"I started out using wizards when I was new to ASP, and it helped me get some results quickly..."
Which is exactly the reason they exist. As you further point out, generalized solutions generally don't work all the time...Especially in edge-cases. This is quite different than the Not Invented Here Syndrome - I am surprised someone didn't chime in as such. As it stands you have elaborated on my point quite well and I, of course, agree with you 100%.
Truth be told if you are actually any good at coding you will write your own wizards and generators, regardless if you use an a full fledged IDE or a fail-to-get-with-the-times-because-the-IDE-people- said-so text editor.
Scary to think how much production code gets action with wizard generated code and developers have no idea what that code is actually doing other than maybe a cursory overview, if that.
You missed the point. Regardless if you agree or not, Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse practices and as such they no longer enjoy the freedoms afforeded other companies without extra scrutiny regarding the company's actions while being punished for said conviction.
Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelavent - it is what it is under these conditions.
I don't disagree with sentiment at all. In fact, I actually practice this in my every day behavior when it comes to computers as well as try to explain why it needs to be this way to others who ask otherwise.
If I am ordered to pay $1,000,000.00 for some product law violation, I have the option to do the following:
A) Pay $1,000,000.00 out in cash - no if's, and's or but's. B) Offer my products for free as retribution to the sum amount of $1,000,000.00 - we will not get into the details of things like how we determined what my products actual cost are versus what I can argue about as to determine such cost.
Any particular reason most companies tend to favor settlements that go with option B in this scenario? IF they are one and the same then one would think that a company would just go with option A to avoid an appearance of impropriety that is associated with option B. You say I am wrong BUT I qualified my entire post with, "...I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers..." which is the entire point of my response. That neither states my position on saying I agree or disagree about company assets. What I am pointing out is option B affords some wiggle room to play with numbers possibly resulting in a more favorable position for the fined and how I infer that most people don't view it the same as paying out money - you're original question...$1,000,000.00 cash is $1,000,000.00 cash anyway you look it.
"The millions is the amount they could have made if MS had the chance to sell..." Since you quoted me and missed some of the points that you quoted, back at ya: The premise of your response hinges on "COULD HAVE" and "HAD THE CHANCE" and then you go on to express how it's money in the bank already and now being given away for nothing. COULD HAVE does not mean ACTUALLY DID. For all I know those same assets get liquidated for pennies on the dollar because of a new product line that obsoletes current inventory or market direction dictates otherwise as very simple example. Meanwhile, not to be redundant, but $1,000,000.00 is still $1,000,000.00 regardless if I sold my inventory or not. But surely this isn't what you meant either, or is it?
"So Windows and Office take zero effort to develop? They don't have to pay their developers, testings, artists and managers?"
I could be wrong, and highly so, but I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers for software isn't the same as paying cold hard cash. While I see your point about the cost of development one has to remember a few things that can offset and subsidize the actual penalty:
1) The software might very easily be accounted for at full retail price with no breaks. No crime in and of itself, not implying that doing so is. Point is that on any other volume transaction, most vendors will allow for a price break as an example. For all I know, Microsoft does this even under penalty conditions but factualy I do not know.
2) Consider the fact that some software may not be redeemed by the people receiving the penalty award. Not Microsofts fault by any means, again not implying that Microsoft has to ensure "people harmed" stand up and be counted for their compensation; ineptitude falls on the shoulder of ther responsible afterall. I am asking you to consider how much penalty does Microsoft actually pay with this method. Keep in mind that even in a cash settlement this can still go on, however when it comes to cash you'll find most people don't let that slide by without paying closer attention to getting their piece of the pie.
3) The biggest reason why giving away software under these conditions is that, ultimately, Microsoft is allowed to legally propogate software which in the long run has a high probability of actually generating more customers to purchase newer versions of software down the road - thus subsidizing the original penalty. You can't do this with a cash settlement to my knowledge.
All the arguing, debating and nit-picking aside, there is a reason that they say, "If you have a problem teaching someone math, put $(CURRENCY_SIGN) in front of the numbers. People always understand money."
"while it would suck having to give up my girlfriends, at least I would still have my wife"
Wait - you have girlfriends and a wife? And you are a/. user? So the girlfriend thinks you are with the wife and the wife thinks you are with the girlfriend - leaving more time for the computer. Brilliant!
"(SCO) can't be bargained with.(SCO) can't be reasoned with. (SCO) doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And (SCO) absolutely will not stop, ever, until (it is) dead."
If I understand the movie you are referencing, aren't you giving the aliens a bad rap in this case? Even Ripley considered Burke worse than the aliens, "At least you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."
Now if you were to compare SCO with Burke however...
Well, hate to break it to you but as much as I can't stand Microsoft and its policies, your beef isn't with Microsoft so much as you sound like you are still crying about the way the US government dropped the ball. It's OK - I'm not making fun of you, I think the US turn about was obvious once the administration changed.
"...they should have Win32 and the Office formats taken from them"
Should have, could have, what might have been - it's not what happened. The majority of voting americans determined you are in a minority on this if you disagreed with the governments handling of the case. I say this because this same administration was voted back in a second term. Why be so fanatical against Microsoft? Take that same fervor and direct towards your REAL problem.
Another news flash for you too: Any for-profit company that is successful is probably considered evil by you because you can't run a successful business without lying, cheating, engaging in some type of ethics violation, and even breaking a law at some point along the way. There is no point in trying to chime in this with, "such and such does so bullshit you can too run a business without..." - I will instantly discount any such argument akin to trying to convince me the average person can go through life without telling a single lie. In theory it's possible but the reality of the situation dictates otherwise.
All of this being stated, you still have not convinced me that Microsoft is evil and you completely glossed over the very first line in my post and declared it a fallacy. I guess the difference is that I'm not as fanatical as you. For Christ's sake - this is the reality of big business we are talking about, not Darth Vader and the Imperial Forces...
Microsoft isn't evil though - that's just it. They are a business in business to make money and they are one of the best companies in the world at doing it. They aren't evil for being successfull, criminal at best.
Now before you get too perturbed, with me speaking as a developer, Microsoft is _NOT_ the best OS maker in the world. They are the most successful in selling an OS but that does not equate to being the best OS. Part of that success is in the behavior Microsoft has displayed from day one with Gates at the helm; Do not give any competitors a chance to interop with open standards. If they exists, embrace and extend which ultimately breaks the standard since Microsoft is so ubiquitous. The best way to stay ahead is to invent the future and let your competition play catch up. I know the history all the way back to MS-DOS and PC-DOS when Windows first came out; Microsoft has done this. All this extraneous information still doesn't make Microsoft evil even though some of their actions have ended up being wicked in the reprecussions of execution. The "Open XML" vs "ODF" is another example of the company proclaiming, "See? We turned over a new leaf!" while in all reality it's the same old same old....Buying time until they can horde the direction of an emerging idea/technology/concept into a direction where everyone else goes from being on the frontier of a new concept to keeping up with Microsofts implementation of it.
I wouldn't say Microsoft evil. I wouldn't base my ISV model soley around their product either.
"I do not believe "evil" was mentioned until your statement."
First and foremost - my apologies. I was in no way trying to insinuate or otherwise insert the use of the word "evil" as a mechanism you employed for making your point. I think, in all fairness, we actually agree on the integrity of such studies and questioning them. My comment was not in dissent with your point at all really but more the/. group-think that takes place around here...Especially all matters concerning Microsoft*. A simple example, the other response to my original comment in this very thread.
*elaboration: Microsoft funds a study on the TCO for Windows = FUD, OMG WTFBBQ!!!11!! OSTG funds a study on the reliability of Linux = PROOF! There you go, game over - this is the year of the Linux desktop!!!!1!
"Uh-oh, Granny caught a virus, and her PC is a zombie [...] Teach her her lesson about not installing her virus definitions."
The first thing that comes to mind is that there is a fool around every corner...And they usually have a Granny too so even if "Granny" does learn her lesson spammers move to the next. I don't see how it will curtail spamming in any way actually. This is why you are in favor of such a move, correct? There are a lot more negatives than positives with this type of scenario in my humble opinion; one of them being:
"As with any law or tax, it needs to be implemented right..."
I don't have faith in any of the elected officials I know in getting it right; regardless the number of attempts. The only saving grace would be loopholes that actually worked in my favor for once...Which incidenty never seem to happen. It's like the House always wins...
"Is anyone else more than mildly disappointed that they own a bookshelf full of O'reilly books after reading this?"
I was a little at first but then realized that their legal department needs to eat too. These things can be expected as we move from the Information Age to the Litigious Age - so no book burning just yet.
Who the fuck needs a study like this for business? Why would a company release unfavorable reviews of their product any more than marketing would be honest that their "solution" is worse than the competitors you already own? That should be implied common sense and why you always question the source of studies and never listen to marketing for critical evaluation.
"(MS in this case)"
This can be any company though - Microsoft isn't evil for doing what almost any other company would do in the same situation. Take no one source as Bible; especially if the source wants what you have more than the other way around; hint: I'm speaking of your money - lest you be a fool in which case you two often part quickly I would guess.
"I really hate the slashdotters that have this logic "ClosedSource -> Malware" or "ClosedSource->Bad", there are tons of applications that are closed source and DO NOT have any kind of crapware on them, a lot of them are even FREE."
You bring up a very interesting point I have come to realize lately. When fixing my brothers laptop (and by virtue of that act, my parents computers as well) an interesting situation came up. I'll try to keep this to the bare minimum so as not to stray to diatribe length.
My brothers laptop needed to be reformatted due to the nature of virus and trojans he had accumlated while away at college. Afterwards he needed to prepare a power point presentation for one of his last assignments. I had a copy of Microsoft Office but could not force myself "enable him" with what would have ended up a pirated version. The relevance of this is I directed him to OpenOffice.org and gave the necessary directions needed to download, install, and finish his assignment...Without requiring him to run to the local software store to purchase missing components of MS Office from his fresh install of Windows XP. Ultimately my advice was taken and followed and all ended up well but not without having to change the mentality of not only my brother buy my parents as well.
Free = virus, spyware, adware, trojans, worms, spamware, etc. At least so far as Microsoft Windows end users think. Hell, if it is legit then it's nagware or a stripped down barely functional trial version.
Microsoft with all of the security issues seem to have received a bit of luck with regards to F/OSS. People that live in a "Windows world" are typically scared off from any offerings that F/OSS can provide because it's associated with the majority of crapware that thrives in a "Windows world". (Whether it be closed or open source; not playing favorites) Essentially keeping the attitude, "If it didn't come from Microsoft then it will not be installed."
I gave a specific example of my immediate family but I see this pattern with friends and co-workers too. It didn't occur to me though until my family argued with me aggressively that OpenOffice would "tear their computers up again" if they installed it.
You may be VERY surprised to find out what the average non-tech end user thinks of "free" in reference to "free software" if you listen to them...It hurst both open and closed source software more than you may realize.
"Well duh. For all the ink that's been spilt on this issue, I'm amazed that all it took was a dude from New Zealand willing to throw a few grand at the problem to get it reviewed. Krikey!"
All the groupthink, anti-this.or.that that is abundant on slashdot - It has been my own personal experience that in a capitalistic society such as the United States, money is what makes things happen. Everything else pales in comparison...Including benevolent virtues, doing the Right Thing, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
"I started out using wizards when I was new to ASP, and it helped me get some results quickly..."
Which is exactly the reason they exist. As you further point out, generalized solutions generally don't work all the time...Especially in edge-cases. This is quite different than the Not Invented Here Syndrome - I am surprised someone didn't chime in as such. As it stands you have elaborated on my point quite well and I, of course, agree with you 100%.
Truth be told if you are actually any good at coding you will write your own wizards and generators, regardless if you use an a full fledged IDE or a fail-to-get-with-the-times-because-the-IDE-people- said-so text editor.
Scary to think how much production code gets action with wizard generated code and developers have no idea what that code is actually doing other than maybe a cursory overview, if that.
You missed the point. Regardless if you agree or not, Microsoft was convicted of monopoly abuse practices and as such they no longer enjoy the freedoms afforeded other companies without extra scrutiny regarding the company's actions while being punished for said conviction.
Whether you think it is fair or not is irrelavent - it is what it is under these conditions.
I don't disagree with sentiment at all. In fact, I actually practice this in my every day behavior when it comes to computers as well as try to explain why it needs to be this way to others who ask otherwise.
If I am ordered to pay $1,000,000.00 for some product law violation, I have the option to do the following:
A) Pay $1,000,000.00 out in cash - no if's, and's or but's.
B) Offer my products for free as retribution to the sum amount of $1,000,000.00 - we will not get into the details of things like how we determined what my products actual cost are versus what I can argue about as to determine such cost.
Any particular reason most companies tend to favor settlements that go with option B in this scenario? IF they are one and the same then one would think that a company would just go with option A to avoid an appearance of impropriety that is associated with option B. You say I am wrong BUT I qualified my entire post with, "...I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers..." which is the entire point of my response. That neither states my position on saying I agree or disagree about company assets. What I am pointing out is option B affords some wiggle room to play with numbers possibly resulting in a more favorable position for the fined and how I infer that most people don't view it the same as paying out money - you're original question...$1,000,000.00 cash is $1,000,000.00 cash anyway you look it.
"The millions is the amount they could have made if MS had the chance to sell..."
Since you quoted me and missed some of the points that you quoted, back at ya:
The premise of your response hinges on " COULD HAVE " and " HAD THE CHANCE " and then you go on to express how it's money in the bank already and now being given away for nothing. COULD HAVE does not mean ACTUALLY DID. For all I know those same assets get liquidated for pennies on the dollar because of a new product line that obsoletes current inventory or market direction dictates otherwise as very simple example. Meanwhile, not to be redundant, but $1,000,000.00 is still $1,000,000.00 regardless if I sold my inventory or not. But surely this isn't what you meant either, or is it?
"So Windows and Office take zero effort to develop? They don't have to pay their developers, testings, artists and managers?"
I could be wrong, and highly so, but I think a lot of people view giving out vouchers for software isn't the same as paying cold hard cash. While I see your point about the cost of development one has to remember a few things that can offset and subsidize the actual penalty:
1) The software might very easily be accounted for at full retail price with no breaks. No crime in and of itself, not implying that doing so is. Point is that on any other volume transaction, most vendors will allow for a price break as an example. For all I know, Microsoft does this even under penalty conditions but factualy I do not know.
2) Consider the fact that some software may not be redeemed by the people receiving the penalty award. Not Microsofts fault by any means, again not implying that Microsoft has to ensure "people harmed" stand up and be counted for their compensation; ineptitude falls on the shoulder of ther responsible afterall. I am asking you to consider how much penalty does Microsoft actually pay with this method. Keep in mind that even in a cash settlement this can still go on, however when it comes to cash you'll find most people don't let that slide by without paying closer attention to getting their piece of the pie.
3) The biggest reason why giving away software under these conditions is that, ultimately, Microsoft is allowed to legally propogate software which in the long run has a high probability of actually generating more customers to purchase newer versions of software down the road - thus subsidizing the original penalty. You can't do this with a cash settlement to my knowledge.
All the arguing, debating and nit-picking aside, there is a reason that they say, "If you have a problem teaching someone math, put $(CURRENCY_SIGN) in front of the numbers. People always understand money."
"while it would suck having to give up my girlfriends, at least I would still have my wife"
/. user? So the girlfriend thinks you are with the wife and the wife thinks you are with the girlfriend - leaving more time for the computer. Brilliant!
Wait - you have girlfriends and a wife? And you are a
Damn the submit not being the preview button - D'oh!
I realize that you were referencing Terminator now - mixed the movies with the actor being quoted.
I turn in my geek card.
"(SCO) can't be bargained with.(SCO) can't be reasoned with. (SCO) doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And (SCO) absolutely will not stop, ever, until (it is) dead."
If I understand the movie you are referencing, aren't you giving the aliens a bad rap in this case? Even Ripley considered Burke worse than the aliens, "At least you don't see them fucking each other over for a percentage."
Now if you were to compare SCO with Burke however...
"...who is going to get more traffic?"
OK, articulate as your post is, I am going to take a stab in the dark and guess the one that provides porn???
Best reply I've read this week on these forums. Kudos to you sir!
"or 'Stuck in a glass Elevator - experience agoraphobia, demophobia and claustrophobia at the same time!'"
Now that was quite clever and I applaud your creative retorting ability.
Well, hate to break it to you but as much as I can't stand Microsoft and its policies, your beef isn't with Microsoft so much as you sound like you are still crying about the way the US government dropped the ball. It's OK - I'm not making fun of you, I think the US turn about was obvious once the administration changed.
"...they should have Win32 and the Office formats taken from them"
Should have, could have, what might have been - it's not what happened. The majority of voting americans determined you are in a minority on this if you disagreed with the governments handling of the case. I say this because this same administration was voted back in a second term. Why be so fanatical against Microsoft? Take that same fervor and direct towards your REAL problem.
Another news flash for you too: Any for-profit company that is successful is probably considered evil by you because you can't run a successful business without lying, cheating, engaging in some type of ethics violation, and even breaking a law at some point along the way. There is no point in trying to chime in this with, "such and such does so bullshit you can too run a business without..." - I will instantly discount any such argument akin to trying to convince me the average person can go through life without telling a single lie. In theory it's possible but the reality of the situation dictates otherwise.
All of this being stated, you still have not convinced me that Microsoft is evil and you completely glossed over the very first line in my post and declared it a fallacy. I guess the difference is that I'm not as fanatical as you. For Christ's sake - this is the reality of big business we are talking about, not Darth Vader and the Imperial Forces...
I won't argue.
Microsoft isn't evil though - that's just it. They are a business in business to make money and they are one of the best companies in the world at doing it. They aren't evil for being successfull, criminal at best.
...Buying time until they can horde the direction of an emerging idea/technology/concept into a direction where everyone else goes from being on the frontier of a new concept to keeping up with Microsofts implementation of it.
Now before you get too perturbed, with me speaking as a developer, Microsoft is _NOT_ the best OS maker in the world. They are the most successful in selling an OS but that does not equate to being the best OS. Part of that success is in the behavior Microsoft has displayed from day one with Gates at the helm; Do not give any competitors a chance to interop with open standards. If they exists, embrace and extend which ultimately breaks the standard since Microsoft is so ubiquitous. The best way to stay ahead is to invent the future and let your competition play catch up. I know the history all the way back to MS-DOS and PC-DOS when Windows first came out; Microsoft has done this. All this extraneous information still doesn't make Microsoft evil even though some of their actions have ended up being wicked in the reprecussions of execution. The "Open XML" vs "ODF" is another example of the company proclaiming, "See? We turned over a new leaf!" while in all reality it's the same old same old.
I wouldn't say Microsoft evil. I wouldn't base my ISV model soley around their product either.
"I do not believe "evil" was mentioned until your statement."
/. group-think that takes place around here...Especially all matters concerning Microsoft*. A simple example, the other response to my original comment in this very thread.
First and foremost - my apologies. I was in no way trying to insinuate or otherwise insert the use of the word "evil" as a mechanism you employed for making your point. I think, in all fairness, we actually agree on the integrity of such studies and questioning them. My comment was not in dissent with your point at all really but more the
*elaboration:
Microsoft funds a study on the TCO for Windows = FUD, OMG WTFBBQ!!!11!!
OSTG funds a study on the reliability of Linux = PROOF! There you go, game over - this is the year of the Linux desktop!!!!1!
"Uh-oh, Granny caught a virus, and her PC is a zombie [...] Teach her her lesson about not installing her virus definitions."
The first thing that comes to mind is that there is a fool around every corner...And they usually have a Granny too so even if "Granny" does learn her lesson spammers move to the next. I don't see how it will curtail spamming in any way actually. This is why you are in favor of such a move, correct? There are a lot more negatives than positives with this type of scenario in my humble opinion; one of them being:
"As with any law or tax, it needs to be implemented right..."
I don't have faith in any of the elected officials I know in getting it right; regardless the number of attempts. The only saving grace would be loopholes that actually worked in my favor for once...Which incidenty never seem to happen. It's like the House always wins...
"Is anyone else more than mildly disappointed that they own a bookshelf full of O'reilly books after reading this?"
I was a little at first but then realized that their legal department needs to eat too. These things can be expected as we move from the Information Age to the Litigious Age - so no book burning just yet.
I could not agree with you more; well stated much better than my sarcastic remark.
Completely appreciated - that's the funniest thing I've seen today.
Excellent point. What a beautiful way to kill an emerging technology that nobody has clearly explained with a definitive answer.
Corruption in public office shouldn't be tolerated either to prevent such a thing - what's your point?
Who the fuck needs a study like this for business? Why would a company release unfavorable reviews of their product any more than marketing would be honest that their "solution" is worse than the competitors you already own? That should be implied common sense and why you always question the source of studies and never listen to marketing for critical evaluation.
"(MS in this case)"
This can be any company though - Microsoft isn't evil for doing what almost any other company would do in the same situation. Take no one source as Bible; especially if the source wants what you have more than the other way around; hint: I'm speaking of your money - lest you be a fool in which case you two often part quickly I would guess.
"I really hate the slashdotters that have this logic "ClosedSource -> Malware" or "ClosedSource->Bad", there are tons of applications that are closed source and DO NOT have any kind of crapware on them, a lot of them are even FREE."
You bring up a very interesting point I have come to realize lately. When fixing my brothers laptop (and by virtue of that act, my parents computers as well) an interesting situation came up. I'll try to keep this to the bare minimum so as not to stray to diatribe length.
My brothers laptop needed to be reformatted due to the nature of virus and trojans he had accumlated while away at college. Afterwards he needed to prepare a power point presentation for one of his last assignments. I had a copy of Microsoft Office but could not force myself "enable him" with what would have ended up a pirated version. The relevance of this is I directed him to OpenOffice.org and gave the necessary directions needed to download, install, and finish his assignment...Without requiring him to run to the local software store to purchase missing components of MS Office from his fresh install of Windows XP. Ultimately my advice was taken and followed and all ended up well but not without having to change the mentality of not only my brother buy my parents as well.
Free = virus, spyware, adware, trojans, worms, spamware, etc. At least so far as Microsoft Windows end users think. Hell, if it is legit then it's nagware or a stripped down barely functional trial version.
Microsoft with all of the security issues seem to have received a bit of luck with regards to F/OSS. People that live in a "Windows world" are typically scared off from any offerings that F/OSS can provide because it's associated with the majority of crapware that thrives in a "Windows world". (Whether it be closed or open source; not playing favorites) Essentially keeping the attitude, "If it didn't come from Microsoft then it will not be installed."
I gave a specific example of my immediate family but I see this pattern with friends and co-workers too. It didn't occur to me though until my family argued with me aggressively that OpenOffice would "tear their computers up again" if they installed it.
You may be VERY surprised to find out what the average non-tech end user thinks of "free" in reference to "free software" if you listen to them...It hurst both open and closed source software more than you may realize.
"Well duh. For all the ink that's been spilt on this issue, I'm amazed that all it took was a dude from New Zealand willing to throw a few grand at the problem to get it reviewed. Krikey!"
All the groupthink, anti-this.or.that that is abundant on slashdot - It has been my own personal experience that in a capitalistic society such as the United States, money is what makes things happen. Everything else pales in comparison...Including benevolent virtues, doing the Right Thing, etc.