... as much as the next person, but I think it's unfair from reading TFA to call arrogant on them.
These quotes come from a company conference - and this guy is just giving a 'rallying the troops' type speech. He's not telling Google to keep out of Enterprise searches, he's telling his own staff that they are going to (try to) keep Google out of that market (good luck!). There's a big difference.
You can be sure that at a Google company conference, Turner's counterpart is telling their staff that Enterprise searches are their right and they are going to take them from MS.
The replies to your post suggest that you are wrong and that GnuCash is pro-European.
But as a European user of GnuCash, I know exactly what you are talking about - Tax.
The tax options on GnuCash are very American - I haven't a clue what any of that stuff is in the tax options. And of course, the biggy V.A.T. is a real PitA to resolve - you can do it by having 3 (or more correctly 5) different accounts to which you post the various different VAT types. But when it comes to paying back the V.A.T. the calculations can be a little hairy. Granted the problem is with way the V.A.T. is done - but the way it is, is the way it is and I'm sure someone someday will write a patch or something.
It's the only thing I miss from QuickBooks - the rest can burn in hell for it's anti-Linux policy.
The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so.
Seemingly innocuous comedy remarks are (potentially) the start of something more sinister. When you want to commit genocide or subjugate a people (this is not a HOWTO) - you don't start by building concentration camps, you start by pointing how someone's nose is a slightly different shape or that their accent has an odd twang. Add in some (freely available) stupid people and Tom's your uncle.
It certainly sounds right - but I don't think that's the way it will pan out.
The whole ODF pressure that MS is experiencing is coming from Government level initiatives to avoid proprietary formats. Your average Government worker will be trained in this and follow the procedure in a totally mindless fashion.
However, (1) Public bodies will think nothing of spending millions to test the ODF plug-ins and if Microsoft's offering doesn't match precisely the requirements it will get the boot - Microsoft money or not. Sneaky tricks like this might work for the insignificant individual with one PC and no voice - but when you have all the time in the world and a seemingly unlimited budget, no one is going to put their head on the block and sign off on something that doesn't work. (2) The powers-that-be will want to know why a process has been established that requires complex decisions to be made at lower levels (append virus yes or no?), and why the process is so complex in the first place when cheaper options that comply fully with the original requirements are available.
Fortunately we've become kind of accustomed to complaints from the blogosphere and from geeks, which is generally where this line of pressure comes from. We're pretty good at picking out the points that are important to us and really just letting the others go.
Having wombled around the Firefox support site for awhile looking for answers to memory issues, I came to the conclusion that there was a certain level of disinterest in problems that were less than exicting to fix; more so, than other OSS projects. (I fully accept the subjectiveness)
This snippet sort of ties in with this feeling.
Sure, OSS developers can do what they like - I'm not paying them so I don't have much right to complain, fair enough.
But if you want to compete against MS, who are too customer focused then maybe a balance needs to be found which doesn't involve letting so many go.
Door manufacturers don't leave big holes in their doors.
Microsoft is not dealing with a highly skilled or security aware customer base, so they should be more security conscious, not less. However, they are driven more by marketing requirements than security.
GAIM is built secure from the bottom up - MSN is built glitzy from the top down.
It's not good enough to say "well it's the stupid users - let god sort them out" - that way we just leave everyone open to distributed attacks.
Microsoft have continually taken good products and protocols - bloated the life out of them with redundant features that their fanboys cite as examples of their superiority and use as sticks to beat genuinely superier products like Gaim with. The net result, as ever, software that can turn your computer from 0 to zombie in 60 seconds.
I don't like Gaim, but there is no denying that it does the job is said it would, which is the job it should be doing - instant messaging. It is far better to do one job well, than a thousand badly - but when you are trying to grab every market available that's the inevitable consequence. And the next inevitable consequence is clearly visible in TFA.
GAIM is obviously a load of complete rubbish because it doesn't support this functionality.
GoogleTalk deserves the same ire - you can't do anything with that except send instant messages - that's not what IM was invented for. Harumph! What would Google know about the Internet, anyway.
When will these people learn (as Microsoft have) that not being allowed to destroy our own machines and everyone else we know and spend days trying to get back to where we were is not a feature - it's clearly a bug. We enjoy rebuilding operating systems!
If you compare like with like - for example, the EU which would have similar qualities to those listed in the original article - then the deficit spending makes a huge difference.
(BTW I'm not being critical of the US policy - just comparing it).
This benefits the startup, firstly, because the deficit is run up against government expenditure - and (as in the EU) government funding of projects always allows for generous budgets (wastage); thereby providing good capital for the investment in the non-core or business development aspects of the startup.
Secondly, a lot of investment is in military development, which is always good for a high-tech startup as there is access to good funding and non-civilian technology as well as a willingness to fund the more risky projects.
I think (being critical), however, that the grandparent's point was that there is a relationship between the ability to support this deficit and the international oil market - which many might see as having too strong an influence on American foreign policy.
In the comments above I don't see anyone denying the statistics. What I do see I suggestions that there might be a sinister reason behind the statistics - i.e. that they might not be just down to a change in user preferences but to the application of vast financial and marketing resources.
For free software, the only thing likely to cause an increase in market share is that it is better than the commercial version.
Manipulating the market doesn't result in better product (which should cause sadness), releasing better a product does (which should cause happiness).
The idealized vision of reality that you are presenting and the actual reality faced by home users - or to use your terminology the "lazy" and "ignorant" - are two totally different things.
Unfortuntately, malware writers do not look at what should or could be the case, they look at what is the case. And it doesn't matter if NTFS is the most secure system in the world - if it's not used properly (because of the way it is deployed) then it is useless.
A most common malware scenario - especially with Windows (it being one of their target markets), is the home user where Mom, Dad and 14 Year old Peggy-Sue are all using the same computer.
[please reverse gender roles to taste]
Peggy-Sue is chatting with her mates, downloading everything that moves and clicking OK all over the shop.
Dad has his important files in his home directory and Mom never touches the computer except at Christmas for cards (and God help Dad if she can't get that done).
On a secure OS - at least one with proper file system security Peggy-Sue can pack her account with all kinds of nasties, and Dad's still safe as houses.
Maybe I'm just confusing myself - but it works out in my head a bit like this:
1. Every future version of Word is going to get more complex and hence slower than the existing one - so the claims of slowness apply to them as well. This won't be a problem, because the processor/resources will increase to handle it (or the other way around). But if we're comparing formats, Word 97 probably looks quite fast compared to the current bloat monster.
2. ODF will probably not take on much extra complexity - mainly because it will be trying to maintain interoperability. This restriction will be touted by Microsoft as a disadvantage. But who cares - most people don't use the 'cool' features of Word at moment anyway, so they're unlikely to need the 3D holographic direct neural link OLE objects or whatever other nonsense they contrive in the future. And anyway they'll probably be available as extensions, which, as they won't change the core format, won't affect the speed (unless you actually use them).
So yes maybe it is slower, but the same processor enhancements that will just allow Word to run are going to make ODF pretty slick.
Sceondly, yes we can all make wild predictions about what could happen (and in the case of Microsoft, you'd probably be right) - however, when a 'security expert' sacrifices his job, it's a little more than idle pub talk.
It a bit like the difference between telling everybody about the trifecta that you knew would come in and actually going down the bookies and laying down your money.
I agree, working in OO the other night, I wanted a different header for the front page. I've been using OO since its early versions but there are still some things I haven't got to grips with yet and this was one of them.
Instincts (derived from using Word for too many years) tell me to insert a section and disconnect the headers from the previous sections. I tried and it just makes a complete mess - OO couldn't be this bad could it.
Then decided to bite the bullet and RTFM.
Go to the page, open page styles and select 'first page'. Once I'd done it, it just made so much sense. The Word way is just plain stupid.
Most of the techniques that we have gotten from the Windows/Office world were hard won and difficult to give up, but that doesn't make them right.
I was reading a Dilbert strip there recently where the PHB was interviewing candidates by showing them his junk mail and asking them what they would do with it.
Another couple of candidates and he would get through his inbox.
Hackwrench's extremely simple point was missed completely.
If Labour Unions - as in groups of similiar people banding together to protect their individual (money) rights - is communistic(?), then how is a company - as in a group of people banding together to protect their individual (money) rights - not?
Seems to me that you don't get more capitalistic(?) than Labour unions (lawyers, doctors and employers unions included).
But then the ironically communism has become the opium of the people. People will take any amount of shit, as long as you tell them that the only other choice is to be a red-blooded marxist.
Slashdot Mirror
Has anyone heard of this CVS thingy? - it sounds like a really neat new tool!
... as much as the next person, but I think it's unfair from reading TFA to call arrogant on them.
These quotes come from a company conference - and this guy is just giving a 'rallying the troops' type speech. He's not telling Google to keep out of Enterprise searches, he's telling his own staff that they are going to (try to) keep Google out of that market (good luck!). There's a big difference.
You can be sure that at a Google company conference, Turner's counterpart is telling their staff that Enterprise searches are their right and they are going to take them from MS.
The replies to your post suggest that you are wrong and that GnuCash is pro-European.
But as a European user of GnuCash, I know exactly what you are talking about - Tax.
The tax options on GnuCash are very American - I haven't a clue what any of that stuff is in the tax options. And of course, the biggy V.A.T. is a real PitA to resolve - you can do it by having 3 (or more correctly 5) different accounts to which you post the various different VAT types. But when it comes to paying back the V.A.T. the calculations can be a little hairy. Granted the problem is with way the V.A.T. is done - but the way it is, is the way it is and I'm sure someone someday will write a patch or something.
It's the only thing I miss from QuickBooks - the rest can burn in hell for it's anti-Linux policy.
Let's assume:
You are watching 1 hour of Television a day.
Ads on US television, 3 minutes every 10 minutes - rough estimate.
1 x 6 x 3 x 365 = 6570 minutes per annum = 109 hours per annum.
What's your time worth $10/hour (conservative figure)?
So that's $1090 p.a. for pretty crappy programming vs £150 p.a for what is without a doubt the best television in the world.
You've been had, mate!
The problem with free speech is that some people don't know that just because you have a right to speak freely, doesn't mean that you have a obligation to do so.
Seemingly innocuous comedy remarks are (potentially) the start of something more sinister. When you want to commit genocide or subjugate a people (this is not a HOWTO) - you don't start by building concentration camps, you start by pointing how someone's nose is a slightly different shape or that their accent has an odd twang. Add in some (freely available) stupid people and Tom's your uncle.
It certainly sounds right - but I don't think that's the way it will pan out.
The whole ODF pressure that MS is experiencing is coming from Government level initiatives to avoid proprietary formats. Your average Government worker will be trained in this and follow the procedure in a totally mindless fashion.
However,
(1) Public bodies will think nothing of spending millions to test the ODF plug-ins and if Microsoft's offering doesn't match precisely the requirements it will get the boot - Microsoft money or not. Sneaky tricks like this might work for the insignificant individual with one PC and no voice - but when you have all the time in the world and a seemingly unlimited budget, no one is going to put their head on the block and sign off on something that doesn't work.
(2) The powers-that-be will want to know why a process has been established that requires complex decisions to be made at lower levels (append virus yes or no?), and why the process is so complex in the first place when cheaper options that comply fully with the original requirements are available.
Time will tell.
Having wombled around the Firefox support site for awhile looking for answers to memory issues, I came to the conclusion that there was a certain level of disinterest in problems that were less than exicting to fix; more so, than other OSS projects. (I fully accept the subjectiveness)
This snippet sort of ties in with this feeling.
Sure, OSS developers can do what they like - I'm not paying them so I don't have much right to complain, fair enough.
But if you want to compete against MS, who are too customer focused then maybe a balance needs to be found which doesn't involve letting so many go.
The quote isn't quite right either. She said someone 'accused of shoplifting'...
I thought it a bit odd that a judge would leave something hanging like that - i.e that IBM were guilty, but that SCO couldn't prove it.
Door manufacturers don't leave big holes in their doors.
Microsoft is not dealing with a highly skilled or security aware customer base, so they should be more security conscious, not less. However, they are driven more by marketing requirements than security.
GAIM is built secure from the bottom up - MSN is built glitzy from the top down.
It's not good enough to say "well it's the stupid users - let god sort them out" - that way we just leave everyone open to distributed attacks.
[Taking of my sarcastic hat.]
Microsoft have continually taken good products and protocols - bloated the life out of them with redundant features that their fanboys cite as examples of their superiority and use as sticks to beat genuinely superier products like Gaim with. The net result, as ever, software that can turn your computer from 0 to zombie in 60 seconds.
I don't like Gaim, but there is no denying that it does the job is said it would, which is the job it should be doing - instant messaging. It is far better to do one job well, than a thousand badly - but when you are trying to grab every market available that's the inevitable consequence. And the next inevitable consequence is clearly visible in TFA.
GAIM is obviously a load of complete rubbish because it doesn't support this functionality.
GoogleTalk deserves the same ire - you can't do anything with that except send instant messages - that's not what IM was invented for. Harumph! What would Google know about the Internet, anyway.
When will these people learn (as Microsoft have) that not being allowed to destroy our own machines and everyone else we know and spend days trying to get back to where we were is not a feature - it's clearly a bug. We enjoy rebuilding operating systems!
If you compare like with like - for example, the EU which would have similar qualities to those listed in the original article - then the deficit spending makes a huge difference.
(BTW I'm not being critical of the US policy - just comparing it).
This benefits the startup, firstly, because the deficit is run up against government expenditure - and (as in the EU) government funding of projects always allows for generous budgets (wastage); thereby providing good capital for the investment in the non-core or business development aspects of the startup.
Secondly, a lot of investment is in military development, which is always good for a high-tech startup as there is access to good funding and non-civilian technology as well as a willingness to fund the more risky projects.
I think (being critical), however, that the grandparent's point was that there is a relationship between the ability to support this deficit and the international oil market - which many might see as having too strong an influence on American foreign policy.
In the comments above I don't see anyone denying the statistics. What I do see I suggestions that there might be a sinister reason behind the statistics - i.e. that they might not be just down to a change in user preferences but to the application of vast financial and marketing resources.
For free software, the only thing likely to cause an increase in market share is that it is better than the commercial version.
Manipulating the market doesn't result in better product (which should cause sadness), releasing better a product does (which should cause happiness).
Nothing hypocritical there...
...with King George IV; the line of succession will be practically unbroken - as will the insanity.
The idealized vision of reality that you are presenting and the actual reality faced by home users - or to use your terminology the "lazy" and "ignorant" - are two totally different things.
Unfortuntately, malware writers do not look at what should or could be the case, they look at what is the case. And it doesn't matter if NTFS is the most secure system in the world - if it's not used properly (because of the way it is deployed) then it is useless.
A most common malware scenario - especially with Windows (it being one of their target markets), is the home user where Mom, Dad and 14 Year old Peggy-Sue are all using the same computer.
[please reverse gender roles to taste]
Peggy-Sue is chatting with her mates, downloading everything that moves and clicking OK all over the shop.
Dad has his important files in his home directory and Mom never touches the computer except at Christmas for cards (and God help Dad if she can't get that done).
On a secure OS - at least one with proper file system security Peggy-Sue can pack her account with all kinds of nasties, and Dad's still safe as houses.
Windows just doesn't offer that kind of security.
And an exclusive club that hasn't exactly excelled at providing secure applications in the past...
Maybe I'm just confusing myself - but it works out in my head a bit like this:
1. Every future version of Word is going to get more complex and hence slower than the existing one - so the claims of slowness apply to them as well. This won't be a problem, because the processor/resources will increase to handle it (or the other way around). But if we're comparing formats, Word 97 probably looks quite fast compared to the current bloat monster.
2. ODF will probably not take on much extra complexity - mainly because it will be trying to maintain interoperability. This restriction will be touted by Microsoft as a disadvantage. But who cares - most people don't use the 'cool' features of Word at moment anyway, so they're unlikely to need the 3D holographic direct neural link OLE objects or whatever other nonsense they contrive in the future. And anyway they'll probably be available as extensions, which, as they won't change the core format, won't affect the speed (unless you actually use them).
So yes maybe it is slower, but the same processor enhancements that will just allow Word to run are going to make ODF pretty slick.
Firstly, object lesson is absolutely correct.
Sceondly, yes we can all make wild predictions about what could happen (and in the case of Microsoft, you'd probably be right) - however, when a 'security expert' sacrifices his job, it's a little more than idle pub talk.
It a bit like the difference between telling everybody about the trifecta that you knew would come in and actually going down the bookies and laying down your money.
I agree, working in OO the other night, I wanted a different header for the front page. I've been using OO since its early versions but there are still some things I haven't got to grips with yet and this was one of them.
Instincts (derived from using Word for too many years) tell me to insert a section and disconnect the headers from the previous sections. I tried and it just makes a complete mess - OO couldn't be this bad could it.
Then decided to bite the bullet and RTFM.
Go to the page, open page styles and select 'first page'. Once I'd done it, it just made so much sense. The Word way is just plain stupid.
Most of the techniques that we have gotten from the Windows/Office world were hard won and difficult to give up, but that doesn't make them right.
1. Boil Rice for 15 mins on a hot stove
2. Serve with some Fava Beans and a nice Chianti
I was reading a Dilbert strip there recently where the PHB was interviewing candidates by showing them his junk mail and asking them what they would do with it.
Another couple of candidates and he would get through his inbox.
There's an intense feeling of Deja-Vu here.
Hackwrench's extremely simple point was missed completely.
If Labour Unions - as in groups of similiar people banding together to protect their individual (money) rights - is communistic(?), then how is a company - as in a group of people banding together to protect their individual (money) rights - not?
Seems to me that you don't get more capitalistic(?) than Labour unions (lawyers, doctors and employers unions included).
But then the ironically communism has become the opium of the people. People will take any amount of shit, as long as you tell them that the only other choice is to be a red-blooded marxist.
Ballmer: I'm gonna fucking kill Yahoo!
Shareholders: No, Steve - "Merge With"
Ballmer: (Confused Expression) Er-ugh...
Shareholders: M-er-ge w-i-th
Ballmer: (Picks up chair - smiles)
Shareholders: No, Steve - M-eh-her-ge w-i-i-th-h.
...you could be the guy in Fujitsu quality control that has to count them.