I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft. Statements like Perens' nail the lid on the coffin for me. Novell had such potential with their government contracts, name recognition, and experience. But their management's been hurting the company for years. It's all downhill now.
Microsoft created the XMLHTTPRequest object in IE. Then other browsers implemented it. So AJAX effectively went from being IE-only to a de-facto standard. I think your point of view is backwards.
Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft and they have embraced-extended-extinguished many things. But AJAX probably won't be one of them.
If you don't know that Python, Perl, and cygwin aren't Microsoft development tools (or didn't bother to read that part of my post), then there's really nothing for you to say at all.
I haven't checked it out yet, but this sounds like the sort of thing that should handed around to managers at Windows-only shops. I spent 10 years in development teams that only worked on Windows (and Microsoft development tools) and management had no comprehension of what open source was really about. They ignored it because they didn't understand it. I wish I had something like this back then.
They could have saved a lot of time and money by just visiting forums like DigitalPoint. These doorways and other spammy sites are for sale every day. It's no secret.
I always found Oracle and Sun documentation to be far superior. But I haven't touched anything from those three companies in 2 years, so things may have changed.
I didn't say market cap. I stated revenue. WRT revenue, it's irrelevant how quickly it's reached as long as it's set to continue. Sure Google's stock is bloated. But Microsoft has more than 7 times the number of employees and only 4 times the revenue.
Well, no. Only Windows and Office bring profit. But every product they make brings in millions to billions in revenue. The problem for them is not enough revenue and/or very high expenses. XBox, for example, brings in billions, but they have had to spend billions to convince (and pay) developers to write games on it and to convince the public it's worth buying.
Microsoft Corporation is a multinational computer technology corporation with global annual revenue of US$44.28 billion and 76,000 employees in 102 countries.
Google Inc. had 10,674 full-time employees as of December 31, 2006, Revenue $10.604 Billion USD (2006)
I think Ballmer calls those things cute because they mostly don't directly bring revenue. Microsoft has always believed that everything they do should directly bring in money. I think that's one reason their online documentation has always sucked. Since Google's main revenue stream is AdWords, anything tangential, even though it indirectly brings revenue by keeping people on site and raising brand recognition, is simply cute.
Either Ballmer's an idiot or in denial. I'm feeling it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
Oh, Balmer's complaint is hugely hypocritical. Google also has huge sums of cash from their stock. Google will eventually hit a wall if they don't come up with other big revenue streams. And I think that's why they hire so many smart people. Even if only one in a thousand comes up with a great idea it'll all pay off.
Comedy Central is owned by Viacom. Didn't Comedy Central ask YouTube/Google to remove all of their content and they complied? Then they changed their mind and asked them to put it back up. How can Viacom now claim that Google's not complying? Doesn't the Comedy Central incident prove otherwise, or am I missing something?
Peter: Oh, Lois, you are so full of (BEEP)! WHAT?! Now I can't say (BEEP) in my own (BEEP)ing house?! Great, Lois. Just (BEEP)in' great. You know, you're lucky you're good at (BEEP) my (BEEP) or I'd never put up with ya. You know what I'm talking about, when you (BEEP) lubed-up (BEEP) toothpaste in my (BEEP) while you (BEEP) on a cherry (BEEP) Episcopalian (BEEP) extension cord (BEEP) wetness (BEEP) with a parking ticket. That is the best!
Branding. I've been saying for years that Dell and those who compete with Dell could take a Linux distro and brand it with their logo. If they make their own distro or even just their own version of OpenOffice they can co-brand and it and get more customer loyalty. Also, if Dell is in more control of the whole package (instead of just re-distributing Microsoft software) they can produce a better product. That's part of Apple's niche, but someone like Dell could easily do the same by using open source.
I agree. They're only promoting the use of software patents by waiting for a license. They're validating Microsoft's stance. Implement it anyway and contact the EFF and others when the lawsuit notification arrives.
Of course I'm glad I'm not them. It's easy to tell others to stand up to a wall of lawyers than to do it myself.
To solve this problem I've found libraries such as prototype and scriptaculous most helpful. As long as they're used properly and mostly for visual enhancements they are cross-browser and degrade nicely. If a client asks for a rich text box, I usually choose implementations which gracefully fall back to plain text boxes.
But these days it's very hard to convince non-techies that web sites should often not require javascript for basic functionality. They see gmail or whatever and assume everyone on the net should now have such features.
And Microsoft takes a "cavalier approach" to their users, to privacy, to the free market... so who's more evil?
If Google really didn't care they could do far far worse to abuse copyright than anything they've done so far. Microsoft is just placating an audience.
Apple had AMPLE time to review and build in a fix for iTunes so that it wouldn't nuke iPods when used with Windows Vista
Not exactly true. They could have fixed iTunes for a beta build of Vista. But with Vista going through constant changes it didn't necessarily make sense to change iTunes only to have to change it again. If the beta period only involved superficial changes then you'd be right.
I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
Ok, I've worked with both for years and know it's a viable replacement, at least for Word and Excel.
OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms
I use NeoOffice on the Mac, which supports native fonts, and have no problems at all. And I trade documents and spreadsheets mostly with Windows users.
the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
On the Mac Microsoft Office is no faster than NeoOffice. Both sets of software are big and slow.
companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money.
But I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple. If the "Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable" as you say, then there seems little reason to drop the product except the hurt Apple. If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits. Plus it would be clear they were intent on hurting a competing platform even if it cost them more money to do so.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm glad I sold my Novell stock soon after their parnership with Microsoft. Statements like Perens' nail the lid on the coffin for me. Novell had such potential with their government contracts, name recognition, and experience. But their management's been hurting the company for years. It's all downhill now.
Microsoft created the XMLHTTPRequest object in IE. Then other browsers implemented it. So AJAX effectively went from being IE-only to a de-facto standard. I think your point of view is backwards.
Don't get me wrong. I hate Microsoft and they have embraced-extended-extinguished many things. But AJAX probably won't be one of them.
If you don't know that Python, Perl, and cygwin aren't Microsoft development tools (or didn't bother to read that part of my post), then there's really nothing for you to say at all.
I haven't checked it out yet, but this sounds like the sort of thing that should handed around to managers at Windows-only shops. I spent 10 years in development teams that only worked on Windows (and Microsoft development tools) and management had no comprehension of what open source was really about. They ignored it because they didn't understand it. I wish I had something like this back then.
They could have saved a lot of time and money by just visiting forums like DigitalPoint. These doorways and other spammy sites are for sale every day. It's no secret.
I always found Oracle and Sun documentation to be far superior. But I haven't touched anything from those three companies in 2 years, so things may have changed.
I didn't say market cap. I stated revenue. WRT revenue, it's irrelevant how quickly it's reached as long as it's set to continue. Sure Google's stock is bloated. But Microsoft has more than 7 times the number of employees and only 4 times the revenue.
Well, no. Only Windows and Office bring profit. But every product they make brings in millions to billions in revenue. The problem for them is not enough revenue and/or very high expenses. XBox, for example, brings in billions, but they have had to spend billions to convince (and pay) developers to write games on it and to convince the public it's worth buying.
From Wikipedia:
Microsoft Corporation is a multinational computer technology corporation with global annual revenue of US$44.28 billion and 76,000 employees in 102 countries.
Google Inc. had 10,674 full-time employees as of December 31, 2006, Revenue $10.604 Billion USD (2006)
Which company looks more bloated?
I think Ballmer calls those things cute because they mostly don't directly bring revenue. Microsoft has always believed that everything they do should directly bring in money. I think that's one reason their online documentation has always sucked. Since Google's main revenue stream is AdWords, anything tangential, even though it indirectly brings revenue by keeping people on site and raising brand recognition, is simply cute.
Either Ballmer's an idiot or in denial. I'm feeling it's a little from column A and a little from column B.
Oh, Balmer's complaint is hugely hypocritical. Google also has huge sums of cash from their stock. Google will eventually hit a wall if they don't come up with other big revenue streams. And I think that's why they hire so many smart people. Even if only one in a thousand comes up with a great idea it'll all pay off.
Comedy Central is owned by Viacom. Didn't Comedy Central ask YouTube/Google to remove all of their content and they complied? Then they changed their mind and asked them to put it back up. How can Viacom now claim that Google's not complying? Doesn't the Comedy Central incident prove otherwise, or am I missing something?
Peter: Oh, Lois, you are so full of (BEEP)! WHAT?! Now I can't say (BEEP) in my own (BEEP)ing house?! Great, Lois. Just (BEEP)in' great. You know, you're lucky you're good at (BEEP) my (BEEP) or I'd never put up with ya. You know what I'm talking about, when you (BEEP) lubed-up (BEEP) toothpaste in my (BEEP) while you (BEEP) on a cherry (BEEP) Episcopalian (BEEP) extension cord (BEEP) wetness (BEEP) with a parking ticket. That is the best!
What's wrong with blumpkin? It's a perfectly cromulent word.
I got dibs on sêx.com!
Branding. I've been saying for years that Dell and those who compete with Dell could take a Linux distro and brand it with their logo. If they make their own distro or even just their own version of OpenOffice they can co-brand and it and get more customer loyalty. Also, if Dell is in more control of the whole package (instead of just re-distributing Microsoft software) they can produce a better product. That's part of Apple's niche, but someone like Dell could easily do the same by using open source.
I agree. They're only promoting the use of software patents by waiting for a license. They're validating Microsoft's stance. Implement it anyway and contact the EFF and others when the lawsuit notification arrives.
Of course I'm glad I'm not them. It's easy to tell others to stand up to a wall of lawyers than to do it myself.
I haven't finished it yet because I use it to fall asleep...
What a shining endorsement of the book! I'm gonna run out and get it.
To solve this problem I've found libraries such as prototype and scriptaculous most helpful. As long as they're used properly and mostly for visual enhancements they are cross-browser and degrade nicely. If a client asks for a rich text box, I usually choose implementations which gracefully fall back to plain text boxes.
But these days it's very hard to convince non-techies that web sites should often not require javascript for basic functionality. They see gmail or whatever and assume everyone on the net should now have such features.
Nope, I'm saying the pot is calling the kettle black. Microsoft lives in a glass house. Or some such saying.
Maybe the problem is they think it's TheirEclipse.
And Microsoft takes a "cavalier approach" to their users, to privacy, to the free market... so who's more evil?
If Google really didn't care they could do far far worse to abuse copyright than anything they've done so far. Microsoft is just placating an audience.
Apple had AMPLE time to review and build in a fix for iTunes so that it wouldn't nuke iPods when used with Windows Vista
Not exactly true. They could have fixed iTunes for a beta build of Vista. But with Vista going through constant changes it didn't necessarily make sense to change iTunes only to have to change it again. If the beta period only involved superficial changes then you'd be right.
I know it's popular around here to think that OpenOffice is a viable replacement for MSOffice, but I'm sorry to say, whoever worked with both know it isn't.
Ok, I've worked with both for years and know it's a viable replacement, at least for Word and Excel.
OOo font management can be erratic between OS platforms
I use NeoOffice on the Mac, which supports native fonts, and have no problems at all. And I trade documents and spreadsheets mostly with Windows users.
the entire OOo suite is a big slow infinitely deep rat's nest of ultra-slow ram-hungry object-oriented code.
On the Mac Microsoft Office is no faster than NeoOffice. Both sets of software are big and slow.
companies are interested in making money and they have to balance the needs and desires of the customer along with their requirements of making mo' and mo' money.
But I think the big question is: did Microsoft consider dropping it merely because it wasn't generating enough revenue, or mostly because they wanted to hurt Apple. If the "Microsoft Mac Business unit is quite profitable" as you say, then there seems little reason to drop the product except the hurt Apple. If they're willing to lose profit with the intent of hurting Apple it's possible grounds for a suit by stockholders as it's likely not in the best interests of corporate profits. Plus it would be clear they were intent on hurting a competing platform even if it cost them more money to do so.