Anyone else think that IE8 is crap

PROLIANT

aliEnRIK wrote: »

Thats the main reason I hate Microsoft. They say something to your face, and secretly lie to you behind your back..........

Can you please explain what you mean Rik.

isofa

PROLIANT wrote: »

Can you please explain what you mean Rik.

Perhaps he's talking about the addition bugs in Excel

PROLIANT

There is nothing stopping developers using the Microsoft platform for development, why should you tamper with the host operating system in order to developed an application?
You should not, Microsoft and many other companies provide API's (Advanced programming interface) in order to access parts of the host sub-systems, open source is not restricted to "Linux" type operating systems, if Microsoft was free then you would not complain, only because you have to make a one off payment to purchase a suite of software from Microsoft does not make them the enemy, Bill Gates has staff to pay and a business to run - would you sit for 10 hours per day coding for free? I some how think not.
If you develop an open source application in your spare time and give it to the world free of charge then fair enough, but don't complain that Microsoft are holding you back and they are the biggest enemy on the planet, get off the bandwagon and look at the big picture.
If you want to "hack" an operating system then use Linux, that is what is there for, stop holding on to some deluded fantasy that the world will one day run on Linux and open source software because it will not.
There are some wonderful open source and free applications around and I find it quite impressive that there are people out there with time on their hands to invest in developing this software, however it will not make them wealthy or gain them any respect in business.
Microsoft are pioneers in computing as are the guy's who are involved in the R&D of the Linux project, Apple are also successful in what they do but at the end of the day it boils down individual needs and business requirements, I can't see the issue of working from industrial standards like many other products around the globe have done for years.

[Deleted User]

isofa wrote: »

Perhaps he's talking about the addition bugs in Excel

Which have been resolved in an update and also in SP1?

sk3

anewhope wrote: »

Regardless of the rest of the discussion that I can't be bothered to get involved in because it's circular and repetitive

Your modesty at conceding to most of my points is duly noted.

...but...

Ah yes, you'll ignore everything I said except that one thing... :rolleyes:

how exactly are open source developers prevented from developing software on the Windows platform?

Microsoft practises vendor lock-in (link), through proprietary formats, apis and some drivers. Developers are dependant on MS when coding for windows. For example, if you were to write a program which needs to access a device, you were forced to use a proprietary windows api to do it. In some cases, royalties had to be paid. This was then impossible to do with open source software. Windows apis are designed to lock developers to only the windows platform. That's what I meant by locked out.

And if you doubt what I've said here's a link to a times article about MS being fined $1.4 billion, in part for locking out competition, fta:

It also said that Microsoft had withheld information from the makers of other software which ensures that machines such as printers are able to communicate with computers running on Microsoft Windows.

Microsoft was ordered to provide the information.

It agreed to do so, but said that it would charge royalties because the protocols it was releasing amounted to valuable intellectual property.

Paying royalties might be ok for companies, but definitely not for open source development.

sk3

Proliant, refer to my reply to anewhope and actually read my previous posts and respond to what I write not some imaginary poster you've concocted in your head.

if Microsoft was free then you would not complain

No, if MS didn't engage in monopoly abuse I wouldn't mind so much.

, only because you have to make a one off payment

So if I made a one off payment for windows 3.1, I shouldn't have to pay again for the updates right? After all, that's what "a one off payment" means, right?

to purchase a suite of software from Microsoft does not make them the enemy, Bill Gates has staff to pay and a business to run...

I see you've completely ignored everything I've actually said and are now arguing with a rather clumsily constructed straw man. :rolleyes:

If you want to "hack" an operating system then use Linux

:rotfl:lol you have no idea what linux is do you? And yet you vigorously bash it... :rolleyes:

it will not make them wealthy or gain them any respect in business.

I hope you're not suggesting that MS is a good company because it makes a fortune off of its customers and abuses its monopoly power. Software isn't about showing off your brand new bmw or mercedes. BT may rip people off something impressive, but that's not the purpose of technology.

Btw, it's somewhat ironic to see people defend such a greedy company on a money saving website.

judderman62

sk3 wrote: »

Btw, it's somewhat ironic to see people defend such a greedy company on a money savings website.

ha ha isn't it just

Old_Sherlock

Microsoft and many other companies provide API's (Advanced programming interface) in order to access parts of the host sub-systems, open source is not restricted to "Linux" type operating systems, if Microsoft was free then you would not complain, only because you have to make a one off payment to purchase a suite of software from Microsoft does not make them the enemy, Bill Gates has staff to pay and a business to run - would you sit for 10 hours per day coding for free? I some how think not.

^
^
Agree.

Btw, it's somewhat ironic to see people defend such a greedy company on a money savings website.

Defend against what... it`s own success or the fact that it is a corporation that profits from selling operating systems ?

marleyboy

anewhope wrote: »

Regardless of the rest of the discussion that I can't be bothered to get involved in because it's circular and repetitive, but how exactly are open source developers prevented from developing software on the Windows platform?

Of course I and a few others went to the trouble to explain this specifically, of course as yousay you cant be bothered reading those posts, randomly selecting the odd one you can wiggle with like PROLIANT has opted to do, this thread is likely to go round and round in Circles. I personally have mentioned OS, cross platform, and source code, as clearly as I can, which bit confused you exactly?

[Deleted User]

marleyboy wrote: »

Of course I and a few others went to the trouble to explain this specifically, of course as yousay you cant be bothered reading those posts, randomly selecting the odd one you can wiggle with like PROLIANT has opted to do, this thread is likely to go round and round in Circles. I personally have mentioned OS, cross platform, and source code, as clearly as I can, which bit confused you exactly?

I never said I couldn't be bothered reading them, just that I can't get in the mud slinging contest against Microsoft. You don't have to use the API's that Microsoft provide to you, it just saves you having to re-invent the wheel every time you want to do something that has already been done.

Why should Microsoft distribute their source code in the same fashion that Open Source software does?