 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 02.06.2011 22:37, schrieb Jim Henderson:
> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:31:18 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 02/06/2011 14:30, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>> Le 2011-06-01 16:32, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>>>> The command prompt is pretty much a deprecated way of doing things.
>>>
>>> Depends on what you do.
>>
>> As far as Microsoft is concerned, the command prompt is deprecated. You
>> should at least be using PowerShell.
>
> Those two statements contradict each other. PowerShell is a command
> prompt, is it not?
Note the tiny difference between "/a/ command prompt" and "/the/ command
prompt" :-P
And no, neither is a "command prompt" in the literal sense; I guess a
proper term might be "command shell" ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 00:46:12 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Am 02.06.2011 22:37, schrieb Jim Henderson:
>> On Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:31:18 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/06/2011 14:30, Francois Labreque wrote:
>>>> Le 2011-06-01 16:32, Orchid XP v8 a écrit :
>>>>> The command prompt is pretty much a deprecated way of doing things.
>>>>
>>>> Depends on what you do.
>>>
>>> As far as Microsoft is concerned, the command prompt is deprecated.
>>> You should at least be using PowerShell.
>>
>> Those two statements contradict each other. PowerShell is a command
>> prompt, is it not?
>
> Note the tiny difference between "/a/ command prompt" and "/the/ command
> prompt" :-P
>
> And no, neither is a "command prompt" in the literal sense; I guess a
> proper term might be "command shell" ;-)
Details, details. ;)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>>> As far as Microsoft is concerned, the command prompt is deprecated.
>>>> You should at least be using PowerShell.
>>>
>>> Those two statements contradict each other. PowerShell is a command
>>> prompt, is it not?
>>
>> PowerShell is a replacement for the old MS-DOS command prompt emulator.
>
> So that would be "yes" then. :)
The old MS-DOS emulator is deprecated. CLI interfaces in general are
not, no.
> MS is in it for the money and for their self-interest. That's what
> drives the organization. (That's certainly true of most for-profit
> businesses)
Corporations vary by their level of indifference towards their
customers' interests.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.06.2011 09:45, schrieb Invisible:
>> MS is in it for the money and for their self-interest. That's what
>> drives the organization. (That's certainly true of most for-profit
>> businesses)
>
> Corporations vary by their level of indifference towards their
> customers' interests.
No. Corporations vary by how much they expect to benefit/lose from
satisfied/unhappy customers.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Corporations vary by their level of indifference towards their
>> customers' interests.
>
> No. Corporations vary by how much they expect to benefit/lose from
> satisfied/unhappy customers.
There have been corporations who have a mentality that making their
customers happy is literally the most important thing in the world. More
important than making a profit, even. Now, whether anybody who thinks
like this stays in business for more than five minutes is somewhat open
to debate. But clearly some businesses do operate like this.
At the other end of the spectrum, we find companies who would quite
happily provoke global thermonuclear warfare if they thought it would be
profitable.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 2011-06-03 05:08, Invisible a écrit :
>
> At the other end of the spectrum, we find companies who would quite
> happily provoke global thermonuclear warfare if they thought it would be
> profitable.
"Our earning forecast for the next quarter is for a double-digit growth,
however, the outlook for the longer term is a little less optimistic. We
will need to study the market and adapt our strategy to focus on growth
sectors."
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 03/06/2011 01:43 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2011-06-03 05:08, Invisible a écrit :
>>
>> At the other end of the spectrum, we find companies who would quite
>> happily provoke global thermonuclear warfare if they thought it would be
>> profitable.
>
> "Our earning forecast for the next quarter is for a double-digit growth,
> however, the outlook for the longer term is a little less optimistic. We
> will need to study the market and adapt our strategy to focus on growth
> sectors."
lolrus
Yeah, well, big business is somewhat noted for short-sighted decisions...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 03.06.2011 11:08, schrieb Invisible:
>>> Corporations vary by their level of indifference towards their
>>> customers' interests.
>>
>> No. Corporations vary by how much they expect to benefit/lose from
>> satisfied/unhappy customers.
>
> There have been corporations who have a mentality that making their
> customers happy is literally the most important thing in the world. More
> important than making a profit, even. Now, whether anybody who thinks
> like this stays in business for more than five minutes is somewhat open
> to debate. But clearly some businesses do operate like this.
But why do they do it? Because they think it benefits /them/ to have a
corporate image of acting morally.
Small companies led by their owners in person (or even large companies
led by their owners in person, though those are quite rare) are a
different story. But corporations led by a board & traded on stock
exchange markets? Show me a single one that acts morally for the pure
sake of it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 03/06/2011 14:43, Francois Labreque a écrit :
> Le 2011-06-03 05:08, Invisible a écrit :
>>
>> At the other end of the spectrum, we find companies who would quite
>> happily provoke global thermonuclear warfare if they thought it would be
>> profitable.
>
> "Our earning forecast for the next quarter is for a double-digit growth,
> however, the outlook for the longer term is a little less optimistic. We
> will need to study the market and adapt our strategy to focus on growth
> sectors."
It's the new nomadic way of life: hunt, rape, burn and move further.
The opposite way (as in Cain vs Abel) could sound:
"Our installed based is stable and we foresee no interesting events for
the next quarter. We are studying a long term evolution to provide more
facilities and ease the life of everyone."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 03 Jun 2011 08:45:33 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>>>> Those two statements contradict each other. PowerShell is a command
>>>> prompt, is it not?
>>>
>>> PowerShell is a replacement for the old MS-DOS command prompt
>>> emulator.
>>
>> So that would be "yes" then. :)
>
> The old MS-DOS emulator is deprecated. CLI interfaces in general are
> not, no.
But that's what you seemed to be saying.
>> MS is in it for the money and for their self-interest. That's what
>> drives the organization. (That's certainly true of most for-profit
>> businesses)
>
> Corporations vary by their level of indifference towards their
> customers' interests.
Some corporations are happy to *tell* the customer what the customer's
interest is.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
