so why is 99% of the press so ignorant of this fact and merrily continues regurgitating the marketing drivel Microsoft sends them day after day? They have been the mouth piece of their deceptions for 20 years.
Because their other source of information is a bunch of loud mouth fanboys who explode when you ask them a legitimate question about their stuff as if you just did their mom in the ass with no lube. If their choice in information is someone who seems civilized at some company, or Stallman and his cult following, it would really be bad journalism for them not to listen to the MS shills. Its also rather annoying to listen to almost any GPL fanboy since they tend to be so narrow minded and religious about it that they stop making sense very early in the conversation.
Really? What company is making money from GPL'd code?
And don't spew any of the companies that are selling proprietary code along side GPL code, or selling services supporting GPL code. They aren't making money of GPL any more than they are making money off the janitor who cleans the chip fabrication factory.
You don't make money from GPL'd code. Thats the reality of it. You make money off some other service that you package with the GPL code. GPL'd code by itself has no monetary value at all.
They may not be forced to release the code, GPL is what forces them to release the code. No GPL means no predefined rules for how it has to be handled, which means the court can pick some other way to resolve the dispute.
You don't get to say 'if there was no GPL' and then follow up as if GPL is the common law of what happens when no other contract exists.
If GPL isn't viral then why does MS have to release anything?
Its ability to spread has a minor limitation in scope if you're careful, but its most certainly viral and thats one of the reason it exists. I'm sorry that it being viral is a bad thing to many people but either recognize it for being viral or stop trying to use its viral nature to force others to give their code out as well.
If its viral, MS has to give out the code they built with it.
If it isn't viral, MS doesn't have to.
Pick a side, but stop trying to bullshit people by playing both sides of the fence.
Preface: I prefer the BSD license, and I could go on for hours about the viral nature of GPL only pushing some douche bags personal agenda on others rather than actually being truly beneficial. Never once in that rant would I need to promote anything proprietary.
No one with a clue is going to rant about MS losing source code. It is however the battle cry you hear from GPL fanboys against using more open licenses like Apache/MIT/BSD, which of course is complete FUD and ignorance. You don't "lose rights to existing code", you simply aren't automatically granted rights to code you didn't create. And that is WHY you get 'GPL is a virus' comments, its supposed to be.
GPL isn't the problem here. Its just a license.
The problem is all the ideological bullshit that will be spewed by fanboys about how evil MS is and how GPL is the champion of freedom, even though it is in many cases more restrictive than proprietary license agreements, and ranks right up there as an extremely restrictive OSS license, with each revision getting more restrictive to promote Stallmans politics.
There is a reason that you see rants about GPL being viral. IT IS VIRAL, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. If you don't like it, change it so it isn't viral. Don't get pissed off when someone points out that something you consider a 'feature' can be a fucking pain in the ass to others. Public domain has the 'feature' that anyone can use it for whatever the hell they want, and you'll find GPL zealots talking about how thats a bug without recognizing any of the benifits it provides to society as a whole. GPL is specifically designed to not play nice with a specific set of licenses, stop trying to say that anyone pointing that out is spreading FUD. Its not FUD, its the truth, and a truth that makes the license what it is.
There is nothing wrong with it being viral. Its not a secret agenda that you don't know until its too late, its up front and out in the open, and promoted as one of its strengths. That strength however is fucking annoying to a lot of us as we don't want to be forced to have all of our code fall into your agenda. So we don't, we use other code instead, or roll our own, which is really no different than what we do when we don't like some proprietary license.
I'm sorry you can't accept that GPL has things that make it an unacceptable choice to many people, but I do find it amusing that you can't accept that, yet you can't accept that other licenses are acceptable to other people.
GPL fanboys get you the responses you're talking about. Their response to this incident is what triggers companies to avoid OSS. Its not the fear of being sued. Its the fear that even though they made a bad attempt (possibly bogus/outright lie) to play by the OSS rules, they STILL get a bunch of ranting nutjobs going on about how evil they are. So lets think about it. I can just roll the code in house, and keep it closed source and take some bad press, or I can OSS it, still get the bad press, and possibly worry about a bunch of idiots getting together to sue me. I don't know about you, but I'm really not seeing why I'd want to take the risk. I get bad press either way, and if I even try to do what you want, I have more worries. The end result, companies learn very quickly to just tell OSS to go fuck off as the end users really could give a flying fuck. Its just some ranting loud mouths pushing their own political agenda, and since nothing can be done that will make them happy there really isn't
any point in trying.
GPL isn't the problem, the idiot fanatics, fanboys and hypocrites that think Stallman is gods gift to the planet are the problem. GPL will be far better off when he's dead and gone, and his little cult along with him. These are the same people that will mod this post as a troll because it points out problems in their precious religion.
Because some people won't mind over paying a little over the going rate to get it like that fresh from the factory. Perhaps cause it's cool and they have too much money to care, or perhaps the really aren't THAT into the performance other than to talk to thier non-car people friends. Maybe the just don't want to worry about getting a hassle if they need warrenty repair work from a dealer.
Just a copy of reasons that come to mind. Its only a few percent increase price, the car companies do well on these deals because it requires you to buy a bunch of other options to get a configuration they will add this package to.
My last car purchase resulted in me getting every option except the smoking package because I had the money and knew I'd like the features and would never get around to adding them later. It was just easier to have them do it. Yes, the after market optins were "better", in both price and performace, but not enough to justify the work and inconvience later. If I really wanna make it a hot car I'll need far more expensive upgrades across the board.
If you think a muffler upgrade on it's own makes you car special in anyway then you are a poser. Posers are who the are aiming for.
Anything that legitimately makes them more money is a good idea. We're not talking about penis enlargement pills level of ripoff here.
Except that the circuits are already designed with that in mind, which means when you get a 20 amp breaker for instance, the wiring is already enough to handle 25 amp.
Actually theres far more that goes into it than your simplistic version, but I might as well keep it overly simple as well.
Who said it was a threat? I want the guy to follow through on it. Yelling at them does no good, I bet you'd see a different system after a few bombs went off however.
I feel no sympathy for any telemarketer, niether the employees or the company, useless fucks can get another job if they don't like it.
Sounds neat. Too bad its done using a bunch of sub-standard 'apps' (and I use the term loosely) that don't have half the features of any desktop equivilent. gmail is okay if you don't have to integrate with other apps. Docs sucks, period. blogs work fine already, we don't need any more retarded one entry blogs from people who think they have something to write about, same goes for photosharing.
The idea that one protocol is a good idea is rather retarded, especially considering how it isn't one protocol. All of these protocols are built on top of IP, mostly using TCP and possibly some UDP (thats 3 and we can't even talk to it in any way yet). You view the presentation layer over HTTP, server communications is done on top of XMPP, then on top of that you use several other new protocols to do all the other crap. Go Google! Bringing new meaning to reinventing the wheel. You just built a complete OSI model on top of an EXISTING COMPLETE OSI model. But we'll call it one protocol.
So tell me, why is it a great idea to invent new protocols and stack them on top of existing protocols already designed to do the job just as well? Just because a Google engineer spewed it, doesn't make it actually true or 'great', regardless of how much you look up to them.
I for one am obviously not impressed, even if a bunch of geeks at Google love it, doesn't mean its anything useful to the general public.
No, SharePoint is more open, has a longer history, and is supported by more desktop apps. This fails in the same way the GMail fails compared to Outlook.
Yes, that the toggle switch guys were probably right.
Trends like the one you're pointing out are silly to begin with, but that does not mean that there isn't a point where it should end. Just because the first round of guys weren't dead on right with the next level doesn't mean they got the idea wrong, it means they were premature, something I'm sure you're well versed in.
You realize DirectAccess is just a machine level VPN rather than a VPN controlled by the user... right?
You realize that having that connection always on is not a good thing when you get infected with some silly virus that wants to probe everything it can talk to and infect, right?
There are about 50 billion reasons why this is a retarded idea, and about 3 for why its good. Considering VPNs can be configured to auto connect already its really silly that you're all excited over another VPN package made by MS, which has traditionally had an absolutely shitty track record for providing a secure connection.
So go ahead, be excited that you have Direct Access, but just try to get a clue and realize its just another form of VPN which you need to watch for security issues and requires you to be locked into MS due to the use of a non-standard protocol.
Go read up on IPSEC if you'd like to catch up to how everyone could do this 10 years ago, including Windows with 3rd party software.
Whats wrong with the iPhone approval processes? Just because you saw some twit blog about it doesn't make it true.
They have like 50k apps in bearly over a year. You know what, you are right, the process is failing miserably because a few douchebags with some app that Apple didn't want included have big mouths and have been picked up by some blog.
If the App Store is done 'wrong' or 'bad' then I pray to god that I can elevate my own business to the 'wrong' or 'bad' stage, I'll be rich bitch.
This isn't a different subject than the regular once a month ask slashdot question, its just an indication that you aren't doing a very good job of network management in general and now you're trying to consider part of standard network management procedures to be something other than that.
Like... actually having the information in the first place without permission of the owners of the data. The only legal thing he can do with it is destroy it.
I certainly have not authorized him to use my information.
If someone else decides to do it after words, do the same thing to the next guy. It won't take too many public torturing followed by public executions to make the point.
Is this over the top? Maybe. We've definitely gone to soft on people for pulling this sort of shit.
When what we want is just to retrieve a record, calling get(id) is way easier and more secure than building an SQL statement, and way cheaper than using an ORM.
Yes, I'm an SQL troll, but... if using SQL to get a row by a unique ID is too hard for you and too insecure, there is no amount of code which is going to fix your problem, which is that you are a shitty developer who is far too lazy to make a function or macro to wrap around the simple sql request.
There are PLENTY of reasons to not like SQL, but your example is so simplistic that it just makes me think the problem you have is you, not what the database backend is or how its used.
As far as being forced to think of your data in a tabulare way due to using SQL, you think this is a bad thing. It isn't. Its retarded that you're going to use an SQL backend anyway, and then try to think of the data in some other form. Adding some silly layer on top to make it easier for you to understand just indicates you're too lazy to understand your own data and how to use it efficiently.
I hate when people make stupid posts like yours. I end up sounding like an SQL fanboy and I don't even fucking like it.
And then Linus says 'Here is the GPL'd patch to rebuild your kernel without the MS drivers so you don't get sued to death'.
This sort of thing is one of GPL's strongest strengths, since everyone can get the source, they can remove the offending code, make new binaries and tell MS to piss the fuck off.
I don't think a judge would let someone actually get sued and pay out if they immediately made an effort to remove the offending code sense MS has put them out there for us to use its implied that its okay to use them.
They can't wait 10 years then sue, that doesn't go over well anywhere, even in America, Land of the Ambulance chasing lawyers.
What about all the advances that VMWare makes while Hyper-V is catching up to what they already have?
They may compete with VMWare, but they aren't just going to blow them out of the water.
Worst case VMWare turns its price into roughly the same as the licensing cost for the same sort of Hyper-V setup.
So okay, you'll go with MS because of your discount. I won't. I don't get those discounts. Also, I've seen what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. I will NEVER be an 'MS' shop, or a 'Linux' shop, or any other product. When you pile all of your stuff onto one product line/company you realize later how that was a retarded move when they go a different direction than you need.
I've been there, done that. I'd much rather deal with integrating several different distinct systems than be completely screwed over AGAIN when the vendor decides to change gears or drop a product. Any of my vendors can disappear tomorrow and I'll have some work to do, but most of my systems won't require complete replacement. You go ahead and tie yourself into MS for everything, and when they drop the product line or whatever, you deal with having to retool EVERYTHING at one time.
Its kind of like using CitySearch.com for restaurent reviews. Pulling random numbers out of my ass, you'll get 5 out of 10 people who write a review about a bad experience to 'stick it to them' and 1 out of 20 people who write a good review just because they read all the bad ones and want to try and balance it out.
Personally, I think if that is what sabotaging your own device looks like, I need to figure out how to sabotage my own companies products so we get those sort of numbers.
I'd love to have Apples problems. So would just about any one else with half a clue, full clue not required for this one.
EVERYONE EVERYWHERE IS ALWAYS IN IT FOR THEMSELVES.
No one does anything that doesn't benefit them in some way.
Some times its because it makes them feel good. Some times its because it makes them profit. Some times its because they don't want to see someone else get hurt, or they want to see someone else happy. Some times people do things because they would rather hurt themselves than have the guilt of hurting someone else.
But in the end, no matter how you look at it, every single thing a person does is for themselves in one way or another.
You can pretend that the world doesn't work that way all you want, but thats all you will be doing, pretending.
Stop acting like MS doing something for themselves is any different than how you live every single moment of your life, its not.
How they go about it defines who they are, but your comment is no more of a revelation than 'water is wet when its a liquid'.
Everyone is selfish. Some of us are actually capable of realizing it and admitting it.
Don't bother responding, there is nothing you can say or do that will make this group happy. Microsoft could release their entire source collection into the public domain and donate all their money to Linux, and immediately dissolve and these fanboy's would just come up with a new bullshit reason to hate MS. Most are too stupid to realize that GPL isn't the only OSS license in existence.
Not that all users here are like that, but there are just far too many fanboys here to justify giving them a response unless you like trolling, which is my excuse.
You go with what the majority wants, wether you in your US mentality think its right or not.
Considering the ratio of strongly religious people to non-religious in Ireland, this law is not shocking in the least.
I really don't see what your problem is, other than you are probably one of those jackasses that screams about being open minded and freedom of speech, yet you are unable to to accept that not everyone feels the way you do.
So basically, the people in Ireland feel differently than you, and because they don't agree with you, you think of them as bible thumping idiots. How ironic is it that you call them names for doing the exactly the same thing you do, but on the other side of the fence.
Stop being such a self absorbed twit and realize you're point of view isn't the only one that exists.
Slashdot Mirror
Because their other source of information is a bunch of loud mouth fanboys who explode when you ask them a legitimate question about their stuff as if you just did their mom in the ass with no lube. If their choice in information is someone who seems civilized at some company, or Stallman and his cult following, it would really be bad journalism for them not to listen to the MS shills. Its also rather annoying to listen to almost any GPL fanboy since they tend to be so narrow minded and religious about it that they stop making sense very early in the conversation.
Really? What company is making money from GPL'd code?
And don't spew any of the companies that are selling proprietary code along side GPL code, or selling services supporting GPL code. They aren't making money of GPL any more than they are making money off the janitor who cleans the chip fabrication factory.
You don't make money from GPL'd code. Thats the reality of it. You make money off some other service that you package with the GPL code. GPL'd code by itself has no monetary value at all.
They may not be forced to release the code, GPL is what forces them to release the code. No GPL means no predefined rules for how it has to be handled, which means the court can pick some other way to resolve the dispute.
You don't get to say 'if there was no GPL' and then follow up as if GPL is the common law of what happens when no other contract exists.
If GPL isn't viral then why does MS have to release anything?
Its ability to spread has a minor limitation in scope if you're careful, but its most certainly viral and thats one of the reason it exists. I'm sorry that it being viral is a bad thing to many people but either recognize it for being viral or stop trying to use its viral nature to force others to give their code out as well.
If its viral, MS has to give out the code they built with it.
If it isn't viral, MS doesn't have to.
Pick a side, but stop trying to bullshit people by playing both sides of the fence.
I'll bite on your troll ...
Preface:
I prefer the BSD license, and I could go on for hours about the viral nature of GPL only pushing some douche bags personal agenda on others rather than actually being truly beneficial. Never once in that rant would I need to promote anything proprietary.
No one with a clue is going to rant about MS losing source code. It is however the battle cry you hear from GPL fanboys against using more open licenses like Apache/MIT/BSD, which of course is complete FUD and ignorance. You don't "lose rights to existing code", you simply aren't automatically granted rights to code you didn't create. And that is WHY you get 'GPL is a virus' comments, its supposed to be.
GPL isn't the problem here. Its just a license.
The problem is all the ideological bullshit that will be spewed by fanboys about how evil MS is and how GPL is the champion of freedom, even though it is in many cases more restrictive than proprietary license agreements, and ranks right up there as an extremely restrictive OSS license, with each revision getting more restrictive to promote Stallmans politics.
There is a reason that you see rants about GPL being viral. IT IS VIRAL, THATS THE ENTIRE POINT. If you don't like it, change it so it isn't viral. Don't get pissed off when someone points out that something you consider a 'feature' can be a fucking pain in the ass to others. Public domain has the 'feature' that anyone can use it for whatever the hell they want, and you'll find GPL zealots talking about how thats a bug without recognizing any of the benifits it provides to society as a whole. GPL is specifically designed to not play nice with a specific set of licenses, stop trying to say that anyone pointing that out is spreading FUD. Its not FUD, its the truth, and a truth that makes the license what it is.
There is nothing wrong with it being viral. Its not a secret agenda that you don't know until its too late, its up front and out in the open, and promoted as one of its strengths. That strength however is fucking annoying to a lot of us as we don't want to be forced to have all of our code fall into your agenda. So we don't, we use other code instead, or roll our own, which is really no different than what we do when we don't like some proprietary license.
I'm sorry you can't accept that GPL has things that make it an unacceptable choice to many people, but I do find it amusing that you can't accept that, yet you can't accept that other licenses are acceptable to other people.
GPL fanboys get you the responses you're talking about. Their response to this incident is what triggers companies to avoid OSS. Its not the fear of being sued. Its the fear that even though they made a bad attempt (possibly bogus/outright lie) to play by the OSS rules, they STILL get a bunch of ranting nutjobs going on about how evil they are. So lets think about it. I can just roll the code in house, and keep it closed source and take some bad press, or I can OSS it, still get the bad press, and possibly worry about a bunch of idiots getting together to sue me. I don't know about you, but I'm really not seeing why I'd want to take the risk. I get bad press either way, and if I even try to do what you want, I have more worries. The end result, companies learn very quickly to just tell OSS to go fuck off as the end users really could give a flying fuck. Its just some ranting loud mouths pushing their own political agenda, and since nothing can be done that will make them happy there really isn't
any point in trying.
GPL isn't the problem, the idiot fanatics, fanboys and hypocrites that think Stallman is gods gift to the planet are the problem. GPL will be far better off when he's dead and gone, and his little cult along with him. These are the same people that will mod this post as a troll because it points out problems in their precious religion.
Because some people won't mind over paying a little over the going rate to get it like that fresh from the factory. Perhaps cause it's cool and they have too much money to care, or perhaps the really aren't THAT into the performance other than to talk to thier non-car people friends. Maybe the just don't want to worry about getting a hassle if they need warrenty repair work from a dealer.
Just a copy of reasons that come to mind. Its only a few percent increase price, the car companies do well on these deals because it requires you to buy a bunch of other options to get a configuration they will add this package to.
My last car purchase resulted in me getting every option except the smoking package because I had the money and knew I'd like the features and would never get around to adding them later. It was just easier to have them do it. Yes, the after market optins were "better", in both price and performace, but not enough to justify the work and inconvience later. If I really wanna make it a hot car I'll need far more expensive upgrades across the board.
If you think a muffler upgrade on it's own makes you car special in anyway then you are a poser. Posers are who the are aiming for.
Anything that legitimately makes them more money is a good idea. We're not talking about penis enlargement pills level of ripoff here.
Except that the circuits are already designed with that in mind, which means when you get a 20 amp breaker for instance, the wiring is already enough to handle 25 amp.
Actually theres far more that goes into it than your simplistic version, but I might as well keep it overly simple as well.
Carbon-negative? WTF are you talking about. Hydroelectric power doesnt' consume carbon nor emit it, its neutral as far as carbon is concerned.
Who said it was a threat? I want the guy to follow through on it. Yelling at them does no good, I bet you'd see a different system after a few bombs went off however.
I feel no sympathy for any telemarketer, niether the employees or the company, useless fucks can get another job if they don't like it.
Sounds neat. Too bad its done using a bunch of sub-standard 'apps' (and I use the term loosely) that don't have half the features of any desktop equivilent. gmail is okay if you don't have to integrate with other apps. Docs sucks, period. blogs work fine already, we don't need any more retarded one entry blogs from people who think they have something to write about, same goes for photosharing.
The idea that one protocol is a good idea is rather retarded, especially considering how it isn't one protocol. All of these protocols are built on top of IP, mostly using TCP and possibly some UDP (thats 3 and we can't even talk to it in any way yet). You view the presentation layer over HTTP, server communications is done on top of XMPP, then on top of that you use several other new protocols to do all the other crap. Go Google! Bringing new meaning to reinventing the wheel. You just built a complete OSI model on top of an EXISTING COMPLETE OSI model. But we'll call it one protocol.
So tell me, why is it a great idea to invent new protocols and stack them on top of existing protocols already designed to do the job just as well? Just because a Google engineer spewed it, doesn't make it actually true or 'great', regardless of how much you look up to them.
I for one am obviously not impressed, even if a bunch of geeks at Google love it, doesn't mean its anything useful to the general public.
No, SharePoint is more open, has a longer history, and is supported by more desktop apps. This fails in the same way the GMail fails compared to Outlook.
Yes, that the toggle switch guys were probably right.
Trends like the one you're pointing out are silly to begin with, but that does not mean that there isn't a point where it should end. Just because the first round of guys weren't dead on right with the next level doesn't mean they got the idea wrong, it means they were premature, something I'm sure you're well versed in.
You realize DirectAccess is just a machine level VPN rather than a VPN controlled by the user ... right?
You realize that having that connection always on is not a good thing when you get infected with some silly virus that wants to probe everything it can talk to and infect, right?
There are about 50 billion reasons why this is a retarded idea, and about 3 for why its good. Considering VPNs can be configured to auto connect already its really silly that you're all excited over another VPN package made by MS, which has traditionally had an absolutely shitty track record for providing a secure connection.
So go ahead, be excited that you have Direct Access, but just try to get a clue and realize its just another form of VPN which you need to watch for security issues and requires you to be locked into MS due to the use of a non-standard protocol.
Go read up on IPSEC if you'd like to catch up to how everyone could do this 10 years ago, including Windows with 3rd party software.
Whats wrong with the iPhone approval processes? Just because you saw some twit blog about it doesn't make it true.
They have like 50k apps in bearly over a year. You know what, you are right, the process is failing miserably because a few douchebags with some app that Apple didn't want included have big mouths and have been picked up by some blog.
If the App Store is done 'wrong' or 'bad' then I pray to god that I can elevate my own business to the 'wrong' or 'bad' stage, I'll be rich bitch.
This isn't a different subject than the regular once a month ask slashdot question, its just an indication that you aren't doing a very good job of network management in general and now you're trying to consider part of standard network management procedures to be something other than that.
Like ... actually having the information in the first place without permission of the owners of the data. The only legal thing he can do with it is destroy it.
I certainly have not authorized him to use my information.
Tar and feather him, in public.
Beat him senseless, in public.
Then slit his throat, in public.
If someone else decides to do it after words, do the same thing to the next guy. It won't take too many public torturing followed by public executions to make the point.
Is this over the top? Maybe. We've definitely gone to soft on people for pulling this sort of shit.
Yes, I'm an SQL troll, but ... if using SQL to get a row by a unique ID is too hard for you and too insecure, there is no amount of code which is going to fix your problem, which is that you are a shitty developer who is far too lazy to make a function or macro to wrap around the simple sql request.
There are PLENTY of reasons to not like SQL, but your example is so simplistic that it just makes me think the problem you have is you, not what the database backend is or how its used.
As far as being forced to think of your data in a tabulare way due to using SQL, you think this is a bad thing. It isn't. Its retarded that you're going to use an SQL backend anyway, and then try to think of the data in some other form. Adding some silly layer on top to make it easier for you to understand just indicates you're too lazy to understand your own data and how to use it efficiently.
I hate when people make stupid posts like yours. I end up sounding like an SQL fanboy and I don't even fucking like it.
And then Linus says 'Here is the GPL'd patch to rebuild your kernel without the MS drivers so you don't get sued to death'.
This sort of thing is one of GPL's strongest strengths, since everyone can get the source, they can remove the offending code, make new binaries and tell MS to piss the fuck off.
I don't think a judge would let someone actually get sued and pay out if they immediately made an effort to remove the offending code sense MS has put them out there for us to use its implied that its okay to use them.
They can't wait 10 years then sue, that doesn't go over well anywhere, even in America, Land of the Ambulance chasing lawyers.
What about all the advances that VMWare makes while Hyper-V is catching up to what they already have?
They may compete with VMWare, but they aren't just going to blow them out of the water.
Worst case VMWare turns its price into roughly the same as the licensing cost for the same sort of Hyper-V setup.
So okay, you'll go with MS because of your discount. I won't. I don't get those discounts. Also, I've seen what happens when you put all your eggs in one basket. I will NEVER be an 'MS' shop, or a 'Linux' shop, or any other product. When you pile all of your stuff onto one product line/company you realize later how that was a retarded move when they go a different direction than you need.
I've been there, done that. I'd much rather deal with integrating several different distinct systems than be completely screwed over AGAIN when the vendor decides to change gears or drop a product. Any of my vendors can disappear tomorrow and I'll have some work to do, but most of my systems won't require complete replacement. You go ahead and tie yourself into MS for everything, and when they drop the product line or whatever, you deal with having to retool EVERYTHING at one time.
The difference is simple, Apple has FAR more developers than the XBox does.
This story is just someone else riding Apples success, sure its a gripe, but it wouldn't matter if they weren't doing so well in the first place.
Its kind of like using CitySearch.com for restaurent reviews. Pulling random numbers out of my ass, you'll get 5 out of 10 people who write a review about a bad experience to 'stick it to them' and 1 out of 20 people who write a good review just because they read all the bad ones and want to try and balance it out.
Personally, I think if that is what sabotaging your own device looks like, I need to figure out how to sabotage my own companies products so we get those sort of numbers.
I'd love to have Apples problems. So would just about any one else with half a clue, full clue not required for this one.
No shit?
EVERYONE EVERYWHERE IS ALWAYS IN IT FOR THEMSELVES.
No one does anything that doesn't benefit them in some way.
Some times its because it makes them feel good. Some times its because it makes them profit.
Some times its because they don't want to see someone else get hurt, or they want to see someone else happy.
Some times people do things because they would rather hurt themselves than have the guilt of hurting someone else.
But in the end, no matter how you look at it, every single thing a person does is for themselves in one way or another.
You can pretend that the world doesn't work that way all you want, but thats all you will be doing, pretending.
Stop acting like MS doing something for themselves is any different than how you live every single moment of your life, its not.
How they go about it defines who they are, but your comment is no more of a revelation than 'water is wet when its a liquid'.
Everyone is selfish. Some of us are actually capable of realizing it and admitting it.
Don't bother responding, there is nothing you can say or do that will make this group happy. Microsoft could release their entire source collection into the public domain and donate all their money to Linux, and immediately dissolve and these fanboy's would just come up with a new bullshit reason to hate MS. Most are too stupid to realize that GPL isn't the only OSS license in existence.
Not that all users here are like that, but there are just far too many fanboys here to justify giving them a response unless you like trolling, which is my excuse.
In Ireland, the ACLU could go fuck itself.
You go with what the majority wants, wether you in your US mentality think its right or not.
Considering the ratio of strongly religious people to non-religious in Ireland, this law is not shocking in the least.
I really don't see what your problem is, other than you are probably one of those jackasses that screams about being open minded and freedom of speech, yet you are unable to to accept that not everyone feels the way you do.
So basically, the people in Ireland feel differently than you, and because they don't agree with you, you think of them as bible thumping idiots. How ironic is it that you call them names for doing the exactly the same thing you do, but on the other side of the fence.
Stop being such a self absorbed twit and realize you're point of view isn't the only one that exists.