"Hiring average programmers that are easy to work with is probably a better business decision than hiring difficult top-notch nerds."
I prefer hiring top-notch nerds who are easy to work with and avoid difficult average programmers. Seriously, only suckers fall for the "he's an asshole so he much be good" scam.
So a company received money from MS after negotiating and signing an agreement and it's MS's fault that they are going under because they refuse to give them more money.
As far as IBM and MS are concerned, it was always an uncomfortable alliance and it wasn't as if the larger IBM wasn't used to playing hardball in the big leagues.
Besides, it was clear that IBM didn't didn't consider OS/2 to be a priority because they were very quiet in their promotion of it. There had more ads for the PC jr (with its chicklet keyboard) than OS/2.
I got modded down to negative numbers last time I suggested this but perhaps the European Commission is looking for a new revenue stream since it looks like MS won't be supporting them anymore.
Well, the original punishment was set by a judge that was admonished for making prejudicial public statements about the case before it was over. He was also motivated against MS because he had previously been overruled by the appellate court on a matter of law concerning bundling IE with Windows.
What's clear to me is that on Slashdot there are lots of people who want to see MS taken down hard and believe a little principle like proportional punishment shouldn't get in the way.
Actually, I'm wrong. The government did go to court over IBM and won at least one case. But there was a definite belief at the time the government stopped investigating IBM that it was done for political purposes and that IBM had not been reformed.
I hate to disillusion you, but the government won their case against MS and didn't even go to court against IBM.
Since all of the MS competitors driving the case got a big cash windfall from MS, I'd say that the case was quite was successful.
You didn't really believe that MS was going to own the Internet just because of the fate of Java and the Netscape browser, did you?
From a consumer perspective this was a classic case of the old computer acronym GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). The case never was about consumers so the end result didn't benefit them.
Well, who knows what motivated IBM management to "loosen the strings" in creating the PC relative to their mainframe approach. It's not as if the government knew anything about the PC project until it was finished.
"And to those of you who think glibc, gcc and autotools are not important, I dare you to build a fully Open Source Linux distro without them, or even just replace them on your own box."
But building isn't the issue. There's a long history of cross-compiling software on completely different platforms than the target without any of the compiling platforms run-time code ending up on the target.
I'm always suspicious of statistical studies that reinforce cultural beliefs.
Was the study designed as part of a series of studies to understand how people ended up in prison or designed to show that one way or another, it's the parents' fault?
My "opponent" started his arguments suggesting I didn't understand antitrust law. So it was quite appropriate to call his error to his attention.
As I said in another post, the distinction between civil and criminal cases are key. If the DOJ had filed a criminal case against MS with it's requirement of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's quite possible you would have seen Gates and Balmer high-fiving outside the court after the acquittal.
In fact I think the DOJ shouldn't be able to file civil cases. It's just a loophole to allow them to win without really proving their cases.
"The DoJ does not sue anyone, they prosecute them."
Wikipedia:
"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states."
The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is very important. A criminal proceeding requires a much higher standard of proof than does a civil action. It's unlikely that MS would have been found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would have been required in a criminal case.
There are those who like to say MS was "convicted" because it sounds more sinister, but the it's still wrong.
I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything.
The European Commission is not a court, it the EU's executive branch that makes EU policy. The fines levied against MS are a matter of policy, not law.
Slashdot Mirror
I once had a cat name Theo and she was a big complainer too.
"That we’re all eighteen to twenty-five is from the accelerated Internet-based learning of the new generation.."
Stop, Stop. You almost made do a spit-take.
"If men needed a culture of approval and acceptance and someone to remind them whenever possible that they are wanted and welcome"
Isn't that why we have moderation on Slashdot? So that the culture can reward those who conform to it.
I think you're insulting top technical talent. Of course, not everybody's definition of talent is the same.
"Hiring average programmers that are easy to work with is probably a better business decision than hiring difficult top-notch nerds."
I prefer hiring top-notch nerds who are easy to work with and avoid difficult average programmers. Seriously, only suckers fall for the "he's an asshole so he much be good" scam.
Unlike you, an AC which we've all heard of and unfortunately we'll be hearing from forever.
Don't worry. You'll meet a good programmer some day.
We don't know the whole story there. If MS is not living up to their commitments Sendo should take them to court.
So a company received money from MS after negotiating and signing an agreement and it's MS's fault that they are going under because they refuse to give them more money.
As far as IBM and MS are concerned, it was always an uncomfortable alliance and it wasn't as if the larger IBM wasn't used to playing hardball in the big leagues.
Besides, it was clear that IBM didn't didn't consider OS/2 to be a priority because they were very quiet in their promotion of it. There had more ads for the PC jr (with its chicklet keyboard) than OS/2.
If Ballmer would just suck PJ's dick this would all go away.
I got modded down to negative numbers last time I suggested this but perhaps the European Commission is looking for a new revenue stream since it looks like MS won't be supporting them anymore.
Well, the original punishment was set by a judge that was admonished for making prejudicial public statements about the case before it was over. He was also motivated against MS because he had previously been overruled by the appellate court on a matter of law concerning bundling IE with Windows.
What's clear to me is that on Slashdot there are lots of people who want to see MS taken down hard and believe a little principle like proportional punishment shouldn't get in the way.
Actually, I'm wrong. The government did go to court over IBM and won at least one case. But there was a definite belief at the time the government stopped investigating IBM that it was done for political purposes and that IBM had not been reformed.
I hate to disillusion you, but the government won their case against MS and didn't even go to court against IBM.
Since all of the MS competitors driving the case got a big cash windfall from MS, I'd say that the case was quite was successful.
You didn't really believe that MS was going to own the Internet just because of the fate of Java and the Netscape browser, did you?
From a consumer perspective this was a classic case of the old computer acronym GIGO (Garbage In, Garbage Out). The case never was about consumers so the end result didn't benefit them.
"Wrong thinking is punishable. Right thinking will be as quickly rewarded. You will find it an effective combination."
Well, who knows what motivated IBM management to "loosen the strings" in creating the PC relative to their mainframe approach. It's not as if the government knew anything about the PC project until it was finished.
Isn't it great the F/OSS doesn't suffer from all the political BS you find in proprietary software development.
Besides it's not as if GNU userland was an original work. It would be more accurate to call it AT&T/Linux if giving credit was the goal.
"And to those of you who think glibc, gcc and autotools are not important, I dare you to build a fully Open Source Linux distro without them, or even just replace them on your own box."
But building isn't the issue. There's a long history of cross-compiling software on completely different platforms than the target without any of the compiling platforms run-time code ending up on the target.
"GNU appears to be a complete operating system (although not finished)."
GNU appears to be a finished operating system (although not complete).
The more relevant history is that the government tried to tame IBM for a decade and failed.
I'm always suspicious of statistical studies that reinforce cultural beliefs.
Was the study designed as part of a series of studies to understand how people ended up in prison or designed to show that one way or another, it's the parents' fault?
My "opponent" started his arguments suggesting I didn't understand antitrust law. So it was quite appropriate to call his error to his attention.
As I said in another post, the distinction between civil and criminal cases are key. If the DOJ had filed a criminal case against MS with it's requirement of proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", it's quite possible you would have seen Gates and Balmer high-fiving outside the court after the acquittal.
In fact I think the DOJ shouldn't be able to file civil cases. It's just a loophole to allow them to win without really proving their cases.
"The DoJ does not sue anyone, they prosecute them."
Wikipedia:
"United States v. Microsoft was a set of consolidated civil actions filed against Microsoft Corporation on May 18, 1998 by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) and 20 U.S. states."
The difference between civil and criminal proceedings is very important. A criminal proceeding requires a much higher standard of proof than does a civil action. It's unlikely that MS would have been found guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" which would have been required in a criminal case.
There are those who like to say MS was "convicted" because it sounds more sinister, but the it's still wrong.
I think you're confused. As I've pointed out numerous times on Slashdot and the media has pointed out in just about any article about the US Antitrust case against MS it was a civil proceeding, not a criminal one and thus MS wasn't "convicted" of anything.
The European Commission is not a court, it the EU's executive branch that makes EU policy. The fines levied against MS are a matter of policy, not law.