It's time for tech reporters to start prepending "Beleaguered" to everything they write about Microsoft, similar to what they used to write Apple. i.e. "Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, today announced it will delay Vista"
or
"Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, will pushed back the launch of Office to coincide with Windows"
or
"Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, announced $8 billion quarterly profits"
With all these columnist bashing, no one stopped to consider that Cringely is the first to look at the Apple/Intel deal from Intel's perspective. Everyone is speculating about what motivates Apple into this deal, but what motivated Intel? Cringely at least stood back and questioned it, which is more than I can say for most of you./er.
not allowing OS X running on custom x86 boxes. They currently sell OS X for $130.00 That's 26% the cost of a Mac mini. My guess is that after all the applications are ported to MacIntel, they'll allow it to compete with Microsoft, not Linux. The side effect is that it will convince Linux users switch too.
Steve Jobs just wants to make sure the news media is listening when he speaks at WWDC. Everytime he makes an appearance, it's preceeded by some controversial rumors.
Everything you say is true.
Maybe I should clarify. Most public websites do not use or even need a lot of Javascript/DOM/CSS/DHTML/XML. There is always exception such as Google Maps and Gmail. Web developer, as opposed to Web designers, mainly work on intranet applications, that supports a define number of users. My point is that, even if this number is in the tens of thousands, I don't find a lot of resistence from my customers when I force them to use Firefox. IE's dominate market share may mean something when your customer base is in the millions, as you say, under different circumstance. But IE's market share is overrated in situation where Javascript/DOM/etc is actually used, because it's much simpler to convince to users to use Firefox. Of course, I'm in the unique position in that I only have to convince a handful of people of the benefits of Firefox and they force it on their employees and customers.
My company and I are doing quite well, thanks. From a professional standpoint, the choice I fell I made correct for employees and customers. Every once in a while, each of us have to stand up on principal and shed our fear of losing money. Try it sometimes.
I develop web service applications for a pretty big printer/mailing facility in Los Angeles, and the web site requires all users to use Firefox (even on Mac). This company service hundreds of other companies, so there are thousands of users. Never once did anyone complain about having to use Firefox. I say web developer should just ignore the IE market share. Out of principal, I'll never again check to see if anything I do works on IE. Screw IE
All I'm saying is that the journalism profession does not have it's ethics all thought out. My personal opinion is that a reporter should publish what a whisle blower says, if it serves the public good. But he should not publish company trade secrets obtain through illegal means. For all these newspapers to come out and defend their profession without differentiating between the two scenario above indicates to me that a lot of newspapers have not considered the ethical obligations of their profession.
The real question is: what are a journalist's ethical obligations? If a journalist/blogger obtain trade secrets from someone he knows stole those information from Apple, should be be allowed to profit from it by publishing it? Stock brokers aren't allowed to profit from insider information, so why should a journalist profit from insider information that he knows is stolen?
Slashdot Mirror
ponders lawsuit against Linux
It's time for tech reporters to start prepending "Beleaguered" to everything they write about Microsoft, similar to what they used to write Apple. i.e. "Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, today announced it will delay Vista" or "Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, will pushed back the launch of Office to coincide with Windows" or "Beleaguered software company, Microsoft, announced $8 billion quarterly profits"
why doesn't Congress haul oil executives to the Capital Hill to question them about doing business in oppressive regimes like Saudi Arabia.
With all these columnist bashing, no one stopped to consider that Cringely is the first to look at the Apple/Intel deal from Intel's perspective. Everyone is speculating about what motivates Apple into this deal, but what motivated Intel? Cringely at least stood back and questioned it, which is more than I can say for most of you ./er.
not allowing OS X running on custom x86 boxes. They currently sell OS X for $130.00 That's 26% the cost of a Mac mini. My guess is that after all the applications are ported to MacIntel, they'll allow it to compete with Microsoft, not Linux. The side effect is that it will convince Linux users switch too.
Steve Jobs just wants to make sure the news media is listening when he speaks at WWDC. Everytime he makes an appearance, it's preceeded by some controversial rumors.
Everything you say is true. Maybe I should clarify. Most public websites do not use or even need a lot of Javascript/DOM/CSS/DHTML/XML. There is always exception such as Google Maps and Gmail. Web developer, as opposed to Web designers, mainly work on intranet applications, that supports a define number of users. My point is that, even if this number is in the tens of thousands, I don't find a lot of resistence from my customers when I force them to use Firefox. IE's dominate market share may mean something when your customer base is in the millions, as you say, under different circumstance. But IE's market share is overrated in situation where Javascript/DOM/etc is actually used, because it's much simpler to convince to users to use Firefox. Of course, I'm in the unique position in that I only have to convince a handful of people of the benefits of Firefox and they force it on their employees and customers.
ADVO
My company and I are doing quite well, thanks. From a professional standpoint, the choice I fell I made correct for employees and customers. Every once in a while, each of us have to stand up on principal and shed our fear of losing money. Try it sometimes.
I develop web service applications for a pretty big printer/mailing facility in Los Angeles, and the web site requires all users to use Firefox (even on Mac). This company service hundreds of other companies, so there are thousands of users. Never once did anyone complain about having to use Firefox. I say web developer should just ignore the IE market share. Out of principal, I'll never again check to see if anything I do works on IE. Screw IE
All I'm saying is that the journalism profession does not have it's ethics all thought out. My personal opinion is that a reporter should publish what a whisle blower says, if it serves the public good. But he should not publish company trade secrets obtain through illegal means. For all these newspapers to come out and defend their profession without differentiating between the two scenario above indicates to me that a lot of newspapers have not considered the ethical obligations of their profession.
The real question is: what are a journalist's ethical obligations? If a journalist/blogger obtain trade secrets from someone he knows stole those information from Apple, should be be allowed to profit from it by publishing it? Stock brokers aren't allowed to profit from insider information, so why should a journalist profit from insider information that he knows is stolen?