wizlb

And then?

really?

The first of many? Some say it's just a matter of market share. Others say that the Mac is a impenetrable fortress of digital nirvana. What do you think?

Please get well or just die soon please so we can stop reading about it. Thank you, have a nice day.

Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn't backup your statement that everybody uses Windows because "everybody uses Windows". Obviously there's not an objective bone in your body, but I'll continue the charade anyway just for fun.

Do you remember the lines of customers waiting to buy Windows 95 the week that it was released? Do you really think that was because "everybody was already using Windows"? No. It was because of all the improvements. Nobody even used Windows 1.0, 2.0 or 3.0. It wasn't until Windows 3.11 that anyone seriously used Windows. And it wasn't because IBM handed it to them on a silver platter.

"Microsoft has always been a "Me-too" player..."

FYI, That's complete and utter bullshit. If they were only a "me-too" player they wouldn't have a huge R&D department. They wouldn't have been the ones to make the mouse wheel popular. They wouldn't have come out with the XBox. They wouldn't have invented LINQ. Do you have any idea what you're talking about or are you just a hater with a tin-foil cap on?

"Microsoft is alive because they have the best system for people in power to control those that they employ."

Wrong. Microsoft offers the best platform for developers and users to control _the computer_. Where did you get all of this stuff about people controlling other people? You are starting to sound like a crack pot conspiracy theorist.

The reason that I use Windows, quite simply, is that it generally lets me do what I want, the way that I want to do it. And that's the same answer you'll likely get from anyone who enjoys using Windows. I can't say the same for Linux or for Apple although I have used both extensively. All that Apple offers is ultimate lock-in and Linux is way too fragmented and unorganized to be useful on anything but a server which is where I put it to use for my company.

I also love Vista _because_ of all the improvements. It runs on 3 of the HTPC's in my house because Vista Media Center pretty much kicks the ass of XP Media Center, Apple's Front Row, Linux MythTV or XBMC. So, there are definite improvements over past versions. Of course trolls like yourself won't have anything to say about that, will you?

"When Microsoft runs an ad campaign instead of fixing Vista bugs"

Gee, steal lines from Apple much? Exactly what bugs are you talking about? Can you even think of one? Like I said...I use Vista everyday and I don't have a problem with it, so no I don't think of it as a failure and I feel just fine defending it.

The horse and buggy metaphor stands up just fine because there were many failed attempts at making an automobile before someone actually did it. There's nothing wrong with failure. I love failure. I love failing. If nobody ever failed, we wouldn't know anything.

"...people have always used Windows because it was \"what everyone uses\""

That doesn't make any sense. Obviously there was a time when nobody used Windows, so what made them buy it before it was "what everyone uses"?

"When you think about it, its amazing that Microsoft continues to sell Windows at all....why should you ever pay for another one?"

You're amazed at this? Really? After thinking about it? Do you ask yourself things like "why do we have Automobiles when a Horse and Buggy is good enough"? Obviously, improvements are made and that's why people buy new versions of things.

"I've been fascinated with Microsoft defenders...for years, since they seem to gain nothing by promoting the status quo..."

And I'm fascinated by people like yourself who are so completely out of touch with reality that you actually believe your own bullshit. The status quo is kept alive because Microsoft has the best tools for business and enterprise. Other outfits have a few pieces of the puzzle, but Microsoft's got them ALL (good desktop, good server, good developer tools and API's).

"Is this going to keep Windows competitive with OS X?"

I think you got that backwards. Windows is the one with 90% of the market share. OSuX will be playing catchup for a long, long time.

If I wanted to read another fluff piece about Apple I could've gone to wired.com

I'm looking forward doing more Silverlight + C# than anything else.

John Gruber needs to just get it over with already and ask Steve Jobs out on a date.

Thanks. I don't like the way that one works though.

"The apps run on a virtualization layer on top of the OS..."

I agree that for a single developer, open sourcing a product can be very good. You get peer recognition and probably some job offers. But I bet those job offers come in from places that make closed source software.

For businesses, the risk associated with closed sourcing your app are finite and simple:

1) The people that want source code with their app won't buy it. As was said in the article "not that many people will even notice", so it's not a lot of people.

2) You lose out on _possibly_ getting some work done on your product for free.

It seems to me that there are more and larger risks associated with open sourcing your app:

1) Lower bar to entry for competitors. 2) Definitely losing sales to customers with IT departments that know how to compile source code. 3) Possibly losing control over your own creation. 4) Fragmentation - IMO Linux would be better and more popular if there weren't so many distributions.

Can you give an example of where it does make sense?

I'll venture a guess that you probably think that it made sense for Digium to open source Asterisk. At first, it did seem to make sense since they made the telephony cards that it worked with the best.

However look at them now. Sangoma, Pika, NxtVox and many other companies are making cheaper telephony cards that work just as well as Digium's do. Now what does Digium do? They start selling a closed source version of Asterisk that has more features in it than the open source one.

Open source is really nice for users but not so much for long term business profits.

1. I agree that both analogies break down. However, my point stands: Just because a consumer can't fix a product themselves doesn't make the product inherently evil or bad or anything like that.

2. Okay, but that doesn't really address my point. If you don't open source the software in the first place then there are less potential competitors and therefore more potential money for your business.

Look at how well Salesforce does against SugarCRM. Which one do _you_ want to be?

My company sells their software worldwide, so yes, it will cut into my sales.

Also, I sell telephony software so I don't need any more legitimacy or recognition.

"In other words, if you decide to make your end-user software open source, most of your users probably won't even notice!"

So, why do it then? The two points made by this article don't really motivate me.

1) "Selling closed source software is roughly analogous to selling someone a car with the hood welded shut."

First of all, we are not selling cars. Software is sold more like an HDTV, dvd player, mp3 player, etc. How many of those products really make it easy for you to fix it yourself? The answer is: It doesn't matter. These are throw away products. If it stops working for you, buy a new piece of software or an upgrade.

Don't give away your product just to please a couple of gear-head customers that can code.

2) "Your source code,...is very likely completely uninteresting to almost everyone else."

This is such a bullshit statement. The fact is that while my source code may not be that special, it's ALREADY DONE. If I don't open source it then potential competitors have to spend the time to get to where I am at.

I've been programming on Windows for about 10 years and I can honestly say that I simply don't have to use a terminal outside of running the occasional command. For automation I use AutoHotKey or AutoIt. For searching text in files I usually use a program like Notepad++ or UltrEdit. YMMV of course, not everyone's the same.

I guess the reason is that I can usually find a GUI program to do whatever it is that I want.

I use Linux all the time too (I've built Asterisk boxes, LAMP servers, firewalls, etc. at work and at home), but I think the culture is just different, so it's natural to use the terminal for many things on *nix.

Actually I do use the Windows terminal a LOT (the Run box actually) for one-off things like "net start/stop some-service", "services.msc" or "ipconfig /all", something like that.

Context menu integration (more commonly known as shell integration) means that when you install certain programs like Tortoise, the program will add extra menu items to the context menus that show up when you right-click files of a specific type or a folder.

I love my Beyond Compare shell integration. Right-click on Folder A, choose "select left side", find Folder B, right click, choose "compare to Folder A" and then Beyond Compare pops up and diffs all the files in the two folders.

What do you need a terminal for in Windows?

I'm not being snarky, it's a serious question. I'm a programmer, but I use Visual Studio 2008 and I rarely have to touch a command line to do anything that I need to do...

... same reason I use Windows. It's got the apps that I want to use. I could care less about the operating system as long as it's not running on a Mac.

It's fairly well known that Apple has a very small developer base and that they treat developers poorly in a number of ways. For one, they've been known to break backwards compat. like it's nobody's business.

Sure, a lot of nix people use Macs now, but ask them if they're developing software for the Mac OS. Most likely, the answer is no. They're doing nix stuff.

Compare the Apple developer "ecosystem" to that of the Windows and Linux world. Can you see any big differences?

Why would you want stereo bluetooth headphones? Apple didn't offer that for a long time, I don't even know if they do currently.

A replaceable battery? A slide out keyboard? A normal headphone jack?

No, you're right. Choice is REALLY BAD. Let's all buy Apple stuff and be happy that the Gods have even thought of us.

Android has more developers in it's first year than iPhone had in it's first year.

Give it some time... As usual, Apple won't be able to offer you as much choice in hardware as will be available for Android. And, we can already see that there will be more software choices and flexibility for Android.

"You're going to be the one geek in the room...blah, blah, blah..."

Actually real geeks are much more interested in Android than iPhone because of Apple's bullshit.

Welcome to the 90's all over again when Apple lost the desktop war to Windows.

Oh and I actually run Windows theme-less and the default border is 4px. At 1920x1200, I have plenty of pixels left over. What resolution were you looking at?

"The last time you provoked an argument..."

Gee, nothing like making personal attacks when you've got nothing else to say. Please tell me, when did I make this personal? I didn't...

Anyway, to answer you question...what does Vista Media Center have that Apple Front Row doesn't? Well for one, CableCARD. Secondly, more hardware options, as usual. For instance, a Gyration remote (the best there is, IMO).

Please see this list of many other things, this person says it better than I have time for:

http://cybernetnews.com/2008/05/12/cybernotes-apple-front-ro...

BTW, lhorn made a comment above that has a much better list of stupidity that exists in OSX.