Is this common everywhere?
-
We wouldn't have to worry about it. After all it would be a perfect world. In other words, beats the hell out of me. :) Some exchange(not server) based system, like ok X produces bread(works at a bread company) Z grows vegetables and fruit and so on. And everybody gets it well deserved peace of bread and fruit and.... Ok this is more than perfect it's a dreamy/irealistic world but I have my right to dream.
I used to think.... Finally I realized it's no good.
Dream on!
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Neat phrase! Those are some really hardcore nuns.
-
MDL=>Moshu wrote:
I would totally eradicate the monetary system from the face of this planet
Interesting. How would that work for the elderly or infirm members of society?
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
MDL=>Moshu wrote: I would totally eradicate the monetary system from the face of this planet Interesting. How would that work for the elderly or infirm members of society?
Easy, in such a system they would have to be the food.
He said, "Boy I'm just old and lonely, But thank you for your concern, Here's wishing you a Happy New Year." I wished him one back in return.
-
I'm not trying to take sides, but have you ever considered that people can have different views on what's funny and not?
-
Dream on!
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Neat phrase! Those are some really hardcore nuns.
Yeah, when I read of it's possible derivation, I went :wtf: :wtf: :wtf: .
Chris Meech I am Canadian. [heard in a local bar] In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. [Yogi Berra]
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
It seems to be quite common with things that are made by Apple too
See if you can crack this: fb29a481781fe9b3fb8de57cda45fbef
The unofficial awesome history of Code Project's Bob! "People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid."
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
I work for a massive company (125,000 employees) who have dumped all MS server products in favour of LAMP and all .NET desktop development in favour of C++/Qt. As a C++ contractor I'm not complaining.
-
That's because that's the central theme of the OS or the FSF movement. That they constantly whine about how Microsoft sucks is secondary to their primary belief system - that one is entirely based on Microsoft's profit/business model. So by definition, anyone who's pro-OS or pro-FSF has to hate anything from Microsoft even if it's the greatest product or framework ever created. At least they are honest in their beliefs.
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.
For those of you who are bored with reading Nish's long-winded explanation, I'll paraphrase: Richard Stallman is a socialist moron.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^] -
For those of you who are bored with reading Nish's long-winded explanation, I'll paraphrase: Richard Stallman is a socialist moron.
Software Zen:
delete this;
Fold With Us![^]:laugh:
Regards, Nish
My technology blog: voidnish.wordpress.com Code Project Forums : New Posts Monitor This application monitors for new posts in the Code Project forums.
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
César de Souza wrote:
So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Yes, though I personally haven't met very many that don't at least grudgingly qualify their preference with something on the order of "for this particular task". If it's truly an unreasoned response, I laugh at them. Go ahead, be unprepared for a managerial/strategic shift. Better for me.
Currently reading: "A Desert Called Peace", by Tom Kratman
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
It is common everywhere but it is human nature that it is Microsoft. I've been in this business for 28 years before there was a Microsoft and someone ALWAYS has an opinion about something whether it makes sense or not. Back in the day when most of us were programming in FORTRAN I had a friend who could not understand why we were not programming in PL/1 (his favorite language). Explanations as to why you were not using PL/1 fell on deaf ears. Anyway, I use Microsoft tools when the client is a Microsoft shop and whatever else I need to use for other clients. It is whatever gets the job done. Whenever the religious zealots espouse their opinions I give them a pitying look and move on.
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
It is a love and hate relationship with Microsoft. Its software is generally user friendly and easy to learn or to support. But they seem to have some fundamental issues that can't be resolved. Taking the Windows operating system as an example, it always takes too long to start and to shut down. This is the most important reason that many people in my corp switched to Mac. In terms of servers, I never see an IIS server running for a month without a reboot at least in my company.
TOMZ_KV
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Absolutely, I agree, you know I'm a Microsoft shop not because I can't learn other things or because I'm a MS fanatic (that in part I should but not too much, I can be a critic too), it is because it offers the enough support for developers than anyone out there (in my opinion) and because specializing I can offer added knowledge value and be ahead of competition. And yes I face anti-Microsoft practices everyday while looking for a project there are people who just don't know enough about technology and what you can do with it, there are people open minded who are willing to listen options but there are others that simply won't because you are saying Microsoft. The way I deal with it is presenting real world software that was made using MS technology, and when they see something they didn't see before they say wow I want that :)
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
I am a Microsoft developer, and have been for 15 years because MS have always made it easy for me to do my job - develop great apps within a familiar environment, while enabling other developers to understand my work and get the support I need, when I need it. I have always found myself in extremely high demand especially in the larger corps such as banking in London. I, along with collegues like our systems running on MS solutions as they are the best all-in-one for what we need. .net offers a forced, high standard model of programming. How to deal with it: learn another programming language and earn less money and implement solutions that cost less or move on and earn more money, providing better solutions where you are appreciated as an MS developer. I believe the anti-MS thing is for those who can't afford MS, you pay for what you get in this world, they don't know what they are missing.
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
Most people who are passionate about open-source environments tend to dislike Microsoft products. However, that doesn't make these products any better or worse than what open-source proponents use. I am a senior software engineer and I have been using Microsoft products since the early 1990s and I enjoy using them. However, I have an interest in using corresponding products on the Linux platform if I had the time; especially with the Mono Project. That being said, most open-source products are not all that good and very poorly documented. However, there are quite a few very mature and excellent open-source products that I would not hesitate to use if I had the chance. The people deeply involved in the open-source community are in many ways nothing more than ideologues with very narrow mind-sets. You find this in the Microsoft community as well. However, the difference is that with Microsoft, as a professional developer, you are there to earn a living and rarely have time to work for free. The open-source community was built by academics and young technicians who did\do not have the responsibilities that older professionals have so it is quite easy for them to disregard anything that they do not see as "pure" or built with their specific concerns in mind. As to the promotion of working at a more natural or detailed level than Microsoft products provide for, this is complete nonsense. As professional developers we are not in the business to waste time working with low-level details in order to satisfy our "inner selves". However, even with Microsoft developers you will find similar attitudes as with the proponents of the new ASP.NET MVC development model who only believe that building RESTful applications is the proper way to create web-based applications. Technologically they are correct. However, the real world is not interested in the correctness of a technology solution but that it get implemented. Microsoft professionals do what we do because we enjoy it and want to earn a living building applications and components not fiddle with how best to create a layout; most of which does little to increase the performance or smoothness of an application's processing. The attitudes of those in the open-source community that seem to scoff at such levels of work never had to build large-scale applications under tight-deadlines while under contract. If they had they would never promote such nonsense and would be looking for ways to make their jobs easier just as we Microsoft developers often do
-
Well, this is one my first posts here in the Lounge... I just wanted to expose a situation I find very often. And rant a little. Oh well. First, a disclaimer: I am currently working as a software developer in a mostly-Linux shop. We develop and maintain mission-critical systems for telecommunications. Naturally, most of work is done in C++ using vi and emacs in remote terminals. So I have no problems working with either C++, Linux, Windows or C# (which is my personal favorite). For me it is just a question of working with different tools to get the job done. But the problem is: very often I find people who seems to be completely anti-Microsoft. They would refuse to use any Microsoft technology, and when questioned why, they would just reply: "Because it is from Microsoft". It would be OK if they said: "It didn't attend our needs", "It does not have feature X", or "we needed true platform independence" (which sometimes just isn't true, as platform independence is used only as a marketing feature). But the only reason I hear is that it was not even considered because "it was from Microsoft". How could that be? By the way, in one of the most prestigiated universities here, students are supposed to know Linux and only Linux. They aren't even allowed to be creative in their user interfaces, because most of the exercises are corrected by an automated system which simply pass things to the input of a student's program and waits for an expected output. It is like if Linux and open-source software were the only truth they would need in life. For me, this whole anti-Microsoft, pro-free software fanatism is just ridiculous. I use free and open-source software, but I also use commercial ones. I actually develop free and open-source software, but I also work on a commercial one. There are people out there who thinks anything that comes from a commercial corporation is evil and should be avoided at all costs, even if this implies using sub-optimal software just because it is "libre". I don't even dare anymore to explain why my preferred language is C# to those people. When they ask, they aren't really interested in the answer. They just get amused because, in their own closed mind, anything Microsoft must suck. So, does this happen in the rest of the world as well? How do you deal with it?
Interested in Machine Learning in .NET? Check the Accord.NET Framework. See also
The hate for Micro$oft started that dark day when Gates accused all of us of being pirates (him selling of $4 of papertape for $400 was not piracy, but good business sense). It picked up speed when he branched out into OSes (that he bought from someone else for a song). Then it really became disgust as Windows running on top of DOS would check to see whose OS it was running on and in an incredible display of FUD would pop up the dialog box saying that running Windows on an OS other than MS-DOS could make it unstable. As though it was the fault of the OS that Windows was unstable... The years we had to suffer with the one line editor EDLIN did not end until Digital Research added a full screen editor to their DOS and finally forced Bill to spend some time and money upgrading their product. Followed by the days of WINTEL, when processes were made as inefficient as possible to force the sale of faster processors and more memory, which iterated until today. Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards! We are the standard! And so began "Embrace, Expand, Extinguish" as the mindset for corporate dominance. I'll admit I like the dotNet environment, but it has taken them far too long to finally figure out how to write programs.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11
-
Most people who are passionate about open-source environments tend to dislike Microsoft products. However, that doesn't make these products any better or worse than what open-source proponents use. I am a senior software engineer and I have been using Microsoft products since the early 1990s and I enjoy using them. However, I have an interest in using corresponding products on the Linux platform if I had the time; especially with the Mono Project. That being said, most open-source products are not all that good and very poorly documented. However, there are quite a few very mature and excellent open-source products that I would not hesitate to use if I had the chance. The people deeply involved in the open-source community are in many ways nothing more than ideologues with very narrow mind-sets. You find this in the Microsoft community as well. However, the difference is that with Microsoft, as a professional developer, you are there to earn a living and rarely have time to work for free. The open-source community was built by academics and young technicians who did\do not have the responsibilities that older professionals have so it is quite easy for them to disregard anything that they do not see as "pure" or built with their specific concerns in mind. As to the promotion of working at a more natural or detailed level than Microsoft products provide for, this is complete nonsense. As professional developers we are not in the business to waste time working with low-level details in order to satisfy our "inner selves". However, even with Microsoft developers you will find similar attitudes as with the proponents of the new ASP.NET MVC development model who only believe that building RESTful applications is the proper way to create web-based applications. Technologically they are correct. However, the real world is not interested in the correctness of a technology solution but that it get implemented. Microsoft professionals do what we do because we enjoy it and want to earn a living building applications and components not fiddle with how best to create a layout; most of which does little to increase the performance or smoothness of an application's processing. The attitudes of those in the open-source community that seem to scoff at such levels of work never had to build large-scale applications under tight-deadlines while under contract. If they had they would never promote such nonsense and would be looking for ways to make their jobs easier just as we Microsoft developers often do
Just another point, every time I try and use open source software to develop an app, I end up having to pay more than if I had developed it in MS platform to remove e.g. the open source logo or license it for my web-app. On multiple occasions open source has made my life difficult/more expensive in this respect. The open source software I use always seems to get bought out by a larger software company. MS seems to me to be the only platform that I can provide a business-class solution without any comebacks like this.
-
The hate for Micro$oft started that dark day when Gates accused all of us of being pirates (him selling of $4 of papertape for $400 was not piracy, but good business sense). It picked up speed when he branched out into OSes (that he bought from someone else for a song). Then it really became disgust as Windows running on top of DOS would check to see whose OS it was running on and in an incredible display of FUD would pop up the dialog box saying that running Windows on an OS other than MS-DOS could make it unstable. As though it was the fault of the OS that Windows was unstable... The years we had to suffer with the one line editor EDLIN did not end until Digital Research added a full screen editor to their DOS and finally forced Bill to spend some time and money upgrading their product. Followed by the days of WINTEL, when processes were made as inefficient as possible to force the sale of faster processors and more memory, which iterated until today. Standards? We don't need no stinkin' standards! We are the standard! And so began "Embrace, Expand, Extinguish" as the mindset for corporate dominance. I'll admit I like the dotNet environment, but it has taken them far too long to finally figure out how to write programs.
Psychosis at 10 Film at 11
He then donated a large-fortune to charity. Happy birthday Bill!