Oh, don't bother. For every article, there is an idiot who thinks that foobar website had it 3.247 minutes before Slashdot.
Who the hell bloody cares? Slashdot is one place where it will eventually show up, and one place where the discussions aren't full of crap.
Seriously, a message to the posters like the OP - get the hell off Slashdot. If you don't like this place, then what the hell are you doing here? At least, let those of us who like this place hang out and actually discuss stuff, rather than whining like a 13 year old about his zit.
I've seen a lot of these "alternative" to Slashdot websites. They're all full of crap. Slashdot is what it is not just because of the articles, but also because of its readers and posters. Now, take your whining elsewhere and let those of us who like the place discuss things related to the article.
Only on Slashdot would you have a businessman of a technology company being compared to a pimp, a smuggler and a murderer.
What the hell are you talking about?! How many people has Microsoft (or Bill Gates) killed? Does he own a freakin' whorehouse or a casino? The only thing he has done is conduct a business the way every business is conducted - to maximize profit.
Microsoft is a business entity. They are a corporation. Like every other corporation out there, their purpose is to enhance the shareholder value, period. That does not make them any more or less evil. They just are that way. And they are giving back to society, a lot more than most companies ever have.
You know something? I would *much* rather have Microsoft profit in billions and spend money towards helping something more important than code, like AIDS or Cancer, than feel bad for a two penny company that could not take care of itself. Business is like the animal kingdom, there are predators and preys and it is not good or evil, merely the survival of the fittest.
If you have a good idea and good management, you can surivive. Look at Google, they are the perfect example.
Stop making ridiculous comparisons. While Microsoft maybe a ruthless business, they are contributing a whole lot to society. I would much rather have that. And you, my good sir, what have you done to the well being of the society lately? Helped cure anything?
There are several kids with rich parents and connections who amount to nothing. Credit them for being enterprising enough to have used it well. In their position, if you had such connections, would not have?
Umm, I wasn't arguing about why I was a vegetarian, merely stating a fact.
You are free to eat whatever you want, just as I'm free to eat whatever I want. I'm mostly a vegetarian because I was raised that way, and eating animals grosses me out (even for a meat eater, eating insects and certain other foods would gross you out because you weren't raised that way).
What do you mean vegan/vegetarianism is a bogus? I mean, it's a style of living that some people practice because they choose to - for instance, there are folks in India who believe in not eating anything where the plant is killed (i.e. no potatoes, carrots, etc.) - only fruits because you don't kill a plant in eating fruits. I think that's a laudable goal, but not something I'd do. That doesn't mean I do not admire them for their attitude, though. In the end, the justifications are pointless because if you want to do something, you will find a way of justifying what you do anyway.
As long as the people practicing it are happy, that's all that matters.
In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat, nor fish, nor eggs (well, it is possible that I've occasionally had an item or two by mistake which have had eggs) - although I have had milk, which I suppose is the only animal product I've consumed.
The other poster made the points for me - MS is indeed giving back, just not the way you want them to. And of course you can completely ignore the benefits of company-centric ways and say that it sucks because it does not conform to your idea of how things should be.
Umm, Open Source does not exist to pay people's livelihood - while a few maybe able to make a living out of it, that is not its primary purpose. If MS were to go down under tomorrow, economies, jobs and several other things would be affected. Badly.
And I'm not even going to bother about your Wikipedia comment - you're just being a troll.
MS is a business - they have no reason to share, they exist to enhance *their* shareholder value. What's your point? They're not on a mission of goodwill, they are a profit making corporation. If you're looking for sharing, go look at a Church or a charity.
And oh, that's my Wikipedia profile page - hardly a home page, it contains a list of contributions that I've made to Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia contributors have such pages.
*shakes head on the ignorance of people*
Then again, I'm sure attacking me makes more sense to you than attacking my points.
If you are a business, it makes little difference. Microsoft does not care about smaller developers, their target is big business. While licensing costs maybe a pain, it comes with the added benefit of customer dependence (i.e. you are dependent on MS and in turn, your customers are dependent on you), which drives business. Also, a customer would trust me more if I suggested a Microsoft platform than if I did an Open Source one (hard truth). In fact, most would not even know about OSS, so that's another issue. Besides, if they want Microsoft stuff, I'm just going to pass on the added cost to the customer, which is fine by me. There are some obvious benefits (and pitfalls, of course) to being a Microsoft shop.
So, from a business perspective, MS makes sense. Sure, as a single developer, hack around as much as you want - but as a commercial entity, associating yourself with a company usually works better in the long run (be it MS, Sun, IBM whoever). Definitely beats OSS, unless you are willing to run the risk (and if time does not mean a thing to you - OSS is nice if your time is not money).
Is what MS doing helping a monopoly? Yup. But does it work? Also yes. Does it help businesses make money? Yes, sir! So, there you go. That's the bottomline.
But see, it does not matter - as long as you use their stuff, they are free to charge/not charge. And if you develop commercial applications, there is nothing wrong for them to charge, since they are charging the company, not the developers - a business making a profit is a different issue in comparison to an individual.
That's entirely up to them, and as someone with with a couple of businesses, I see nothing wrong in it, that's all.
A business tries making a profit, wherever they can. A non-business entity does not have that as a factor (enhancing shareholder value yada yada yada - you get the idea).
That brings about several differences in the way a lot of things are handled.
I agree with you. My point was this - the OP was comparing MS giving away C# for free with drug use, and making some ridiculous comparisons.
But MS is a product development company. So, they charge you for using their product, which btw, is their primary business initiative (i.e. not services, but products). On the other hand, other competing companies have different business models (Sun's primary source of income is not selling software products).
So, to expect MS to give away their products for free is pointless. Will they eventually give in? Who knows, maybe when the bell tolls, they just might. But that's not the issue - the issue is that when you are using their products for commercial purposes, there is nothing wrong in them demanding that you pay for the same.
I'm not a big fan of MS (not that I'm a big fan of Sun or OSS), but like everything else, the use has to be suited to the task and issue at hand. MS does what it should given the circumstances and their business model. Whether or not you choose to accept it is entirely up to you. Like everything else, it has its advantages and pitfalls.
For all those who scream Java, Java is not truly platform independent, either. And Sun still controls the community process development around Java, and it has its own set of problems. While it is certainly better than MS in some ways, using MS stuff on their platform is usually a wiser idea for businesses.
Either way, MS is free to charge for using their stuff for commercial development - and yes, I would go in for Java, too, but that was not the issue here, that's all!:)
(actually, I'd go in for C++ with STL, and if that were not an option, Java, but that's another issue altogether)
Look at my response to the other poster - it's not Apple's primary business, either. Then again, I do not even know what xcode is, and nor had I heard of it - while am sure that's certainly true for.Net/C#.
That's not Sun's primary business - they are a hardware vendor first, and a services provider second. Ergo, it is okay for them to give away products.
Microsoft is primarily a product development company - it does not make business sense for them to give away their products.
Your comparison fails because both are different companies with different objectives. MS is trying to sell a product for its platform, Sun is trying to give away a product for all platform, and hoping to make money on services. Sun's foray into products was minimal before Java, likewise, MS is only now seriously entering into the services industry.
Then again, we all know how well the businesses of Sun and Microsoft are doing in comparison, right?
Actually, I'd put it the other way around - since he is familiar with *nix anyway, why not learn his way around Windows?
He can always learn Java on *nix on his own, but he would never get around doing.Net and C# on his own (since he is not comfortable on the platform). However, this would be a perfect opportunity for that.
That way, he learns more and his resume looks better, too. Just a thought.
He's learning the language, not using it for writing enterprise scale apps. There is a difference.
If you are writing enterprise scale apps, you'd be an idiot to use the express version. If you want to write enterprise scale apps, buy it from MS - what's wrong in MS demanding that you pay them for it when after all, you are trying to make money out of it?
*shakes head*
Free for the first hit? Your comparison is ridiculous - they've made it free so that you can use it for educational and non-commercial purposes. If you want to do commercial development, pay them. I see nothing wrong in that - it's the way businesses work.
But oh wait, you mean they ought to give it to you for free while you can make money out of it? Nice one, there.
That female was talking about having guns in the sims. Seriously, what's the point of Sims again? I mean, isn't it a lot easier to live your real life than live it out in a virtual world?
Heck, if there were guns in the Sims, it'd have been a lot more interesting. Form gangs, fight evil couples blah blah.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, don't bother. For every article, there is an idiot who thinks that foobar website had it 3.247 minutes before Slashdot.
Who the hell bloody cares? Slashdot is one place where it will eventually show up, and one place where the discussions aren't full of crap.
Seriously, a message to the posters like the OP - get the hell off Slashdot. If you don't like this place, then what the hell are you doing here? At least, let those of us who like this place hang out and actually discuss stuff, rather than whining like a 13 year old about his zit.
I've seen a lot of these "alternative" to Slashdot websites. They're all full of crap. Slashdot is what it is not just because of the articles, but also because of its readers and posters. Now, take your whining elsewhere and let those of us who like the place discuss things related to the article.
Freakin' idiots.
I'm not saying it's fair, just that a lot of those rich kids while away doing nothing, rather than use the connections to make it big in life.
Wow.
Only on Slashdot would you have a businessman of a technology company being compared to a pimp, a smuggler and a murderer.
What the hell are you talking about?! How many people has Microsoft (or Bill Gates) killed? Does he own a freakin' whorehouse or a casino? The only thing he has done is conduct a business the way every business is conducted - to maximize profit.
Microsoft is a business entity. They are a corporation. Like every other corporation out there, their purpose is to enhance the shareholder value, period. That does not make them any more or less evil. They just are that way. And they are giving back to society, a lot more than most companies ever have.
You know something? I would *much* rather have Microsoft profit in billions and spend money towards helping something more important than code, like AIDS or Cancer, than feel bad for a two penny company that could not take care of itself. Business is like the animal kingdom, there are predators and preys and it is not good or evil, merely the survival of the fittest.
If you have a good idea and good management, you can surivive. Look at Google, they are the perfect example.
Stop making ridiculous comparisons. While Microsoft maybe a ruthless business, they are contributing a whole lot to society. I would much rather have that. And you, my good sir, what have you done to the well being of the society lately? Helped cure anything?
Bloody trolls.
There are several kids with rich parents and connections who amount to nothing. Credit them for being enterprising enough to have used it well. In their position, if you had such connections, would not have?
Ahh, gotcha. Of course, I completely agree with you. Then again, if Google maps can see it, then am sure a spy orgainzation can quite easily, too. :)
But see, that was for a short while - in order for them to continue to blur out the installations 24/7/365, it would indeed take a lot of effort.
So, they figured that talking to Google is a better alternative.
Good for you, I'm sure they are very tasty. Whatever floats your boat, mate.
Umm, I wasn't arguing about why I was a vegetarian, merely stating a fact.
You are free to eat whatever you want, just as I'm free to eat whatever I want. I'm mostly a vegetarian because I was raised that way, and eating animals grosses me out (even for a meat eater, eating insects and certain other foods would gross you out because you weren't raised that way).
What do you mean vegan/vegetarianism is a bogus? I mean, it's a style of living that some people practice because they choose to - for instance, there are folks in India who believe in not eating anything where the plant is killed (i.e. no potatoes, carrots, etc.) - only fruits because you don't kill a plant in eating fruits. I think that's a laudable goal, but not something I'd do. That doesn't mean I do not admire them for their attitude, though. In the end, the justifications are pointless because if you want to do something, you will find a way of justifying what you do anyway.
As long as the people practicing it are happy, that's all that matters.
Goodluck, you've a lot of making up to do - anyway, am happy for you! =)
In all my life, I've eaten no animal meat, nor fish, nor eggs (well, it is possible that I've occasionally had an item or two by mistake which have had eggs) - although I have had milk, which I suppose is the only animal product I've consumed.
Ironic.
The other poster made the points for me - MS is indeed giving back, just not the way you want them to. And of course you can completely ignore the benefits of company-centric ways and say that it sucks because it does not conform to your idea of how things should be.
Umm, Open Source does not exist to pay people's livelihood - while a few maybe able to make a living out of it, that is not its primary purpose. If MS were to go down under tomorrow, economies, jobs and several other things would be affected. Badly.
And I'm not even going to bother about your Wikipedia comment - you're just being a troll.
Thank you - that was exactly my point. :)
Basically, it does not matter whether or not foobar company/organization/people give it for free, that does not mean MS should.
Whether or not they should is completely their decision and while you may not like it, there is nothing wrong in them charging a fine penny or two.
MS is a business - they have no reason to share, they exist to enhance *their* shareholder value. What's your point? They're not on a mission of goodwill, they are a profit making corporation. If you're looking for sharing, go look at a Church or a charity.
And oh, that's my Wikipedia profile page - hardly a home page, it contains a list of contributions that I've made to Wikipedia. Most Wikipedia contributors have such pages.
*shakes head on the ignorance of people*
Then again, I'm sure attacking me makes more sense to you than attacking my points.
Well, I did mention this later in my comment:
If you want to do commercial development, pay them. I see nothing wrong in that - it's the way businesses work.
Quite obviously, I was talking about commercial enterprise development. I should have thought it was obvious what I was talking about?
If you are a business, it makes little difference. Microsoft does not care about smaller developers, their target is big business. While licensing costs maybe a pain, it comes with the added benefit of customer dependence (i.e. you are dependent on MS and in turn, your customers are dependent on you), which drives business. Also, a customer would trust me more if I suggested a Microsoft platform than if I did an Open Source one (hard truth). In fact, most would not even know about OSS, so that's another issue. Besides, if they want Microsoft stuff, I'm just going to pass on the added cost to the customer, which is fine by me. There are some obvious benefits (and pitfalls, of course) to being a Microsoft shop.
So, from a business perspective, MS makes sense. Sure, as a single developer, hack around as much as you want - but as a commercial entity, associating yourself with a company usually works better in the long run (be it MS, Sun, IBM whoever). Definitely beats OSS, unless you are willing to run the risk (and if time does not mean a thing to you - OSS is nice if your time is not money).
Is what MS doing helping a monopoly? Yup. But does it work? Also yes. Does it help businesses make money? Yes, sir! So, there you go. That's the bottomline.
But see, it does not matter - as long as you use their stuff, they are free to charge/not charge. And if you develop commercial applications, there is nothing wrong for them to charge, since they are charging the company, not the developers - a business making a profit is a different issue in comparison to an individual.
That's entirely up to them, and as someone with with a couple of businesses, I see nothing wrong in it, that's all.
A business tries making a profit, wherever they can. A non-business entity does not have that as a factor (enhancing shareholder value yada yada yada - you get the idea).
That brings about several differences in the way a lot of things are handled.
I agree with you. My point was this - the OP was comparing MS giving away C# for free with drug use, and making some ridiculous comparisons.
:)
But MS is a product development company. So, they charge you for using their product, which btw, is their primary business initiative (i.e. not services, but products). On the other hand, other competing companies have different business models (Sun's primary source of income is not selling software products).
So, to expect MS to give away their products for free is pointless. Will they eventually give in? Who knows, maybe when the bell tolls, they just might. But that's not the issue - the issue is that when you are using their products for commercial purposes, there is nothing wrong in them demanding that you pay for the same.
I'm not a big fan of MS (not that I'm a big fan of Sun or OSS), but like everything else, the use has to be suited to the task and issue at hand. MS does what it should given the circumstances and their business model. Whether or not you choose to accept it is entirely up to you. Like everything else, it has its advantages and pitfalls.
For all those who scream Java, Java is not truly platform independent, either. And Sun still controls the community process development around Java, and it has its own set of problems. While it is certainly better than MS in some ways, using MS stuff on their platform is usually a wiser idea for businesses.
Either way, MS is free to charge for using their stuff for commercial development - and yes, I would go in for Java, too, but that was not the issue here, that's all!
(actually, I'd go in for C++ with STL, and if that were not an option, Java, but that's another issue altogether)
But, my spelling will always be better then anything Aaron puts out.
Indeed. =)
Look at my response to the other poster - it's not Apple's primary business, either. Then again, I do not even know what xcode is, and nor had I heard of it - while am sure that's certainly true for
That's not Sun's primary business - they are a hardware vendor first, and a services provider second. Ergo, it is okay for them to give away products.
Microsoft is primarily a product development company - it does not make business sense for them to give away their products.
Your comparison fails because both are different companies with different objectives. MS is trying to sell a product for its platform, Sun is trying to give away a product for all platform, and hoping to make money on services. Sun's foray into products was minimal before Java, likewise, MS is only now seriously entering into the services industry.
Then again, we all know how well the businesses of Sun and Microsoft are doing in comparison, right?
Their competition isn't a business (i.e. the OSS community).
Actually, I'd put it the other way around - since he is familiar with *nix anyway, why not learn his way around Windows?
.Net and C# on his own (since he is not comfortable on the platform). However, this would be a perfect opportunity for that.
He can always learn Java on *nix on his own, but he would never get around doing
That way, he learns more and his resume looks better, too. Just a thought.
He's learning the language, not using it for writing enterprise scale apps. There is a difference.
If you are writing enterprise scale apps, you'd be an idiot to use the express version. If you want to write enterprise scale apps, buy it from MS - what's wrong in MS demanding that you pay them for it when after all, you are trying to make money out of it?
*shakes head*
Free for the first hit? Your comparison is ridiculous - they've made it free so that you can use it for educational and non-commercial purposes. If you want to do commercial development, pay them. I see nothing wrong in that - it's the way businesses work.
But oh wait, you mean they ought to give it to you for free while you can make money out of it? Nice one, there.
Heh.
That female was talking about having guns in the sims. Seriously, what's the point of Sims again? I mean, isn't it a lot easier to live your real life than live it out in a virtual world?
Heck, if there were guns in the Sims, it'd have been a lot more interesting. Form gangs, fight evil couples blah blah.