Re: Microsoft and trust

Tech-Archive recommends: Fix windows errors by optimizing your registry


"Bill McCarthy" <Bill@xxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:9143EADC-049E-4025-83FA-27AB493E98C2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Msot of your long winded rant has been about how
you view Microsoft as evil,

That "ranting" was a more common one ...

Which, if you believe, then you shouldn't be doing
any work in Windows.
Why?
I have to (for now) - but I'm making my way, to be able
to jump off in a few years - is that too difficult to understand?
And there is no switch for that - that's a (migration-)process.
And that process requires, that for some time your
applications can run on both platforms - and all I'm
saying is, that VB5/6-Apps currently run better
(without changing anything) than .NET-Apps (without
changing anything) on Linux - and that's good, because
that is a base-requirement for a "soft" migration.

So I think it's very irrelevant
to this discussion, it's just political FUD.
Call it as you like, but I just wanted to make clear, that
I don't see MS as the "sole source of all evil" - that problem
is system-immanent. Free and hale markets?...dream on.

...to: "spend money you
don't have for things you don't need" -

Hmmm, .NET is free, whereas VB6 isn't.
Neither one is "free" in the OpenSource-sense.
Mono is free (as long as the patent-problematic
remains a theoretical one, which I only can hope).
And sorry, what don't you understand about the fact,
that I apparently made a mistake some years ago and
now try to work around the problem as efficient as possible?

[community-driven approaches as the apparently only
way, to not make the same mistake twice]

So your arguement is that you shouldn't use VB6 then, right ?
???
After all you have no choice in what it does.
But at the current point in time I have made serious investments
into my knowledge "around VB" - I will not throw it away
that fast, only because you, or another advertiser says so.
And of course will I have to choose another language
and another environment at some point in the future,
but if that point in time comes, then I want to choose
the optimal matching platform or language (and maybe
I have some more options to choose from, than I have
now) for the kind of tasks I will have to deal with then.
Will keep my eyes open over time - and I will not risk
any vendor-lockin anymore, at least that's for sure.

Sure. And with mono we're gettign viable dotnet
alternatives as well.
As said, I'm fine with that, - use it (it runs even on windows) -
but stop, only "talking about" it.

What "market pressure" are you talking about, which is not
entirely made up?
To be more clear about what I mean, just look at a (never
working, I know ;) "car-example".
http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=-7181986019119712261
25 Minutes, which worth looking at "til the end". All in all
another perfect demonstration, where interest of the big-players
(GM + the Oil-industry) dominates sane customer-demands.
Instead you are constrained, to buy their thirsty 2000kg-SUVs.

You see, that is an exact example of the kind of FUD I am
talkign about. You grasp onto a conspiracy theory, ...
Ehm, stop for the moment - can you look please, what caused
this small example?
You were telling me, that all the manufacturers only react to
market-pressure.
Now tell me, where the "market-pressure" *is* regarding this
car-example.
(to be concrete: the market here was characterized by
endless waitlists of interested customers despite the fact
of very bad advertising. GM says no, we are not interested
to fullfill the customers demand on that market).
Now an example for the opposite direction regarding .NET.
There is no broad demand for a large VM-based environment,
normally belonging to servers, to write your Desktop-apps
with it. Not even the vendor itself uses it for his own Desktop-
Apps - but you should of course buy it.

So on one side we have customers, which don't get what
they want - and on the other side we have customers, who
are forced to buy something they don't need - and that's ill,
that's not market-pressure, that's market-forming resulting
in customer-pressure - that's not what I'd call "normal advertising"
anymore.
Am I getting through? ;-)

But as said above, other than in these industries, where the
customer has no real chance to break out, we have one.

Wow. So Honda, BMW, Volvo are all lying huh ;)
Seems, you didn't really understood (again), what was the
problem with the EV1.
First you will have to decide between two fundamental
concepts: The fuel-concept - and the (pure) plugin-concept .
The one needs Oil or Gas and the complete fuel-
infrastructure - where the other one does not - it relies
on the already existing electric network.
Now tell me, whose interests are going to be hurt
in the one and in the other case.

Pure plugin-concepts are a horror-scenario for the oil-
multis - and don't tell me, that these wouldn't have any
chance, to excert influence to GM or any other car-
manufacturer. I mean, they are apparently capable, to
get even the US-government to protect their interests
"somewhere overseas" - so why should GM "withstand"?
But I'm getting political again, I know, nobody likes that. ;-)

[Eco-mobiles:]
BMW favorites H2 direct burning.
Mercedes (and others) the FuelCell (based on H2).
Volvo favorites natural gas and/or H2 for direct burning
etc.
Did you ever questioned yourself, why they are
riding this "H2-wave" altogether and where all that H2
would come from in larger dimensions?
Oh, ... yes, ...from natural-gas of course - surprise.
There are very few concepts, to get larger amounts
of H2 over alternative, more ecological approaches.
Finally; the same fuel-infrastructure as always - and that's
good "news" for the oil-(and natural gas-)industry, correct?

Only some japanese hybrid-manufacturers have currently
(only semi-) plugins available, with somewhat more "weight"
at the fuel-based enine than on the electric one (too small
batteries). That's a compromise which the oil-industry
and the car-manufacturer (regarding their combustion-engine-
based maintenance-infrastructure) apparently can live with.

But nowhere is a pure-plugin concept from a *large*
vendor in sight, and that despite the very good resonance
from the customers side with the EV1.

... it's always a bit too
easy for a "naive mind" (sorry to say), to call all others
paranoid, who bring up serious questions that don't fit
into ones simplified "view of the world".

It's actually the paranoid view that is the simplistic
view. Let me give you an example as was demonstrated
by Mike Williams here the last couple of days ago.
What's paranoid about that?
He had a thesis, he was doing his research to find
out some facts - and as it seems, for some time - he
had the opinion, that the facts he found out, prove his
thesis.
He would be paranoid, if he would *not-give-up* his
thesis *although* he was proven wrong by evident facts.
But as far as I've read that part of the thread, he has
already admitted, that he was riding the wrong horse.

That's the very narrow view people with
paranoia have.. they fail to look at all the facts.
Now you will probably tell me, what facts I am missing,
right?
Let's see...

It's kind of like so called documentaries about the
conspiracy against electric cars, they'll show footage
of cars being crushed as if that is relevant.
I also don't like these "show-effects" in documentaries,
but the media (not me) seems to like it - and has put
this scene also into their "opener sequence" - but
"Klappern gehört zum Handwerk" (sorry, cannot find
a good matching translation for this german proverb).

But anyway - is that one of your promised facts, which
proves my thesis wrong? No, because it is irrelevant
as you say yourself some lines above.
Please try another one of your "facts"..

The heads behind that large companies are definitely
*not* at a "basic level", they don't act "naive" - so, try
to get to their "art" of thinking first - try to see the world
through their eyes (with all that power and money behind
"you"), before you decide, what's paranoia and what's not.

Sorry, but that's the typical kind of argument paranoid
people make, where they project their narrow view of the
world onto what they think other people are thinking.
Ok, that's just another thesis you now bring up, not more.
Try to work with facts in your "argumentation".
Its always a little bit too easy, to simply come up with your
apparently beloved "paranoia-bat".

And about markets:
Those work good as long as there are many, small enough
players, which more or less fight *each-other* - for
the benefit of the customer - these markets are healthy.
And there are "markets", which are dominated by a
very small amount of players - and too often these
players don't really fight with each other anymore -
and I wouldn't go that far, that it is now the customer
who they "fight", but on these "markets" you will see
"nasty effects" coming up.
I mean, there's a reason for antitrust-institutions, right?
Institutions, who fail today IMO, who don't get their job
right.
Now you probably come along and tell me, that
overboarding lobbying or corruption are always plain
lies, made up from paranoid conspiracy-theorists.

And on the other hand we have these huge (trivial-)patent-
concentration on the side of the big players - that's also
not good for smaller firms to enter these "markets", who soon
cannot even write something like "Hello-World" anymore,
without risking a lawsuit (and not having a bunch of
star-lawyers in their "pockets"). It's the system, which
fails again here, ensuring that such disbalances (at least
not in that dimensions) never should happen.

IMO "thinking around three corners" is not paranoia per se,
it's first of all "thinking around three corners" - not more.


Yes, marketing-noise for the pure sake of "false openness".

Again, that's just a twisted view of response to market demand.
Goverments and individuals are requiring open-ness, and that is
the main driving force behind MS's shift there.
Yes, of course - what I'm trying to say is, that we need "more
of that in a better quality", not that much noise about "little of
that in poor quality" - and that e.g. the EU has to make sure,
that opening up interfaces and the inner workings of specifications
has to be available for reusage without risking patent-lawsuits.

Instead of their current claim: "look, we are that selfless,

I don't think they have ever said that: if they did their
shareholders would get upset. They position themselves based
on market demands.
Try to understand irony.

...they would only have to open up their .NET- (or Silverlight-)
code under a true, reusable license (e.g. LGPL) - without
making that much noise.

No, that would probably lead to two different implementations
? -> Read about the (L)GPL.
Under LGPL we had only one single and open Silverlight-version
for all platforms - no Moonlight anywhere. Initiated by MS
(thanks, if they would) and further developed by a community.

and also cause them to force limitations on the usage to
protect their intellectual property.
LOL, that's my whole point - one cannot claim, to be
really "open" and at the same time only thinking about
"how can I protect my assets" - that's contradictory.

Actually Microsoft's license typically prohibit reverse
engineering as well.
You mean this huge MS-EULAs, right?, which even try to
tell the user, which directions he's allowed to shift his mouse.
And no, not every (wrong) point in those EULAs would be
accepted in a theoretical lawsuit.
Reverse engineering only based on interfaces is allowed.
If it wouldn't, then MS could prosecute CodeWeavers
(the firm behind Wine) or the Samba-People immediately.

[risking a lawsuit]
Now those are in danger,
Danger, danger, danger !!
Ok, what word would you choose, to describe a situation
of someone, who is doing something which is perfectly legal,
but could cause a lawsuit anyway?

You could anyway. Availability of the source doesn't
change the rights of a patent.
That depends on the license of the opened source.
Read about: opensource-licenses.

That stands against the claims you made.
No, not really, if you seriously try to follow my arguments.

See above ;)
Yes, I see - you have tried.
But I see only noise there, no facts, no real arguments.
Instead you come up with "paranoia", "conspiracies",
"danger, danger, danger" - sorry, but that's not what
I'd call argumentation.

Olaf


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft and trust
    ... to fullfill the customers demand on that market). ... It's actually the paranoid view that is the simplistic ... had the opinion, that the facts he found out, prove his ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Microsoft and trust
    ... to fullfill the customers demand on that market). ... You ignore the real facts that the car had a limited range, limited marketability, had supplier issues, and real cost was extrodonarilly high. ... Given the limited range of the vehicle, why aren't you blaming the hotel associations of america as the big conspirators as many would certainly suffer if cars could only travel 40 miles a day. ... And that's where the conspiracy theory blinders make your arguement totally ludricous. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: In Regards to Swift Slamming
    ... you refuse to look at the facts. ... 36 for a good driver. ... The fact is, Swift is not a good place to work, ... between swift drivers and customers was the driver, ...
    (misc.transport.trucking)
  • Re: Do you care where your tools are manufactured?
    ... and is willing to pay a reasonable amount more for that quality. ... but it's the size of that market that was under question here. ... I understand your position and sympathize but facts is facts on both ... Sustained profitability and growth over a long period of ...
    (rec.woodworking)
  • Re: Mac market share growth...
    ... your misconceptions about my other posts will not change the market ... share facts in this thread. ... You don't consider me calling you a moron and a liar to be disputing ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)