oh, wait a minute, they probably think that open source software is anti business so that ain't gonna fly. I guess they are better off just constantly telling lies and creating new laws to pen every one in except their large business buddies.
that might work well for the home intercom system too. Use a 6:1 analog switch for the mic input with an LED usage indicators at each node/room and now you've got a 6 room comm system on the cheap too. I like it.
and to top if off, the recordings are already degraded by compression. Then again, how many are really going to hear the difference when the speakers are recessed into the ceiling and cabling is probably not of very good quality, nor installation, either.
It is a cool idea to split the 6 tracks and 6 outputs from a 5:1 system into 3 stereo streams. A palm hitting the forehead kind of moment for sure.
Remember how "Jump the shark" became the catch-phrase for when a TV show hit its low? Well now we have a new term for when a TV show goes too far 'out there'. It's called "jump the couch" and is a reference to when Tom Cruise went too far 'out there' on The Opera Show and jumped on the couch. This usually happens when the writers just can't come up with new believable material.
With little surprise, it sounds like the Scientology channel was quick to "jump the couch". IMO.
it really comes down to their total lack of willingness to work with other companies or other products they have flagged as a threat. Blu-ray uses Java and Java is still a threat. Not to mention that adding a Blu-ray to the Xbox 360 will then give everyone a direct comparison to the PS3 on price and Microsoft would have to be willing to lose many billions more to continue to play in the game. As you mentioned, there's a huge population without the ability to get broadband networking. They seem to have made it known that they seem to think the exiting broadband market is enough to push their HDi and leave Blu-ray and BD-j behind.
why not? It is not like it has not worked for 20 something years and Vista is not a problem for Microsoft. Vista is getting preloaded on millions of computers and so Microsoft's new strings to control the market are taking hold and will continue to grow. They can and will pull XP from the market to move Vista further just like they did with Windows XP years ago and same for Windows 2000.
So really, why would Microsoft shift a strategy which as made them billions each year for over 20 years? I've not seen any shift though they are using some newer tactics like the Linux/IP/Novell thing. And they are still willing to lose billions on products to keep the competition from growing(Windows Mobile, Xbox, MSN, Zune, Silverlight, etc).
They just don't operate like many would think they would or should and with Windows and MS Office pulling in over 60% of their billions in annual profits, changing things now would be a threat in and of itself. IMO.
This does not make any sense, Apples iTunes is not from Microsoft. The story is about Microsoft providing Blu-ray for the Xbox, not a 3rd party providing it.
Nope. You missed it. The comment was in response to the statement that nobody would support something for a competitor. Microsoft and Apple are the last time I checked... So you were talking about Apple supporting iTunes on Windows and that's the example of a company supporting a "direct competitor"? iTunes is about the media player software and device and there was no direct competition from Microsoft for that and many would say there still is not.
Here's the original quote:
Nobody is ever going to support a product from a direct competitor (or backed by a direct comepetitor) . Microsoft & Sony are direct competitors. So I still don't see the validity to the comparison of iTunes on Windows. Though it does get complicated when the companies ship many products in different sectors. sorry.
in a few years, everyone will have broadband, everyone will have a free WiFi AP near by, everyone will have 'name your high speed network here'. Just kidding but I think Microsoft is banking on there being a high speed network for a larger enough market to not have to provide customers with Blu-ray support. After all, the low end of the market isn't going to be using expensive disk technologies either. Now if Blu-ray devices was $100 now, it would probably have them concerned about a huge portion of the market using BD-j and its embedded Java.
I was hoping Microsoft would come around with a Blu-Ray solution, so that I can get my game system AND Blu-Ray player in one go. Looks like I'll have to pony up for a PS3 if I want that. if enough of you do that then they may be forced to get a partner to provide Blu-ray devices and support on the Xbox 360. They themselves seem to want nothing to do with supporting the Blu-ray platform and it is likely to also lead to a lack of support for Blu-ray on the Windows desktop.
But their standard is completely dead now it seems, and to keep pushing for it is incomprehensible. I mean, they have to be more intelligent than that, right?! The fact that they lost this one does not mean they will be willing to chance the loss of their position in the market with Windows. They exist only because Windows exists and believe it or not, Blu-ray is a platform threat to Windows. Also remember that Microsoft only "supports" products which are Windows platform lock-ins. They tolerate others doing things on their platform only until those vendors products become a threat or start enabling capabilities on other platforms. One thing about Blu-ray Microsoft despises is its menu system is implemented in Java and every Blu-ray device ships with embedded Java in it.
So thinking that Microsoft will do what the market asks and help a potential threat to their existence is asking a very lot of Microsoft. They've never done this without either a way to own or destroy the cross-platform capabilities or a way to force their own product(s) onto the market. Microsoft's profits in a market sector have been traded many many times for protection of the Windows platform. Again, Microsoft exists only because Windows exists and without that, over 60% of the profits go away very very quickly. If Blu-ray is seen as a platform threat, Microsoft will not support it without some plan to eliminate the platform threat. And I think the threat has more to do with Java being the Blu-ray spec than Sony's ownership or creation of the spec. IMO.
I find it hard to believe they think the distribution/network is mature enough to jump on a network distribution mechanism instead. But they may feel that they can slow the adaption enough with disabling or stalling the Blu-ray devices on their platform(s). Xbox is the obvious one because they attempted to leverage it for promoting HD-DVD. They knew they couldn't embed it in the Xbox because the price increase would have given PS3 more leverage. We should soon start to see see how they will try to stall Blu-ray on Windows as the devices start moving to PCs.
So that's why we can't get iTunes on a PC. Oh, wait... This does not make any sense, Apples iTunes is not from Microsoft. The story is about Microsoft providing Blu-ray for the Xbox, not a 3rd party providing it.
the big difference from what I saw on the Wubi website is that to install Ubuntu, there's like one dialog box with about 6 items and then you reboot. Not much to scare any Windows user away there. Now, with VMware, you install VMware server, start it, have to know what creating a new virtual machine means and how to do it. there's alot of options about version of operating systems, CPUs, disks, networking, etc. Sure, if you know what all this is it is a piece of cake and quite a treat compared to dual booting. But man, there's alot for Joe Sixpack to run crying to mama about in there. Wubi looks like it is as easy as installing any simple Windows application and the result is you can boot into it running directly on the raw metal, or continue booting into Windows.
Most Windows users don't know what a partition is and I've had my fill of people talking about the "D" drive when they are talking about their CDROM. Wubi makes getting Ubuntu on newbies or naive Windows users desktops so they can play with it and learn how easy( or hard ) it is.
I'll continue with VMware but Wubi is definitely something I'll have a few who've recently asking me about Linux. Heck, it now looks so easy, I bet the local school board members could even give it a try.
and one way to do this would be to boot Ubuntu from the CD and then do something along these lines: 1) install the ntfsprogs( sudo apt-get install ntpfprogs ) 2) mount a remote filesystem to/mnt ( use samba either smbmount or smbfs in/etc/fstab ) 3) backup/image your partition to the remote filesystem using something like this:
( sudo ntfsclone --save-image --output/mnt/ntfsBackup.img/dev/hda1 )
restore doing mostly the same except restore with: sudo ntfsclone --restore-image --overwrite/dev/hda1/mnt/ntfsBackup.img
I've used the above ntfsclone commands and they worked for me. I've since blown away that partition since VMware converter sucked that into a VM for a nicely caged Windows environment.
I was going to stay out of this but alas, I can not. My take on this is that many Microsoft shops will use this Microsoft technology and will hesitate to load anything listed or mentioned as unsupported. They are left with only trying or using Suse because they are a Microsoft shop and they will use this Microsoft product. That includes the mental exercises related to having two virtual machine engines running just to try out some Linux based open source product.
This game here is to play on the virtual machine court and only let a puppet such as Novell on the court. The market is dictating they play the virtual machine game and in the Linux game but they must protect their position with Windows. So here we are, nothing new, nothing unexpected and when they pull the trigger on Novell, we'll have more gasps from the crowd asking how or why they would do such a thing.
BTW, did they ever say they would support other Linux versions on Microsoft Virtual PC or was that one of those, it will likely work but we're not supporting thing? VirtualPC had multiple supported OSes until Microsoft purchased it.
he deleted the emails But did he make a backup first? probably, he didn't say if the emails had been opened when he "deleted" them(wink), so he's not being open about the situation already. IMO
the guy who logged in and deleted the accounts seems to have left off one important, article ending fact and that is whether the emails he found in the account had been opened or still remained unopened. Heck, would there also not be a last-login date also associated with that account? These two things should have been asked and mentioned or else this was designed to sensationalized how BAD Google's security problems are. After all, it is obvious this had nothing to do with Google's security but the article was designed to center on that. IMO
So though and interesting situation, I think this is more of a reason to use Open Source software since it is far far more likely to have been found/caught earlier. I will be checking my firefox extensions for open source licenses and source code.
but you know, if someone does not know their history, does not know their nature then alot of what is said on/. sounds like lies and FUD. But hey, a post from some schlub sitting in an easy chair with his/her laptop does not quite have the teeth to call it FUD. Can a/. post cause anybody to fear anything? Sure there are exaggerations and such but these are from individuals and not a multi billion dollar corporation with so much power they can destroy multi million dollar corporations and put thousands out of work and have done just that. You might use the same 3 letters but they just don't mean the same thing.
I do not claim any moral high ground but I do claim a level of understanding which comes from a couple of decades of experience and observation. The level of understanding which is not only often rejected but also claimed as religious and false by those who don't even have 1/10th the exposure to what has gone on in the tech sector with regards to Microsoft and their business dealings. No moral high ground and I will not lie, cheat, or steal to get others to understand why things like MS Silverlight are bad.
I will say that human nature is funny. People believe what they want to believe and without doing their own research, they often deny acceptance and credibility of those who seem to want to shake their beliefs. No matter how shallow the foundation of those beliefs. Human nature is funny and Microsoft is in a nice position in that regard. And they must know it too or they wouldn't have spend millions purchasing up parked web sites to make sure their web server numbers didn't drop below ~40%.
Believe me or don't, but the facts are all just a search engine away. There's the Java saga, the Netscape saga, the Dimension X saga, the Coopers and Peters saga, the OS/2 saga, the ISO-MS-OOXML vs ODF saga, theres the Mainsoft / Bristol/Unix saga and dozens more which all point the fact that MS Silverlight is not about competition or building a better product. It is about keeping developers tied to the Windows platform. It means there does not have to be profits from this project because its value is protecting the profits from Windows. bla bla bla. And when you figure it out, try telling it to someone and see what kind of look or reaction you get when you tell them how bad Microsoft has been. Or just walk away and do nothing like so many do. After all, it can only be FUD if you don't understand it.
So you don't follow them but feel qualified to protect there position when someone else writes of their historical position and consistent acts to deny competition? wow.
how true, how true. And you know, I can probably only count a handful of people who even had the interest to look into what I had said, see the story as it was, and then make changes to how they helped financed the Microsoft corporation. But you know, writing hundreds of thousands of lines of software is not going to stop Microsoft from continuing to destroy choice. Writing software is not going stop Microsoft from paying people to flood standards committees so their own self controlled document format becomes a ISO standard. It is not going to stop Microsoft from publishing threats of patent infringement or the like.
Just over 15 years ago, Microsoft used the press to spread its FUD via monthly printed tech journals and when it was exposed, they would print tiny retractions a few months later. They'd make statements which stalled companies sales by just putting out a press release and pretty much end the companies income and put them out of business. Those days are over for Microsoft and the way news and information is published today is the best thing to use against their threats to choice. I should hold my tongue more often than not and should consider that those on the other end may actually be as naive as they appear. But there is no way I will stop trying to expose the anticompetitive practices of the Microsoft Corporation because beyond illegal means, there is no other way to stop them from continuing their rampage on software choice.
I will consider changing my tactics though because no matter how soft or how loud I am, people don't get it. So maybe, if I just point them to all the existing data still available from other sources and they get off the asses and actually read those sources, they just might believe what I had originally said.
Did you even look to see if anything I had said was documented or available via a search engine before you questioned my comments in public? There are thousands and thousands of pages worth of information backing what I said and I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on this when there is enough available at your finger tips. Unless you are too lazy to look and why should I spend the time educating you when you seem to know better than I?
And you better believe it that I get riled up about this since ignorance to history in the same industry one makes a living is pathetic and way too common. But I will admit that I answered your reply after another which did attack my merits and intentions. I brought some of that over to your reply and I should not have. For that, I apologize.
If you're talking about the OS market, you're correct that MS never wrote (or like will write) a Linux or Mac port of.NET, but they never stopped the Mono dudes from doing their thing. Also: who cares? What obligation are they under to provide this product, or any other, to every known platform, no matter the costs or difficulties associated with that kind of scope?
Sherman Antitrust rules for operating under a monopoly for one. Are the selling these tools/products for the cost of developing them? Are they paying companies to use their tools over others on the market? And the Mono guys are fools for thinking that having a half-baked late to market lame ass copy of Microsoft's patent encumbered software is good for the development community.
Also, they're not locking anybody out; if you need cross-platform functionality, use something cross-platform. As soon as they show up at your doorstep and remove all traces of Java, Python, Ruby, Boo, Mono, gcc, g++, Pascal, PowerBuilder, Haskell, AspectJ, FORTRAN, bash, COBOL, Lisp, Delphi, ML, Erlang, PHP, Perl, GW-BASIC, Tcl, Lua, Ada, and any other non-MS language or framework from your life, they're not locking anybody into or out of anything. To imply so is disingenuous.
Right, paying companies to use their product is all about choice. I remember there was once a company called Netscape who had a web browser. You had a choice to use Netscapes product or any of the other products/browsers on the market. At that point, over 80% of the market picked Netscape Navigator. Then Microsoft started paying people to use their browser. They threatened OEM systems providers if they did not pre-load Microsofts browser, they bought out contracts Netscape had with ISPs and yes, paid them to use Internet Explorer. Where did that choice go? Where did Netscape go? What browser has the most marketshare now and what choice do users know they have? So are you saying that if there is one tiny speck of a choice then anything Microsoft does to gain its marketshare for its products is fine and a good thing for everyone? I call bull shit on that one. And if you think Microsoft has to send people to peoples doorsteps to limit choice you're probably too simple minded to understand the concepts of choice, the tactics used to limit choice, and operation under the Sherman Antitrust Act for monopolies.
Again, it's not locking anybody into or out of anything, because that implies a lack of choice. You're free to choose any tool you want to program new apps. There is no proverbial gun to your head.
Tell that to the companies and developers who once thought that because Microsoft was promoting and licensing Win32 source for cross platform UNIX applications. Oh wait, they are all gone. And what happened you might ask? Once those developers ported their UNIX apps to Win32, Microsoft pulled the rug out from under them and eliminated the cross platform support. BANG, no more UNIX version of those applications. BANG, choice is gone at the whim of Microsoft. Know your history before you shoot your mouth off and talk about choice in regards to any Microsoft product, tool, etc.
You know what it was designed to do? Make Microsoft money! Horrors!
Where is the profits from this? They are freaking paying people to use this stuff and they are likely willing to lose billions doing this if that is what it takes to eliminate choice or atleast get developers tied to Windows instead of being cross platform with Flash/Flex.
Which is the same reason Sun made Java, and it's the same reason they're going (or have gone) open-source with it: because their potential profit of that decision outweighs any other disadvantages.
Sun does not and did not have a monopoly position do leverage and they didn't have the resources to pay people billions of dollars over years to make sure Java won the market. Speaking of Java, Microsoft went on a tear back then and was purchasing up Java compan
I think you're either a little off or exaggerating. If I build web applications (or more on topic, Silverlight applications) using.NET as a platform, does that mean users on Mac OS X / Linux / mobile devices / etc can't use my application? No. Yes it does unless somehow, hell has frozen over and Microsoft has changed it's course after 20+ years. It might it work on day one, two, or even three on those non-Windows platforms but then it will break sometime later.
You seem to have some idea in your head that.NET developers are unaware of Microsoft's business practices. Or that we're gullible to develop in.NET. I've got years of Java and.NET experience. Some projects call for one, some the other. When I design an application, I consider the advantages and trade offs of each one as it relates to the project and I make a decision. You are in the minority. I also understand that many many Microsoft platform developers are stuck using tools their managers dictate and many Microsoft platform developers are happy just waiting until Microsoft provides them with a tool to do X, Y, and/or Z. There are many reasons but the one thing I find most common is that they have little clue of how Microsoft has for 20+ years honed its marketing techniques and business practices such that the best tool for the job is not and option to the Microsoft platform developer. Their tactics are not visible by looking at a small moment in time or at single steps or releases. They take time and if you do not know or watch what they do you have no understanding of how bad 99% of their tools are for software freedom of choice.
In my opinion, what's really sad is platform zealots who make broad generalizations without providing any useful information. I'm getting really sick and tired of educating you guys on how Microsft has destroyed companies, products, peoples lives over the last 20+ years. Platform zealot huh? For some reason the phrase "Jane you ignorant slut" comes to mind. Sorry but my comments come from seeing Microsoft play games with the market and instead of creating choice, they continue to destroy choice. Learn your history, you just may be repeating it. IMO.
Why is this sad? It is sad because it locks out a larger portion of the market. It is sad because it locks in developers and customers to one platform. It is sad because it was designed to do both these and so many are ignorant of this. It is sad that so many are fooled into the belief it is not sad and therefore exclude many from the products and services they provide. To name just a few reasons it might be sad.
Slashdot Mirror
oh, wait a minute, they probably think that open source software is anti business so that ain't gonna fly. I guess they are better off just constantly telling lies and creating new laws to pen every one in except their large business buddies.
It seems every day is April Fools day in the US.
LoB
that might work well for the home intercom system too. Use a 6:1 analog switch for the mic input with an LED usage indicators at each node/room and now you've got a 6 room comm system on the cheap too. I like it.
LoB
and to top if off, the recordings are already degraded by compression. Then again, how many are really going to hear the difference when the speakers are recessed into the ceiling and cabling is probably not of very good quality, nor installation, either.
It is a cool idea to split the 6 tracks and 6 outputs from a 5:1 system into 3 stereo streams. A palm hitting the forehead kind of moment for sure.
LoB
and soon to be unsupported OS and software. Wow, how uninteresting.
LoB
Remember how "Jump the shark" became the catch-phrase for when a TV show hit its low? Well now we have a new term for when a TV show goes too far 'out there'. It's called "jump the couch" and is a reference to when Tom Cruise went too far 'out there' on The Opera Show and jumped on the couch. This usually happens when the writers just can't come up with new believable material.
With little surprise, it sounds like the Scientology channel was quick to "jump the couch". IMO.
LoB
it really comes down to their total lack of willingness to work with other companies or other products they have flagged as a threat. Blu-ray uses Java and Java is still a threat. Not to mention that adding a Blu-ray to the Xbox 360 will then give everyone a direct comparison to the PS3 on price and Microsoft would have to be willing to lose many billions more to continue to play in the game. As you mentioned, there's a huge population without the ability to get broadband networking. They seem to have made it known that they seem to think the exiting broadband market is enough to push their HDi and leave Blu-ray and BD-j behind.
what they do on the desktop will be the telling.
LoB
why not? It is not like it has not worked for 20 something years and Vista is not a problem for Microsoft. Vista is getting preloaded on millions of computers and so Microsoft's new strings to control the market are taking hold and will continue to grow. They can and will pull XP from the market to move Vista further just like they did with Windows XP years ago and same for Windows 2000.
So really, why would Microsoft shift a strategy which as made them billions each year for over 20 years? I've not seen any shift though they are using some newer tactics like the Linux/IP/Novell thing. And they are still willing to lose billions on products to keep the competition from growing(Windows Mobile, Xbox, MSN, Zune, Silverlight, etc).
They just don't operate like many would think they would or should and with Windows and MS Office pulling in over 60% of their billions in annual profits, changing things now would be a threat in and of itself. IMO.
LOB
Here's the original quote: Nobody is ever going to support a product from a direct competitor (or backed by a direct comepetitor) . Microsoft & Sony are direct competitors. So I still don't see the validity to the comparison of iTunes on Windows. Though it does get complicated when the companies ship many products in different sectors. sorry.
LoB
in a few years, everyone will have broadband, everyone will have a free WiFi AP near by, everyone will have 'name your high speed network here'. Just kidding but I think Microsoft is banking on there being a high speed network for a larger enough market to not have to provide customers with Blu-ray support. After all, the low end of the market isn't going to be using expensive disk technologies either. Now if Blu-ray devices was $100 now, it would probably have them concerned about a huge portion of the market using BD-j and its embedded Java.
LoB
LoB
Check this out and look for the word "pawn" in it:
http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
So thinking that Microsoft will do what the market asks and help a potential threat to their existence is asking a very lot of Microsoft. They've never done this without either a way to own or destroy the cross-platform capabilities or a way to force their own product(s) onto the market. Microsoft's profits in a market sector have been traded many many times for protection of the Windows platform. Again, Microsoft exists only because Windows exists and without that, over 60% of the profits go away very very quickly. If Blu-ray is seen as a platform threat, Microsoft will not support it without some plan to eliminate the platform threat. And I think the threat has more to do with Java being the Blu-ray spec than Sony's ownership or creation of the spec. IMO.
I find it hard to believe they think the distribution/network is mature enough to jump on a network distribution mechanism instead. But they may feel that they can slow the adaption enough with disabling or stalling the Blu-ray devices on their platform(s). Xbox is the obvious one because they attempted to leverage it for promoting HD-DVD. They knew they couldn't embed it in the Xbox because the price increase would have given PS3 more leverage. We should soon start to see see how they will try to stall Blu-ray on Windows as the devices start moving to PCs.
LoB
LoB
it is good to have choices.
LoB
the big difference from what I saw on the Wubi website is that to install Ubuntu, there's like one dialog box with about 6 items and then you reboot. Not much to scare any Windows user away there. Now, with VMware, you install VMware server, start it, have to know what creating a new virtual machine means and how to do it. there's alot of options about version of operating systems, CPUs, disks, networking, etc. Sure, if you know what all this is it is a piece of cake and quite a treat compared to dual booting. But man, there's alot for Joe Sixpack to run crying to mama about in there. Wubi looks like it is as easy as installing any simple Windows application and the result is you can boot into it running directly on the raw metal, or continue booting into Windows.
Most Windows users don't know what a partition is and I've had my fill of people talking about the "D" drive when they are talking about their CDROM. Wubi makes getting Ubuntu on newbies or naive Windows users desktops so they can play with it and learn how easy( or hard ) it is.
I'll continue with VMware but Wubi is definitely something I'll have a few who've recently asking me about Linux. Heck, it now looks so easy, I bet the local school board members could even give it a try.
LoB
and one way to do this would be to boot Ubuntu from the CD and then do something along these lines: /mnt ( use samba either smbmount or smbfs in /etc/fstab ) /mnt/ntfsBackup.img /dev/hda1 )
/dev/hda1 /mnt/ntfsBackup.img
1) install the ntfsprogs( sudo apt-get install ntpfprogs )
2) mount a remote filesystem to
3) backup/image your partition to the remote filesystem using something like this:
( sudo ntfsclone --save-image --output
restore doing mostly the same except restore with:
sudo ntfsclone --restore-image --overwrite
I've used the above ntfsclone commands and they worked for me. I've since blown away that partition since VMware converter sucked that into a VM for a nicely caged Windows environment.
LoB
I was going to stay out of this but alas, I can not. My take on this is that many Microsoft shops will use this Microsoft technology and will hesitate to load anything listed or mentioned as unsupported. They are left with only trying or using Suse because they are a Microsoft shop and they will use this Microsoft product. That includes the mental exercises related to having two virtual machine engines running just to try out some Linux based open source product.
This game here is to play on the virtual machine court and only let a puppet such as Novell on the court. The market is dictating they play the virtual machine game and in the Linux game but they must protect their position with Windows. So here we are, nothing new, nothing unexpected and when they pull the trigger on Novell, we'll have more gasps from the crowd asking how or why they would do such a thing.
BTW, did they ever say they would support other Linux versions on Microsoft Virtual PC or was that one of those, it will likely work but we're not supporting thing? VirtualPC had multiple supported OSes until Microsoft purchased it.
LoB
LoB
the guy who logged in and deleted the accounts seems to have left off one important, article ending fact and that is whether the emails he found in the account had been opened or still remained unopened. Heck, would there also not be a last-login date also associated with that account? These two things should have been asked and mentioned or else this was designed to sensationalized how BAD Google's security problems are. After all, it is obvious this had nothing to do with Google's security but the article was designed to center on that. IMO
So though and interesting situation, I think this is more of a reason to use Open Source software since it is far far more likely to have been found/caught earlier. I will be checking my firefox extensions for open source licenses and source code.
LoB
but you know, if someone does not know their history, does not know their nature then alot of what is said on /. sounds like lies and FUD. But hey, a post from some schlub sitting in an easy chair with his/her laptop does not quite have the teeth to call it FUD. Can a /. post cause anybody to fear anything? Sure there are exaggerations and such but these are from individuals and not a multi billion dollar corporation with so much power they can destroy multi million dollar corporations and put thousands out of work and have done just that. You might use the same 3 letters but they just don't mean the same thing.
/Unix saga and dozens more which all point the fact that MS Silverlight is not about competition or building a better product. It is about keeping developers tied to the Windows platform. It means there does not have to be profits from this project because its value is protecting the profits from Windows. bla bla bla. And when you figure it out, try telling it to someone and see what kind of look or reaction you get when you tell them how bad Microsoft has been. Or just walk away and do nothing like so many do. After all, it can only be FUD if you don't understand it.
I do not claim any moral high ground but I do claim a level of understanding which comes from a couple of decades of experience and observation. The level of understanding which is not only often rejected but also claimed as religious and false by those who don't even have 1/10th the exposure to what has gone on in the tech sector with regards to Microsoft and their business dealings. No moral high ground and I will not lie, cheat, or steal to get others to understand why things like MS Silverlight are bad.
I will say that human nature is funny. People believe what they want to believe and without doing their own research, they often deny acceptance and credibility of those who seem to want to shake their beliefs. No matter how shallow the foundation of those beliefs. Human nature is funny and Microsoft is in a nice position in that regard. And they must know it too or they wouldn't have spend millions purchasing up parked web sites to make sure their web server numbers didn't drop below ~40%.
Believe me or don't, but the facts are all just a search engine away. There's the Java saga, the Netscape saga, the Dimension X saga, the Coopers and Peters saga, the OS/2 saga, the ISO-MS-OOXML vs ODF saga, theres the Mainsoft / Bristol
LoB
So you don't follow them but feel qualified to protect there position when someone else writes of their historical position and consistent acts to deny competition? wow.
LoB
how true, how true. And you know, I can probably only count a handful of people who even had the interest to look into what I had said, see the story as it was, and then make changes to how they helped financed the Microsoft corporation. But you know, writing hundreds of thousands of lines of software is not going to stop Microsoft from continuing to destroy choice. Writing software is not going stop Microsoft from paying people to flood standards committees so their own self controlled document format becomes a ISO standard. It is not going to stop Microsoft from publishing threats of patent infringement or the like.
Just over 15 years ago, Microsoft used the press to spread its FUD via monthly printed tech journals and when it was exposed, they would print tiny retractions a few months later. They'd make statements which stalled companies sales by just putting out a press release and pretty much end the companies income and put them out of business. Those days are over for Microsoft and the way news and information is published today is the best thing to use against their threats to choice. I should hold my tongue more often than not and should consider that those on the other end may actually be as naive as they appear. But there is no way I will stop trying to expose the anticompetitive practices of the Microsoft Corporation because beyond illegal means, there is no other way to stop them from continuing their rampage on software choice.
I will consider changing my tactics though because no matter how soft or how loud I am, people don't get it. So maybe, if I just point them to all the existing data still available from other sources and they get off the asses and actually read those sources, they just might believe what I had originally said.
LoB
Did you even look to see if anything I had said was documented or available via a search engine before you questioned my comments in public? There are thousands and thousands of pages worth of information backing what I said and I don't have the time or inclination to educate you on this when there is enough available at your finger tips. Unless you are too lazy to look and why should I spend the time educating you when you seem to know better than I?
And you better believe it that I get riled up about this since ignorance to history in the same industry one makes a living is pathetic and way too common. But I will admit that I answered your reply after another which did attack my merits and intentions. I brought some of that over to your reply and I should not have. For that, I apologize.
LoB
If you're talking about the OS market, you're correct that MS never wrote (or like will write) a Linux or Mac port of .NET, but they never stopped the Mono dudes from doing their thing. Also: who cares? What obligation are they under to provide this product, or any other, to every known platform, no matter the costs or difficulties associated with that kind of scope?
Sherman Antitrust rules for operating under a monopoly for one. Are the selling these tools/products for the cost of developing them? Are they paying companies to use their tools over others on the market? And the Mono guys are fools for thinking that having a half-baked late to market lame ass copy of Microsoft's patent encumbered software is good for the development community.
Also, they're not locking anybody out; if you need cross-platform functionality, use something cross-platform. As soon as they show up at your doorstep and remove all traces of Java, Python, Ruby, Boo, Mono, gcc, g++, Pascal, PowerBuilder, Haskell, AspectJ, FORTRAN, bash, COBOL, Lisp, Delphi, ML, Erlang, PHP, Perl, GW-BASIC, Tcl, Lua, Ada, and any other non-MS language or framework from your life, they're not locking anybody into or out of anything. To imply so is disingenuous.
Right, paying companies to use their product is all about choice. I remember there was once a company called Netscape who had a web browser. You had a choice to use Netscapes product or any of the other products/browsers on the market. At that point, over 80% of the market picked Netscape Navigator. Then Microsoft started paying people to use their browser. They threatened OEM systems providers if they did not pre-load Microsofts browser, they bought out contracts Netscape had with ISPs and yes, paid them to use Internet Explorer. Where did that choice go? Where did Netscape go? What browser has the most marketshare now and what choice do users know they have? So are you saying that if there is one tiny speck of a choice then anything Microsoft does to gain its marketshare for its products is fine and a good thing for everyone? I call bull shit on that one. And if you think Microsoft has to send people to peoples doorsteps to limit choice you're probably too simple minded to understand the concepts of choice, the tactics used to limit choice, and operation under the Sherman Antitrust Act for monopolies.
Again, it's not locking anybody into or out of anything, because that implies a lack of choice. You're free to choose any tool you want to program new apps. There is no proverbial gun to your head.
Tell that to the companies and developers who once thought that because Microsoft was promoting and licensing Win32 source for cross platform UNIX applications. Oh wait, they are all gone. And what happened you might ask? Once those developers ported their UNIX apps to Win32, Microsoft pulled the rug out from under them and eliminated the cross platform support. BANG, no more UNIX version of those applications. BANG, choice is gone at the whim of Microsoft. Know your history before you shoot your mouth off and talk about choice in regards to any Microsoft product, tool, etc.
You know what it was designed to do? Make Microsoft money! Horrors!
Where is the profits from this? They are freaking paying people to use this stuff and they are likely willing to lose billions doing this if that is what it takes to eliminate choice or atleast get developers tied to Windows instead of being cross platform with Flash/Flex.
Which is the same reason Sun made Java, and it's the same reason they're going (or have gone) open-source with it: because their potential profit of that decision outweighs any other disadvantages.
Sun does not and did not have a monopoly position do leverage and they didn't have the resources to pay people billions of dollars over years to make sure Java won the market. Speaking of Java, Microsoft went on a tear back then and was purchasing up Java compan
LoB
LoB