Even ignoring the lack of evidence for your claim, your statement is truly bizarre. You genuinely believe that an upcoming version of a live distribution that doesn't fit on a CD is why one distro is more popular than another right now?
Apple software isn't statically compiled. It either installs frameworks to a system folder or ships them in the application bundle.
Static compilation would not solve the problems of their being no standard desktop environment, no standard configurations for commercial developers to support, and anti-closed source attitudes from the userbase.
By the way, lots of Google employees post here and on other tech sites. Where is your complaint about that? Reading your journal entry makes you come off as extremely paranoid. You actually claim that MS is "currently running the overwhelming majority of astroturf campaigns on Slashdot," but the fact is that in any article about one of Google's competitors, a mysterious explosion of angry anonymous posts shows up to bash that competitor, especially if it's Apple.
Remember, folks. If someone says something you don't agree with, especially if you possess an emotional attachment to a particular company (e.g., Google), that person is a "shill."
I'm completely bewildered at what you're complaining about. It's a fact that adds context to Google's behavior. It's part of the story.
I strongly suspect that you simply don't like it because it's good news regarding a Microsoft product that is competing with a Google product, and if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't be accusing anyone of being a "fanboi."
No, Google didn't prove that. Microsoft explained that, with permission from the user, they were using feedback delivered from the Bing Bar for searches made from any source, and Google decided to try to rile up its fans and accuse Microsoft of "copying their results."
Chrome defaults to Google search, and that's okay for some reason, but it's not okay when Microsoft ships a Bing bar? What kind of double standard is that? Especially when every copy of IE asks you to configure your search provider on first launch!
It's not web apps--native apps are actually experiencing a major comeback, especially on mobile devices. Native Linux app development sucks because of a lack of standardization. Conflicting projects, changing APIs, and aggressive attitudes from the community have all contributed to the failure of native Linux development. If a company wants to develop a commercial product for Linux, it will get attacked right out of the gate for being closed source and not be available for free, and the company has to support a staggering number of possible desktop environment configurations and APIs--many of which might get supplanted by something else in a couple of years.
Native Linux development will always suck until it's worth it to actually develop for.
What good is a guy who can solve trivial problems on a white board when you need a guy who can solve complex problems in a dev environment with a bunch of reference material.
Um, your statement raises the even bigger question of what good someone is who can't even solve trivial problems on a whiteboard.
If they ask you to implement a common algorithm, and you can't do it without having to copy it from Google search results, they don't want you. Why can't you understand that?
I've made the argument that this is exactly where Apple is headed for a long time now.
You can make slippery slope arguments all day long. They will remain baseless and invalid without proof. Unlike the resource-limited environment of iOS, Apple wouldn't gain anything from restricting the Macs apps to the app store.
This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. Trademark owners have to defend it or risk losing it.
That, of course, won't stop the Slashdotters from freaking out over nothing. Notice the article was submitted by the ITWorld author who wrote it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this readership would react. It's all about page views. This story isn't even new; it dates back to late August.
They're not "assholes." They have to exert effort in defending their trademark or risk losing it.
Notice the submitter is the very ITWorld article who wrote the article. He submitted it to Slashdot knowing a "David v. Goliath" story would rile up the readers and generate posts exactly like yours.
First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo.
Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.
One thing that fascinates me about Android is that it was the same move Microsoft made with Internet Explorer, pumping a product into a new market at a price others couldn't compete with because it was funded by monopoly profits (from web search). However, Google's marketing department took advantage of the positive feelings associate with "openness" and attached themselves to those particular communities including this one, turning Android into some kind of open source movement even though it's not open.
The positive emotional attachment to Google that they fostered among techies has succeeded in deflecting a lot of criticism, even as the company does things Microsoft was once criticized for. Google's behavior in recent years has been classic late 90s Microsoft, from API price changes to pumping the market with a free product that ultimately supports the company's monopoly product.
Slashdot Mirror
This is difficult to gauge, because Macs also ship with a lot of free software that would add to the price of a comparable PC.
Even ignoring the lack of evidence for your claim, your statement is truly bizarre. You genuinely believe that an upcoming version of a live distribution that doesn't fit on a CD is why one distro is more popular than another right now?
Apple software isn't statically compiled. It either installs frameworks to a system folder or ships them in the application bundle.
Static compilation would not solve the problems of their being no standard desktop environment, no standard configurations for commercial developers to support, and anti-closed source attitudes from the userbase.
You don't seem to know what "astroturfing" means.
By the way, lots of Google employees post here and on other tech sites. Where is your complaint about that? Reading your journal entry makes you come off as extremely paranoid. You actually claim that MS is "currently running the overwhelming majority of astroturf campaigns on Slashdot," but the fact is that in any article about one of Google's competitors, a mysterious explosion of angry anonymous posts shows up to bash that competitor, especially if it's Apple.
Remember, folks. If someone says something you don't agree with, especially if you possess an emotional attachment to a particular company (e.g., Google), that person is a "shill."
I'm completely bewildered at what you're complaining about. It's a fact that adds context to Google's behavior. It's part of the story.
I strongly suspect that you simply don't like it because it's good news regarding a Microsoft product that is competing with a Google product, and if the roles were reversed, you wouldn't be accusing anyone of being a "fanboi."
No, Google didn't prove that. Microsoft explained that, with permission from the user, they were using feedback delivered from the Bing Bar for searches made from any source, and Google decided to try to rile up its fans and accuse Microsoft of "copying their results."
Google hasn't released an innovative product since Gmail.
Oh, no, how will Google ever get a dominant web search position with such antics? Wait...
In fact, IE is the only browser that pops up a configuration dialog on first launch to allow you to change search providers!
Chrome defaults to Google search, and that's okay for some reason, but it's not okay when Microsoft ships a Bing bar? What kind of double standard is that? Especially when every copy of IE asks you to configure your search provider on first launch!
It's not web apps--native apps are actually experiencing a major comeback, especially on mobile devices. Native Linux app development sucks because of a lack of standardization. Conflicting projects, changing APIs, and aggressive attitudes from the community have all contributed to the failure of native Linux development. If a company wants to develop a commercial product for Linux, it will get attacked right out of the gate for being closed source and not be available for free, and the company has to support a staggering number of possible desktop environment configurations and APIs--many of which might get supplanted by something else in a couple of years.
Native Linux development will always suck until it's worth it to actually develop for.
Um, your statement raises the even bigger question of what good someone is who can't even solve trivial problems on a whiteboard.
If they ask you to implement a common algorithm, and you can't do it without having to copy it from Google search results, they don't want you. Why can't you understand that?
As opposed to writing code in an IDE and having it judged over the shoulder of your code reviewer or pair programmer?
If you can't write common algorithms without code completion or framework documentation, you may not be the hire they're looking for.
Asking candidates to write code on a blackboard or sheet of paper is common practice.
You can make slippery slope arguments all day long. They will remain baseless and invalid without proof. Unlike the resource-limited environment of iOS, Apple wouldn't gain anything from restricting the Macs apps to the app store.
This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. Trademark owners have to defend it or risk losing it.
That, of course, won't stop the Slashdotters from freaking out over nothing. Notice the article was submitted by the ITWorld author who wrote it. He knew exactly what he was doing and how this readership would react. It's all about page views. This story isn't even new; it dates back to late August.
Whoops. ITWorld author.
They're not "assholes." They have to exert effort in defending their trademark or risk losing it.
Notice the submitter is the very ITWorld article who wrote the article. He submitted it to Slashdot knowing a "David v. Goliath" story would rile up the readers and generate posts exactly like yours.
First, this story is months old and dates back to late August. Second, contrary to the headline, they're not threatening over the "AppleADay" name but the logo.
Third, as is pointed out every time an incident like this occurs, trademark owners have to take no chances and must enforce perceived violations or risk losing their right to it. There is always the risk that a court somewhere in the world might cite the lack of action in some particular case. But, since it's a "David v. Goliath" article, as the summary put it, it's an excellent story to submit to Slashdot and rile up the natives.
This company is late 90s Microsoft. Engineer-driven rather than user-driven, and all behavior motivated by the need to support the monopoly product.
The sad thing is that it's hard to distinguish your post from a knowing troll or a typically reactive Slashdotter.
One thing that fascinates me about Android is that it was the same move Microsoft made with Internet Explorer, pumping a product into a new market at a price others couldn't compete with because it was funded by monopoly profits (from web search). However, Google's marketing department took advantage of the positive feelings associate with "openness" and attached themselves to those particular communities including this one, turning Android into some kind of open source movement even though it's not open.
The positive emotional attachment to Google that they fostered among techies has succeeded in deflecting a lot of criticism, even as the company does things Microsoft was once criticized for. Google's behavior in recent years has been classic late 90s Microsoft, from API price changes to pumping the market with a free product that ultimately supports the company's monopoly product.