Comments on: Giving Your Data to Microsoft, Now Available as ‘Open Source’ (for Windows Only)

By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:47:48 +0000

It’s the same troll (Bill Weisgerber) who has been plaguing ZDNet, USENET Linux newsgroups, Groklaw and other Linux sites for about a decade or more.

Several years ago someone sent me the following E-mail:

hi,

i just happened to notice that you spent some text debunking my old ‘friend’
bill weisgerber last spring.

i went around with bill (& a host of other paid2post shills) on a nytimes
forum for over 3 years. despite being exposed for what/who they were/are,
they just would not quit their mindless pr firm hypenosys. at that time, the
nytimes was quite supportive of their charade. what a blight.

just anecdotal.

best regards,

By: Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:25:26 +0000

Oh the troll is back. Don’t lie. You know very well that the M$ products are not compatible with each other. The difference is wagged as bait to force upgrades.

By: Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:24:54 +0000

Microserf is a whole separate dialect of English.

e.g. “I innovated a donut off of an old man after I knocked him down a flight of stairs in his wheel chair.”

By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:11:59 +0000

The word “interoperability” usually means patents too when Microsoft says it.

By: Amicus_Curious

Amicus_Curious — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:05:41 +0000

The vast majority of the world’s computer users and software developers don’t have any concern for operating systems beyond knowing what others are using. In the case of the user, the ubiquity of Windows eliminates any concern for mis-selecting of technology since there is really only the one choice and applications are therefore going to be compatible for certain. From an application developer’s point of view, there is no need to accomodate beyond Windows APIs since the users are mostly equipped with machines that work that way. For a few cases where it is desired to offer applications compatible with the Apple Macintosh, the extra work can be justified based on expected revenues (or not) on a case by case basis.

The sense of “open source” comes from the widespread availability of SDKs, APSs, and programming tools that put all developers, large or small or even individual, on the same level and give each the opportunity to compete equally with others.

That is where the FLOSS cultists miss the boat. Next to no one cares about how the application is built, they only care about how well it works and if it does not work well enough they will seek another application. They are not going to bother to try to fix it themselves even if they were capable. They have their own fish to fry and piddling around with someone else’s mistakes is hardly an interesting occupation. Of course there are the few who do seem to want to do just that, but they are folks whom you probably should avoid any contact with.

By: Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:41:37 +0000

As much as it pains to link to Flash, there is a quote mid-way about interoperability never having been a priority for Microsoft. A classic Nordic understatement.

http://jz10.java.no/java-4-ever-trailer.html