Re: Skype is worth more!
They don't have a name for good hardware
Their mice and keyboards have always been excellent.
3534 posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
They don't have a name for good hardware
Their mice and keyboards have always been excellent.
How rational of you.
That's like saying that a car that can do 200mph is better than one that can't because it can, even though you will never use it.
My point is that it is irrational to assume that somebody lovely and friendly is checking the code for you. It is actually far more likely that somebody spiky and hostile is examining code for you, and they will never tell you how vulnerable you are. The EFF? Nice thought but if you want your code checked by lawyers, I suggest your checking criteria need work.
Do MS check that code?
Actually, that's an interesting one. My guess is officially no but unofficially yes. Apart from anything else, more checkins to the linux kernel are made from @microsoft.com addresses than any other domain, which you might not be aware of. MS have always had an awful lot of off-hours linux programmers on their staff.
(This is, btw, one of the reasons that I find it hilarious when religious lunatics on El Reg go on about Microsoft's shitty code as compared to linux's sparkling perfection, apparently entirely unaware that much of it is written by the same people using much the same toolchain. But I digress... )
You can accuse me of religious faith in MS if you like. Whatever. The only belief I have about IT is that all hardware sucks, all software sucks, Larry Ellison is crying out to be played by Ron Perlman and anyone who extolls the virtues of anything is a fucking liar.
Just because anyone can check does not mean anyone does or ever will.
Have you checked? My money says you have not. Did you rely on someone else to do your checking? Who? The NSA?
Since you have not checked it, the source might as well be closed. Most people don't check because they're not competent to do so. It's remarkable how many of those don't trust a company they pay money to but do trust unpaid anonymous nerds on the internet, isn't it?
I'd be happier with an embedded linux but even then, I couldn't check the image and I certainly couldn't change it if I didn't like it. To all intents and purposes an embedded Windows image is exactly as open as an embedded linux image and oddly, rather more open than an Android image. You can't make a commit to either codebase but at least MS will give you their source on release with CE which is more than Google do.
One of the nice things about embedded OS images is inherent stability. CE crashes about as often as embedded linux, you can't install shitty toolbars, scumware or indeed, anything on either of them.
I don't think I see any point in continuing this discussion though. Your Android preference is clearly religious rather than rational and I very much doubt you're capable of reasoned discussion.
I think that if you think the NSA are a) not deeply embedded in every Android distro outside of China and b) interested in your commute, you might have larger issues than satnav.
You like having Android in your car but not Windows Embedded?
I'd be interested in reading your rationale for this.
Isn't that just Windows Embedded Automotive rebadged with Ford logos anyway?
Since that's a variant of CE, Nokia could presumably go with the version of HERE maps they're putting on their WP7 devices.
On the bright side, Mr. Sharwood did go back and cleaned up his article. My compliments to him for that.
I echo those compliments.
I find the certificates are pretty rare - nobody really bothers with them except those who get them free from work along with the postits and paperclips.
The world is full of monkeyS who know nothing about IT. Some have MS certifications but rather a lot more think php and MySql are "srs pro toolz" and many just read from a support script and sneer on the Register's comment boards.
THAT IS THE SINGLE-WORST EDITED ARTICLE I HAVE EVER READ, INCLUDING IN THE GRAUNIAD. SHAPE UP, EL REG.
You may sneer, but [the iPad] is what many people want.
No-one's denying that for a second, and I'm not actually sneering. I merely reminded you that consumption is not the purpose of Windows RT, or certainly not the sole purpose.
Whether or not it meets the needs of various users is for them to decide. Not me and certainly not you. You haven't even used one, which makes your accusing me of sneering somewhat amusing.
Why would any server be running a GUI, let alone a touch based one that gives apps the full screen or just 2 or 3 splits?
So you can administer it from a tablet device, obviously.
> (unlike the iPad which is basically a portable telly if you're going to be honest)
That must be why they are selling so poorly.
They're hardly selling at PC levels, are they? Even with the alleged "death of the PC", the tablet market is a minnow by profit comparison and the iPad doesn't even rule that. It's a portable telly. A consumer device for consumers to consume stuff with. Not what Windows RT was intended for.
Office RT uses the desktop Win32 API and not TIFKAM. Office works poorly (according to reviews) with touch, it needs the keyboard and mouse/touchpad to be useful. This then requires that it be set on a firm surface such as a desktop. That's a failure then.
Mostly, I agree, except for two issues.
1. There's OneNote RT which does indeed work on Metro and is likely to be the way that Office RT is going. The rest of Office RT currently simply an ARM port of the x86 code. I suspect that's more about time to implement than any conscious and permanent decision. So it's not a failure; it's an incomplete piece of work with a kludgy workaround.
2. Will you cut it out with the "not useable on your lap" nonsense? You clearly haven't used a Surface so why do you insist that you "know" this?. I am using the test Surface RT machine we have in the office right now. With the keyboard. On my lap. It's fine. I could use a flatter angle but it's perfectly workable. The 1366x768 resolution is actually a benefit since everything's big enough to see anyway.
It would but the point is, if you write for WinRT you can address any implementation of Windows, be it Server, 8.x or RT.
The point of Windows RT was to provide an ARM-powered device which was genuinely useful (unlike the iPad which is basically a portable telly if you're going to be honest) and in some bizarro way, show that Windows doesn't actually need a desktop in order to do stuff, including content creation.
I suspect MS hoped that developers would instantly start targeting WinRT as a development platform, which was stupid. 99% of developers work in corporate environments, corporates are still running Windows 7 having only just upgraded their shitty XP boxes and are not going to upgrade again for at least three years.
$900 million is a lot of money for a prototype, but that's what Windows RT boxes are. A prototype. A look at where things are going, not at where things currently are
Nice try but wrong.
RT is an API set for Windows, addressable via the .NET framework. As such, it runs on every post Win7 windows installation.
Clearcase is an awful, awful product. (I actually typoed "prodfuct" there for a moment, which is accurate). It is so fucking awful that nobody serious uses it anymore outside IBM itself. It is clunky. It integrates badly with IDEs. It refuses to play ball with pretty much anything except Rose, even including Robot and XDE from the same alleged product suite.
Anyone who cared about source control switched to SVN and then further to TFS or git, depending on their platform. These days, you can even use TFS for all the project management gubbins and git for source control, seamlessly in VS.
Anyone who uses clearcase and claims to be serious about source control is a liar.
Bob Diamond was popular, too. And Fred Goodwin.
If she can pass the furniture-throwing test, who's going to stand in her way?
Someone who can catch furniture?
Who pays you to come out with this crap?
Name three loss leaders on Microsoft's current portfolio. I'd wait but you can't so don't bother.
Even if you hate all of those (and remember, Vista -> Win7 is also on Ballmer's record, what a failure he must be), they've been done. Hence you aren't suggesting them for Elop's attention.
So my point stands.
I think he might be disbarred by his own non-compete clause, bizarrely enough.
Yes, they make such a big loss, don't they?
No. They don't.
I don't mind intelligent discussion but you're missing an important criterion.
Tell me then, oh MS-Hater, what do Microsoft have that's working fine which Elop would replace?
Nope, didn't think so. Cheesy shot at Elop which made no sense whatsoever then?
Now personally, I think Elop would both be a terrible choice and would refuse it anyway. I think he's genuinely committed to Nokia and does indeed stand a chance of turning their smartphone business around. The 520 is eating landfill Android's lunch and it's a gateway drug.
I think he'd be a terrible choice because he's a guy who examines a problem and comes up with a solution - just one solution - which he will pursue no matter what internet fucktards say about it. In many ways that's an admirable trait but Microsoft's portfolio is far too large for it work there.
I thought Jobs' thing was marketing, which is slightly different from Sales.
In sales, you only lie to one person at a time. Ballmer is an expert at sales but Jobs could lie to the whole world.
The Board [bored] has been dozing at the wheel for a decade or more… but it seems to have suddenly woken up [too late] when the company has come off the rails
Tripled revenues, doubled profits and at least four new profit-making divisions. Off the rails indeed! MS is ruined! Thank Kibo you can see it, Malagabay because those millions of investors earning big dividends (I realize that to internet commentards, dividends are a new concept and only market cap matters but to investors things are different) sure can't.
Not a bad idea, but not Ms! Mayer! please.
Taking her seriously would indicate a need to take Yahoo! seriously, which is not an option.
Rudder also passed on purchase of Rational tools, leaving the way clear for IBM to gobble the software maker.
Bloody good thing, too. TFS is so much better than ClearCase, it's not even funny. I don't want to start any internet nerdwars here and this may be the absolute worst kind of heresy but....
even SourceSafe is better than ClearCase.
There. I said it.
And it's true. Okay so SourceSafe doesn't know about things like branching, labelling or not being a steaming pile of shit but at least when it eats your code never to return it, it doesn't claim that you never had any code to begin with.
I don't buy this.
You work in the IT department, you dress like the IT department. If the IT department wears suits - weird but it happens, especially at IBM - you wear a gender appropriate suit in a style similar to everyone else's.
If the IT Department wears shorts and t-shirts, you wear shorts and t-shirts.
"THEY TREAT ME DIFFERENT BECAUSE I DON'T DRESS LIKE A MAN" is a lie.
"THEY TREAT ME DIFFERENT BECAUSE I DON'T BEHAVE LIKE THEM" is the truth.
If you want to fit in, fit in. If you don't, stop bitching.
Why does this word cause Pete Doherty to leap to mind?
Because idiot stockbrokers can always accurately value a company which is why (for example) asset-stripping has never existed.
They'll all slate it anyway for not being an iPhone.
Donvoted because Bob Vistakin, I suppose.
I use it. So many corporate email providers bounce zips and executables that sending code to, for example a company that posts example code on github that doesn't fucking work* is far easier if I send a link to Skydrive instead.
Since that code has no business case for security, Skydrive is as good as anything and it was free.
*Most recent usage.
You edited your post in a BIG way.
Yeah, it was incoherent. I hadn't been awake long.
I'm not angry. Just disappointed, I guess. The sheer amount of no-life wasters on here with no skills and no ability and a huge hard-on for a company that exists to sell them as product getting all tribal about allegiances makes me sad.
He doesn't need to convince you, Jake.
I'd go so far as to venture that he doesn't need the reassurance of anyone who has enough time to waste it on dismissive comments about the multi-billion dollar company he was a partner in building and running. Has Steve Ballmer done better for himself and his family than any one of us?
Yes. Indisputably so. But you just bitch away, Jake. You with your secret special knowledge what's good that either nobody else has or nobody else gives a shit about. Bitch away, old son. Make yourself feel better. As for the idiot with the Harvard maths degree (those don't come free with your cornflakes either), I expect he feels pretty good anyway,
And has never heard of any of us and wouldn't care if he did.
The idiot who tripled revenue, doubled profits and turned cloud, CRM, Sharepoint and gaming into billion dollar businesses? I mention those because they're not dependant on windows+office and did not exist in Gates' era.
Yeah, what an idiot. You're so much smarter than him, Jake. We know because you keep telling us.
The irony being that Google are flat-out lying through their collective arse about it?
throe. Not throw.
Yet another reason not to take you seriously.
So that you could plug in a monitor and a keyboard and only need one computer?
(I doubt this will ever happen, especially with Atom chippery, but it's a potential reason).
Then he'd read his Shakespeare.
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Because nobody uses Google+ ?
There are other desktop operating systems out there and yet Microsoft has a monopoly.
Not all market-shares are created equal.
Unless we're saying that Google is a monopoly in the online video world?
You could certainly make a case for that.
I've got a Lumia 920.
The old app didn't show ads. The new app showed ads until Google got it pulled.
The article is wrong and interestingly it's wrong in a way that makes Google look good and Microsoft look bad.
Mistake, or El Reg pandering to the (obvious) prejudices of their readership?
You be the judge.
If I could upvote you twice, I would.
Are Microsoft an annoying, expensive pain in the arse? Absolutely.
Are Google being nasty little bitches about this? Hell yes.
Well, all those kids who got a Nokia 520 for less than a hundred quid off contract, that's who. Is that what you want to happen, Googlepologists?
We weren't promised flying cars. Unless you're over 60, you weren't either.
We were promised a bleak, dirty, Orwellian cyberpunk dystopia.
And it's very nearly here..
It would be if it worked.
I've never had a FON hotspot work without demanding money from me. Never.
These days I just ignore them completely.
Left hand: We're supporting Windows XP Embedded with security patches until 2016/17
Reading comprehension, anon. You fail at it.
In what reality is 37.2% a monopoly?
"Proposed amendments tabled by EU Ministers would, if introduced, restrict the cases in which personal data breaches would have to be reported."
Do they think it's not important? Do they think their corporate masters can save money by hoping nobody finds out?