Coffeehouse Thread

62 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

scoble...rory... next?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    figuerres

    Zeo wrote:
    Channel 9 is a great place. And niner's really add to the community.

    As a FTE now, I'd hope we'd look at niner's who'd be interested in working at Microsoft and specifically for DPE.




    in english ?  "DPE"  Delta Pi Epsilon ?

    *IF* the right spot was open I'd jump at it...
    but can MSFT handle the Fig ?
    Smiley

  • User profile image
    Zeo

    Developer Platform Evangelism

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Rossj wrote:
    
    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?


    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.

    By (aggressivly) promoting the company, isn't it to the detriment of third-party solutions which might be technologically superior, but lost out because Microsoft can afford to put you in that position?

    Kinda sickens me, Zeo... head to your boss and ask for a transfer to something interesting, or at least something useful, like... Office Excel.

  • User profile image
    fdisk

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rossj wrote:
    
    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?
    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.

    By (aggressivly) promoting the company, isn't it to the detriment of third-party solutions which might be technologically superior, but lost out because Microsoft can afford to put you in that position?

    Kinda sickens me, Zeo... head to your boss and ask for a transfer to something interesting, or at least something useful, like... Office Excel.
    I was always wondering why not come up with a similiar postion like a staff cartoonist...? Maybe someone could come up with a clever mascot like Joe Camel. Please...no Clippy revivals, either. Cool

  • User profile image
    webmonkey

    Massif wrote:
    Dammit! I've got cool hair, although I've not heard of this "technical expertise" which you refer to. Is this something you get on the Mac?

    Also, I have cool T-shirts, i know this becase at least two (2) different (not the same) people have said so. (Using the words "cool T-shirt!")

    I lack the ability to waffle on about technology that I don't understand intimately though.

    I think I bought the coolest t-shirt ever a few weeks ago.

    And with that I hereby officially apply for the job.

    I hope someone filmed an exit interview.

    I enjoy your blog writing, if whatever else you write is as amusing i'll buy it, good luck Rory!

  • User profile image
    eagle

    Technology has changed the way we live our lives, the DPE role is to help the innovators who want to stay ahead of the curve.

  • User profile image
    Rory

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rossj wrote:
    
    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?


    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.


    The way you've described it, DPE is doing exactly what it's supposed to. DPE has nothing to do with "the advancement of society," nor should it.

    If there's a perception here (and I'm making an assumption about your stance) that DPE should be picking up more litter or teaching the children to sing - or that it shouldn't exist at all because it doesn't contribute back to civilization - then any negative fallout of that perception is due to an expectation set against irrelevant criteria.

    Might as well put a dog to sleep because it won't play Wii with you.

    W3bbo wrote:
    By (aggressivly) promoting the company, isn't it to the detriment of third-party solutions which might be technologically superior, but lost out because Microsoft can afford to put you in that position?


    Why do geeks always make Microsoft the focal point of inequality of power in the universe?

    What does it even mean to say that "[smaller companies] lost out because Microsoft can afford to put [them] in that position"? How do you afford to put someone in the position of sucking?

    In the states, our utilities have traditionally run as what are basically legal monopolies. One company provides your landline, one company provides your gas, one company provides your energy, etc... It's not like that across the board, but it's close enough.

    I had a contract with a natural gas company for nearly three years. I got to know the place well. In my second year, I offered to replace their entire marketing department with a pin that read, "Don't like it? Try the other gas company."

    There wasn't, of course, another gas company.

    Pretty solid. Energy companies were the last I expected to see undermined, but it's happening. There are so many alternative energy companies coming onto the scene now that power is shifting. Portland General Electric is in the business now of buying power back from customers who generate their own - that's how much life has changed.

    If a smaller company does something great, there's no reason it can't challenge the bigger player. Besides, people love all that David and Goliath stuff.

    But Goliath is always there. Regardless of the industry, there is always a big guy that some people want to topple.

    The way you topple Goliath is by outsmarting him. Microsoft is big, but it moves slowly. If you've got something better to offer, then give it.

    W3bbo wrote:
    Kinda sickens me, Zeo...


    Zeo - you are offically syrup of ipecac to W3bbo.

    Use your power wisely Smiley

  • User profile image
    fdisk

    Rory wrote:
    If a smaller company does something great, there's no reason it can't challenge the bigger player. Besides, people love all that David and Goliath stuff.

    But Goliath is always there. Regardless of the industry, there is always a big guy that some people want to topple.

    The way you topple Goliath is by outsmarting him. Microsoft is big, but it moves slowly. If you've got something better to offer, then give it.
    Yeah, but in this case Goliath then goes and offers to buy out such products instead of inventing his own, or tries to push them into extinction if that fails. If that fails, too, he sends out mini-Goliaths (SCO) which don't always fair so well either. Sad

    If, however, Goliath succeeds in buying off the challenger and his stone and sling, then, instead of upgrading and improving on sling technology, he sort of lets it sit there. I think Visio sort of fell into this category to some extent.

  • User profile image
    PaoloM

    fdisk wrote:
    
    Rory wrote:
    If a smaller company does something great, there's no reason it can't challenge the bigger player. Besides, people love all that David and Goliath stuff.

    But Goliath is always there. Regardless of the industry, there is always a big guy that some people want to topple.

    The way you topple Goliath is by outsmarting him. Microsoft is big, but it moves slowly. If you've got something better to offer, then give it.
    Yeah, but in this case Goliath then goes and offers to buy out such products instead of inventing his own

    Well, you can't blame Apple for outright buying the iPod instead of building their own platform. It's a bit unfair...
    fdisk wrote:
    or tries to push them into extinction if that fails.

    PowerComputing just sent me a postcard from the grave saying the same thing! What a coincidence!
    fdisk wrote:
    If that fails, too, he sends out mini-Goliaths (SCO) which don't always fair so well either.

    Yeah, that was very silly of Sun, paying that money to SCO hoping that it would vanquish their direct competitor, IBM....

    Perplexed

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Rory wrote:
    
    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rossj wrote:
    
    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?


    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.


    The way you've described it, DPE is doing exactly what it's supposed to. DPE has nothing to do with "the advancement of society," nor should it.

    If there's a perception here (and I'm making an assumption about your stance) that DPE should be picking up more litter or teaching the children to sing - or that it shouldn't exist at all because it doesn't contribute back to civilization - then any negative fallout of that perception is due to an expectation set against irrelevant criteria.


    But anything can be judged against the criteria "considering the overall grand scheme of things, what's the point?", being a SE or Researcher grades higher than a (perceived) glorified marketing position.

    Rory wrote:
    Might as well put a dog to sleep because it won't play Wii with you.


    A better analogy would be putting a dog to sleep because all it could do was play Wii (what? No XBox? Tongue Out ) and provide very little other value to its master or its environment.

    Rory wrote:
    

    W3bbo wrote:
    By (aggressivly) promoting the company, isn't it to the detriment of third-party solutions which might be technologically superior, but lost out because Microsoft can afford to put you in that position?


    Why do geeks always make Microsoft the focal point of inequality of power in the universe?


    Microsoft is a convicted monopolist; being a publically traded company means its priorities are to its shareholders rather than its consumers. It's not because Microsoft is Microsoft, but because of the way Microsoft operates.

    The same can be said for all the major corporations: Oracle, IBM, even Google all have some number of undesirable aspects (just some have more than others; I've noticed it's a function of how long they've been around for the youthful ideology of the founders to wither away and die).

    Rory wrote:
    What does it even mean to say that "[smaller companies] lost out because Microsoft can afford to put [them] in that position"? How do you afford to put someone in the position of sucking?


    Imagine the year is mid-2006. Firefox and Opera currently top IE6 in every comparison matrix out there. For this exercise, the important bits are compliance with W3C Recommendations, general usability, and higher independent security rankings.

    Hypothetically speaking, imagine Microsoft has a team of "IE Evangelists" which scour web development forums (for devs) and business forums (for PHBs). They manage to convince a significant number of PHBs and less experienced devs to use IE-only technologies because of some esoteric feature that really doesn't matter: i.e. through pure marketing gimmick. For argument, let's say "Easier to develop with Visual Studio" (as many of us know, IE-only sites are a common side-effect of relying too heavily on the default behaviour of VS, especially VS2003).

    In this case, the superior product being touted by the smaller company (or fragmented, independent organisations) has lost out because the bigger company could afford to hire people to hype their technologically inferior product out to easily impressionable people. QED.

    It's happening right now. Head over to Slashdot (or even a fairly balanced FOSS/IT News site) sometime with AdBlock disabled and you'll be bombarded with misleading (or FUD) advertisements about Windows Server System. I'm not saying it's a bad system (not at all, personally I love it), but Microsoft is clearly advertising to PHBs who don't know any better. And who is the PHB going to listen to? The "open-source nutjob in IT" or the "smartly dressed, well presented Microsoft salesman"?

    Rory wrote:
    In the states, our utilities have traditionally run as what are basically legal monopolies. One company provides your landline, one company provides your gas, one company provides your energy, etc... It's not like that across the board, but it's close enough.


    Same here, except they're regulated.

    Rory wrote:
    If a smaller company does something great, there's no reason it can't challenge the bigger player. Besides, people love all that David and Goliath stuff.


    Netscape was a small company that did something great. It challenged the bigger player. The bigger player abused their monopoly and forced them out of business.

    Painful lessons to learn: "you can't beat goliath".

    The closest anyone's gotten was Eolas with their Embedded Controls patent, and even then Microsoft found a way to subert them. (Not saying that's a bad thing, Eolas are scum, but as an example).

    Rory wrote:
    But Goliath is always there. Regardless of the industry, there is always a big guy that some people want to topple.

    The way you topple Goliath is by outsmarting him. Microsoft is big, but it moves slowly. If you've got something better to offer, then give it.


    But it's capitalism, not technocracy. You outsmart with business sense, not technical sense, which is the problem I'm addressing here.

    Rory wrote:

    W3bbo wrote:
    Kinda sickens me, Zeo...


    Zeo - you are offically syrup of ipecac to W3bbo.

    Use your power wisely


    Oh yeah, my vomits are so powerful they're sentient.

    Two vomits are walking down the street. All of a sudden one begins to cry.
    What’s wrong asks the other. Oh nothing... it's just that this is where l was brought up.

  • User profile image
    GoddersUK

    fdisk wrote:
    Sorry folks, but I'm sure the voting on this one is already closed. They always hire internally for the Channel 9 team.



    Edit: I wouldn't be shocked if someone on the janitorial staff got hired before an outside candidate.



    Wow - c9 colours too....! Big Smile

  • User profile image
    rjdohnert

    We need Snoop Dogg on Channel 9.  Maybe Paul Thurrott.  If they hired Leo Laporte that would be cool too.  He is a Mac and Linux fan though so he may not come aboard.

  • User profile image
    Rory

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rory wrote:
    
    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.


    The way you've described it, DPE is doing exactly what it's supposed to. DPE has nothing to do with "the advancement of society," nor should it.

    If there's a perception here (and I'm making an assumption about your stance) that DPE should be picking up more litter or teaching the children to sing - or that it shouldn't exist at all because it doesn't contribute back to civilization - then any negative fallout of that perception is due to an expectation set against irrelevant criteria.


    But anything can be judged against the criteria "considering the overall grand scheme of things, what's the point?", being a SE or Researcher grades higher than a (perceived) glorified marketing position.


    I'm not arguing about whether something can be judged against any old set of criteria.

    I was arguing that you were judging DPE based on "irrelevant criteria." There's nothing wrong with DPE not advancing society and blah blah blah - DPE is doing exactly what it should be.

    That's the point. All you're doing here removing DPE from its context, setting it out in the wild, and then judging its worth.

    That's just silly. As an exercise, anything can be removed from its context and torn apart.

    What I see here is you placing far more responsibility on DPE than it warrants. If I were to play the same game, I could pull Firefox out of its comfort zone and argue that it isn't curing AIDS or building libraries. What does that prove? Nothing. It isn't a reasonable argument because it implies that the reason Firefox exists is to cure AIDS and build libraries.

    DPE does exactly what it's supposed to. It's not here to cure AIDS or build libraries. The expectation that it should be doing something grand for society is irrelevant because it's so ridiculous.

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rory wrote:
    Might as well put a dog to sleep because it won't play Wii with you.


    A better analogy would be putting a dog to sleep because all it could do was play Wii (what? No XBox? ) and provide very little other value to its master or its environment.


    Uh. No.

    My point was that it's ridiculous to expect a dog to play Wii, so you shouldn't punish it for not doing it. This was a lightweight support to the idea that it's ridiculous to expect DPE to better society, so you shouldn't expect it to. That's not what it does.

    Dogs don't play Wii; DPE doesn't advance society.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Microsoft is a convicted monopolist; being a publically traded company means its priorities are to its shareholders rather than its consumers. It's not because Microsoft is Microsoft, but because of the way Microsoft operates.


    I don't understand how you can separate "the way Microsoft operates" from "what" Microsoft is. Microsoft is Microsoft, and an overwhelming part of that is how it operates.

    And as far as it prioritizing shareholders - yes! But whether that's what Microsoft should be doing or not has nothing to do with how it makes you feel. Microsoft is around to make money. Microsoft makes money. Microsoft does this. Microsoft's purpose is fulfilled.

    Dogs do dogly thing; Microsoft makes money.

    W3bbo wrote:
     The same can be said for all the major corporations: Oracle, IBM, even Google all have some number of undesirable aspects (just some have more than others; I've noticed it's a function of how long they've been around for the youthful ideology of the founders to wither away and die).


    BS! The "youthful ideology of the founders" took off running with a big fat check. Why do you think these fancy youthful founders start their companies? To become huge non-profits?

    They do it for money. Some hide it better than others, but it's for money.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Imagine the year is mid-2006. Firefox and Opera currently top IE6 in every comparison matrix out there. For this exercise, the important bits are compliance with W3C Recommendations, general usability, and higher independent security rankings.

    Hypothetically speaking, imagine Microsoft has a team of "IE Evangelists" which scour web development forums (for devs) and business forums (for PHBs). They manage to convince a significant number of PHBs and less experienced devs to use IE-only technologies because of some esoteric feature that really doesn't matter: i.e. through pure marketing gimmick. For argument, let's say "Easier to develop with Visual Studio" (as many of us know, IE-only sites are a common side-effect of relying too heavily on the default behaviour of VS, especially VS2003).

    In this case, the superior product being touted by the smaller company (or fragmented, independent organisations) has lost out because the bigger company could afford to hire people to hype their technologically inferior product out to easily impressionable people. QED.


    I was going to reply, but then I got nailed by the QED. It adds so much gravitas to a debate... but... I shall go on...

    Your entire argument here is the perfect example of why I responded to you in the first place.

    You first set up your own arbitary criteria by which to judge the worth of one web browser over another. Then you went on, with those criteria, to use them to argue that a DPE-like group was turning people away from the Greater Good.

    A conclusion based on a set of assumptions ultimately judged against another set of assumptions.

    You're getting further and further away from the facts.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    And even though it makes no sense here, I'm going to hit you with my own QED.

    QED. BAM! Can't lose now...

    W3bbo wrote:
    It's happening right now. Head over to Slashdot (or even a fairly balanced FOSS/IT News site) sometime with AdBlock disabled and you'll be bombarded with misleading (or FUD) advertisements about Windows Server System. I'm not saying it's a bad system (not at all, personally I love it), but Microsoft is clearly advertising to PHBs who don't know any better. And who is the PHB going to listen to? The "open-source nutjob in IT" or the "smartly dressed, well presented Microsoft salesman"?


    When was the last time you saw an ad without any spin? This isn't a rhetorical question - I expect you can answer it, but what's the frequency of what you think are truthful ads vs. the spin?

    Not that it matters. It's still irrelevant. So much of what you're saying is founded on the premise that Microsoft is supposed to be saving the world, but that it isn't.

    Again, that's not what Microsoft does.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Netscape was a small company that did something great. It challenged the bigger player. The bigger player abused their monopoly and forced them out of business.


    Again, BS. The biggest problem with Netscape was what came after v4. They dropped the ball, creating the buggiest, slowest, most bloated browser I've ever seen. That's when I - and so many other people - switched to IE.

    I understand that your argument is probably based much more on legal dealings, but, seriously, the product was awful.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Painful lessons to learn: "you can't beat goliath".


    Not if you suck, no.

    W3bbo wrote:
     But it's capitalism, not technocracy. You outsmart with business sense, not technical sense, which is the problem I'm addressing here.


    That isn't the "problem [you're] addressing" at all.

    This all started because you were irked by the way DPE doesn't advance society, and so on.

    If you want to argue that Microsoft has probably beaten out competitors because of marketing rather than technical superiority, then I'm right there with you.

    But that's not what you've been talking about.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Oh yeah, my vomits are so powerful they're sentient.


    Ah... Have they been doing all the typing for you? Because that would explain a lot.

  • User profile image
    Rory

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rory wrote:
    
    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Whilst it can be argued that being a DPE has a positive role for the company, it really doesn't do anything for the advancement of society, computational science, or any of the spin-off areas.


    The way you've described it, DPE is doing exactly what it's supposed to. DPE has nothing to do with "the advancement of society," nor should it.

    If there's a perception here (and I'm making an assumption about your stance) that DPE should be picking up more litter or teaching the children to sing - or that it shouldn't exist at all because it doesn't contribute back to civilization - then any negative fallout of that perception is due to an expectation set against irrelevant criteria.


    But anything can be judged against the criteria "considering the overall grand scheme of things, what's the point?", being a SE or Researcher grades higher than a (perceived) glorified marketing position.


    I'm not arguing about whether something can be judged against any old set of criteria.

    I was arguing that you were judging DPE based on "irrelevant criteria." There's nothing wrong with DPE not advancing society and blah blah blah - DPE is doing exactly what it should be.

    That's the point. All you're doing here removing DPE from its context, setting it out in the wild, and then judging its worth.

    That's just silly. As an exercise, anything can be removed from its context and torn apart.

    What I see here is you placing far more responsibility on DPE than it warrants. If I were to play the same game, I could pull Firefox out of its comfort zone and argue that it isn't curing AIDS or building libraries. What does that prove? Nothing. It isn't a reasonable argument because it implies that the reason Firefox exists is to cure AIDS and build libraries.

    DPE does exactly what it's supposed to. It's not here to cure AIDS or build libraries. The expectation that it should be doing something grand for society is irrelevant because it's so ridiculous.

    W3bbo wrote:
    
    Rory wrote:
    Might as well put a dog to sleep because it won't play Wii with you.


    A better analogy would be putting a dog to sleep because all it could do was play Wii (what? No XBox? ) and provide very little other value to its master or its environment.


    Uh. No.

    My point was that it's ridiculous to expect a dog to play Wii, so you shouldn't punish it for not doing it. This was a lightweight support to the idea that it's ridiculous to expect DPE to better society, so you shouldn't expect it to. That's not what it does.

    Dogs don't play Wii; DPE doesn't advance society.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Microsoft is a convicted monopolist; being a publically traded company means its priorities are to its shareholders rather than its consumers. It's not because Microsoft is Microsoft, but because of the way Microsoft operates.


    I don't understand how you can separate "the way Microsoft operates" from "what" Microsoft is. Microsoft is Microsoft, and an overwhelming part of that is how it operates.

    And as far as it prioritizing shareholders - yes! But whether that's what Microsoft should be doing or not has nothing to do with how it makes you feel. Microsoft is around to make money. Microsoft makes money. Microsoft does this. Microsoft's purpose is fulfilled.

    Dogs do dogly thing; Microsoft makes money.

    W3bbo wrote:
     The same can be said for all the major corporations: Oracle, IBM, even Google all have some number of undesirable aspects (just some have more than others; I've noticed it's a function of how long they've been around for the youthful ideology of the founders to wither away and die).


    BS! The "youthful ideology of the founders" took off running with a big fat check. Why do you think these fancy youthful founders start their companies? To become huge non-profits?

    They do it for money. Some hide it better than others, but it's for money.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Imagine the year is mid-2006. Firefox and Opera currently top IE6 in every comparison matrix out there. For this exercise, the important bits are compliance with W3C Recommendations, general usability, and higher independent security rankings.

    Hypothetically speaking, imagine Microsoft has a team of "IE Evangelists" which scour web development forums (for devs) and business forums (for PHBs). They manage to convince a significant number of PHBs and less experienced devs to use IE-only technologies because of some esoteric feature that really doesn't matter: i.e. through pure marketing gimmick. For argument, let's say "Easier to develop with Visual Studio" (as many of us know, IE-only sites are a common side-effect of relying too heavily on the default behaviour of VS, especially VS2003).

    In this case, the superior product being touted by the smaller company (or fragmented, independent organisations) has lost out because the bigger company could afford to hire people to hype their technologically inferior product out to easily impressionable people. QED.


    I was going to reply, but then I got nailed by the QED. It adds so much gravitas to a debate... but... I shall go on...

    Your entire argument here is the perfect example of why I responded to you in the first place.

    You first set up your own arbitary criteria by which to judge the worth of one web browser over another. Then you went on, with those criteria, to use them to argue that a DPE-like group was turning people away from the Greater Good.

    A conclusion based on a set of assumptions ultimately judged against another set of assumptions.

    You're getting further and further away from the facts.

    Garbage in, garbage out.

    And even though it makes no sense here, I'm going to hit you with my own QED.

    QED. BAM! Can't lose now...

    W3bbo wrote:
    It's happening right now. Head over to Slashdot (or even a fairly balanced FOSS/IT News site) sometime with AdBlock disabled and you'll be bombarded with misleading (or FUD) advertisements about Windows Server System. I'm not saying it's a bad system (not at all, personally I love it), but Microsoft is clearly advertising to PHBs who don't know any better. And who is the PHB going to listen to? The "open-source nutjob in IT" or the "smartly dressed, well presented Microsoft salesman"?


    When was the last time you saw an ad without any spin? This isn't a rhetorical question - I expect you can answer it, but what's the frequency of what you think are truthful ads vs. the spin?

    Not that it matters. It's still irrelevant. So much of what you're saying is founded on the premise that Microsoft is supposed to be saving the world, but that it isn't.

    Again, that's not what Microsoft does.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Netscape was a small company that did something great. It challenged the bigger player. The bigger player abused their monopoly and forced them out of business.


    Again, BS. The biggest problem with Netscape was what came after v4. They dropped the ball, creating the buggiest, slowest, most bloated browser I've ever seen. That's when I - and so many other people - switched to IE.

    I understand that your argument is probably based much more on legal dealings, but, seriously, the product was awful.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Painful lessons to learn: "you can't beat goliath".


    Not if you suck, no.

    W3bbo wrote:
     But it's capitalism, not technocracy. You outsmart with business sense, not technical sense, which is the problem I'm addressing here.


    That isn't the "problem [you're] addressing" at all.

    This all started because you were irked by the way DPE doesn't advance society, and so on.

    If you want to argue that Microsoft has probably beaten out competitors because of marketing rather than technical superiority, then I'm right there with you.

    But that's not what you've been talking about.

    W3bbo wrote:
     Oh yeah, my vomits are so powerful they're sentient.


    Ah... Have they been doing all the typing for you? Because that would explain a lot.

  • User profile image
    raymond

    Rossj wrote:
    
    Zeo wrote:
    Developer Platform Evangelism


    Bleurgh. Sorry no offense, but isn't that another name for Marketing?


    True Believer Cult Wink

    Cool



  • User profile image
    irascian

    W3bbo, W3bbo, W3bbo, why do you always have to see things in such black and white terms. Sometimes your posts are so naive I want to smack you around the head and say "Get out there in the real world".

    To pick up on just one of your points....

    W3bbo wrote:
    


    Netscape was a small company that did something great. It challenged the bigger player. The bigger player abused their monopoly and forced them out of business.


    I was using a browser before Netscape came to dominate the market. People accuse Microsoft of being arrogant but Netscape were far worse in the days when you ordered it and it came on a set of floppy discs. Discs wouldn't arrive and there'd be nobody to complain to. Want your money back? No way, Jose! Or if you did manage to find the magic contact they'd act like it was all your fault. There were times when their browser was so buggy you'd get three releases in a fortnight. Great news if you're doing development and diferrent members of your QA team have downloaded on different days and rightly saying "but other people may have done the same. You have to support all three point versions, hideous bugs and all in your sophisticated web front-end".

    Netscape were a frigging nightmare as far as I was concerned. "Great" they certainly were not.

    IE may be worse in some ways, maybe even many ways, but please let's not rewrite history about how wonderful Netscape was just so we can stick to dogmatic points about Microsoft being evil or marketing always being bad.

  • User profile image
    Duncanma

    fdisk wrote:
    Sorry folks, but I'm sure the voting on this one is already closed. They always hire internally for the Channel 9 team.


    Where did you get that idea? Scoble wasn't internal as far as I know... Rory was from the field at least, Adam was external, Erik (Human Compiler) was external...  Jon Udell, external... and under the same management we have the on10.net team... Laura, Tina, Larry, Jesse ... all external.

    I just don't understand why you would make a comment that is so completely in disagreement with the facts.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.