I would read up before investing in Microsoft. Some consider their stock a value right now, but it might be a while before the stock shows decent growth again. Red Hat is technically high right now, but a long term investor could probably garner some profits.
It's true that Microsoft is a company to check out, but money invested a year ago in Red Hat would have produced much larger profits than money invested in MS during the same period. Like you said, anything else is charity.
I support the use of external sources to back up opinions and to add relevance to points of view. It worked in third grade and still does to this day. Those damn elitists, reading and sharing information yet again!
I wouldn't consider your comment that of an elitist, but of someone that underestimates change and has a very optimistic view of what 'high end' is in the world of computer apps. If I hadn't checked out your Web site I would actually consider this comment that of a troll.
Vague phrases and knowledge regarding security and scale do often play a role in technology choices, but if one is a company that delivers a quality products, coded in Perl, PHP, Java, whatever, then that company is more likely to land work than a company that produces poorly written products coded only in Java.
There is a ton of shoddy, crappy software written for the Enterprise in quite a few languages by veteran developers - no one, not even the poor, huddled masses of PHP developers, have the lock on the 'develop crummy code' market.
With that said, the two languages are headed in a similar direction from very different beginnings, so I think most predictions are probably good for about a week.
Feel free to compares Google and M$ when Google requires all PC OEMs to include a browser that will only display their Web site and Google penalizes these companies if they attempt to provide a browser that will display non-Google pages. Oh, and when Google builds and operating system and only provides their services/apps to that OS. Oh yeah, and when they use their marketshare to rebrand technologies that will only work with their upcoming OS.
Let's make an effort here to make the point that there might be some similar aspects to Google and Microsoft, but this bland statement of comparision is silly.
For most Web pages, I think this is not a very good idea. From a design perspective, I can respect the desire to have control over elements on the page, but different interactive elements create more confusion than anything. There are very few things I hate more than having to figure out how to access parts of a DVD or Web page; it might look neat the first time, but I'm interacting with said interface for content, not just to interact with the interface.
I'm sorry, but is this person just totally crazy? This keynote by this fellow is the stuff of a raving idiot. Since when do you use the subject of shotguns and relationships to lead into your support of a company?
I checked out their site, and it's little more than links to rants and ravings. Even SCO should know better than to post this junk on their site. Blech! Disgustingly stupid!
There must be a serious drug problem going on over at the SCO camp, and I'm talking the heavy stuff...
but to date, I've never met a single person that was truly satisfied with Windows, much less happy or fanatical about it.
No offense, but do you live under a rock? There are some pretty passionate folks that love to develop with tools from Redmond. I don't get it, but I've met plenty of developers that preach the Ways of Windows louder than most.
And remember, no one got fired for choosing Microsoft.
I've known a few people that were canned while trumpeting Microsoft products. Just because Microsoft has such large market share does not mean it's the best for the job, and if I know of a few people that had to find new jobs because they applied company resources based upon sales pitches, then I would guess that the last statement of yours is not exactly on the mark.
If a system sucks but no one cared because Microsoft was used in the solution, then the reliance upon the company with a majority market-share is being used to hide incompetence. That can happen with any OS or technology, but to say that no one is fired for choosing Microsoft does not reflect academic, independent, and corporate solutions that make up the landscape of technical solutions.
It's not so much about whether or not Java is Open Source. It's about the fact that when Java IS Open Source, then all of those other groups/companies/developers that make OSS products related to Java will push this technology even harder.
It's already working. Come on, C# is borrowed from Java. If you have a hard-on about about M$, then just remember they took the idea and applied it to their own technology. The biggest computer software company in the world has already created products from Java.
And don't forget,.NET only runs on Windows! Choice my ass, it only runs on Windows. If I repeat that again, am I a troll?
Oops...my original point was that open sourced Java will help to push an industry into more development, very similar to the great amount of work that has come from working with Apache.
I cannot agree more with your comments regarding compatible formats. If there are 20 Office suites out there that can all read the same files, then a new market has been created. How cool is that?
I quit laughing when I thought of the fact that we already dump plenty of stuff into the ground that has, at some point, caused much more problems than those mentioned in the fictional research paper.
Oh well, gotta go to buy a new cell phone because the little piece of plastic on the side broke.
Why would any year for Linux be make or break? That makes no sense at all when one considers the strides that have been made in just the last few years.
I personally think Linux is popular because of X,OpenOffice,Gimp,Apache,TuxRacer, etc etc, and ETC and there is nothing but more software coming out for the OS. I cannot imagine everyone throwing in the towel after 2004 if Linux doesn't take over the desktop: "Oh hell, forget it, this was to be THE year, but wasn't so let's shut the doors."
Also, a lot of people are already using Linux as a desktop and feel the "make" much more than the "break" already. If mass appeal picks up, great, but considering the effort that goes into the OS and the software that runs on Linux, to simplify one year as THE defining year for an operating system misses the point.
Re:Why would Microsoft care about any of this?
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 1
Office for the Mac has existed, in my opinion, because no matter how low the Macintosh market share has been, Microsoft makes a wonderful margin on each Office for the Mac that is sold. In the beginning, Microsoft was betting that the Mac would be THE platform, and wanted to write the Apple operating system.
One could look at it from the point of the view that Microsoft has always "been there" for the Mac, but when you consider, in my opinion, to be Microsoft's constant efforts to make products not play well with others, I'm sure that a lot of user's and primarily developers would disagree with that perspective.
Re:Why would Microsoft care about any of this?
on
No WMA for HP iPod
·
· Score: 1
That makes a lot of sense; I often forget that MS works on a very "macro" scale. I remember making a similar point to some friends years ago when MS was going to buy Quicken, the point being that they didn't so much care about the software as much as moving themselves into a better position to make money on bank transactions.
Slashdot Mirror
I would read up before investing in Microsoft. Some consider their stock a value right now, but it might be a while before the stock shows decent growth again. Red Hat is technically high right now, but a long term investor could probably garner some profits.
It's true that Microsoft is a company to check out, but money invested a year ago in Red Hat would have produced much larger profits than money invested in MS during the same period. Like you said, anything else is charity.
I support the use of external sources to back up opinions and to add relevance to points of view. It worked in third grade and still does to this day. Those damn elitists, reading and sharing information yet again!
Wow, so a company that claims a patent on xml uses Dreamweaver to build their Web site?
I wouldn't consider your comment that of an elitist, but of someone that underestimates change and has a very optimistic view of what 'high end' is in the world of computer apps. If I hadn't checked out your Web site I would actually consider this comment that of a troll.
Vague phrases and knowledge regarding security and scale do often play a role in technology choices, but if one is a company that delivers a quality products, coded in Perl, PHP, Java, whatever, then that company is more likely to land work than a company that produces poorly written products coded only in Java.
There is a ton of shoddy, crappy software written for the Enterprise in quite a few languages by veteran developers - no one, not even the poor, huddled masses of PHP developers, have the lock on the 'develop crummy code' market.
With that said, the two languages are headed in a similar direction from very different beginnings, so I think most predictions are probably good for about a week.
Red Hat is not the only Linux distro of course, but if you check out their recent financials, http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=67156& p=irol-irhome, I'm not quite sure why he feels that Linux adoption is slowing down.
Feel free to compares Google and M$ when Google requires all PC OEMs to include a browser that will only display their Web site and Google penalizes these companies if they attempt to provide a browser that will display non-Google pages. Oh, and when Google builds and operating system and only provides their services/apps to that OS. Oh yeah, and when they use their marketshare to rebrand technologies that will only work with their upcoming OS.
Let's make an effort here to make the point that there might be some similar aspects to Google and Microsoft, but this bland statement of comparision is silly.
Agreed! And I would add that even quoting Dvorak should be kept to a bare minimum.
For most Web pages, I think this is not a very good idea. From a design perspective, I can respect the desire to have control over elements on the page, but different interactive elements create more confusion than anything. There are very few things I hate more than having to figure out how to access parts of a DVD or Web page; it might look neat the first time, but I'm interacting with said interface for content, not just to interact with the interface.
That is because M$ is a monopoly and they get to stomp on much larger companies than Google can stomp on.
It sounds as if you are talking about a reporting program, not a programmable GUI.
I'm sorry, but is this person just totally crazy? This keynote by this fellow is the stuff of a raving idiot. Since when do you use the subject of shotguns and relationships to lead into your support of a company?
I checked out their site, and it's little more than links to rants and ravings. Even SCO should know better than to post this junk on their site. Blech! Disgustingly stupid!
There must be a serious drug problem going on over at the SCO camp, and I'm talking the heavy stuff...
You should check out the preview for OS X Tiger. They will introduce a iTunes-like search box within the OS. They call this spotlight.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/
Mac users have had more ups and downs than most. I would change your headline to "I think Mac users are able to catch their breath for a second."
Sort of cool to be able to play the law and order demo online.
but to date, I've never met a single person that was truly satisfied with Windows, much less happy or fanatical about it.
No offense, but do you live under a rock? There are some pretty passionate folks that love to develop with tools from Redmond. I don't get it, but I've met plenty of developers that preach the Ways of Windows louder than most.
And remember, no one got fired for choosing Microsoft.
I've known a few people that were canned while trumpeting Microsoft products. Just because Microsoft has such large market share does not mean it's the best for the job, and if I know of a few people that had to find new jobs because they applied company resources based upon sales pitches, then I would guess that the last statement of yours is not exactly on the mark.
If a system sucks but no one cared because Microsoft was used in the solution, then the reliance upon the company with a majority market-share is being used to hide incompetence. That can happen with any OS or technology, but to say that no one is fired for choosing Microsoft does not reflect academic, independent, and corporate solutions that make up the landscape of technical solutions.
It's not so much about whether or not Java is Open Source. It's about the fact that when Java IS Open Source, then all of those other groups/companies/developers that make OSS products related to Java will push this technology even harder.
.NET only runs on Windows! Choice my ass, it only runs on Windows. If I repeat that again, am I a troll?
It's already working. Come on, C# is borrowed from Java. If you have a hard-on about about M$, then just remember they took the idea and applied it to their own technology. The biggest computer software company in the world has already created products from Java.
And don't forget,
Oops...my original point was that open sourced Java will help to push an industry into more development, very similar to the great amount of work that has come from working with Apache.
It was all downhill after Windows 3.11.
Yes yes yes.
.Net in Google - the first result is php.net. That should offer a lesson for anyone.
Look for
Just bundle Windows with Linux, that should shut them up about any unfair advantage, as noted April 1 (-:
I cannot agree more with your comments regarding compatible formats. If there are 20 Office suites out there that can all read the same files, then a new market has been created. How cool is that?
(-:
I quit laughing when I thought of the fact that we already dump plenty of stuff into the ground that has, at some point, caused much more problems than those mentioned in the fictional research paper.
Oh well, gotta go to buy a new cell phone because the little piece of plastic on the side broke.
Sigh...
Considering the hardware requirements, why not just install Linux on an older machine and run both Windows and Linux for a while?
Why would any year for Linux be make or break? That makes no sense at all when one considers the strides that have been made in just the last few years.
I personally think Linux is popular because of X,OpenOffice,Gimp,Apache,TuxRacer, etc etc, and ETC and there is nothing but more software coming out for the OS. I cannot imagine everyone throwing in the towel after 2004 if Linux doesn't take over the desktop: "Oh hell, forget it, this was to be THE year, but wasn't so let's shut the doors."
Also, a lot of people are already using Linux as a desktop and feel the "make" much more than the "break" already. If mass appeal picks up, great, but considering the effort that goes into the OS and the software that runs on Linux, to simplify one year as THE defining year for an operating system misses the point.
Office for the Mac has existed, in my opinion, because no matter how low the Macintosh market share has been, Microsoft makes a wonderful margin on each Office for the Mac that is sold. In the beginning, Microsoft was betting that the Mac would be THE platform, and wanted to write the Apple operating system.
One could look at it from the point of the view that Microsoft has always "been there" for the Mac, but when you consider, in my opinion, to be Microsoft's constant efforts to make products not play well with others, I'm sure that a lot of user's and primarily developers would disagree with that perspective.
That makes a lot of sense; I often forget that MS works on a very "macro" scale. I remember making a similar point to some friends years ago when MS was going to buy Quicken, the point being that they didn't so much care about the software as much as moving themselves into a better position to make money on bank transactions.