Re: Microsoft and trust

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


"Schmidt" <sss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:u038ygbkIHA.4480@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

"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 that has taken you seven years so far ? And yet still no clear direction form you which way you are moving or to where ?

And there is no switch for that - that's a (migration-)process.


right. But the first step of such a migration is to determine *where* you are migrating to. All you've said is where you are migrating from ;)


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.



If by better, you mean *almost* intact via wine on a linux OS, that might be true. But it isn't something I would expect people to be developing towards. If you look at the wine database of applciations, you'll see the vast majority don't work entirely as intended, in fact the largest catergory don't run at all. Then there's some that run with a variety of bizarre problems. Then there's some that *seem* to run okay, but haven't actually presented full unti test or UI test results.

So if *testing* is not part of your development, then sure you might think that better. But if testign is part of your development, I'd much rather actually develop for the intended platform: hence Mono.




> ...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


Mono is free, CLI is ISO spec.


(as long as the patent-problematic
remains a theoretical one, which I only can hope).


Again, jsut rhetoric FUD from you... The "scare" factor. Please read the ISO and ECMA specifications.


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?


Wow, 7 years is as efficient as possible ? IF you were GM, people would be accusing you of colluding with big oil ;)



[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" -


Ah, now we're getting closer to the real truth. It's your investment in your "knowledge". Which basically means you find it hard to port your skills to other programming languages. That's a valid point for a lot of people, especially retired folks etc. Persoanlly, I found my skills adapted to VB.NET (VB 7) very rapidly without any major issues.



And of course will I have to choose another language
and another environment at some point in the future,


Oh, so after seven years, even tought you claim to be moving away from Microsoft and VB6, you still haven't decided where ?


but if that point in time comes,


"if" ????

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.


Again, dotnet provides a non vendor lock in.


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.


:|



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).

<sigh> This simply is not true. As GM said, of the 5000 on the waitlist, only 50 actually took up the lease when offered. There weren't endless waitlists.

The real issue here is yo are failing to seethe truth, instead you're happily following the anti big business paranoia/conspiracy theories. For example, you blame "big oil" for it, but have absolutely no facts to back that up. 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.

The problem is you are viewign a niche market, that was heavily subsidised by the car manufaturer as somehow viable back then, when clearly it was not. You blame greedy big companies, yet you fail to stop and think if there was a *viable* market then, other players and investors from somewhere in the world would jump in and take those profits. And that's where the conspiracy theory blinders make your arguement totally ludricous.

Add to that the fact GM is bringing out the Volt, kind of blows holes in your conspiracy theories. What they are doing is responding to what the market wants. Oh, and for the record, GM makes a range of cars. It certainly does not force anyone to buy SUV's but people do. It's that market pressure that they respond to and produce more SUVs. Small cars are available at a fraction of the price, yet *people* want SUVs.



Now an example for the opposite direction regarding .NET.
There is no broad demand for a large VM-based environment,

Says who ? Oh, you're just making things up now. If there was no broad demand for VM based environment, then why are the leadign two "platforms" Java and .NET ?

normally belonging to servers, to write your Desktop-apps
with it.

AS desktops becoem mroe powerful, have multiple cores, the very same reasons VM's are desirable on servers translates to desktops. VM's also have other advantages, such as sand boxing, which is important for technologies over the web such as SilverLight. That was the huge hole ActiveX completely failed in. (lets cal lthat the EV1 <g>)



So on one side we have customers, which don't get what
they want -

Again, you have your facts wrong. You even claimed "Instead you are constrained, to buy their thirsty 2000kg-SUVs". That's just utter FUD.


and that's ill,
that's not market-pressure, that's market-forming resulting
in customer-pressure

What ? You have option in software and have had for years. You have a more limited set of option with cars, but you certainly are not constrained into buying a SUV.



> 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.

I think it is you who hasn't.

First you will have to decide between two fundamental
concepts: The fuel-concept - and the (pure) plugin-concept .

The pure plug-in concept is a limited market. It has some major issues. Let's say you hop in your pure plug in car with a 40 mile range and commute to work in the morning. Now lets say there's a blizard as is hte case in a lot of places across northern america. Just how long will you sruvive in that car in freezing temperatures ?


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.

Nonsense. Hydrogen can be manufactured from water at abotu 25% efficiency. At the moment by products of gas, (mainly methane) are the most economical source. That will change over time.
Once you take into consideration power to weight ratios, fuel cell lifetime verus battery lifetime, massively larger range, ability to instantly refuel etc, hydrogen fuel cells make a lot of sense.
IIRC, total craddle to grave figures for solar /wind plants using hydrogen as an energy store, are vastly better than using lead acid or NiMH batteries.



Now tell me, whose interests are going to be hurt
in the one and in the other case.


<sigh> You really *want to believe* that there is an evil empire otu there don't you ? One that is capable of controlling every car manuafacturer, every enterpenour in the world. </sigh>


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.

Dude, GM Volt.



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.


<sigh> you just want to beleive the conspiracy theory again.



> ... 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.


You're kidding right ? First he ignored the obvious differences in opinions between me and Michael. Then he ignored the IP's were different and that the OS's were different, and the locations his sleuthing pointed to were different. The facts all pointed *away* from his thesis, but instead of recognizing that, he instead said that I cleverly tried to disguise my IP etc. Now stop and think about that. If I "cleverly tried" to disguise my IP, I'd just do that by posting via the web <geez> No, he had a conspiracy theory and it blinded him to all the facts


But as far as I've read that part of the thread, he has
already admitted, that he was riding the wrong horse.


Where ?
Cite where he has admitted he was wrong ?

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

It was full of crap like a couple of women sittign on a couch blaming GM for sellign SUV's </sigh>

"Klappern gehört zum Handwerk" (sorry, cannot find
a good matching translation for this german proverb).


Then what's the point of posting it ?


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"..


I clearly stated I didn't want to wade into dealing with another one of you silly conspiracy theories. I'm sure the list of conspiracy theories can keep going on and on, but it is really irrelevant other than showing you have a tendency towards that way of thinking. Get it yet ?

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Semi OT: Domestics take another hit in market share
    ... parents] for years 'I'll never buy another GM, Ford or Chrysler ... the Big 3 lost the youth market by ... not investing in entry level cars & entry-level performance cars. ... If a dealer's got a great service department, it feeds both sales and service. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: Semi OT: Domestics take another hit in market share
    ... performance cars. ... the Big-3's market share will ... to the union -- few paid as well as Ford, ... Tundra sales are increasing and Chevy's full size truck sales ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • Re: The ending
    ... It's a mistake to say that banks produce nothing. ... But there is an inherent problem with letting the market fix the market... ... a sufficient number of small fuel-efficient cars to offset the large luxury cars, SUVs and trucks which are their real bread and butter. ... The Big 3 can sell large expensive vehicles at a profit but their small cars can't compete with offerings from Japanese and European producers, who of necessity, have been making excellent small gas-misers for decades. ...
    (comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg)
  • Re: Semi OT: Domestics take another hit in market share
    ... parents] for years 'I'll never buy another GM, Ford or Chrysler ... the Big 3 lost the youth market by ... not investing in entry level cars & entry-level performance cars. ... it feeds both sales and service. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang)
  • 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)