Why doesn't he understand
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| peragrin Feb 04, 2005 7:29 AM EDT |
They MSFT XML doc are based on standards. Yes they are, then they blow through those standards creating a barrier to which no one can legally enter. Products that MSFT makes that follow 'standards' HTML-IE only enhancments XML doc formats DHTML damn I can't think of the rest of that list. At least with open source if you don't like somebody else's implentation you can support for that format. Then again I am still waiting for Abi-word to allow import and export of Open Office Doc's. |
| devnet Feb 04, 2005 8:16 AM EDT |
You also know that they (M$) will only support XML formats for their own XML formatted application server. You think if samba ports over to XML that Microsoft will welcome them with open interoperable arms? Hell no. It's..."sure, use the XML format and do what w3c says for XML...but only if you do it the way we want it to be done like this" Which is misleading and downright devious. You watch, they'll make the world think that XML is only available through Microsoft with their mass marketing. |
| dinotrac Feb 04, 2005 11:06 AM EDT |
Come on, guys!! Gates deserves careful consideration here. After all, Microsoft has more experience with software that won't play well with others than any other organization on the face of this earth. |
| PaulFerris Feb 05, 2005 6:17 AM EDT |
You are all missing the point: It's the same reason those people on TV never listen to you when you talk back to them -- Gates is a dictator. It's a "one-way" "conversation". That's one of the major differences between the Linux community and Microsoft (although there's hope that it may be changing, but I'll reserve judgement for 3 to 5 years from now). The community is about conversation -- the current corporation that is Microsoft is about figuring how to ride the marketplace with a TV-like persona. Recently I nearly barfed when they had this commercial on TV, they're showing all of these children and casting them as rocket scientists and firemen and stuff like that. I noted than none of the children were head of their own software firm (wouldn't make good TV anyway). Gates wouldn't want competition regardless. Microsoft software doesn't come with tools to build and control your computer to the ultimate ends like OSS and Free Software alternatives. It's a "lock-em into what we've given them" strategy. It doesn't teach our children what they can ultimately control -- their computing destiny. Nothing more patronizing than the crap that I get running a windows box on a daily basis. How are the programmers of the future going to build innovative things like Linux if it gets extinguished with Software patents and other non-competitive tricks? |
| tuxchick Feb 05, 2005 9:03 AM EDT |
Am I the only one who thinks of the movie "Being There" whenever Billg opens his mouth? He is Chance the simple-minded gardener, whose empty ramblings are mistaken for genius. "Rich user experience. We deliver richness with a rich interface of rich things." We know there is only one person getting rich here... |
| dinotrac Feb 05, 2005 1:05 PM EDT |
tuxchick - I loved "Being There". A brilliant flick with a brillian send-off performance for Peter Sellers. It is that love that makes me want to shout at you: A I N ' T N O F R I C K I N ' W A Y ! ! ! ! ! ! You see, much as we'd like to think otherwise, Billg is not simple-minded. When he says all of these mindless things, it is not because he is mindless and it is not because he is ignorant. He says these things because they serve his purpose. Period. I don't believe in attributing to evil that which can be attributed to stupidity, but that's not the case when talking about Billg. I've followed him since he was hawking Altair Basic. The man is sharp. Think about it. Look at all of the people who were starting up companies at the same time as Gates, who were tasting big success as the same time he did. How many are still at the top? There's Larry Ellison, and, if you want to throw him in, Scott McNealy. Steve Jobs could be in this small gathering, but he deserves his own category for coming back from the dead. Even McNealy is questionable, given Sun's recent fortunes. Nope, Billg will do whatever it takes to benefit Microsoft, and he won't just stumble along in that direction like some lovable nerd who's somehow managed to get lucky. |
| tuxchick Feb 05, 2005 1:38 PM EDT |
O Extinct One, I did not mean to imply that billg is stupid. Far from it. The lad is quite smart, and totally ruthless. The stupid ones are those who drink up his content-less ramblings as though he were actually saying something. |
| dinotrac Feb 05, 2005 4:45 PM EDT |
Ah! Well, then, I take it all back and agree completely. |
| tuxchick Feb 05, 2005 6:06 PM EDT |
O Living Fossil, I could have worded it more clearly. It just drives me nuts that people eat up every word he says like he's really saying something profound and true. Of course we need to keep an eye on the old boy. But I have this forlorn wish that the tech and business press would take a more critical look at M$ and billg, instead of faithfully reporting their propaganda as fact. |
| PaulFerris Feb 06, 2005 2:23 AM EDT |
tuxxy: As discussed "There ain't no technology mainstream press" -- at lease in the good ole USA. If you're running a news organization, how is it funded? Tax dollars? NPR will interview Richard Stallman and all manner of OSS people. (they are partially funded by Tax dollars). The rest of the louts are paid by advertising, and guess who has the biggest pockets there? No surprise it's your buddy Bill's purse strings. They 0wn the trade press for the most part. You will find your anomolies. Nick Petreley used to be mainstream -- he was removed. Now, if you as a tech journalist and have a clue meter that's even half accurate, you're going to feel the heat. It's one of the reasons that a lot of the "news" about Linux that breaks is from the out of band sources and other very differently funded news organizations. |
| devnet Feb 07, 2005 3:58 AM EDT |
My favorite part of the article was where Billg touted the vast 'interoperability of Windows' by showing who the OS talks to..."IBM and other manufacturers; other operating systems such as the Mac OS and various UNIXes including Linux; NetWare or AppleTalk networks and native Internet protocols; dozens of programming languages, ranging from COBOL and RPG, through C++ and Java, to the latest experimental languages; hundreds of databases including Oracle, Sybase and DB2; popular business applications like SAP or Siebel; vertical industry standards like SWIFT or HL7; email systems; and infrastructure products providing message queues, directory, management and security." The funny part about it is that is that if MS is that if they talk to others, others talk to them as well. He makes it sound like they have only one cup and a piece of string to talk to these programs. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!