"Agreed! You really have to consider their rampant illegal practices as well. Oh my GOD! I just realized. That is exactly what we are doing here, and is the whole point of the story! It's cool how that works, isn't it?"
I guess you missed the last 3 words of my post: "and bad behavior". What we are discussing is the credibility of what the story claims - otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to discuss it.
"Any true competent software engineer with knowledge of proper OS development would never consider Windows as technically superior in any manner, way, shape, or form."
Yes, I'm familiar with the Hans Christian Andersen story.
It doesn't take "balls" to take on Microsoft, just money. There must be thousands of Linux fans that would love to compete with MS, they just don't have the means to do it.
"Don't be silly, it is quite well understood what Microsoft has and does not have. They have marketing power, but not technical excellence..."
We can debate about MS's "technical excellence", but let's not pretend MS's success is all about marketing. MS's marketing has always been inferior to Apple's, IBM's and even Sun's.
Perhaps Linux developers should research the real reasons for MS's market position and learn from it, rather than just assuming it's all about marketing and bad behavior.
"Microsoft were so desperate to get on the netbook wagon, they forced OEMs to use XP - an OS which was officially dead - at knockdown prices. That's the evidence right there."
No, he wouldn't even offer you the job at $50,000. He'd just let you know you were overqualified for the job (assuming he didn't just silently delete your resume from the database and let you guess what happened).
I know what you mean. I really miss those 60hr work weeks we had before the unions. Oh wait, we are in software development or IT, we aren't part of a union and we are still working 60 hours a week. Fortunately, we only get paid for 40 hours so it doesn't count.
Nothing I said suggested that I thought standards complaint and open source were the same.
My point was that WebKit would be adopted because it is available cost-free, not because it is open source.
The other point is that alleged advantage of open source having more individuals available for development than closed source hasn't been validated in the browser space.
Yes, Linux/Unix/Mac users now have access to a slew of services (i.e. crappy Web Apps) that in the old days were only available as crappy desktop apps on Windows.
Seriously, crappy apps will always be available regardless of technology.
"WebKit is open source and free which is a key reason its a serious challenge to Opera in the embedded space."
I agree about the "free" part, but no so much the open source part. Opera has managed to be the most standards-compliant browser despite being proprietary. It's the intent and skill of the developers that matter, not how many there are.
Actually when Netscape was dead, Firefox and Opera had barely started, and Chrome and Safari weren't even a twinkle in Google's and Apple's eyes, web developers had it the easiest - ignore standards and just do it IE's way. Adding browsers just makes things more complicated and standards won't eliminate the need to test your site on each browser.
Microsoft's so-called monopoly on the browser market may have crumbled, but if you look closely you'll find that the crumbs still have a much bigger market share then any competitor.
People can debate about politically correct or incorrect use of Flash, but if the sites you don't like were done over in HTML5 by the same designers, you'd still conclude that they suck. Most people getting their panties in a twist over Flash aren't really concerned about design, they just don't like proprietary tools.
He was asking for economic motivations. What financial benefit will Google, Apple, Mozilla, or Opera gain from using HTML5 + Javascript as an alternative to Flash?
Slashdot Mirror
"Agreed! You really have to consider their rampant illegal practices as well. Oh my GOD! I just realized. That is exactly what we are doing here, and is the whole point of the story! It's cool how that works, isn't it?"
I guess you missed the last 3 words of my post: "and bad behavior". What we are discussing is the credibility of what the story claims - otherwise there wouldn't be any reason to discuss it.
"Any true competent software engineer with knowledge of proper OS development would never consider Windows as technically superior in any manner, way, shape, or form."
Yes, I'm familiar with the Hans Christian Andersen story.
Yeah. Who is that guy, some kind of nerd?
It doesn't take "balls" to take on Microsoft, just money. There must be thousands of Linux fans that would love to compete with MS, they just don't have the means to do it.
"Don't be silly, it is quite well understood what Microsoft has and does not have. They have marketing power, but not technical excellence ..."
We can debate about MS's "technical excellence", but let's not pretend MS's success is all about marketing. MS's marketing has always been inferior to Apple's, IBM's and even Sun's.
Perhaps Linux developers should research the real reasons for MS's market position and learn from it, rather than just assuming it's all about marketing and bad behavior.
"Microsoft were so desperate to get on the netbook wagon, they forced OEMs to use XP - an OS which was officially dead - at knockdown prices. That's the evidence right there."
How exactly were they "forced"?
What workplace?
No, he wouldn't even offer you the job at $50,000. He'd just let you know you were overqualified for the job (assuming he didn't just silently delete your resume from the database and let you guess what happened).
the bribes are so much less expensive.
Perhaps one or more Slashdot editors?
I know what you mean. I really miss those 60hr work weeks we had before the unions. Oh wait, we are in software development or IT, we aren't part of a union and we are still working 60 hours a week. Fortunately, we only get paid for 40 hours so it doesn't count.
"They're only going to get really, really stupid applicants..."
You mean the same type of people who dreamed up this policy?
Nothing I said suggested that I thought standards complaint and open source were the same.
My point was that WebKit would be adopted because it is available cost-free, not because it is open source.
The other point is that alleged advantage of open source having more individuals available for development than closed source hasn't been validated in the browser space.
Yes, Linux/Unix/Mac users now have access to a slew of services (i.e. crappy Web Apps) that in the old days were only available as crappy desktop apps on Windows.
Seriously, crappy apps will always be available regardless of technology.
"WebKit is open source and free which is a key reason its a serious challenge to Opera in the embedded space."
I agree about the "free" part, but no so much the open source part. Opera has managed to be the most standards-compliant browser despite being proprietary. It's the intent and skill of the developers that matter, not how many there are.
Do you think poor work will disappear if people switch from Flash to HTML5?
"For-profit, publicly-traded corporations like Google or Apple rarely have any other kinds of motivations."
The fact that companies rarely have non-financial motivations may be interesting but it has nothing to do with the question I asked.
everything looks like ... you know the rest.
Actually when Netscape was dead, Firefox and Opera had barely started, and Chrome and Safari weren't even a twinkle in Google's and Apple's eyes, web developers had it the easiest - ignore standards and just do it IE's way. Adding browsers just makes things more complicated and standards won't eliminate the need to test your site on each browser.
Microsoft's so-called monopoly on the browser market may have crumbled, but if you look closely you'll find that the crumbs still have a much bigger market share then any competitor.
People can debate about politically correct or incorrect use of Flash, but if the sites you don't like were done over in HTML5 by the same designers, you'd still conclude that they suck. Most people getting their panties in a twist over Flash aren't really concerned about design, they just don't like proprietary tools.
He was asking for economic motivations. What financial benefit will Google, Apple, Mozilla, or Opera gain from using HTML5 + Javascript as an alternative to Flash?
Here's some potential explanations:
Even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
OK, but some of us don't have your broad shoulders.
You didn't step on any toes unless you have some in your mouth.
I agree that most MS users never heard of Linux, but that says nothing about whether or not they like MS products.
As for the rest of your categories, you need to get out more so you can encounter more typical "lusers" as you call them.