No, I was not going after humor, and I am a native speaker of English.
A better analogy: if you use our free GPL code, here is a list of restrictions on what you can develop.
I have heard the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" idea before, and there is a lot of truth there.
Microsoft is putting restriction on something they are giving away. Fine and good. I believe my original argument was that the restrictions indicate fear of competing products.
You are no alone in believing in God, but people who dont offend against God's regulations because of other reasons than believing in God will not be saved. Removing the sites will do no good, excepting in removing one source of temptation to you ( and me ).
"Wouldn't any company not want competition if they had the choice?"
They do seem to want that. It is not right, especially with several monopoly consent decrees under their belt, to be actively pursuing this line.
"Here, this is a FREE DRILL and you don't have to PAY ANYTHING FOR IT and you can build ANYTHING YOU WANT just as long as you don't compete with something else that we make" What's the problem with that?"
True, it is free, the problem with it is that it is monopolistic.
"Uhh... No. I disagree with you. Do you know what WOULD stifle innovation? Not being able to control your own IP. Microsoft INNOVATED here."
If the control is so innovative, then why are they giving it away free to some? According to what you wrote, seems like they should hold this closer. And how can you say it doenst stifle innovation? If you want to innovate in the office arena, you will not be able to make something that looks like people expect, and have more innovative underpinnings. I'd call that stifling.
Also, I think there is a middle ground between the absolute IP viewpoint and the no IP viewpoint. I dont agree that money is the only reason for innovation. It is one ( very good ) reason amoung many. Innovation happened before money. Heck money was an innovation.
UI is very important, but look and feel, at least in my mind, is more about how the various controls paint themselves, the color, the shapes, the sizes, the fonts, how they react to being clicked on or hovered over.
How you use that stuff is the real UI, and you are right, it is important.
Things in the first category ( and that is where I put Microsoft's ribbon thingy ) are look and feel, and are not recipe or blueprints. Things in the second category are a part of the recipe. I would hope the code underlying would be more important still.
Never said Corporate America was daycare. Nor that Microsoft is worse than the average corporation. I am not a fan of Microsoft's, but I am not so rabidly anti Microsoft as to say that everything they do is aweful.
They developed a tool, and they are saying you can use the tool as long as you dont compete with them. It is LOGICAL to me to think that they are trying to discourage competition. And this discouragement is based on them fearing competition, my original argument. Note also, that my experience is colored by reading the license on a previous version of MSDE that had similar "dont use this to create a competitor to our products" clause in it.
This is really not similar to your OSX example, it is more like black and decker saying "here is our drill, you can use it as you like, excepting you cant use it to create anything that will compete with our products". I have no problem with Microsoft keeping whatever innovation private so that they can profit from it. And they *can* do what they are doing here, I just think it is really lame, and I think it is proper to call them on the fact that these kinds of things are stifling innovation.
What is next, cant use any of our compiler tools to create things that compete? The.net runtime? Why? The only reason I can see devolves to "because we are big and powerfull enough to get away with it". Not from any arguement of right and wrong.
Which brings me to the more immediate point that you responded to, *why* is it OK to do wrong ( distinct from illegal ) in the search of profits?
I dont see how that applies here. The ability to use the "look and feel" in a competing product is not the recipe, the blue prints or the engineering drawings. And the ribbon thingy is not their flagship product, and I have a hard time seeing it as equivilent to a database query optimizer.
If your program of burger flipping training for developmentally disabled persons had been in place when I was growing up, I would be flipping burgers instead of making 6 figures as a programmer. And no, there was no special program for me.
Pulling some people out of the mainstream might be a good idea, so as not to hold up the main progression, but I'm better that more than a couple can perform very well, given a bit of the right kind of help.
I rather suspect that the teachers would do wonders on less money, if the administrative types would get out of the way. Perhaps the administrative types should be cycled thru/from ordinary teachers, so that they see the "ground view", and are reaquainted with it periodically ( I think such a thing would be good for police officers as well, but that is a different matter ).
The formatting strings in the Janus controls are easily under 8192, and are not base64 encoded garbage, but are not readable. It is just one runon string. Like English without punctuation or spaces or new lines.
Anyway, my critisism was aimed at those who misuse XML, not at XML itself. XML is an excellent way to represent data, and as a programmer, I really appreciate what it brings to the table. It does not cure cancer, or eliminate world hunger, and should be used when appropriate, and in appropriate ways. I have seen it used, and it made some issues fade away. I have seen it used and introduce issues.
It's still a great sig. I laughed like the dickens when I first saw it, especially since I was working for a place that seemed to apply that theory liberally. You just could not read the code and know what would happen, it was all driven by the XML fed into it.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll donate my speedos to the cause.
A: They are big enough,
B: I have had numerous requests *not* to wear them.
Actually, it's "you are not charged, if Microsoft, in their judgment, decide that it was a bug in their product."
But you have to hand over the credit card *first*, as the other poster said.
No, I was not going after humor, and I am a native speaker of
English.
A better analogy: if you use our free GPL code, here is a list of
restrictions on what you can develop.
I have heard the "there's no such thing as a free lunch" idea before,
and there is a lot of truth there.
Microsoft is putting restriction on something they are giving away.
Fine and good. I believe my original argument was that the restrictions
indicate fear of competing products.
Dead musicians sell no records, they just decompose.
Their works continue to sell, and it is an interesting question
of if their families benefit from those sales, I dont know one
way or another.
You are correct, but...
"One boss might be non-technical, but he chooses competent employees/team members and trusts their opinion"
He/she/it cant know if competency was chosen, or smoke blowing.
"Another boss might have a bad team, but is technical enough to know where things should head"
And if he/she/it is not technical, then there will be trouble.
In either case, having technical grounding will help with the evaluation of the situation.
You are no alone in believing in God, but people
who dont offend against God's regulations because
of other reasons than believing in God will not be
saved. Removing the sites will do no good, excepting
in removing one source of temptation to you ( and me ).
I agree with you in the main, but for something like the kid that swung
at another kid with a 2x4, *that* should be dealt with by the police.
Yes...
Windows, windows uber alles...
A popular favorite in his class.
"Wouldn't any company not want competition if they had the choice?"
They do seem to want that. It is not right, especially with several monopoly
consent decrees under their belt, to be actively pursuing this line.
"Here, this is a FREE DRILL and you don't have to PAY ANYTHING FOR IT and you can build ANYTHING YOU WANT just as long as you don't compete with something else that we make" What's the problem with that?"
True, it is free, the problem with it is that it is monopolistic.
"Uhh... No. I disagree with you. Do you know what WOULD stifle innovation? Not being able to control your own IP. Microsoft INNOVATED here."
If the control is so innovative, then why are they giving it away free to some?
According to what you wrote, seems like they should hold this closer. And how can
you say it doenst stifle innovation? If you want to innovate in the office arena,
you will not be able to make something that looks like people expect, and have
more innovative underpinnings. I'd call that stifling.
Also, I think there is a middle ground between the absolute IP viewpoint and the
no IP viewpoint. I dont agree that money is the only reason for innovation. It
is one ( very good ) reason amoung many. Innovation happened before money. Heck
money was an innovation.
Seems to me that if that were truely the case, there would
be 95% market penetration for OpenOffice.
UI is very important, but look and feel, at least in my mind, is more
about how the various controls paint themselves, the color, the shapes,
the sizes, the fonts, how they react to being clicked on or hovered over.
How you use that stuff is the real UI, and you are right, it is important.
Things in the first category ( and that is where I put Microsoft's ribbon
thingy ) are look and feel, and are not recipe or blueprints. Things
in the second category are a part of the recipe. I would hope the code
underlying would be more important still.
Never said Corporate America was daycare. Nor that
.net runtime? Why? The only
Microsoft is worse than the average corporation.
I am not a fan of Microsoft's, but I am not so rabidly
anti Microsoft as to say that everything they do is
aweful.
They developed a tool, and they are saying you can use
the tool as long as you dont compete with them. It is
LOGICAL to me to think that they are trying to discourage
competition. And this discouragement is based on them
fearing competition, my original argument.
Note also, that my experience is colored
by reading the license on a previous version of MSDE
that had similar "dont use this to create a competitor
to our products" clause in it.
This is really not similar to your OSX example, it is more
like black and decker saying "here is our drill, you can
use it as you like, excepting you cant use it to create
anything that will compete with our products". I have no
problem with Microsoft keeping whatever innovation private
so that they can profit from it. And they *can* do what
they are doing here, I just think it is really lame, and
I think it is proper to call them on the fact that these
kinds of things are stifling innovation.
What is next, cant use any of our compiler tools to create
things that compete? The
reason I can see devolves to "because we are big and
powerfull enough to get away with it". Not from any arguement
of right and wrong.
Which brings me to the more immediate point that you responded
to, *why* is it OK to do wrong ( distinct from illegal ) in the
search of profits?
You are correct, there is a difference.
I dont see how that applies here. The ability to
use the "look and feel" in a competing product is
not the recipe, the blue prints or the engineering
drawings. And the ribbon thingy is not their
flagship product, and I have a hard time seeing it
as equivilent to a database query optimizer.
Oh, I dont know, small thing like "doing the right thing because it is right"?
If it (the office suite) is so good, then why is Microsoft afraid of competition in this area?
If your program of burger flipping training for developmentally disabled persons
had been in place when I was growing up, I would be flipping burgers instead of
making 6 figures as a programmer. And no, there was no special program for me.
Pulling some people out of the mainstream might be a good idea, so as not to hold
up the main progression, but I'm better that more than a couple can perform very
well, given a bit of the right kind of help.
I rather suspect that the teachers would do wonders on less money, if the administrative
types would get out of the way. Perhaps the administrative types should be
cycled thru/from ordinary teachers, so that they see the "ground view", and
are reaquainted with it periodically ( I think such a thing would be good for
police officers as well, but that is a different matter ).
I think you are assuming that the police are not having a problem
dealing with false positives from "tips". I suspect that is not
proven.
This is true, but any good tool can be misused.
Why, just the other day my skull was bashed in by
a perfectly good hammer.
The formatting strings in the Janus controls are easily under 8192, and
are not base64 encoded garbage, but are not readable. It is just one
runon string. Like English without punctuation or spaces or new lines.
Anyway, my critisism was aimed at those who misuse XML, not at XML
itself. XML is an excellent way to represent data, and as a programmer,
I really appreciate what it brings to the table. It does not cure
cancer, or eliminate world hunger, and should be used when appropriate,
and in appropriate ways. I have seen it used, and it made some issues
fade away. I have seen it used and introduce issues.
It's still a great sig. I laughed like the dickens when
I first saw it, especially since I was working for a place
that seemed to apply that theory liberally. You just could
not read the code and know what would happen, it was all
driven by the XML fed into it.
Not all XML is readable by humans.
The formatting strings in Janus controls come to mind.
I have heard that the new Office format (XML) was pretty unreadable.
And what is with modding everything in this thread to zero.
Really...
We all needed to leave the first post in this to the guy with
the sig
"XML is like violence, if it doenst fix the problem, you arent using enough"
Or words to that effect.
Yes, but I dont like the noise they make.
Well, I suppose you could kill them before burning them,
but then they smell even worse.
The lawsuits are not fun either.
There are not enough of them.
Now, if we add lawyers to the mix, well...
You are right.
And this works, cause they taste just like chicken!