Coffeehouse Thread

62 posts

scoble...rory... next?

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • Massif

    blowdart wrote:
    
    Massif wrote:

    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!")


    Mum and Dad aren't suitable references.


    Mum and Dad wouldn't use the phrase "cool T-shirt!" if by some horrendous "world taken over by evil fashionistas from hell" twist their lives depended on it.

    But do "man serving in a cafe" and "barman" count as suitable references?

    Heh... If folks really want the position they should do a damn video talking about something relevant, and stick it on soapbox... That'd make for an interesting recruitment process.

  • DarthVista

    .

  • Sagar_Rawal

    (I am a long time lurker)

    Geez, I feel stupid.  I google'd Rory's name and found an exit interview at http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=237876 .

    I got so excited after watching the video/reading the thread because I thought Rory was coming back.  I didn't really comprehend what he was saying about leaving the events team and joining the C9 team as it is 4 AM and I just finished studying for a quiz on Fast Fourier Transforms tommorow.

    But alas, I saw the date stamps on the posts and feel deja vu.

    Sucks that he is leaving, he was awesome.

    Embarassed

  • PaoloM

    DarthVista wrote:
    .

    And just like Beer28, we have the post deletes...

    Charming Perplexed (not)

  • Cornelius Ellsonpeter

    PaoloM wrote:
    
    DarthVista wrote:
    .

    And just like Beer28, we have the post deletes...

    Charming (not)
    Mr. Sampson has done this, too, fwiw. Nobody yells at him about that. Maybe Darth regretted his post(s)? Very UN-beer like, IMHO.

  • PaoloM

    Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:
    
    PaoloM wrote:
    
    DarthVista wrote:
    .

    And just like Beer28, we have the post deletes...

    Charming (not)
    Mr. Sampson has done this, too, fwiw. Nobody yells at him about that.

    Never noticed that, sorry...

    Yeah, it's highly uncool.

  • ScanIAm

    irascian wrote:
    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.

    I'd also like to point out that while Netscape pwnd the browser 'market', their management lived like kings on Venture Capital monies, threw lavish parties and spent an awful lot of time acting like dicks. 

    Their business model was "We won't make money on the sale, but we'll make it up in volume". 

    In fact, I'd bet that if IE didn't have MSFT feeding money into it during that time period, it would have failed just as miserably.  There isn't any money in the browser market.  There aren't any 'browser millionaires'.

    Netscape was a fine product that nobody was willing to pay for.

  • blowdart

    ScanIAm wrote:
    

    I'd also like to point out that while Netscape pwnd the browser 'market', their management lived like kings on Venture Capital monies, threw lavish parties and spent an awful lot of time acting like dicks.


    And lets not forget Netscape was out to destroy the competition, Mosaic. That was Jim Clarkes stated aim, to destroy Mosaic and take control of the web from government based standards.

    But somehow w3bbo views it all as some rosey bunch of hippies against MS. They added a bunch of "feature" (ohh, <blink>) and intended to charge for the HTML authoring tools that would use those features. And how did they get around the licensing fee they paid spyglass? Simple, they gave it away; the spyglass fee was on a per copy sold basis.

    And the Netscape complained MS would take away the very standards they'd destroyed in the first place to gain their market share.

Comments closed

Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.