tit-for-tat OS wars.