This is one of those stories where the story isn't the point, it's the comments that are worth reading, so it's only a problem if we have the same comments:-P
A while back Slashdot pointed us to this blog, in which the blogger pointed out how having Linux and Mac ports attracted a lot of attention and even boosted the sales of their Windows versions.
Because clearly, the only thing stopping iD games from being popular is that nobody's heard of them, and those extra few hundred sales will double iD's total earnings.
What broke me of my MMOdiction was the realization that the gains I was making in the game could be boiled down to increasing numbers and that if I wanted to make numbers bigger, I could do it much easier and quicker by just playing with a calculator.
Back when I were a young lad, my family couldn't afford a PC, so I literally did just that -- entered "1", hit equals, hit "+ 1", then hammered the equals button to watch the number go up. This kept me amused for hours, I dread to think how addicted I'd get to an "increase the numbers" game that had a nice GUI interface...
Eventually I did get bored of that, and went on to "calculator racing" -- myself and an equally bored friend would type in really long calculations like "sin(tan(cos(sin(tan(cos(42))))))" (going on for hundreds of repetitions), then hit equals to see which of our calculators was fastest.
And now I'm a professional computer programmer; who'd have guessed?
Next they're going to figure out that if you move the web app out of the browser you can have a much richer GUI experience.
Either that, or they move the browser into the webapp... (Seriously, I give it a year until someone writes a full-size GUI toolkit using the HTML canvas as a display device, and the GUI toolkit comes with an HTML rendering engine)
Laughter increases the feeling of mirth in people who hear it.
Yes, but why laughter? Why don't people eg shake their elbows to show amusement? (Not a great example, since elbow shaking has reasons against it, but what is the reason for "ha ha"?)
What on earth does a GUI have to do with a language?
What on earth does reading and writing files have to do with a language?
While they are separate things, a language with no APIs is useless; and a language which uses different APIs on each platform, while useful, is a still much more of a pain in the ass than one which gives you a ton of functionality on every platform as standard.
"apt-get install $buildtoolname" and where do you click to have that work?
"Programs" menu, "Add Programs" suboption. Seriously, stop thinking early 90s thoughts and try a modern desktop, stuff has improved:-P (And if we're going to compare, how do you install a build tool on windows or OSX?)
Oops sorry the only one in that repository is two versions behind what I need. And the only one in the next repository is too advanced a version.
Again, I've had this with red hat based distros back when I first tried linux around 1997; then since moving to debian stable (some time around 2000) I can't remember it happening at all; with debian unstable on my desktop and laptop this sort of thing happens, but then that branch of the distro is explicitly designed to prefer "new" to "working"... Really, this issue on a modern linux desktop is about as common as DLL hell on a modern windows one~
Personally I find it not so much impressive, but worrying that the current state of the art is "a 2GHz box struggling to play a stripped-down wolfenstein at 320x200 at 30fps", and this is after the browser makers have had an arms race resulting in javascript being 100x as fast as a simple reference implementation...
WTF is up with javascript as a language that means the latest most advanced researchers can't bring it within an order of magnitude of software rendering in C? And why is everyone in such a rush to replace every existing native app with a JS one?:-/
"This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. "
That's a boilerplate header at the start of every RFC, included for mostly archaic formality reasons -- in reality the RFCs are seen as standards by pretty much anyone working on a project which involves them, and the agreement between RFC users/makes/ them standards, as much as the RFCs themselves would like to object:-P
their own version of the GPL or maybe LGPL so even if I'm only using a library I have to consult a lawyer
According to this there are only 9 "popular and widely used" open source licenses. Looking at the packages I have installed, GPL + LGPL alone cover 95% of them.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is worse than windows or osx, where pretty much *every* third party program and library has it's own license?:-/
Same thing with installers; OSX seems to have a standard in theory, but I've seen several wildly different variations; Windows apps use MSI about 25% of the time, the rest is scattered over many.exe variants; compared to ".deb or.rpm", where the experience is unified by the OS's package manager, not splintered by the developer's pet installer (and most users don't even see that one choice, as the manager does it behind the scenes), I'm also unsure how this is worse...
Build tools I don't know about on other platforms, it would be nice if there was one which was great for everyone -- but for as long as I've been using debian, I've never found one where the hassle of installing was any more than "apt-get install $buildtoolname":-p
But if you take a version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
I've found redhat (well, centos, which I gather is the same thing) to be a pain too; I wonder if it's because I was trying to do things "the debian way" instead of "the obvious way", or if it really is just bad...
<rant>In my case install lighttpd -- from the time I stuck the netinstall CD and found that I had to manually type in a URL to install from; then I tried the sticking the full installer CD in, deselected desktop, deselected web server, deselected every other type of install, and found that it *still* required me to download CDs 2, 3 and 4; to the software itself "yum install lighttpd"... standard repositories don't include that; ok, I'll download the source and compile myself. The build system is scons. "yum install scons"... repositories don't include that either. Oh, actually, they switched to cmake. "yum install cmake"... package still not found. WTF did I have to download 4 CDs for when the distro has so few packages?! Compare the debian process of "download netinstall CD, hit the enter button until install is complete, then 'apt-get install lighttpd' to put the icing on the cake"...</rant>
Set up a home bugzilla server. Every complain she has she can log into bugzilla, from household repairs to you forgetting the anniversary.
Ironically, if I ever find a woman with the right blend of geekyness, logic, and sense of humour to do this; I'll have found a woman who's a perfect enough match to not need to:-P
(Now with the test devised, I just have the harder part of finding someone who passes:-( )
For reference, I read your post mentally replacing "God" with "Evolution" and "The Bible" with "Common Sense", and as an atheist I agreed with it. I'm not sure what that says exactly; I guess a good message is a good message, regardless of which belief system delivered it?
That makes me wonder why there are so many wars between different belief systems, when all the systems are delivering pretty much the same message, and the message is "be peaceful"...
Honesty is the key. A lot of people will disagree with me there, but if you can't be honest to your effing partner, with whom can you ever be honest then?
I tried this with a girl who had trust issues, in the hope that I could convince her to trust me -- for over a year I didn't tell a single lie, the result was that when I was honest about something negative she believed me without a second thought, and when I was honest about something positive she claimed that I was obviously lying and the whole "100% honesty" thing was a scam to cover it up x_x
(Though the moral of this story is more "Don't date crazy women":-P I do wonder how well the "100% honesty" approach compares to "99% honest, with some white lies to make her feel better" when applied to a non-crazy one though...)
The hard part: When the woman makes a remark about something that upsets her you must always resist the temptation to offer a solution. Sympathise.
Tell me about it:( Reminds me of when my previous GF hurt her leg and said it was too painful to walk, so I called a taxi to get us home; this made her very grumpy and mean (moreso than usual), and the next day it turned out that "she didn't want the pain to go away, she wanted me to comfort her and force her to walk while saying things like 'it's not that far, we'll be there soon'"...
At this point in time I can't recommend Linux to anyone that isn't in a graduate course for CS, a masochist hacker
Have you tried doing things the easy way? Most of the people I see complaining about linux's difficulty are stuck in habits from the early 90s, with comments like "to install things on linux you have to go through a long and painful process to build from source". But then my 8 year old sister sits down in front of the PC, wonders where openoffice is, clicks "add program -> openoffice", and it's there:-P
Granted not everything is that simple, but she says it's easier than windows; and my mother (who's tech support calls are generally answered with "Have you plugged it in? Ok, do that. Working now? Good.") hasn't found it any worse.
You keep saying this, but it doesn't matter. I wasn't even referring just to Slashdot.
Ummm... ok, I've obviously forgotten what your point was. Let's look at the first post to see what your point is...
It's interesting how people side with Google on this site [Slashdot]
Are we visiting the same site [Slashdot]?
Ok, so maybe that's not your point. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that "this site" = "Slashdot". Let's look at your posts for where you say clearly and explicitly what your point is.
You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
Oh.
It was always relevant.
Ok, so when I was talking about monopoly territory, that was the point you were making?
you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making
Oh.
You keep claiming Google uses open protocols, and I keep pointing out to you that their search and advertising is closed
Beacuse search and advertising are the only thing that google do, and everything else is insignificant and ignorable?
Too many products, too many updates, too many platforms, too many frameworks.
Oh.
As a fanboy, of course you'll find Google's methods acceptable.
I'm pretty sure that any logical person would prefer advertising to DRM and proprietary format lock-in
They only use open protocols as an advertising vehicle to get eyeballs for their marketing space. That's why Gmail and the other services exist.
Their code hosting service seems to be ad-free and unlinked to the main search engine; their widget toolkit can be used without ads or link to them; GsoC not only seems non-profit, but actually more of a money black-hole. Yes, you can argue that things like these will benefit them in roundabout ways in the long run; but I'd rather work with a company that benefits the whole open community (selfishly, because they're a part of it) than a company who's selfishness is manifested as only helping themselves.
As for lock-in, you didn't answer my question about which search engine comes up when you enter a search term into the Chrome browser. I'll assume you had no counterargument for that point.
Assuming makes an ass out of you:-P Actually I didn't answer because I thought it was rhetorical. As to the point that I think you're getting at -- yes, it defaults to google. I'm free to change that to any other search engine. Hell, if I so much as browse to another site which supports the OpenSearch standard, then that search engine will be automatically added to the list of alternatives. You call that lock-in?
I could say Windows uses "open protocols" because anyone can program using Win32.
You would be correct to say that the win32 API is open (although the WINE people might have something to say about the completeness of the documentation...), but that still leaves the major protocols of SMB, AD, MAPI, MSN, and a lot of minor protocols too.
The rest of your post was gibberish.
As an "anti-fanboy"-fanboy, of course you'd find anything which doesn't fit your views to be gibberish:-P If you're still having difficulty understanding, see the final sentance in this post for the point made as simply and clearly as possible.
The point remains--Google is a selfish advertising company that gets a pass on things Microsoft has been criticized for during the Ballmer era.
For clarity: Yes, both companies are designed to be selfish and only in it for themselves, and they do have some things in common. But their core business methods are implemented differently (closed s
They're putting out a lot of side products that do nothing, which dilutes the brand and the platform they're trying to build.
...
If you haven't heard this stuff said about Microsof, I don't know what to tell you, because it's one of the most common complaints about the fumbling Ballmer era.
Ok, that's at least something negative; but in all my time reading slashdot comments (at +2, perhaps that plays a major part?) I still don't remember this being a widely made complaint, amongst google fanboys or anyone else. And until one of us figures out a way to accurately survey slashdot's collective opinions, I shall counter the useless "you're blind" with the equally useless "you're imagining things":-P
It's interesting that you think you're free to switch to an alternative if all your data is kept on Google servers.
Just because stuff is in the cloud doesn't mean I don't have local backups too - having open protocols is what allows me to make backups, which can then be restored a different server.
Yes, I know this, and I still don't care.
And that was my point about Google fanboys.
They don't care about things that you still haven't demonstrated are relevant? Good for them:-P
[Stuff you say is off topic snipped]
Just as I thought. You don't actually know what "speaks open protocols" means.
WTF? You say something is missing your point, then when I drop that tangent mid-discussion, it's suddenly totally relevant and proof that the point was flawed? Sometimes an emoticon is worth a thousand words -->:-/
---- stuff from this point on I consider to be the biggest point; while I'd rather only discuss the biggest points and come to a conclusion, the previous text has been included anyway to demonstrate the difference between "not being able to continue" and "perfering to get to the point" ----
They're the same thing. Microsoft's platform exists to advertise and promote Microsoft branded products--just like Google.
Similar reasons, but different approaches -- I consider advertising to be more acceptable than DRM / undocumented binary blobs / other lock-in.
Google's propietary search engine isn't speaking any open protocols other than the HTML it spits out at you.
Nor do I need it to. For mail, there are clear benefits to the consumer if the server speaks IMAP (while a mail server which perfers it's own protocol is a pain in the ass). For chat, there are clear beneifts to the consumer if the server speaks XMPP (while a closed network which occasionally blocks third party clients is to their detriment). For search, there are no widely used standards, so HTML + a well documented API is the most useful for the consumer (while HTML which only works in one browser reduces consumer choice, which reduces competition, which reduces incentive to improve, which reduces the quality of the market for the consumer).
Looking at the last two quote / reply pairs together -- Perhaps this debate is "both google and MS are selfish" ("They are the same") vs "Google's selfishness is of benefit to the consumer while MS's is against it" ("They are opposite")?
Taken to extremes, "Company X harvests babies for free employee food, while company Y runs an orphanage and suggests that when grown up, the children work for the company (but they're free to go elsewhere)" -- yes, you would be completely right to say that both companies are only doing what they do because of their greedy self-interests, and in that respect you would be correct to say "They're the same thing", but I still think that I'd be justified in preferring to do business with the latter.
People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
People make what complaints about both MS and google? Your first post seemed to imply "Company X are evil because not all of their products are successes", which I've still never seen said about either company, and I still don't see any logic in.
Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.
So are irrelevant personal attacks ^_^
Where is the open source release of Google's server code?
As said; yes it's closed source, but closed source isn't a problem -- closed standards and vendor lock-in are.
Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?
Yes, I know this, and I still don't care. Their company could explode and their products rot, but as long as I've stuck with open standards, I'm free to switch to an alternative.
All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using
At the time it was created, an ad-supported webmail service with IMAP access was pretty new. Also, their IMAP interface doesn't have any ads (or at least didn't last I checked, it has been a year or so since I tried it).
I also mentioned Wave, which is a standard that nobody already used. I then went and attempted to do your research for you, looking for closed google specs to cite -- first thing I randomly picked was google earth, turns out that that's spawned an open standard too.
[Stuff you say is off topic snipped]
My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform
As said, I've never seen MS criticised "for creating a giant advertising platform", only "for creating a giant lock-in platform" -- different things.
putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere
I've also never seen MS criticised "for making non-core products", only "for making extra products to push a competitor out of business and then dropping them" -- also different things.
and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.
One out of three I think is a good point -- however, I do see this point frequently made in comments, which goes against your original "slashdot <3 google" point:-P
Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.
Or I'm purposely not looking because I can't be arsed -- I've seen their major products, and based my points on observations of them, just as I've based my points on MS's most popular and visible products. If there are secretly hundreds of closed google products and open MS products, then since you're the one making the point, I'm expecting you to be the one who points them out.
Isn't it more likely that someone used their work laptop as a home laptop, and it was mixing work files with home filesharing that was the problem, so no company firewall would stop them?
Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.
Yes, people complain about those all the time, generally because they're technically poor -- I've never seen someone complain about them because of their "levels of success in the market". You seem to be implying things like "Microsoft are evil because the xbox was a commercial failure", which not only have I never seen anyone say, but also doesn't even make sense.
By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.
And irrelevant personal attacks come off as douchey:-P But hey, maybe I am an obnoxious 12-year-old girl, doesn't make my points any less valid~
Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it
Their email service speaks IMAP and POP (not sure what hotmail does), their web pages are cross-browser HTML (whereas microsoft's have a history of not only being broken in non-IE browsers, but being *deliberately* broken), their chat network is the standardised XMPP (as opposed to the closed MSN with a history of locking out unofficial clients), and when they wanted to extend that they published specs for the extensions (as opposed to keeping extensions proprietary to lock in users and extinguish other clients), when they want a new protocol (eg wave) it comes with open specs and an open source server for reference... Really not sure how you can say that google and MS are acting the same here.
Come to think of it, can you list the google products that only speak closed protocols, and the MS ones which only speak open ones? Off the top of my head I can't think of any...
They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they?
As long as it speaks standard protocols, the fact that their end is closed source isn't a problem -- open protocols means I'm free to choose what software (eg, browser) runs on my PC, and if I stop liking their search then I'm not locked to them, I can use any other server which speaks the standards.
Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.
They advertise their other products all the time, yes; I've never seen them say "you can only have product X if you first pay for unrelated product Y" though, or bundle two completely separate apps together with no option to have them individually, or push products which only speak closed protocols thus locking you to that product family forever, etc...
such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success
I can't say I've ever even seen anyone complain about either company doing this o_O What are you talking about, and why is this supposed to be a problem?:S
attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform
Having a large platform is fine, if it's based on open standards, and people using third party clients and servers aren't shunned
I hope anti-web is a compliment -- this trend for replacing the OS with a comparatively limited browser, drawing commands with HTML widget hacks*, IP with XML over HTTP over TCP over IP**, local file storage with cookies and clouds***, etc, is really quite depressing...
* woo, html canvas! It's just like a native canvas, but 1/10th the speed, and you can only use javascript, and only in some browsers! yaaaaay!
** woo, web sockets! Just like native sockets, except crippled, and you can only use javascript, and I'm not even sure if any browser even theoretically supports them yet! yaaaaay!
*** woo, google gears! Just like native storage, except less flexible, and still only javascript, and you need to download a third party add-on! yaaaay!
I wonder how long until people start thinking "hey, the browser could be more efficient if we focus on the core parts, the 'kernel' if you will... and javascript would be more efficient as some sort of 'binary' (with other languages that could be translated into this 'binary' by some sort of 'compiler')... maybe we could even give these 'binaries' access to some sort of high-performance 'local file system' through some 'standard library'...". And then oh joy, people realise that rather than move the industry forward, they've been walking in circles, and the core concepts of computing haven't really advanced at all since the 60s...
Slashdot Mirror
This is one of those stories where the story isn't the point, it's the comments that are worth reading, so it's only a problem if we have the same comments :-P
A while back Slashdot pointed us to this blog, in which the blogger pointed out how having Linux and Mac ports attracted a lot of attention and even boosted the sales of their Windows versions.
Because clearly, the only thing stopping iD games from being popular is that nobody's heard of them, and those extra few hundred sales will double iD's total earnings.
What broke me of my MMOdiction was the realization that the gains I was making in the game could be boiled down to increasing numbers and that if I wanted to make numbers bigger, I could do it much easier and quicker by just playing with a calculator.
Back when I were a young lad, my family couldn't afford a PC, so I literally did just that -- entered "1", hit equals, hit "+ 1", then hammered the equals button to watch the number go up. This kept me amused for hours, I dread to think how addicted I'd get to an "increase the numbers" game that had a nice GUI interface...
Eventually I did get bored of that, and went on to "calculator racing" -- myself and an equally bored friend would type in really long calculations like "sin(tan(cos(sin(tan(cos(42))))))" (going on for hundreds of repetitions), then hit equals to see which of our calculators was fastest.
And now I'm a professional computer programmer; who'd have guessed?
Next they're going to figure out that if you move the web app out of the browser you can have a much richer GUI experience.
Either that, or they move the browser into the webapp... (Seriously, I give it a year until someone writes a full-size GUI toolkit using the HTML canvas as a display device, and the GUI toolkit comes with an HTML rendering engine)
Laughter increases the feeling of mirth in people who hear it.
Yes, but why laughter? Why don't people eg shake their elbows to show amusement? (Not a great example, since elbow shaking has reasons against it, but what is the reason for "ha ha"?)
What on earth does a GUI have to do with a language?
What on earth does reading and writing files have to do with a language?
While they are separate things, a language with no APIs is useless; and a language which uses different APIs on each platform, while useful, is a still much more of a pain in the ass than one which gives you a ton of functionality on every platform as standard.
"apt-get install $buildtoolname" and where do you click to have that work?
"Programs" menu, "Add Programs" suboption. Seriously, stop thinking early 90s thoughts and try a modern desktop, stuff has improved :-P (And if we're going to compare, how do you install a build tool on windows or OSX?)
Oops sorry the only one in that repository is two versions behind what I need. And the only one in the next repository is too advanced a version.
Again, I've had this with red hat based distros back when I first tried linux around 1997; then since moving to debian stable (some time around 2000) I can't remember it happening at all; with debian unstable on my desktop and laptop this sort of thing happens, but then that branch of the distro is explicitly designed to prefer "new" to "working"... Really, this issue on a modern linux desktop is about as common as DLL hell on a modern windows one~
Neurons and Synapses all all that do not make a "person." There is much more to human intelligence that I do not believe a machine could ever achieve.
Please point to this "much more" in some sort of scientific report?
Personally I find it not so much impressive, but worrying that the current state of the art is "a 2GHz box struggling to play a stripped-down wolfenstein at 320x200 at 30fps", and this is after the browser makers have had an arms race resulting in javascript being 100x as fast as a simple reference implementation...
WTF is up with javascript as a language that means the latest most advanced researchers can't bring it within an order of magnitude of software rendering in C? And why is everyone in such a rush to replace every existing native app with a JS one? :-/
"This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. "
That's a boilerplate header at the start of every RFC, included for mostly archaic formality reasons -- in reality the RFCs are seen as standards by pretty much anyone working on a project which involves them, and the agreement between RFC users /makes/ them standards, as much as the RFCs themselves would like to object :-P
their own version of the GPL or maybe LGPL so even if I'm only using a library I have to consult a lawyer
According to this there are only 9 "popular and widely used" open source licenses. Looking at the packages I have installed, GPL + LGPL alone cover 95% of them.
Are you seriously suggesting that this is worse than windows or osx, where pretty much *every* third party program and library has it's own license? :-/
Same thing with installers; OSX seems to have a standard in theory, but I've seen several wildly different variations; Windows apps use MSI about 25% of the time, the rest is scattered over many .exe variants; compared to ".deb or .rpm", where the experience is unified by the OS's package manager, not splintered by the developer's pet installer (and most users don't even see that one choice, as the manager does it behind the scenes), I'm also unsure how this is worse...
Build tools I don't know about on other platforms, it would be nice if there was one which was great for everyone -- but for as long as I've been using debian, I've never found one where the hassle of installing was any more than "apt-get install $buildtoolname" :-p
But if you take a version of Red Hat Enterprise Linux
I've found redhat (well, centos, which I gather is the same thing) to be a pain too; I wonder if it's because I was trying to do things "the debian way" instead of "the obvious way", or if it really is just bad...
<rant>In my case install lighttpd -- from the time I stuck the netinstall CD and found that I had to manually type in a URL to install from; then I tried the sticking the full installer CD in, deselected desktop, deselected web server, deselected every other type of install, and found that it *still* required me to download CDs 2, 3 and 4; to the software itself "yum install lighttpd"... standard repositories don't include that; ok, I'll download the source and compile myself. The build system is scons. "yum install scons"... repositories don't include that either. Oh, actually, they switched to cmake. "yum install cmake"... package still not found. WTF did I have to download 4 CDs for when the distro has so few packages?! Compare the debian process of "download netinstall CD, hit the enter button until install is complete, then 'apt-get install lighttpd' to put the icing on the cake"...</rant>
Set up a home bugzilla server. Every complain she has she can log into bugzilla, from household repairs to you forgetting the anniversary.
Ironically, if I ever find a woman with the right blend of geekyness, logic, and sense of humour to do this; I'll have found a woman who's a perfect enough match to not need to :-P
(Now with the test devised, I just have the harder part of finding someone who passes :-( )
For reference, I read your post mentally replacing "God" with "Evolution" and "The Bible" with "Common Sense", and as an atheist I agreed with it. I'm not sure what that says exactly; I guess a good message is a good message, regardless of which belief system delivered it?
That makes me wonder why there are so many wars between different belief systems, when all the systems are delivering pretty much the same message, and the message is "be peaceful"...
Honesty is the key. A lot of people will disagree with me there, but if you can't be honest to your effing partner, with whom can you ever be honest then?
I tried this with a girl who had trust issues, in the hope that I could convince her to trust me -- for over a year I didn't tell a single lie, the result was that when I was honest about something negative she believed me without a second thought, and when I was honest about something positive she claimed that I was obviously lying and the whole "100% honesty" thing was a scam to cover it up x_x
(Though the moral of this story is more "Don't date crazy women" :-P I do wonder how well the "100% honesty" approach compares to "99% honest, with some white lies to make her feel better" when applied to a non-crazy one though...)
The hard part: When the woman makes a remark about something that upsets her you must always resist the temptation to offer a solution. Sympathise.
Tell me about it :( Reminds me of when my previous GF hurt her leg and said it was too painful to walk, so I called a taxi to get us home; this made her very grumpy and mean (moreso than usual), and the next day it turned out that "she didn't want the pain to go away, she wanted me to comfort her and force her to walk while saying things like 'it's not that far, we'll be there soon'"...
At this point in time I can't recommend Linux to anyone that isn't in a graduate course for CS, a masochist hacker
Have you tried doing things the easy way? Most of the people I see complaining about linux's difficulty are stuck in habits from the early 90s, with comments like "to install things on linux you have to go through a long and painful process to build from source". But then my 8 year old sister sits down in front of the PC, wonders where openoffice is, clicks "add program -> openoffice", and it's there :-P
Granted not everything is that simple, but she says it's easier than windows; and my mother (who's tech support calls are generally answered with "Have you plugged it in? Ok, do that. Working now? Good.") hasn't found it any worse.
[List of comparison points, where every point lists google as either more open, or at worst, equally closed]
All completely irrelevant facts. Google is just as closed as Microsoft.
Ok, I give up. If you completely ignore the giant list of ways that google are more open than MS, then they aren't more open than MS. You win.
You keep saying this, but it doesn't matter. I wasn't even referring just to Slashdot.
Ummm... ok, I've obviously forgotten what your point was. Let's look at the first post to see what your point is...
It's interesting how people side with Google on this site [Slashdot]
Are we visiting the same site [Slashdot]?
Ok, so maybe that's not your point. Maybe I'm wrong to assume that "this site" = "Slashdot". Let's look at your posts for where you say clearly and explicitly what your point is.
You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
Oh.
It was always relevant.
Ok, so when I was talking about monopoly territory, that was the point you were making?
you're getting into monopoly territory which wasn't the point I was making
Oh.
You keep claiming Google uses open protocols, and I keep pointing out to you that their search and advertising is closed
Beacuse search and advertising are the only thing that google do, and everything else is insignificant and ignorable?
Too many products, too many updates, too many platforms, too many frameworks.
Oh.
As a fanboy, of course you'll find Google's methods acceptable.
I'm pretty sure that any logical person would prefer advertising to DRM and proprietary format lock-in
They only use open protocols as an advertising vehicle to get eyeballs for their marketing space. That's why Gmail and the other services exist.
Their code hosting service seems to be ad-free and unlinked to the main search engine; their widget toolkit can be used without ads or link to them; GsoC not only seems non-profit, but actually more of a money black-hole. Yes, you can argue that things like these will benefit them in roundabout ways in the long run; but I'd rather work with a company that benefits the whole open community (selfishly, because they're a part of it) than a company who's selfishness is manifested as only helping themselves.
As for lock-in, you didn't answer my question about which search engine comes up when you enter a search term into the Chrome browser. I'll assume you had no counterargument for that point.
Assuming makes an ass out of you :-P Actually I didn't answer because I thought it was rhetorical. As to the point that I think you're getting at -- yes, it defaults to google. I'm free to change that to any other search engine. Hell, if I so much as browse to another site which supports the OpenSearch standard, then that search engine will be automatically added to the list of alternatives. You call that lock-in?
I could say Windows uses "open protocols" because anyone can program using Win32.
You would be correct to say that the win32 API is open (although the WINE people might have something to say about the completeness of the documentation...), but that still leaves the major protocols of SMB, AD, MAPI, MSN, and a lot of minor protocols too.
The rest of your post was gibberish.
As an "anti-fanboy"-fanboy, of course you'd find anything which doesn't fit your views to be gibberish :-P If you're still having difficulty understanding, see the final sentance in this post for the point made as simply and clearly as possible.
The point remains--Google is a selfish advertising company that gets a pass on things Microsoft has been criticized for during the Ballmer era.
For clarity: Yes, both companies are designed to be selfish and only in it for themselves, and they do have some things in common. But their core business methods are implemented differently (closed s
They're putting out a lot of side products that do nothing, which dilutes the brand and the platform they're trying to build.
...
If you haven't heard this stuff said about Microsof, I don't know what to tell you, because it's one of the most common complaints about the fumbling Ballmer era.
Ok, that's at least something negative; but in all my time reading slashdot comments (at +2, perhaps that plays a major part?) I still don't remember this being a widely made complaint, amongst google fanboys or anyone else. And until one of us figures out a way to accurately survey slashdot's collective opinions, I shall counter the useless "you're blind" with the equally useless "you're imagining things" :-P
It's interesting that you think you're free to switch to an alternative if all your data is kept on Google servers.
Just because stuff is in the cloud doesn't mean I don't have local backups too - having open protocols is what allows me to make backups, which can then be restored a different server.
Yes, I know this, and I still don't care.
And that was my point about Google fanboys.
They don't care about things that you still haven't demonstrated are relevant? Good for them :-P
[Stuff you say is off topic snipped]
Just as I thought. You don't actually know what "speaks open protocols" means.
WTF? You say something is missing your point, then when I drop that tangent mid-discussion, it's suddenly totally relevant and proof that the point was flawed? Sometimes an emoticon is worth a thousand words --> :-/
---- stuff from this point on I consider to be the biggest point; while I'd rather only discuss the biggest points and come to a conclusion, the previous text has been included anyway to demonstrate the difference between "not being able to continue" and "perfering to get to the point" ----
They're the same thing. Microsoft's platform exists to advertise and promote Microsoft branded products--just like Google.
Similar reasons, but different approaches -- I consider advertising to be more acceptable than DRM / undocumented binary blobs / other lock-in.
Google's propietary search engine isn't speaking any open protocols other than the HTML it spits out at you.
Nor do I need it to. For mail, there are clear benefits to the consumer if the server speaks IMAP (while a mail server which perfers it's own protocol is a pain in the ass). For chat, there are clear beneifts to the consumer if the server speaks XMPP (while a closed network which occasionally blocks third party clients is to their detriment). For search, there are no widely used standards, so HTML + a well documented API is the most useful for the consumer (while HTML which only works in one browser reduces consumer choice, which reduces competition, which reduces incentive to improve, which reduces the quality of the market for the consumer).
Looking at the last two quote / reply pairs together -- Perhaps this debate is "both google and MS are selfish" ("They are the same") vs "Google's selfishness is of benefit to the consumer while MS's is against it" ("They are opposite")?
Taken to extremes, "Company X harvests babies for free employee food, while company Y runs an orphanage and suggests that when grown up, the children work for the company (but they're free to go elsewhere)" -- yes, you would be completely right to say that both companies are only doing what they do because of their greedy self-interests, and in that respect you would be correct to say "They're the same thing", but I still think that I'd be justified in preferring to do business with the latter.
People make the same complaints about Google. You just don't see those complaints on Slashdot, which was my point.
People make what complaints about both MS and google? Your first post seemed to imply "Company X are evil because not all of their products are successes", which I've still never seen said about either company, and I still don't see any logic in.
Crap like "O_o" is annoying to read.
So are irrelevant personal attacks ^_^
Where is the open source release of Google's server code?
As said; yes it's closed source, but closed source isn't a problem -- closed standards and vendor lock-in are.
Did you know that the GPL doesn't require release of code for remotely accessed software, so Google keeps it all closed? Did you know Google Code won't even accept the GPL Affero license that closes that loophole?
Yes, I know this, and I still don't care. Their company could explode and their products rot, but as long as I've stuck with open standards, I'm free to switch to an alternative.
All you listed was email, HTML, and XMPP. Those are standards that everyone already used, and Google wants its ads on what everyone is using
At the time it was created, an ad-supported webmail service with IMAP access was pretty new. Also, their IMAP interface doesn't have any ads (or at least didn't last I checked, it has been a year or so since I tried it).
I also mentioned Wave, which is a standard that nobody already used. I then went and attempted to do your research for you, looking for closed google specs to cite -- first thing I randomly picked was google earth, turns out that that's spawned an open standard too.
[Stuff you say is off topic snipped]
My point was that Google does many of the things Microsoft is criticized for doing--trying to tie products together to create a giant advertising platform
As said, I've never seen MS criticised "for creating a giant advertising platform", only "for creating a giant lock-in platform" -- different things.
putting out a bunch of non-core products that go nowhere
I've also never seen MS criticised "for making non-core products", only "for making extra products to push a competitor out of business and then dropping them" -- also different things.
and collecting user data for its own money-making purposes.
One out of three I think is a good point -- however, I do see this point frequently made in comments, which goes against your original "slashdot <3 google" point :-P
Then you're purposely not looking because you're a fanboy, which was my original point.
Or I'm purposely not looking because I can't be arsed -- I've seen their major products, and based my points on observations of them, just as I've based my points on MS's most popular and visible products. If there are secretly hundreds of closed google products and open MS products, then since you're the one making the point, I'm expecting you to be the one who points them out.
Isn't it more likely that someone used their work laptop as a home laptop, and it was mixing work files with home filesharing that was the problem, so no company firewall would stop them?
Are we visiting the same site? People mock Microsoft for MSN Search/Bing, Windows Mobile, Silverlight, the Xbox, all the research lab projects it announces that never go anywhere, and more, which have all had varying levels of success in the market.
Yes, people complain about those all the time, generally because they're technically poor -- I've never seen someone complain about them because of their "levels of success in the market". You seem to be implying things like "Microsoft are evil because the xbox was a commercial failure", which not only have I never seen anyone say, but also doesn't even make sense.
By the way, those smilies come off as an obnoxious 12-year-old girl.
And irrelevant personal attacks come off as douchey :-P But hey, maybe I am an obnoxious 12-year-old girl, doesn't make my points any less valid~
Google only uses "open standards" when it suits it
Their email service speaks IMAP and POP (not sure what hotmail does), their web pages are cross-browser HTML (whereas microsoft's have a history of not only being broken in non-IE browsers, but being *deliberately* broken), their chat network is the standardised XMPP (as opposed to the closed MSN with a history of locking out unofficial clients), and when they wanted to extend that they published specs for the extensions (as opposed to keeping extensions proprietary to lock in users and extinguish other clients), when they want a new protocol (eg wave) it comes with open specs and an open source server for reference... Really not sure how you can say that google and MS are acting the same here.
Come to think of it, can you list the google products that only speak closed protocols, and the MS ones which only speak open ones? Off the top of my head I can't think of any...
They haven't open sourced their search engine, have they?
As long as it speaks standard protocols, the fact that their end is closed source isn't a problem -- open protocols means I'm free to choose what software (eg, browser) runs on my PC, and if I stop liking their search then I'm not locked to them, I can use any other server which speaks the standards.
Google is an advertising company that makes money through ads and data collection, and they leverage their hugeness as a search company all the time to push other products that contribute to their revenue.
They advertise their other products all the time, yes; I've never seen them say "you can only have product X if you first pay for unrelated product Y" though, or bundle two completely separate apps together with no option to have them individually, or push products which only speak closed protocols thus locking you to that product family forever, etc...
such as putting out lots of side products that have little to moderate success
I can't say I've ever even seen anyone complain about either company doing this o_O What are you talking about, and why is this supposed to be a problem? :S
attempting to tie branded products together to create one giant platform
Having a large platform is fine, if it's based on open standards, and people using third party clients and servers aren't shunned
I hope anti-web is a compliment -- this trend for replacing the OS with a comparatively limited browser, drawing commands with HTML widget hacks*, IP with XML over HTTP over TCP over IP**, local file storage with cookies and clouds***, etc, is really quite depressing...
* woo, html canvas! It's just like a native canvas, but 1/10th the speed, and you can only use javascript, and only in some browsers! yaaaaay!
** woo, web sockets! Just like native sockets, except crippled, and you can only use javascript, and I'm not even sure if any browser even theoretically supports them yet! yaaaaay!
*** woo, google gears! Just like native storage, except less flexible, and still only javascript, and you need to download a third party add-on! yaaaay!
I wonder how long until people start thinking "hey, the browser could be more efficient if we focus on the core parts, the 'kernel' if you will... and javascript would be more efficient as some sort of 'binary' (with other languages that could be translated into this 'binary' by some sort of 'compiler')... maybe we could even give these 'binaries' access to some sort of high-performance 'local file system' through some 'standard library'...". And then oh joy, people realise that rather than move the industry forward, they've been walking in circles, and the core concepts of computing haven't really advanced at all since the 60s...