Thanks for the non-flamatory comment. These topics seem to easily get out of hand. But this thread has been a pretty good one.
Here's what I'd say has happened with my comments. I would say that my, "Women usually like to be led", is a generality. Especially since I used the word "usually". All that indicates is that more than 50% don't like to be calling the shots. The thing about me is that I am very inquisitive. I want to figure out what women like so that I can be a good companion. It helps me understand what they mean when they communicate. So I've directly asked many women the basic question of whether they see themselves as preferring to be leaders or followers. I even chat with women in the corporate world about this. I work for a large company in a headquarters building where there are a lot of women. By and large women's outlook on life is very similar.
Some women may be tom-boys and others may be girly-girls and everything in between. The vast majority of women tend to be social creatures. Women like to look nice, dress well and smell good just because they are women and that's how they are geared (not just to impress). Women tend to doubt themselves and the decisions they make. Most women prefer to ask several trusted friends for their opinion on what they are trying to decide about (if it seems like a major decision to them). Most women tend to be extremely good at things that require detail-orientation. Women are very persistent and thourough (good bug finders).
This stuff is true. It's just plain true. I've seen several surveys to back it up (no I don't have a link handy).
What I'm getting at here is that I think SlashChick and Elley and others girls of the same mindset are unique among women. You'd like to convince me that most women are hard-driving business owners. I'm just not seeing it. Most women don't even care about that. I've known a lot of women (and I'm tuned in to this stuff because it interests me) who end up getting offered a safe, secure, high paying job and they turn it down because they don't want the stress. Women hate stressful situations! You'd probably agree with that. But you are a unique girl who is going against the grain. When people make comments like I have it rubs you the wrong way. That's probably the reason for the reaction I get from a few women when I make comments like this. Don't blame men for this either. Men didn't make the grain go this way. If men and women were equally inclined to lead an equillibrium would have been reached.
Most women preferred to be taken the way I've described. The other group of women find these assumptions very frustrating and prohibitive to them. Is that correct?
A stereotype isn't something you say about an individual. . . A stereotype is a broad generalization about a group of people.
You're being too narrow-minded. A stereotype can be used many ways. It can be used about groups, individuals, objects or situations.
For instance what would be wrong with saying, "In general, VBA is used to write small single-user apps and should not be used for large projects." That is NOT a statement about groups of individuals. However is is definately a useful stereotype.
Or consider this one, "In general, users who never take their work home with them and always work at their desk do not need a laptop." That, once again, is a very helpful stereotype. It gets across wisdom that will be correct 95% of the time.
Or consider the original stereotype, "Women usually like to be led." This also, for whatever reason, happens to be true and helpful in 2006. A manager may have a worker (as I once did) who doesn't want to be given a general idea and then have it be left up to them to figure out a creative solution. She wanted a list of items to work on and a step-by-step of exactly how I expected her to execute them.
You certainly do have your own small business. I applaud you and envy you. You started it from scratch by recognizing an opportunity from the needs of a consulting client you had. You enjoy working long hours and being an expert at what you do. You enjoy developing deep relationships with friends of both genders. You enjoy entertainment of many types (computer games, scenic drives in your Miata, pleasing your customers and employees).
You would do well in the future to refrain from stereotypes.
No, I would not. Stereotypes are helpful. They help people understand the way things are most of the time. For instance, there are times, although rare, when the last thing you want is to see a certain friend. There are times when your Miata lets you down and you don't feel like taking it for a nice Sunday drive. There are times when you'd rather not play xBox with a friend.
So does that mean that the above description of you is not acurate? It's a stereotype of who SlashChick is. But it would be helpful if I had a friend who was meeting you for the first time. They'd understand how to take you. How to read you. Sure, you may be having a bad day and one or two of those things may be reversed. But overall my friend will be very glad I shared my stereotype of you before he meets you.
A stereotype is only a stereotype. Some people get that confused and try to prove to everyone that a stereotype is not a universal truth. We all know that. But stereotypes are very useful.
Plus the whole post taps into this line of thinking that all women want to have children
My goodness. I was careful to say, "Women USUALLY like to be led." And of those women that USUALLY like to be led, "They would much rather take care of their newborn . .."
If you'd actually read the post you'd realize it was fair to those women who are unusual.
ATTENTION ALL WORKING WOMEN:
US GUYS REALIZE THAT YOU ARE SPECIAL AND UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT AND SMART ALL THAT JAZZ. BUT WE ALSO CAN'T HELP BUT NOTICE THE VARIOUS SIMILARITIES AMONG EACH OF YOU. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT YOU AREN'T ALL CLONES. WE KNOW THAT.
I would be terrible at being a housewife. . . so I'm glad that I have the opportunity to not be one.
Then . . . What I'm for is the choice of everyone to do what they want.
I'm happy for you that you live in a country that gives you the opportunity to do what you want (ie: not be a housewife). I completely agree with your point. I hope your country stays that way and that other countries learn from that example.
Don't be silly. Of course everyone is different. Duh.
Is it true that most women like being with kids more than most men do? Yes, absolutely. So my logic and my overall point stands strong.
My wife is better at raising kids. And she's glad to have a husband that's good at writing reports for the CFO. I work to get paid. My family needs a stream of income to survive. Someone's got to focus on taking care of the kids and somebody else has to focus on making money so the family can afford the things a family needs.
Wouldn't it be stupid to have my wife go to work when she's better at being a housewife than I am? Wouldn't it be stupid to have me be a househusband if I'm better suited to go off to work and make money?
The problem is that people don't want to have to work. They need to work. Know why? One reason is that they are single. The other reason is that they are married but realize that there's a 50% chance they will be single again.
But what would the world be like if neither men or women had to work? We would all persue the things we believe are most valuable. Right?
It would definately be hard work. But it probably would never involve moving up the corporate ladder. Stop trying to be equal to others and start thinking about what you as an individual can do to contribute most as a human on this planet earth.
It's absurd to think that one needs to be at a certain level of the corporate ladder to be able to contribute in the special way that only they can as a unique person.
Yet somehow this difference does not extend to the workplace
Women are better at school than men are. The problem is that school doesn't work like the corporate world does. People who succeed in running a business learn that mistakes are wonderful learning opportunities. School teaches that mistakes are bad and you are punished for making them. People who are good at business are rewarded for creative thinking. People who are good in school are punished for not doing it the way the teacher said to even if the result is technically correct.
By-and-large, women are good at details and strictly following step by step instructions. There is no step-by-step instruction book for building a successful business. Schools are run mostly by women. No wonder women do better in school. School is geared for the female brain.
Guys don't like school because they aren't good at it and generally are wondering to themselves, "why do I need to learn poetry to build a good business." Many guys aren't going to buy some petite school-teacher's argument about why poetry can help them. They're gonna skip college or leave college after the first year and get on whith their own business. Many people of this mentality succeed. The step-by-step people get hired to work for high-school grad business owners.
People seem to forget that running a business is something you have to create for yourself. Nobody hands you an instant CEO scholarship because you got a 4.0 gpa.
The thing I find interesting about your post is that you seem to think that the large majority of women are natural leaders and enjoy being in the position of making all of the decisions (for themselves or others). From what I've found, women seem to act this way while in college (because they are "pushed" to act this way). After a year or two of working in the real world they quickly figure out what they really want.
And it really has nothing to do with career opportunities. Know what it is? They want to do something with real importance.
Writing another report for the CFO is not important. Having and raising children is. Plus it's more fun and fulfilling. And yes, it's very difficult and challenging work. Women do a better job than men. They gravitate toward it because they are successful at it and enjoy it.
Also, we need to stop thinking of women as being pushed into things. Women usually like to be led. Led into things they enjoy. They want their husband to suggest that they stay home with the new baby. They would much rather take care of their newborn than go back to their stress-filled jobs. The problem is that their husband pushes them to work because he is a lousy money manager and can't afford to have her stay at home.
None of those things are applicable to writing business applications.
It defines what you refer to as a business app. Nobody in their right mind writes custom accounting apps anymore. But it definately does benefits any development effort to understand operating systems, language theory and hardware archetecture.
Consider the project I am presently working on. It is a business intellegence reporting suite. Sounds about as generic as "business apps" come, right? Yes, except for the fact that we had to select the correct programming language, DB cube technology, DB engine, and hardware archetecture for the system. Because we went with.Net for the language we also decided to get a machine that supported a highly threadable system. We had to determine where each of the servers for the DB, Cube, Reports, and website went. On the same box or all on separate boxes? In the end we decided to put them on the same 8 core 64bit box but have 3 identical boxes behind a load balancer.
Now we weren't writing our own OS or designing our own load balancer. But we had to have knowledge about the uses and theories behind each. There would have been many combinations of solutions that would have been ill suited to the task at hand. A complete understanding of the theories and technologies available really benefited my employer ($6 billion company).
None of those things are applicable to writing business applications.
What you probably meant by that is that you would prefer that the term "computer scientist" describe the person who invents those solutions and engineers them from scratch. But in-depth knowledge of "those things" definately IS "applicable" to properly designing and implementing high performance biz apps.
Thank goodness there are people who understand that moving forward involves risk but it's worth it. Even if Vista is a complete bomb like WinMe MS will learn and improve, hence XP. XP is better than any previous MS OS. There are always pros and cons with moving forward. But when it comes to Windows there have been many more pros than cons.
Boy, I'm gonna get killed for this post (and I don't work for MS).
Since when do you need a computer "scientist" to program a business application?
Since you decided that you want to get your money's worth out of the developer you hire. A properly trained professional with advanced experience will write a better product. It will be more maintainable and scalable.
I wonder if/.ers will be mad about XPS just like they don't like the Mono project. When an open project is created that allows Microsoft products to be used on Linux the Linux people don't like it. Why do you think that is?
So you're saying that you could get something to work properly in Office 2004 that he couldn't get to work properly in 2002 or 2003? Sounds like MS fixed the problem in 2004. Not that the Mac version has more features.
And if you say that the Mac OS allows native printing to PDF that's not an extra feature of the mac version of MS Word. That's an extra feature of the OS.
Just the very fact that the mac version of any office tool is available sometimes more than a year after the Windows version means that at any given time the Mac version may be a whole version older than the Windows version.
OSX is different but not necessarily more intuitive. Mac people seem to think that the mac has almost no learning curve. They think of that commercial of a baby figuring out what the mouse is for. Okay, you've got a one-button mouse. That's a lot different than a financial analyst (or reporter) crunching numbers with pivot tables in MS Excel. A baby can't do that. And the one-button mouse doesn't help either. The only difference between Excel on a mac and a pc is that the mac version doesn't have as many features as the pc version. This isn't a flame starter. It's just proof of why a PC user would possibly have a hard time on a mac. Plus, when it really comes down to it, the GUIs between the two are basically the same except things are named differently and in different places. All the core features are about the same. Remember, I said GIUs. I'm not talking about iPods or networking, etc.
Having worked in retail I can honestly say nobody ever asked me if that palm I was selling them came with a windows based OS . . .
Very interesting. It must mean that people don't care. Which means that nobody has a beef with the Microsoft mobile OS. And even though MS makes the mobile OS preferred by the large majority, MS continues to innovate with their mobile OS.
Watch the haters with their head in the sand say something like, "Oh, well we'll see if this is really innovation or if it's just another bug-filled DRM'd release that the government uses to spy on you."
hate having to write the same program 3 times for 3 different OSs. Or writing all this extra web code so that the site will run under the top 3 browsers.
It seems that all this extra work would drive up the cost of a piece of software too. Any thoughts on why it would/wouldn't?
Linux needs more than activists to spread. It needs a sales force of sorts to make deals with developing nations and businesses. Linux needs business people pushing the solutions and making deals to get the product into mainstream usage.
No, just anti-dual-boot. Microsoft makes their product more secure and people want to say it's anti-competitive. It's like saying that the locks on your house are anti-neighbor. Oh that's so horrible! You have anti-neighbor devices installed in your house!!! You must want to destroy all of your neighbors. It's just sick that you care about your family, safety and privacy so much that you would deny everybody access to your house!
I think it's crap that they give you a $200 voucher for the Apple store. If the consumer overpaid give them their money back. Not a flippin' voucher.
So to answer your question, if MS did the same thing for their buggy software, users would just get a voucher to purchase more MS products that they may or may not really want.
Microsoft and eBay are victims of their own success. They played the game and shut down every other player. They won. Now they are on top and seemingly nobody can touch them. The problem is that they are now making the rules. And to everybody else, that doesn't seem fair.
Now Google has made their own game and a lot of people are playing it. Google is making new rules. Everybody's happy about that because they have a choice now. But the day will come when people don't want to play by eBay's, Microsoft's or Google's rules. People will once again feel trapped and left with no good optios. Then google will be evil and the newest significant startup will be the hero.
Google is owned by the stockholders just like MS and eBay. The same greed for money will become more and more obvious to anybody who isn't love-sick.
What would really be sweet is if you could buy the new cpu for $100 or so and install it yourself. Then you wouldn't have to buy a new console and it would appeal to the uber-geeks who love to take stuff apart and upgrade anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for the non-flamatory comment. These topics seem to easily get out of hand. But this thread has been a pretty good one.
Here's what I'd say has happened with my comments. I would say that my, "Women usually like to be led", is a generality. Especially since I used the word "usually". All that indicates is that more than 50% don't like to be calling the shots. The thing about me is that I am very inquisitive. I want to figure out what women like so that I can be a good companion. It helps me understand what they mean when they communicate. So I've directly asked many women the basic question of whether they see themselves as preferring to be leaders or followers. I even chat with women in the corporate world about this. I work for a large company in a headquarters building where there are a lot of women. By and large women's outlook on life is very similar.
Some women may be tom-boys and others may be girly-girls and everything in between. The vast majority of women tend to be social creatures. Women like to look nice, dress well and smell good just because they are women and that's how they are geared (not just to impress). Women tend to doubt themselves and the decisions they make. Most women prefer to ask several trusted friends for their opinion on what they are trying to decide about (if it seems like a major decision to them). Most women tend to be extremely good at things that require detail-orientation. Women are very persistent and thourough (good bug finders).
This stuff is true. It's just plain true. I've seen several surveys to back it up (no I don't have a link handy).
What I'm getting at here is that I think SlashChick and Elley and others girls of the same mindset are unique among women. You'd like to convince me that most women are hard-driving business owners. I'm just not seeing it. Most women don't even care about that. I've known a lot of women (and I'm tuned in to this stuff because it interests me) who end up getting offered a safe, secure, high paying job and they turn it down because they don't want the stress. Women hate stressful situations! You'd probably agree with that. But you are a unique girl who is going against the grain. When people make comments like I have it rubs you the wrong way. That's probably the reason for the reaction I get from a few women when I make comments like this. Don't blame men for this either. Men didn't make the grain go this way. If men and women were equally inclined to lead an equillibrium would have been reached.
Most women preferred to be taken the way I've described. The other group of women find these assumptions very frustrating and prohibitive to them. Is that correct?
A stereotype isn't something you say about an individual. . . A stereotype is a broad generalization about a group of people.
You're being too narrow-minded. A stereotype can be used many ways. It can be used about groups, individuals, objects or situations.
For instance what would be wrong with saying, "In general, VBA is used to write small single-user apps and should not be used for large projects." That is NOT a statement about groups of individuals. However is is definately a useful stereotype.
Or consider this one, "In general, users who never take their work home with them and always work at their desk do not need a laptop." That, once again, is a very helpful stereotype. It gets across wisdom that will be correct 95% of the time.
Or consider the original stereotype, "Women usually like to be led." This also, for whatever reason, happens to be true and helpful in 2006. A manager may have a worker (as I once did) who doesn't want to be given a general idea and then have it be left up to them to figure out a creative solution. She wanted a list of items to work on and a step-by-step of exactly how I expected her to execute them.
So you believe that the mechanism of a stereotype never serves any useful purpouse under any condition?
You certainly do have your own small business. I applaud you and envy you. You started it from scratch by recognizing an opportunity from the needs of a consulting client you had. You enjoy working long hours and being an expert at what you do. You enjoy developing deep relationships with friends of both genders. You enjoy entertainment of many types (computer games, scenic drives in your Miata, pleasing your customers and employees).
You would do well in the future to refrain from stereotypes.
No, I would not. Stereotypes are helpful. They help people understand the way things are most of the time. For instance, there are times, although rare, when the last thing you want is to see a certain friend. There are times when your Miata lets you down and you don't feel like taking it for a nice Sunday drive. There are times when you'd rather not play xBox with a friend.
So does that mean that the above description of you is not acurate? It's a stereotype of who SlashChick is. But it would be helpful if I had a friend who was meeting you for the first time. They'd understand how to take you. How to read you. Sure, you may be having a bad day and one or two of those things may be reversed. But overall my friend will be very glad I shared my stereotype of you before he meets you.
A stereotype is only a stereotype. Some people get that confused and try to prove to everyone that a stereotype is not a universal truth. We all know that. But stereotypes are very useful.
Plus the whole post taps into this line of thinking that all women want to have children
."
My goodness. I was careful to say, "Women USUALLY like to be led." And of those women that USUALLY like to be led, "They would much rather take care of their newborn . .
If you'd actually read the post you'd realize it was fair to those women who are unusual.
ATTENTION ALL WORKING WOMEN:
US GUYS REALIZE THAT YOU ARE SPECIAL AND UNIQUE AND DIFFERENT AND SMART ALL THAT JAZZ. BUT WE ALSO CAN'T HELP BUT NOTICE THE VARIOUS SIMILARITIES AMONG EACH OF YOU. PLEASE STOP TRYING TO CONVINCE US THAT YOU AREN'T ALL CLONES. WE KNOW THAT.
I would be terrible at being a housewife. . . so I'm glad that I have the opportunity to not be one.
Then . . .
What I'm for is the choice of everyone to do what they want.
I'm happy for you that you live in a country that gives you the opportunity to do what you want (ie: not be a housewife). I completely agree with your point. I hope your country stays that way and that other countries learn from that example.
Don't be silly. Of course everyone is different. Duh.
Is it true that most women like being with kids more than most men do? Yes, absolutely. So my logic and my overall point stands strong.
My wife is better at raising kids. And she's glad to have a husband that's good at writing reports for the CFO. I work to get paid. My family needs a stream of income to survive. Someone's got to focus on taking care of the kids and somebody else has to focus on making money so the family can afford the things a family needs.
Wouldn't it be stupid to have my wife go to work when she's better at being a housewife than I am? Wouldn't it be stupid to have me be a househusband if I'm better suited to go off to work and make money?
The problem is that people don't want to have to work. They need to work. Know why? One reason is that they are single. The other reason is that they are married but realize that there's a 50% chance they will be single again.
But what would the world be like if neither men or women had to work? We would all persue the things we believe are most valuable. Right?
It would definately be hard work. But it probably would never involve moving up the corporate ladder. Stop trying to be equal to others and start thinking about what you as an individual can do to contribute most as a human on this planet earth.
It's absurd to think that one needs to be at a certain level of the corporate ladder to be able to contribute in the special way that only they can as a unique person.
Yet somehow this difference does not extend to the workplace
Women are better at school than men are. The problem is that school doesn't work like the corporate world does. People who succeed in running a business learn that mistakes are wonderful learning opportunities. School teaches that mistakes are bad and you are punished for making them. People who are good at business are rewarded for creative thinking. People who are good in school are punished for not doing it the way the teacher said to even if the result is technically correct.
By-and-large, women are good at details and strictly following step by step instructions. There is no step-by-step instruction book for building a successful business. Schools are run mostly by women. No wonder women do better in school. School is geared for the female brain.
Guys don't like school because they aren't good at it and generally are wondering to themselves, "why do I need to learn poetry to build a good business." Many guys aren't going to buy some petite school-teacher's argument about why poetry can help them. They're gonna skip college or leave college after the first year and get on whith their own business. Many people of this mentality succeed. The step-by-step people get hired to work for high-school grad business owners.
People seem to forget that running a business is something you have to create for yourself. Nobody hands you an instant CEO scholarship because you got a 4.0 gpa.
The thing I find interesting about your post is that you seem to think that the large majority of women are natural leaders and enjoy being in the position of making all of the decisions (for themselves or others). From what I've found, women seem to act this way while in college (because they are "pushed" to act this way). After a year or two of working in the real world they quickly figure out what they really want.
And it really has nothing to do with career opportunities. Know what it is? They want to do something with real importance.
Writing another report for the CFO is not important. Having and raising children is. Plus it's more fun and fulfilling. And yes, it's very difficult and challenging work. Women do a better job than men. They gravitate toward it because they are successful at it and enjoy it.
Also, we need to stop thinking of women as being pushed into things. Women usually like to be led. Led into things they enjoy. They want their husband to suggest that they stay home with the new baby. They would much rather take care of their newborn than go back to their stress-filled jobs. The problem is that their husband pushes them to work because he is a lousy money manager and can't afford to have her stay at home.
None of those things are applicable to writing business applications.
.Net for the language we also decided to get a machine that supported a highly threadable system. We had to determine where each of the servers for the DB, Cube, Reports, and website went. On the same box or all on separate boxes? In the end we decided to put them on the same 8 core 64bit box but have 3 identical boxes behind a load balancer.
It defines what you refer to as a business app. Nobody in their right mind writes custom accounting apps anymore. But it definately does benefits any development effort to understand operating systems, language theory and hardware archetecture.
Consider the project I am presently working on. It is a business intellegence reporting suite. Sounds about as generic as "business apps" come, right? Yes, except for the fact that we had to select the correct programming language, DB cube technology, DB engine, and hardware archetecture for the system. Because we went with
Now we weren't writing our own OS or designing our own load balancer. But we had to have knowledge about the uses and theories behind each. There would have been many combinations of solutions that would have been ill suited to the task at hand. A complete understanding of the theories and technologies available really benefited my employer ($6 billion company).
None of those things are applicable to writing business applications.
What you probably meant by that is that you would prefer that the term "computer scientist" describe the person who invents those solutions and engineers them from scratch. But in-depth knowledge of "those things" definately IS "applicable" to properly designing and implementing high performance biz apps.
Thank goodness there are people who understand that moving forward involves risk but it's worth it. Even if Vista is a complete bomb like WinMe MS will learn and improve, hence XP. XP is better than any previous MS OS. There are always pros and cons with moving forward. But when it comes to Windows there have been many more pros than cons.
Boy, I'm gonna get killed for this post (and I don't work for MS).
Since when do you need a computer "scientist" to program a business application?
Since you decided that you want to get your money's worth out of the developer you hire. A properly trained professional with advanced experience will write a better product. It will be more maintainable and scalable.
I'm just curious to know what you'd day are the current gimmicks that MS uses?
I wonder if /.ers will be mad about XPS just like they don't like the Mono project. When an open project is created that allows Microsoft products to be used on Linux the Linux people don't like it. Why do you think that is?
So you're saying that you could get something to work properly in Office 2004 that he couldn't get to work properly in 2002 or 2003? Sounds like MS fixed the problem in 2004. Not that the Mac version has more features.
And if you say that the Mac OS allows native printing to PDF that's not an extra feature of the mac version of MS Word. That's an extra feature of the OS.
Just the very fact that the mac version of any office tool is available sometimes more than a year after the Windows version means that at any given time the Mac version may be a whole version older than the Windows version.
OSX is different but not necessarily more intuitive. Mac people seem to think that the mac has almost no learning curve. They think of that commercial of a baby figuring out what the mouse is for. Okay, you've got a one-button mouse. That's a lot different than a financial analyst (or reporter) crunching numbers with pivot tables in MS Excel. A baby can't do that. And the one-button mouse doesn't help either. The only difference between Excel on a mac and a pc is that the mac version doesn't have as many features as the pc version. This isn't a flame starter. It's just proof of why a PC user would possibly have a hard time on a mac. Plus, when it really comes down to it, the GUIs between the two are basically the same except things are named differently and in different places. All the core features are about the same. Remember, I said GIUs. I'm not talking about iPods or networking, etc.
Having worked in retail I can honestly say nobody ever asked me if that palm I was selling them came with a windows based OS . . .
Very interesting. It must mean that people don't care. Which means that nobody has a beef with the Microsoft mobile OS. And even though MS makes the mobile OS preferred by the large majority, MS continues to innovate with their mobile OS.
Watch the haters with their head in the sand say something like, "Oh, well we'll see if this is really innovation or if it's just another bug-filled DRM'd release that the government uses to spy on you."
hate having to write the same program 3 times for 3 different OSs. Or writing all this extra web code so that the site will run under the top 3 browsers.
It seems that all this extra work would drive up the cost of a piece of software too. Any thoughts on why it would/wouldn't?
Linux needs more than activists to spread. It needs a sales force of sorts to make deals with developing nations and businesses. Linux needs business people pushing the solutions and making deals to get the product into mainstream usage.
"You could look at BitLocker as anti-Linux. . . "
No, just anti-dual-boot. Microsoft makes their product more secure and people want to say it's anti-competitive. It's like saying that the locks on your house are anti-neighbor. Oh that's so horrible! You have anti-neighbor devices installed in your house!!! You must want to destroy all of your neighbors. It's just sick that you care about your family, safety and privacy so much that you would deny everybody access to your house!
to a quality open source product! Whatever Apache is doing development and management-wise, don't change a thing!
I think it's crap that they give you a $200 voucher for the Apple store. If the consumer overpaid give them their money back. Not a flippin' voucher.
So to answer your question, if MS did the same thing for their buggy software, users would just get a voucher to purchase more MS products that they may or may not really want.
Microsoft and eBay are victims of their own success. They played the game and shut down every other player. They won. Now they are on top and seemingly nobody can touch them. The problem is that they are now making the rules. And to everybody else, that doesn't seem fair.
Now Google has made their own game and a lot of people are playing it. Google is making new rules. Everybody's happy about that because they have a choice now. But the day will come when people don't want to play by eBay's, Microsoft's or Google's rules. People will once again feel trapped and left with no good optios. Then google will be evil and the newest significant startup will be the hero.
Google is owned by the stockholders just like MS and eBay. The same greed for money will become more and more obvious to anybody who isn't love-sick.
Now we finally know what the "e" stands for in eBay. Yep you guessed it, "Evil". If you're not on Google's side you must be wrong.
What would really be sweet is if you could buy the new cpu for $100 or so and install it yourself. Then you wouldn't have to buy a new console and it would appeal to the uber-geeks who love to take stuff apart and upgrade anyway.