Invisible wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay 
>> in bussiness what do you think?
> 
> Yahoo is still going?
> 
> Oh well, no loss...
> 
Well actually I think indirectly we all loose if Yahoo! call it quits.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> 
>> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay in
>> bussiness what do you think?
>>
>> I think they're doing fine and is not the money exclusively, is about a
>> philanthropy/philosophy for service for the humanity,
> 
> What are you smoking?
> 
> 

What do you have for brains? can you think in something better to write?

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> >   If MS tried to buy the Free Software Foundation, that would be interesting.
>
> That is MS & Bill Gates wet dream, dooms day for MS competition at the
> best price possible (free).

That would only mean Bill'd be the copyright owner of several important GPL
projects.  Unfortunately for him, said copyright specifically grants the right
to others to copy and change the software the license covers.  If that day ever
happened, day 2 would see some thousands of forks for said software...

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> somebody wrote:
> > "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote
> >
> >> As you maight know for $us. 44.6 Billions. I think Yahoo should stay in
> >> bussiness what do you think?
> >>
> >> I think they're doing fine and is not the money exclusively, is about a
> >> philanthropy/philosophy for service for the humanity,
> >
> > What are you smoking?
> >
> >
>
> What do you have for brains? can you think in something better to write?

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$.

what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
tightly in the hands of a single american company...

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
47ae138b@news.povray.org...
> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on  The
> Net, IMO.

To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***. 
This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing 
services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services, 
office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to 
be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

Say what you want about Microsoft, it's still primarily a software company 
that creates and sells IT products. Google and Yahoo only exist to make you 
buy noodles, porn and garden tools. Of course, MS would like a piece of that 
cake too, but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the 
internet".

G.

-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

"It is to be remembered that the reason we have programs on television 
and music on radio is that nobody wants to listen to the advertisements."

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> "Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> a écrit dans le message de news: 
> 47ae138b@news.povray.org...
>> I know Google is the best thing on the Internet for what Google does,
>> (Internet and Office tools) but Yahoo! is good enough to stay on  The
>> Net, IMO.
> 
> To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks ***. 
> This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other marketing 
> services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, email services, 
> office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use marketroid speach, assets to 
> be leveraged, that only exist to bring ads to your desktop.

Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful so 
your afirmation falls short here.

> 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. 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... This is why they're 
are as pathetic as gigantic they are. Money doesn't mean necessarily 
that you have the best product or you're the best at something, but MS 
should since has all the resources it needs to accomplish that.

Many people buy MS just for the "compatibility" with Windows and because 
they think MS is just great for some reason I can't understand. One 
thing I can say about MS without fear of mistaken is that they excel in 
mediocrity.

> Google and Yahoo only exist to make you 
> buy noodles, porn and garden tools.

You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless 
hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet 
speed search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you 
  need, no matter how odd it may seem.

> Of course, MS would like a piece of that 
> cake too,

they want a peace of everything so they can be mediocre on it.

  but think twice about saying that "Google is the best thing on the
> internet".
> 
> G.

I frankly think it is, I don't have to think twice about it, and you 
should read the whole sentence to realize what I meant, you missed :"... 
best thing on the internet for what they do", not on everything possible 
as you tried to show that I said that.

Post a reply to this message

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 Google has many tools you can use for free, I know everything free 
needs economic support anyway, hence the ads and the comercial versions, 
but is IMO is a low price to pay for so many useful things Google has to 
offer. I use mostly Google's search engine and "ad sense" brings a few 
lines of ads, oh please! Is ridiculously chep in exchange for the 
usefulness of the ingo I get. OK, take 'Google Desktop', makes a good 
job indexing your files and is free (you have a choice to not to install 
Google Toolbar on  the installation process).

For all this I say they strive for philanthropy/philosophy for
service for the humanity as much as possible.

> what I can't agree is this much influence, money and power concentrated so
> tightly in the hands of a single american company...

agree.

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> a écrit dans le message de news:
> You fall short here too, they exist so that you don't spend countless 
> hours searching for some product on your own, they have made bullet speed 
> search engines and offer lots of resources to find the service you need, 
> no matter how odd it may seem.

The search engines have exactly one purpose, which is to collect the search 
words from you and me and turn them into keywords (adwords) that are in turn 
sold to their clients (who bid on the words). The search engines and the 
other Google and Yahoo products are actually datamining tools, even if they 
don't carry ads themselves. This is why they are so efficient.
In 2006, 99% of Google's revenue (10.6 billion dollars) came from 
advertising 
(http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1288776/000119312507044494/d10k.htm).

It doesn't meant that Google and Yahoo don't provide good services, but we 
shouldn't be blind to the reason why they provide these services. "Don't be 
evil" is nothing much than a marketing slogan. And if they were to 
disappear, the void would be filled instantly by other ad networks.

(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).

G.


-- 
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters

Post a reply to this message

"Saul Luizaga" <sau### [at] netscapenet> 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

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" (!?). 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.

Post a reply to this message

speaking of internet ads, I've never clicked on them.  Save when trying to
support sites such as povray.org or slashdot.org.

Google ads are incredibly non-intrusive and actually fun to watch.  They are not
those whole-page Flash animation, but are very fun to watch when trying to match
my preferences based on email content... :)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga escribió:
> Gilles Tran wrote:
>>
>> To make things clear: Google and Yahoo are *** advertising networks 
>> ***. This what they do for a living: sell advertising space and other 
>> marketing services. What they offer - search engines, image banks, 
>> email services, office apps etc. is just a sideshow, or to use 
>> marketroid speach, assets to be leveraged, that only exist to bring 
>> ads to your desktop.
> 
> Point taken. BUT some Google produts are free of ads and are useful so 
> your afirmation falls short here.

AFAIK, their search engine was ad-free for a long while. Ads were added 
once they already had lots of users. So they will probably do the same 
with the rest of their 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.

Slower than what? You better not be comparing speed between Microsoft 
software and Google web application! Nothing is slower than a web 
application :)

Post a reply to this message

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)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga escribió:
> 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] gmailisthebestcom> wrote:
> Saul Luizaga escribió:
> > 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:
> Saul Luizaga escribió:
>> 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

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> I'm not the one pretending to know some guys' mind and software

I think the problem is you're presenting personal judgements as facts. 
Rather than "I find MS's software to be crappy," you say "MS makes 
crappy software."  The very "MS is a crappy company, and it doesn't 
matter what everyone else thinks" sounds very bigoted.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> I'm not the one pretending to know some guys' mind and software
> 
> I think the problem is you're presenting personal judgements as facts. 
> Rather than "I find MS's software to be crappy," you say "MS makes 
> crappy software."  The very "MS is a crappy company, and it doesn't 
> matter what everyone else thinks" sounds very bigoted.
> 
ok ok, maybe I'm exagerating here, but MS HAS done some very crappy 
software, you can't tell me I'm wrong in that. Windows 2000, for me, is 
a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency 
and stability, something MS forgot when they made WinXP. Since WinXP is 
a hybrid between Win2K and WinME, I think they put too much of WinME in XP.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> "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.

maybe... maybe not, I give them the benefit of doubt, unless of course, 
you know, first hand, better/otherwise.

>>>   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.

   Oh dude... I don't have enough words to describe my disgust for Bill 
gates and Microcrap.

   Listen I come from the time of MS DOS, I was a noob programmer back 
then and among compilers, .dll and other basic programming components 
the chat between close friends was don't use that MS 
compiler/component/program is very slow, is buggy it doesn't do well 
this... is crappy. Maybe MS has changed in part that but that's all I'm 
admitting.


About MS (lol)... a few months ago Internet Explorer 7 Team invited some 
  Mozilla FIreFox guys to help them better Integrate FireFox into the, 
back then, up coming Windows "Long Horn" (Vista), but I read in some 
other article later on, that they basically asked for help to give IE7 
tabbed capability and other FireFox security features, with all the 
millions, sorry BILLIONS... they ask developers from a freeware 
organization ADVICE. MS develops programming laguages... enough said.

Post a reply to this message

I'm not sure how related this is...

Three or four people were fired from the Yahoo! Widgets team today.

http://twitter.com/rickyromero/statuses/704725872

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> ok ok, maybe I'm exagerating here, but MS HAS done some very crappy 
> software, you can't tell me I'm wrong in that.

No dispute with that, indeed.  But it tends to disappear pretty quickly, 
just like everyone else's crappy software.  Microsoft Bob? Windows ME?

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     On what day did God create the body thetans?

Post a reply to this message

Darren New wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> ok ok, maybe I'm exagerating here, but MS HAS done some very crappy 
>> software, you can't tell me I'm wrong in that.
> 
> No dispute with that, indeed.  But it tends to disappear pretty quickly, 
> just like everyone else's crappy software.  Microsoft Bob? Windows ME?
> 
True and I hope that tendecy continues :)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> Windows 2000, for me, is 
> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency

  Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
>   Listen I come from the time of MS DOS, I was a noob programmer back 
> then and among compilers, .dll and other basic programming components 
> the chat between close friends was don't use that MS 
> compiler/component/program is very slow, is buggy it doesn't do well 
> this... is crappy. Maybe MS has changed in part that but that's all I'm 
> admitting.

So you don't like them today, because you heard gossip about their 
products 15 years ago?

> About MS (lol)... a few months ago Internet Explorer 7 Team invited some 
>  Mozilla FIreFox guys to help them better Integrate FireFox into the, 
> back then, up coming Windows "Long Horn" (Vista), but I read in some 
> other article later on, that they basically asked for help to give IE7 
> tabbed capability and other FireFox security features, with all the 
> millions, sorry BILLIONS... they ask developers from a freeware 
> organization ADVICE. MS develops programming laguages... enough said.

Wow, you mean they were actually humble enough to ask for advice? 
That's really impressive, coming from such a big corporation!

-- 
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
> 
>   Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?

He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
> 
>> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
>>   Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?
> 
> He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.
> 
> Jim
lol, yeah sorry, my english is not very good, masterpiece, yes. I have 
pushed it to see how stable it is, an is ROCK SOLID. I have loaded about 
45 apps while I was listening music in winamp 2.89, connected to 
internet and surfing/downloading on ADM K6 II-500 Mhz with 256 MB RAM. 
Unless you do a illigal stuff like deleting/closing system stuff in the 
registry/memory or files/folders, wont give you any kind of error.

  The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.

Post a reply to this message

Chambers wrote:
> Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>   Listen I come from the time of MS DOS, I was a noob programmer back 
>> then and among compilers, .dll and other basic programming components 
>> the chat between close friends was don't use that MS 
>> compiler/component/program is very slow, is buggy it doesn't do well 
>> this... is crappy. Maybe MS has changed in part that but that's all 
>> I'm admitting.
> 
> So you don't like them today, because you heard gossip about their 
> products 15 years ago?

I read tech news all the time and many ppl complains about MS not doing 
something they should have, like in common sense.

>> About MS (lol)... a few months ago Internet Explorer 7 Team invited 
>> some  Mozilla FIreFox guys to help them better Integrate FireFox into 
>> the, back then, up coming Windows "Long Horn" (Vista), but I read in 
>> some other article later on, that they basically asked for help to 
>> give IE7 tabbed capability and other FireFox security features, with 
>> all the millions, sorry BILLIONS... they ask developers from a 
>> freeware organization ADVICE. MS develops programming laguages... 
>> enough said.
> 
> Wow, you mean they were actually humble enough to ask for advice? That's 
> really impressive, coming from such a big corporation!

In deed, when billions and the MSDN doesn't cut it YOU HAVE TO.

Post a reply to this message

I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since 
it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes 
and the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS 
can do it? I'm sure they have very clever ppl that works on a excellence 
basis, so why once in a while MS blows it, and yields crappy results, is 
it marketing?, is it logistic?, is it administrative interference? human 
error? I can, I truly can understand human error but Windows 95?! you 
got to be kidding!

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga escribió:
>  The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.

It's not fun if I can't mess with it. That's why I prefer Linux :)

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga escribió:
> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since 
> it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes 
> and the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS 
> can do it? I'm sure they have very clever ppl that works on a excellence 
> basis, so why once in a while MS blows it, and yields crappy results, is 
> it marketing?, is it logistic?, is it administrative interference? human 
> error? I can, I truly can understand human error but Windows 95?! you 
> got to be kidding!

Administrative interference most probably.

http://moishelettvin.blogspot.com/2006/11/windows-shutdown-crapfest.html

Post a reply to this message

> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since it 
> has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the programes and 
> the time and money it would require, so I don't understand why MS can do 
> it?

Because they think their programmers will make the company more successful 
by working on other stuff?  It's not like they have 1000 programmers sitting 
around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.

Post a reply to this message

Nicolas Alvarez escribió:
> I'm not sure how related this is...
> 
> Three or four people were fired from the Yahoo! Widgets team today.
> 
> http://twitter.com/rickyromero/statuses/704725872

Wow, looks like they fired those people, but got the original Yahoo 
Widgets engineer back! :|

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:55:06 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 04:27:57 -0500, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> Saul Luizaga <sau### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
>>>> Windows 2000, for me, is
>>>> a master peace of OS, an example of low memory and extreme efficiency
>>>   Was that some kind of subtle sarcasm?
>> 
>> He meant "masterpiece" - as in he liked it.
>> 
>> Jim
> lol, yeah sorry, my english is not very good, masterpiece, yes. I have
> pushed it to see how stable it is, an is ROCK SOLID. I have loaded about
> 45 apps while I was listening music in winamp 2.89, connected to
> internet and surfing/downloading on ADM K6 II-500 Mhz with 256 MB RAM.
> Unless you do a illigal stuff like deleting/closing system stuff in the
> registry/memory or files/folders, wont give you any kind of error.
> 
>   The deal is simple: you don't mess with it, it wont mess with you.

Yeah, I think of all the versions of Windows I've used, I preferred 2K 
over the others.  In fact, the VMware machine that I have with Windows in 
it has 2000, and it was originally built about 7 years ago.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

scott wrote:
>> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort since 
>> it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the 
>> programes and the time and money it would require, so I don't 
>> understand why MS can do it?
> 
> Because they think their programmers will make the company more 
> successful by working on other stuff?  It's not like they have 1000 
> programmers sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.
> 
> 
For all the MS software out there, they have at least 1000 programmers 
on pay roll, besides MS have recruited some of the best ones with their 
programming Olympics or something like that.

Well, as someone says: you can manage to fuk up even the simplest thing 
to do. Or something like that. There is effort and sacrifice in every 
single thing crafted by men, so maybe I was too harsh on MS, maybe 
they're solving problems so complicated that the common-sense-level ones 
goes by their side without being noticed. But is very annoying anyway 
and they replicate IN EVERY WINDOWS VERSION, including Vista: you look 
for something that you think sgould be there and guess what MS manages 
to put it in a place you'd never think of, not in the same features but 
is the same behavior in all versions. The word INTUITIVE must not be 
very popular in MS...

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> Yeah, I think of all the versions of Windows I've used, I preferred 2K 
> over the others.  In fact, the VMware machine that I have with Windows in 
> it has 2000, and it was originally built about 7 years ago.
> 
> Jim

And there is Win2000 Lite, I've found out about it a few days ago, damn, 
if I'd only had know about it earlier... how? www.nlite.com

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:41:02 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Yeah, I think of all the versions of Windows I've used, I preferred 2K
>> over the others.  In fact, the VMware machine that I have with Windows
>> in it has 2000, and it was originally built about 7 years ago.
>> 
>> Jim
> 
> And there is Win2000 Lite, I've found out about it a few days ago, damn,
> if I'd only had know about it earlier... how? www.nlite.com

Huh, I never heard of that one.

But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search" 
pages.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Saul Luizaga wrote:
> scott wrote:
>>> I mean, I'm sure MS can do a clone of Firefox with little effort 
>>> since it has HUGE resources, they have the programing languages, the 
>>> programes and the time and money it would require, so I don't 
>>> understand why MS can do it?
>>
>> Because they think their programmers will make the company more 
>> successful by working on other stuff?  It's not like they have 1000 
>> programmers sitting around twiddling their thumbs with nothing to do.
>>
>>
> For all the MS software out there, they have at least 1000 programmers 
> on pay roll, besides MS have recruited some of the best ones with their 
> programming Olympics or something like that.
> 
> Well, as someone says: you can manage to fuk up even the simplest thing 
> to do. Or something like that.
I don't know for sure, because my own experience is somewhat limited, 
but I think most people who done some thinking on writing good quality 
software agree that putting too many (>2) too intelligent (IQ>120) 
people on a complicated task is the best way to ensure that you get a 
program that a) works to specification b) has bugs in the specification 
that no less intelligent person could have exploited and c) is 
unmaintanable.
> There is effort and sacrifice in every 
> single thing crafted by men, so maybe I was too harsh on MS, maybe 
> they're solving problems so complicated that the common-sense-level ones 
> goes by their side without being noticed. But is very annoying anyway 
> and they replicate IN EVERY WINDOWS VERSION, including Vista: you look 
> for something that you think sgould be there and guess what MS manages 
> to put it in a place you'd never think of, not in the same features but 
> is the same behavior in all versions. The word INTUITIVE must not be 
> very popular in MS...

My guess is that in redmont they don't use a MS Windows system, 
otherwise a couple of annoying features would have been fixed in w98. 
OTOH I heard a rumour that Vista (not using Vista myself) has become 
multitasking and that if something goes wrong during a multifile copy 
you can now clean up the problem and continue. Or perhaps it was that 
they merely finally added a 'no to all' to the 'file exists, replace?' 
modal box. On the gripping hand, if they done the latter they could be 
sued by Windows/Total Commander and the like for using there monopoly to 
force out smaller companies by adding extensions to the OS (using OS in 
the perverse way that seems to have become common since MS-windows).

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:29:12 +0100, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>  
wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:41:02 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> And there is Win2000 Lite, I've found out about it a few days ago, damn,
>> if I'd only had know about it earlier... how? www.nlite.com
>
> Huh, I never heard of that one.
>
> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search"
> pages.


Try this one:
http://www.nliteos.com


-- 
FE

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 19:03:08 +0100, Fredrik Eriksson wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 06:29:12 +0100, Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom>
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:41:02 -0400, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>>> And there is Win2000 Lite, I've found out about it a few days ago,
>>> damn, if I'd only had know about it earlier... how? www.nlite.com
>>
>> Huh, I never heard of that one.
>>
>> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search"
>> pages.
> 
> 
> Try this one:
> http://www.nliteos.com

Ah, that's better - thanks. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search" 
> pages.

ah yeah sorry about that.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:46:05 -0600, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search"
>> pages.
> 
> ah yeah sorry about that.

No problem, got pointed to the right page.  Looks interesting, might even 
come in handy for work. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:46:05 -0600, Saul Luizaga wrote:
> 
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search"
>>> pages.
>> ah yeah sorry about that.
> 
> No problem, got pointed to the right page.  Looks interesting, might even 
> come in handy for work. :-)
> 
> Jim
VERY, and to complement this u can buy a copy of Acronis True Image, to 
mirror ur C:. For better results move My Documents and all useful data 
to other partitions.

If u need easy manipulation of Partitions u can buy Acronis Disk 
Director Suit.

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 13:50:13 -0600, Saul Luizaga wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Feb 2008 16:46:05 -0600, Saul Luizaga wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> But that site seems to link to one of those domain-squatter "search"
>>>> pages.
>>> ah yeah sorry about that.
>> 
>> No problem, got pointed to the right page.  Looks interesting, might
>> even come in handy for work. :-)
>> 
>> Jim
> VERY, and to complement this u can buy a copy of Acronis True Image, to
> mirror ur C:. For better results move My Documents and all useful data
> to other partitions.
> 
> If u need easy manipulation of Partitions u can buy Acronis Disk
> Director Suit.

Or I could use Ghost or ZENWorks Imaging (the latter being something I'm 
able to get licenses for, since I work for the company <g> and we use it 
for some of our course setups).

The thing we've been trying to resolve is Windows-based product setups.  
Because we're not an OEM, we can't distribute Windows VMs to our training 
partners.  But I personally don't see why we couldn't use sysprep along 
with something like this to build a minimalistic image that we could 
distribute that the partners have to put their license keys into in order 
to use them.  We'd have to clear it all with Microsoft (and our own 
lawyers), but I think it would fly.

Jim

Post a reply to this message