 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> nemesis wrote:
>> well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a
>> philanthropy/philosophy for
>> service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much
>> as M$.
>
> http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html
And Microsoft donates LOTS to charity, and Google has
http://google.org/. Your point?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmail isthebestcom> wrote:
> > nemesis wrote:
> >> well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a
> >> philanthropy/philosophy for
> >> service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much
> >> as M$.
> >
> > http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html
>
> And Microsoft donates LOTS to charity, and Google has
> http://google.org/. Your point?
oh, how beautiful! Monopolies with a soul, megacorps with a soft spot... ain't
mankind making progress from the days where slavery was the rule and coal mine
workers died from lung cancer?...
Now we have megaoligopolies with a heart, execs in suit with a Mickey Mouse
positive thinking, caring for the well being of their employees and society.
They take billions a year and in return give away a few million bucks to help
out those poor souls who have no water, no food, no house and no Vista...
that's touching...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez <nic### [at] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Gilles Tran escribió:
> > (by the way, I was always intrigued by the fact that a lot of Google
> > services are in perpetual beta. A regular IT company would suffer from this
> > (see what delaying Vista costed Microsoft), but Google, as an advertising
> > company, obviously uses the betas as testbeds for datamining ideas, and
> > drops them if they fail to generate ad revenue, direct or indirect).
>
> Perpetual beta is a "feature" of Web 2.0. (Whatever that means)
beta or not, I've never experienced crashes or much bugs with GMail (+Firefox)
or GoogleEarth as I have with M$oftware...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:47aeba0a@news.povray.org...
> Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful
As are a lot of MS products.
> > Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software
company
> > that creates and sells IT products.
> Which are in many cases slower and sometimes so crappy.
Than what? How do you measure crappiness?
> I've heard so
> many times saying I'm not using this MS product because is too slow,
> features are difficult to use, lacks of this and that, the GUI is a
> mess, this product does better on this and that...
It's natural to say that about the software products you use. I've said that
about *all* software vendors I dealt with. The fact that MS singles out in
your mind only means that you have used more MS products than other vendors,
nothing more.
Software development isn't easy, unless you are a one trick pony, don't have
an installed customer base, have interoperability requirements, need to
support users, have to respect backwards compatibility, respond to user
demands... etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> Every large company has some sort of a "do good/feel good" program, it's a
> marketing necessity nowadays, not out of "philanthropy/philosophy for
> service for the humanity" (!?).
It is, maybe not 100% altruistic but it is, and that si the important thing.
And don't forget Bill & Melinda Gates
> Foundation:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
>
> Knee jerk reaction is to root for the ""underdog"" and disparage the
> "overdog", but MS is probably more "greener" than Yahoo, and if your motive
> is truly philantrophy and not simply being anti-MS, it makes more sens to
> root for Bill: More of each $1000 you put in Bill's pocket will go to good
> causes than from $100 you put into pockets of 10 different people.
>
>
LOL, yeah right dude...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> nemesis wrote:
>>> well, you should agree that Yahoo! is not "about a
>>> philanthropy/philosophy for
>>> service for the humanity". They are at it for the money just as much
>>> as M$.
>>
>> http://forgood.yahoo.com/index.html
>
> And Microsoft donates LOTS to charity, and Google has
> http://google.org/. Your point?
read the whole treead
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
somebody wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
> news:47aeba0a@news.povray.org...
>
>> Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful
>
> As are a lot of MS products.
>
>>> Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software
> company
>>> that creates and sells IT products.
>
>> Which are in many cases slower and sometimes so crappy.
>
> Than what?
Than other products of course.
> How do you measure crappiness?
Does it matter? like everyone else then. I made the comparisions not
only for applications but also for programing languages and components,
so yes MS is A CRAPPY COMPANY, and I don't care if everyone think
otherwise.
>> I've heard so
>> many times saying I'm not using this MS product because is too slow,
>> features are difficult to use, lacks of this and that, the GUI is a
>> mess, this product does better on this and that...
>
> It's natural to say that about the software products you use. I've said that
> about *all* software vendors I dealt with.
you have no judgment criteria then...
> The fact that MS singles out in
> your mind only means that you have used more MS products than other vendors,
> nothing more.
hahaha, like you know my mind and you know exactly what software I have
or not, you're so wrong here in so many levels.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Don't make this into a flamewar, please...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Don't make this into a flamewar, please...
I'm not the one pretending to know some guys' mind and software
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote in message
news:47b095d1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:
> > Every large company has some sort of a "do good/feel good" program, it's
a
> > marketing necessity nowadays, not out of "philanthropy/philosophy for
> > service for the humanity" (!?).
> It is, maybe not 100% altruistic but it is, and that si the important
thing.
Let me rephrase it: Yahoo is no more or no less altruistic than any other
company of that scale.
>> And don't forget Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_%26_Melinda_Gates_Foundation
> >
> > Knee jerk reaction is to root for the ""underdog"" and disparage the
> > "overdog", but MS is probably more "greener" than Yahoo, and if your
motive
> > is truly philantrophy and not simply being anti-MS, it makes more sens
to
> > root for Bill: More of each $1000 you put in Bill's pocket will go to
good
> > causes than from $100 you put into pockets of 10 different people.
> LOL, yeah right dude...
That's not an argument. Mine follows straightforward from the law of
diminishing returns.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
