You quoted what I said, then took it in a direction that I did not.
"The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs" as a big pro-MS feature. It's like claiming that the new Nissan Primera will sell like crazy because it has a steering wheel."
That was used simply as an example. But since you went there, you do have a point: Nissan Primeras would sell quite well if they had a steering wheel and every other non-Nissan car out there didn't. Afterall, steering wheels are the killer app for cars.
"very strong potential", to be exact. On what is your religious believe in their "potential" based? "
I don't see how religion or faith in Microsoft comes through in that line. Sorry. Can't really answer that question in the way that you phrased it because I never said Microsoft will win. I never said they were superior. I never said Linux or Symbian will lose. The whole point that I started this thread with was that the openness and price of the OS's was not going to be the deciding factor in how the competition will play out. That's it. Sorry. That wasn't a pro-MS statement. That wasn't an anti-Linux/Symbian statement. It was an observation of how the market typically works. If you took out of that "Microsoft will win", then I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. Everything I've stated about Microsoft having any advantages was in a hypothetical sense. (I should also point out that everything I've mentioned could easily be done within the other two OS's mentioned. I just used Microsoft as an example since the article basically said they don't stand a chance.)
"You just said that it isn't superior apps."
Heh, no, I did not say that. Again, you twisted it. Here's what I said:
"Never said that. Never said they would win. Never said their apps are better. Never said Linux doesn't have a chance. What I did say was that there was potential."
It does not conflct with this statement:
" If people are flocking to the Microsoft phone because it syncs with Outlook, then the other guy isn't going to hold steady with his decision to use Symbian. (Bad example, my Nokia running Symbian syncs with Outlook just fine, sorry can't think of a better one.)"
Notice the word 'if' there? That is a hypothetical scenario, not a statement of fact. (Guess you ignored the part where I said Nokia phones sync with Outlook and that it wasn't a very good example?) You, however, appear to be reading that like I said: "People are flocking to Microsoft only because their phones sync with PocketPCs and Laptops, and no other phones do that." If you did read it like that, then you are a fucking moron, especially after the point where I made it clear that Nokia (who's wiping the floor with Microsoft in the phone market, rightfully so) does it just fine. Incidently, I have a Nokia phone and NOT a Microsoft phone. Remember that before you try the tired "You must benefit financially from Microsoft" argument again.
"What great advantages make you believe in Microsoft's great cellphone potential? "
This is another question that is difficult to answer the way you've stated it. I know what you mean is "Well you obviously think Microsoft is going to win, tell me why." If I answer this question, you're going to reply as if I said "Microsoft will undoubtedly win because of this and that." That isn't a discussion I want to have. Why? Simply put, any reasons that I mention that Microsoft could win could easily be attributed to anybody else in that market. At that point, it's a matter of who delivers those advantages in the best package. The way you're acting here, there's no way we could have a satisfactory discussion about it. You are absolutely hell-bent on teaching me that Microsoft can't win to save it's life, as opposed to listening to what I have to say and sharing your thoughts on why I might not be righ
"I already posted 4 points clearly illustrating that you did."
No, you posted 4 times about stuff I didn't say.
" "They will create superior apps" is not fact-based discussion"
Never said that. Never said they would win. Never said their apps are better. Never said Linux doesn't have a chance. What I did say was that there was potential. That's it. Don't believe me? Go re-read everything I said very carefully.
"I know that MSFT-holders have been trained to believe that Microsoft cannot lose and will always win in the end. "
NFI where that came from. Not only am I not a stockholder in anything related to Microsoft, I'm not even a fan of them.
"NanoGator: Face the facts. Face reality. Accept the possibility that your beloved company might not win."
Actually I said something to that effect: "That's not to say that Microsoft will win."
I don't know why you're on this crusade to tell me that Microsoft can't win. I don't really care who wins what.
"much more likely, the Winlots always avoid serious fact-based discussion."
They're probably avoiding your "Attack them for things they didn't say" debate style because it's a waste of energy.
"I can't believe that you're saying that Linux will absolutely fail in the phone market!"
Hehe. That little spoof was spot on. Unfortunately, I think you'll get modded down as the dude with the mod point probably didn't see the thread that sparked this little bit of satire. Here's the thread, if you're curious: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=94358&cid=8095 420
"So your constant scenarios about people buying MS-smartphones like crazy is just wishful thinking on your part."
I never made a scenario that people are buying MS-smartphones. Nor have you refuted anything I have said. Are you sure you're responding to the right post?
"To make a long story short you sound like a scared MSFT-shareholder who desperatly tries to spread as much anti-Linux FUD as possible."
Grow up. Seriously. I didn't post that as anti-Linux or pro-MS propoganda. Anybody who's reading it that way needs to seriously re-read what I did say instead of replying to what I didn't.
Man I can't believe how some people get their panties in a bunch when things are put into perspective.
"Why on earth would you assume that it would be some fringe Linux zealot? It could be a pissed off SCO employee, an investor, someone from IBM, any number of UNIX developers."
a.) The fringe Linux zealots are upset enough to do something like that.
b.) An SCO employee, investor, or somebody from IBM isn't going to attract legal attention.
c.) There aren't many people who'd prioritize an attack on SCO over... well anything else.
It'd be moronic for a Linux zealot to not be at the top of the suspects list for what happened here.
"Overall, I think Linux has a moderate advantage because of BOM costs on the phone(i.e. Bill of Materials cost which is how much they have to pay to make the phone per unit.) Manufacturers care about that a lot."
"You're making the assumption that Microsoft's apps will be superior to Linux apps running on the phone."
I never made that assumption or that claim. I didn't say Microsoft would win. I was intentionally neutral in my post about who would win. The only point you should have taken from my original post was that the reasoning provided as to why Linux would win has very little actual bearing on how successful Linux will be in the marketplace. If you read that as "No, Linux will lose", then I apologize for not making myself clearer. It was never my intention to say that either would win or lose, simply that the wrong aspect is being measured.
" They won't care about whether it is easy to use with Windows in everyday life."
I would agree with this if there was only one company making phones. No, this is a competition. The company with the most sales wins. If people are flocking to the Microsoft phone because it syncs with Outlook, then the other guy isn't going to hold steady with his decision to use Symbian. (Bad example, my Nokia running Symbian syncs with Outlook just fine, sorry can't think of a better one.)
"Third, you are making an assuption that phone buyers can make an effective judgement about which phone has more usable apps."
Actually, just the opposite. I don't think they know enough of the tecnical details about how the product will work. As a result, it becomes a marketing battle. Again, the choice of OS really doesn't matter.
"For one thing, the maker of the phone puts both the OS and the apps on the phone. The user probably doesn't even know what OS the phone is running - or care. The phone maker is going to go with the smallest costs. That includes all costs, not just the license cost. Fortunately, Linux is not harder or more expensive to develop for than Windows CE. So, Linux has a good shot at being picked for any given implementation."
You hit the nail right on the head, but then drifted away to a not so interesting point. I highlighted it, though. The apps are going to be a significant portion of what people buy. That means that even though Microsoft's OS is less open and more expensive, they still have a very strong potential in the marketplace. If their apps are superior to the others in the customers' eyes, then what does the OS have to do with it?
Let me put it another way: The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs has a LOT more to do with how successful the product will be than what OS is running on whatever phone. People care about what they can do, not what they cannot.
"Answer Linux and Java. End of story. The rest is just noise."
Answer: Whatever product people pay for. End of story. The rest is just noise. If people are buying Microsoft's phones instead of Nokia's or Motorola's, then it really doesn't matter what the OS costs or how open it is now does it?
Don't be so bull headed. History has shown, time and time again, the the technically superior product is rarely the winner.
"Zelos says that Linux scored highest on the two criteria that matter most to OEMs and carriers: openness and low cost. Microsoft scored lowest in these criteria. The article says Zelos believes Symbian beats Microsoft due to the flexibility of its licensing terms, and Microsoft prospects will be stymied to an extent by its desire to strictly manage how its brand is used. The concusion: Linux will be the preferred operating system for connected devices."
I think what this person fails to understand is that the preferred OS is dictated by what customers spend their money on, not by the cost or the openness. That's not to say that Microsoft will win. But you all should remember that Microsoft is the least open and most expensive desktop OS out there, and it's well ahead of everybody else on the desktop.
"You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
Annie had an unfortunate encounter with a pit of lava after a Jedi-mind trick prank went awry. You wouldn't believe the japes they play at the Jedi Academy.
"Where does the name Darth Vader come from?"
It originated from the word 'dearth', an affectionate title that was born one day after exiting a cold swimming pool.
"How come he doesn't know about that Padme has twins?"
Women habitually gain weight shortly after getting married.
"How does Palpatine gain total control?"
He funded a company that dominated the market with computer operating systems.
"How do all the Jedi die?"
Accounts vary, but many believe that it has to do with being a little too strict on the celibacy rule.
"What Jedi survive other than Yoda and Obiwan?"
Well if a bunch of bounty hunters are hunting down Jedi, are you going to put it on your business card?
"Will there be an answer to why Obiwan and Yoda fade away when they die, but the Jedi we've seen die in Episodes 1 & 2 don't?"
Well, you see, there are two sides to every Schwartz...
"You can't spoil it, we already now the ending, eps 4-5-6. Can you really spoil a middle?"
If the writers and director are talented, then yes. There's plenty of room to make an interesting and surprising movie there. I don't see that as being terribly likely here, sadly.
Slashdot Mirror
His last name does not contain the word 'soft'.
"I even quoted what you said."
You quoted what I said, then took it in a direction that I did not.
"The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs" as a big pro-MS feature. It's like claiming that the new Nissan Primera will sell like crazy because it has a steering wheel."
That was used simply as an example. But since you went there, you do have a point: Nissan Primeras would sell quite well if they had a steering wheel and every other non-Nissan car out there didn't. Afterall, steering wheels are the killer app for cars.
"very strong potential", to be exact. On what is your religious believe in their "potential" based? "
I don't see how religion or faith in Microsoft comes through in that line. Sorry. Can't really answer that question in the way that you phrased it because I never said Microsoft will win. I never said they were superior. I never said Linux or Symbian will lose. The whole point that I started this thread with was that the openness and price of the OS's was not going to be the deciding factor in how the competition will play out. That's it. Sorry. That wasn't a pro-MS statement. That wasn't an anti-Linux/Symbian statement. It was an observation of how the market typically works. If you took out of that "Microsoft will win", then I'm sorry, but I cannot help you. Everything I've stated about Microsoft having any advantages was in a hypothetical sense. (I should also point out that everything I've mentioned could easily be done within the other two OS's mentioned. I just used Microsoft as an example since the article basically said they don't stand a chance.)
"You just said that it isn't superior apps."
Heh, no, I did not say that. Again, you twisted it. Here's what I said:
"Never said that. Never said they would win. Never said their apps are better. Never said Linux doesn't have a chance. What I did say was that there was potential."
It does not conflct with this statement:
" If people are flocking to the Microsoft phone because it syncs with Outlook, then the other guy isn't going to hold steady with his decision to use Symbian. (Bad example, my Nokia running Symbian syncs with Outlook just fine, sorry can't think of a better one.)"
Notice the word 'if' there? That is a hypothetical scenario, not a statement of fact. (Guess you ignored the part where I said Nokia phones sync with Outlook and that it wasn't a very good example?) You, however, appear to be reading that like I said: "People are flocking to Microsoft only because their phones sync with PocketPCs and Laptops, and no other phones do that." If you did read it like that, then you are a fucking moron, especially after the point where I made it clear that Nokia (who's wiping the floor with Microsoft in the phone market, rightfully so) does it just fine. Incidently, I have a Nokia phone and NOT a Microsoft phone. Remember that before you try the tired "You must benefit financially from Microsoft" argument again.
"What great advantages make you believe in Microsoft's great cellphone potential? "
This is another question that is difficult to answer the way you've stated it. I know what you mean is "Well you obviously think Microsoft is going to win, tell me why." If I answer this question, you're going to reply as if I said "Microsoft will undoubtedly win because of this and that." That isn't a discussion I want to have. Why? Simply put, any reasons that I mention that Microsoft could win could easily be attributed to anybody else in that market. At that point, it's a matter of who delivers those advantages in the best package. The way you're acting here, there's no way we could have a satisfactory discussion about it. You are absolutely hell-bent on teaching me that Microsoft can't win to save it's life, as opposed to listening to what I have to say and sharing your thoughts on why I might not be righ
"I already posted 4 points clearly illustrating that you did."
No, you posted 4 times about stuff I didn't say.
" "They will create superior apps" is not fact-based discussion"
Never said that. Never said they would win. Never said their apps are better. Never said Linux doesn't have a chance. What I did say was that there was potential. That's it. Don't believe me? Go re-read everything I said very carefully.
"I know that MSFT-holders have been trained to believe that Microsoft cannot lose and will always win in the end. "
NFI where that came from. Not only am I not a stockholder in anything related to Microsoft, I'm not even a fan of them.
"NanoGator: Face the facts. Face reality. Accept the possibility that your beloved company might not win."
Actually I said something to that effect: "That's not to say that Microsoft will win."
I don't know why you're on this crusade to tell me that Microsoft can't win. I don't really care who wins what.
"much more likely, the Winlots always avoid serious fact-based discussion."
They're probably avoiding your "Attack them for things they didn't say" debate style because it's a waste of energy.
"I can't believe that you're saying that Linux will absolutely fail in the phone market!"
5 420
Hehe. That little spoof was spot on. Unfortunately, I think you'll get modded down as the dude with the mod point probably didn't see the thread that sparked this little bit of satire. Here's the thread, if you're curious: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=94358&cid=809
"So your constant scenarios about people buying MS-smartphones like crazy is just wishful thinking on your part."
I never made a scenario that people are buying MS-smartphones. Nor have you refuted anything I have said. Are you sure you're responding to the right post?
"OK, what can I do with it??"
You can operate your disc system. Duh.
A small handful of people rejoice!!!
"To make a long story short you sound like a scared MSFT-shareholder who desperatly tries to spread as much anti-Linux FUD as possible."
Grow up. Seriously. I didn't post that as anti-Linux or pro-MS propoganda. Anybody who's reading it that way needs to seriously re-read what I did say instead of replying to what I didn't.
Man I can't believe how some people get their panties in a bunch when things are put into perspective.
"That's a message from God!"
Hmm I dunno, could have been an accident. The smite button is right next to the Windows key.
"It's just a pity that you have to push them when you do want to move them."
No no, Sammy Jo does that. I spend most of the day making sure that the beer doesn't spoil.
"Why on earth would you assume that it would be some fringe Linux zealot? It could be a pissed off SCO employee, an investor, someone from IBM, any number of UNIX developers."
... well anything else.
a.) The fringe Linux zealots are upset enough to do something like that.
b.) An SCO employee, investor, or somebody from IBM isn't going to attract legal attention.
c.) There aren't many people who'd prioritize an attack on SCO over
It'd be moronic for a Linux zealot to not be at the top of the suspects list for what happened here.
I'm genuinely puzzled as to whether or not people will raise their pitchforks or glasses of beer to Microsoft.
"Overall, I think Linux has a moderate advantage because of BOM costs on the phone(i.e. Bill of Materials cost which is how much they have to pay to make the phone per unit.) Manufacturers care about that a lot."
I agree with that.
Cheers
Figures. I have 3 from that list sitting in my front yard. At least I don't have to mow the grass, just move the cars around once a month.
"You're making the assumption that Microsoft's apps will be superior to Linux apps running on the phone."
I never made that assumption or that claim. I didn't say Microsoft would win. I was intentionally neutral in my post about who would win. The only point you should have taken from my original post was that the reasoning provided as to why Linux would win has very little actual bearing on how successful Linux will be in the marketplace. If you read that as "No, Linux will lose", then I apologize for not making myself clearer. It was never my intention to say that either would win or lose, simply that the wrong aspect is being measured.
" They won't care about whether it is easy to use with Windows in everyday life."
I would agree with this if there was only one company making phones. No, this is a competition. The company with the most sales wins. If people are flocking to the Microsoft phone because it syncs with Outlook, then the other guy isn't going to hold steady with his decision to use Symbian. (Bad example, my Nokia running Symbian syncs with Outlook just fine, sorry can't think of a better one.)
"Third, you are making an assuption that phone buyers can make an effective judgement about which phone has more usable apps."
Actually, just the opposite. I don't think they know enough of the tecnical details about how the product will work. As a result, it becomes a marketing battle. Again, the choice of OS really doesn't matter.
"For one thing, the maker of the phone puts both the OS and the apps on the phone. The user probably doesn't even know what OS the phone is running - or care. The phone maker is going to go with the smallest costs. That includes all costs, not just the license cost. Fortunately, Linux is not harder or more expensive to develop for than Windows CE. So, Linux has a good shot at being picked for any given implementation."
You hit the nail right on the head, but then drifted away to a not so interesting point. I highlighted it, though. The apps are going to be a significant portion of what people buy. That means that even though Microsoft's OS is less open and more expensive, they still have a very strong potential in the marketplace. If their apps are superior to the others in the customers' eyes, then what does the OS have to do with it?
Let me put it another way: The fact that Microsoft phones will sync with laptops and PocketPCs has a LOT more to do with how successful the product will be than what OS is running on whatever phone. People care about what they can do, not what they cannot.
"Answer Linux and Java. End of story. The rest is just noise."
Answer: Whatever product people pay for. End of story. The rest is just noise. If people are buying Microsoft's phones instead of Nokia's or Motorola's, then it really doesn't matter what the OS costs or how open it is now does it?
Don't be so bull headed. History has shown, time and time again, the the technically superior product is rarely the winner.
"Zelos says that Linux scored highest on the two criteria that matter most to OEMs and carriers: openness and low cost. Microsoft scored lowest in these criteria. The article says Zelos believes Symbian beats Microsoft due to the flexibility of its licensing terms, and Microsoft prospects will be stymied to an extent by its desire to strictly manage how its brand is used. The concusion: Linux will be the preferred operating system for connected devices."
I think what this person fails to understand is that the preferred OS is dictated by what customers spend their money on, not by the cost or the openness. That's not to say that Microsoft will win. But you all should remember that Microsoft is the least open and most expensive desktop OS out there, and it's well ahead of everybody else on the desktop.
"Yes, but can you give her flowers?"
You can try, but she casually avoids you. I found that to be quite realistic.
Only on Slashdot would Microsoft's handling of this case be mutated into evil form.
"You ought to see one called Grand Theft Auto. The player is rewarded for attacking a woman, pushing her to the ground, kicking her repeatedly and then ultimately killing her, shooting her over and over again."
There's a game out there, it's a very popular game, it's called Crazy Taxi. You are a taxi driver trying to get people from point A to point B. Wanna know what happens if you run over somebody? Nothing! People magically jump out of the way! If you bang into another car, *bang*, nothing really happens. So, in playing this game, you develop reflexes that cause you to drive in a straight line, and not care about pedestrians as they don't cause you any problems.
In GTA3, yeah you can kill some little old lady, but you're not being rewarded for it, you're being rewarded for making the game significantly harder for yourself. If you go driving through the streets in GTA just like you are in Crazy Taxi, and you drive towards a pedestrian, they don't magically get out of your way. They get squished, just like in real life. And when you drive over them, you start having to worry about police, just like real life. Run over somebody in viewing range of a police officer, and he will try to arrest you, and if he succeeds you lose a lot of things that you have acquired so far. Just like in real life. If you try to get away and wreck your car during the chase, you can cause devastation of vehicles and people's lives, just like real life. The result? Reflexively, you avoid running over pedestrians like mad. In a split second, if somebody darts out in front of your car, you're going to swerve. (That happens to be the right thing to do.)
So I have to ask you, Joey, what is really better? Avoiding showing adults realistic consequences to the choices they make, or sanitizing the game of all 'disturbing' violence and instead using video game influence to teach you that nobody can be hurt?
"How does Anakin become Vader?"
Annie had an unfortunate encounter with a pit of lava after a Jedi-mind trick prank went awry. You wouldn't believe the japes they play at the Jedi Academy.
"Where does the name Darth Vader come from?"
It originated from the word 'dearth', an affectionate title that was born one day after exiting a cold swimming pool.
"How come he doesn't know about that Padme has twins?"
Women habitually gain weight shortly after getting married.
"How does Palpatine gain total control?"
He funded a company that dominated the market with computer operating systems.
"How do all the Jedi die?"
Accounts vary, but many believe that it has to do with being a little too strict on the celibacy rule.
"What Jedi survive other than Yoda and Obiwan?"
Well if a bunch of bounty hunters are hunting down Jedi, are you going to put it on your business card?
"Will there be an answer to why Obiwan and Yoda fade away when they die, but the Jedi we've seen die in Episodes 1 & 2 don't?"
Well, you see, there are two sides to every Schwartz...
"The biggest question of all is how wild and kinky the baby making scene(s) is.
Bring on the hot grits!"
Sadly, they'll be hot grits floating in front of poorly pantomiming actors.
"You can't spoil it, we already now the ending, eps 4-5-6. Can you really spoil a middle?"
If the writers and director are talented, then yes. There's plenty of room to make an interesting and surprising movie there. I don't see that as being terribly likely here, sadly.
"In other words, if Episode III is the Star Wars equivalent of Star Trek: Nemesis, then he loses the franchise."
Oh I doubt Episode III will flop. There are no LOTR or Harry Potter movies scheduled to release then.