Standards can be back-compatible, eg Java is a pedantic specification, and has gone 1.0 through 2-3 major upgrades (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5).
PS: hadn't heard the 2nd joke, thanks, a good one.
> There dev tools have always been as good or better than anyone elses
I guess developers make their platform valuable... that's very true for Windows, but (it seems) less so for Office... although VB apparently was really good. Can anyone point me to some things they've done to help developers*?
If true, maybe MS deserve their great success?
* apart from Ballmer's "developers developers developers".
Don't forget that Microsoft is (at heart) a development tool vendor
Lion's share of Microsoft's revenue is from consumers buying Windows and Office. They began with developer tools (Basic, way before MSDOS), and they still make some, but it's not what they are about.
Can this explantion predict IE7? What improvements would retain IE's browser-share, while minimizing improvements to web-apps, so they don't threaten MSFT?
It's a fine line: if it's *too* crap for existing web-apps, it will fuel popularity of other browsers...
Or, instead of defending, could MSFT use this offensively, to create a new platform that they can own? I don't think it's possible because of the nature of the web (a very open playing field), but maybe it is?
What if MFST made a browser that was fantastically effective for web-apps - but that was so difficult to use, that MSFT apps were the best on it? The problem for MSFT is they couldn't charge for the platform, and harder to charge for the apps - the Google business model seems to be the way to go.
They say the way companies die is when they fail to adjust to a different revenue model. It's hard. (innovator's dilemma).
This also suggests how to beat MSFT Windows and Office: make a great web-apps platform ...perhaps incompatible with IE, so they can't embrace and extend).
Of course MrDomino is right - the long-time fear of the web as an OS/app platform, so Windows wouldn't matter, and Office wouldn't matter.
Your explanation is simple and explains a lot -it's almost certainly right.
What better way to sabotage the web as OS and web-apps, than to control the browser? Make it *just* good enough for enough people to accept; but not good enough to make web-apps great - which they definitely could be.
Anyone found one of them yet?
In Amazon's versions, you can see motorcyclic keep pace along Gough street, of "go getter pizza", in San Fran (the first hit for pizza).
http://www.amazon.com/gp/yp/B0004B4KH4/103-1660600 -5419803
I wonder what has has been seen.
hmmm, it might be a (partial) vaccuum, as a cross section of that area spinning at that speed could create fair resistence (although, once the air is moving with the screen, perhaps the resistence would be neglible?).
As Dr Rabeau says, "this is a very unique device."
Regarding the tech: someone could intercept the photon, and send a replacement copy in its place. Just like cloak and daggers intercepting a courier, photograph the papers, and send it on its way.
But hey, I'm making the best of the situation. I wrote my own tools, and as usual (conceited bastard that I am), I named the new project after myself: "git". Linus
I really admire Linus's clarity on all this, over at
RWT. I can see why he has had so much success, both in leading others and in getting things done himself. Someone worth learning from.
And then you've just gotta smile at the self-depreciation.
Yes, I was thinking it might be unenforceable.
But it depends on what is being enforced: McVoy is not trying to stop them competing (by suing them for breach of this term), but saying it's a condition of using it for free.
Legally, McVoy can pick and choose who he gives free stuff to, by any criteria he likes - just as you are free to donate or not to any charity you like, for any reason you like.
The legal power doesn't come from this term of the license agreement, but from McVoy's ownership of the IP, and therefore being able to exclude others from enjoyment of this property.
BTW: what's an "after the fact" clause? I would think that usually these terms are part of the original agreement.
Slashdot Mirror
(Ssh!)
Do you think the "leaking" could just be a PR stunt, kids?
Standards can be back-compatible, eg Java is a pedantic specification, and has gone 1.0 through 2-3 major upgrades (1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.5). PS: hadn't heard the 2nd joke, thanks, a good one.
I guess developers make their platform valuable... that's very true for Windows, but (it seems) less so for Office... although VB apparently was really good. Can anyone point me to some things they've done to help developers*?
If true, maybe MS deserve their great success? * apart from Ballmer's "developers developers developers".
Lion's share of Microsoft's revenue is from consumers buying Windows and Office. They began with developer tools (Basic, way before MSDOS), and they still make some, but it's not what they are about.
It's a fine line: if it's *too* crap for existing web-apps, it will fuel popularity of other browsers...
Or, instead of defending, could MSFT use this offensively, to create a new platform that they can own? I don't think it's possible because of the nature of the web (a very open playing field), but maybe it is?
What if MFST made a browser that was fantastically effective for web-apps - but that was so difficult to use, that MSFT apps were the best on it? The problem for MSFT is they couldn't charge for the platform, and harder to charge for the apps - the Google business model seems to be the way to go.
They say the way companies die is when they fail to adjust to a different revenue model. It's hard. (innovator's dilemma).
This also suggests how to beat MSFT Windows and Office:
...perhaps incompatible with IE, so they can't embrace and extend).
make a great web-apps platform
Your explanation is simple and explains a lot -it's almost certainly right.
What better way to sabotage the web as OS and web-apps, than to control the browser? Make it *just* good enough for enough people to accept; but not good enough to make web-apps great - which they definitely could be.
Evil. Brilliant. Very Microsoft.
Anyone found one of them yet? In Amazon's versions, you can see motorcyclic keep pace along Gough street, of "go getter pizza", in San Fran (the first hit for pizza). http://www.amazon.com/gp/yp/B0004B4KH4/103-1660600 -5419803
I wonder what has has been seen.
It will take 3 months before you get your first paycheque.
hmmm, it might be a (partial) vaccuum, as a cross section of that area spinning at that speed could create fair resistence (although, once the air is moving with the screen, perhaps the resistence would be neglible?).
http://www.actuality-systems.com/index.php/actual
How does it work? A spinning screen, must be transparent I guess... what's the sci-fi sphere for?
Without encouragement and reward, such innovation will cease and the world will be a poorer place for it.
Hopefully, it is already patent pending: "names without 'My'"?
</s>
Regarding the tech: someone could intercept the photon, and send a replacement copy in its place. Just like cloak and daggers intercepting a courier, photograph the papers, and send it on its way.
And then you've just gotta smile at the self-depreciation.
Anyone else would be free to examine the traffic, as you say.
Legally, McVoy can pick and choose who he gives free stuff to, by any criteria he likes - just as you are free to donate or not to any charity you like, for any reason you like.
The legal power doesn't come from this term of the license agreement, but from McVoy's ownership of the IP, and therefore being able to exclude others from enjoyment of this property.
BTW: what's an "after the fact" clause? I would think that usually these terms are part of the original agreement.
I can't see how you can say this is unethical.
BTW: MS doesn't say "don't compete" (and their stuff isn't free, either!)