Re: Easy to criticise MCPs
were you five?
3934 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
were you five?
"The history of Windows dates back to September 1981, when Chase Bishop, a computer scientist, designed the first model of an electronic device and project "Interface Manager" was started." - Wikipedia
I never said "released". Troll harder. I'm at least not claiming that anyone supports a v1 OS anymore.
Says the man who thinks .NET frameworks previous to 4 aren't cumulative.
Nobody can take anything you say about anything MS seriously.
> Did you have to?
Yes, I really did.
I could have mentioned that he looks like David Cameron too if I'd been feeling really vindictive.
And he has serious cameltoe.
Next time, you'll see it and then you'll always see it.
I'm sick of suffering this alone.
Very well put, Anon.
> The root problem has NOTHING to do with Europe, and is not fixable in Europe.
Well yes, hence an amicus brief.
(I currently work for lawyers - don't hate me, I do enough of that for all of us)
The problem is that even if it flies and the EU run with it, the Tories and UKIP will then spin it as a bad thing and immediately hand over everything.
Pronounced "Git Milton Keynes".
"We want to identify people for who they are, not what they remember"
That looks like exactly the type of Steve Bong! bullshit that Matt Asay used to write here.
Honestly, it was buzzword bingo with every article, opinions gathered from breathless press releases and a level of information-free baseless enthusiasm usually reserved for fat people blogging about Zumba and for televangelists.
Adobe and Matt Asay deserve each other.
A product of the superior American education system, I see.
I wrote -
> MS is aggressively opening up the source of the .NET stack.
and two people downvoted it.
How'd you feel now, suckers?
even then, there's Mono and MS is aggressively opening up the source of the .NET stack.
It's not even true. The 3.x runtime will happily run code compiled against 2.0 unless the idiot who wrote that code has explicitly told it not to run without 2.0.
3.5 will run any previous code. 4.6 will run any 4.x code.
The maximum number of .NET framework versions you need is two. So we have learned that for Hans, "two" equals "a gazillion".
> In IBM's case they're still supporting an OS that was shipping before Bill flunked college.
That goes two ways. IBM don't support any codebase older than 9 years without special (expensive) arrangement. I know this because the company I work for has just upgraded rather than enter into such an arrangement. Now, the name "DB2" may be older than 9 years - the version is not.
SlackWare, Suse and RedHat do not support "OSes that predate Microsoft's NT 3.51" - they support more recent iterations.
If I were judging MS the way you judge IBM et al, I could say "Microsoft have been supporting this single OS (Windows) since September 1981" but that would be disingenuous at best so I won't. I would be obliged if you'd show others the same courtesy.
> What will you do if you have developed something, run in on Linux machines... and one day Microsoft decided not to support Linux any longer.
What happens if Steve Ballmer's angry ghost comes along and rapes your penguin?
Let's not deal in paranoia, shall we?
> There's always been a fear that they will, purely from their track record.
What, a track record of supporting operating systems longer than any other vendor and development frameworks for - if we count the switch from Sun to Oracle as a new owner, which it is - longer than any other vendor?
About the only framework MS ever axed without legal pressure (JScript) is Silverlight and as I recall, all the massed ranks of El Reg commentards laughed at Silverlight because it was stupid and M$ and clearly shitty M$ stuff and useless.
Does my memory fail me?
Well, it's been around for 13 years so far. It's probably not going to get EOLd anytime soon.
> embrace, extend and extinguish
Oh fuck off with your FUD unless you can find a way to Embrace Extend Extinguish the Apache 2 license.
Here's a hint - lots of people would make a lot of money if you can so it's probably been tried.
And by the way - I very much doubt that you're older than I am unless this is elderly paranoia we're witnessing. Have you gone racist as well?
Yeah because using the Apache license means MS retain TOTAL CONTROL and if you use their code they can LOOK IN YOUR PANTS AT ANY TIME and then EMBRACE EXTEND EXTINGUISH ALL OF OPEN SOURCE
or alternatively, you've got serious prejudice problems.
I'm sure umbraco will be pretty high on the list for that treatment.
What I want is not only a linux implementation of .NET but a tiny low-power NAS capable of running it as a plugin. That would definitely cheer me up.
Yeah, they made him really respected and rather wealthy, more so with the Xamarin sales.
Poor Mikel, always looking for something to hate MS for when as so often, it's all in your mind.
You don't have to get involved if you don't want to.
You could sit here with with the other trolls and complain about proprietary software, conveniently ignoring all those annoying facts. I rather hope you do, actually. That means there'll be less competition for cross-platform .NET developers.
Personally, I'm rather looking forward to using C#5 on linux without having to step back a version or two to the last stable mono stack.
> Can I run VS on Linux yet? Until I can, I don't care whether it's cross-platform, it's no use to me.
Not yet but given that VS is a WPF application, it's not impossible anymore.
As I understand it, the Community version is not cloud-friendly because they want enterprise devs writing for Azure, not hobbyists.
FUD FUD FUDdy FUDdy FUD.. you do love your FUD don't you?
Because this is either a) ignorance or b) outright lies. .NET framework versions used to be cumulative - 1.1 will run 1.0 assemblies without issue, 2.0 will run 1.1 and 1.0, 3.0 will run 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 and 3.5 will run 3.0, 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0*
With 4, they started moving toward the Core model and you're going to need the 3.5 framework if you want to run anything earlier than 4.0. So that's two versions. Which, according to your post in another thread is a "gazillion". Or you're a liar.
*The essential caveat here is that if you are a truly shitty programmer then it is entirely possible that you've written your assemblies to check for a specific framework version and refuse to run without it. Does that sound like you, Hans 1?
I don't think it does. I think you just prefer making shit up.
> You all talk a lot but say very little....
You're assuming there's more than one.
> But I think OS/2 had better market share numbers.
More people have a Windows Phone than use any variety of OSX.
But you carry on. Keep telling yourself about market share, I'm sure it gives you a nice chubby.
> Or you can just get a cheaper Android phone with better specs
No, you really couldn't. Did you read the article?
> Is MS replacing the underlying lync protocol with skype's?
As per the article, no.
Now, you were saying?
(Jesus suffering fuck, I wish people would RTFA before hitting the "Sky is falling" macro)
> Why don't they just replace it with Skype??
Because Lync is very popular in businesses and has a good reputation for ease of support. Unlike Skype.
If anything, making Skype more like Lync would be the logical next step.
Since it's just and only a name change, I see no reason why it would inherit any of Skype's issues.
So when a board dies and you can't replace like-for-like, that's fine with you. Okay.
Yes they are. Note, however, that intel are NOT making motherboards for XP installs.
the usual calls for MS to support XP forever because they should! Because your car gets serviced for free every year forever after you buy it (or something)! And because all those people who think the NHS is a special case because it's so lovely already give up all their time working for the NHS for free because it's so lovely, obviously.
Hooray! That'll completely solve the problem in only 10-12 years!
"not relevant" "other platforms" "Ballmer"
Dammit, my "Gavin Clarke Microsoft Article" Bingo sheet came with "doomed" on it.
I'd better just wait for a commentard.
It's all about the base.
Or, if you prefer, انها كل شيء عن القاعدة
There, that's the Reg on a watchlist.
Oh for fuck's sake
I'm seriously starting to think it's time we shut down the whole damn lot of them and built something new that has regulations and public regulators.
We should probably shut down Parliament too. Same reasons.
> Because you think consumer SUV's can tackle anything resembling a ploughed field ?
I think my old Suzuki Vitara can without too many problems. 4wd, vehicle that weighs very little, all good.
Don't try to corner it too hard, though.
Keep going, Jasper.
Two reasons -
1. It really irritates Steve Davies 3 which can only be good
2. We need you on point to balance out Orlowski's loathing of Google and Gavin Clark's hatred of Microsoft*.
(*To judge from podcasts, this is basically down to an inability to pronounce "Microsoft" or indeed, understand anything about software. I have no idea what Google did to Orlowski).
> However difficult it is to keep a straight face when dealing with a shop worker with a job title of "genius"
Not a problem. Just don't buy iThings and you'll never have to endure them.
Well you would say that, wouldn't you?
I'm confused but you may be the greatest incoherency troll since amanfromMars1
> It's for the super rich
At 5K per watch? I really don't think it is.
It's only a bug if it's not Apple, right?