Why do a reader only for one publication? (Adobe vs. Microsoft for developers)

Oh cool. It’s completely justified because you think so. But its not OK when someone at MSFT decides to limit/not support something. Apparently you consider pros and cons before you decide if something is a problem while some ass sitting high up in MSFT will do it because he had a bad hair day.

Different issue. If Apple decided to shitcan the AD plugin and make me pay third parties for it, I’d roast them en brochette with a smile on my face. I actually wish Microsoft would make it HARDER to get software approved for their phones, because a bad application on a phone can, and does, render the device unusable.

Ultimately its a business. nobody is going to do anything that doesn’t directly or indirectly contribute to the bottomline(or if its Sarbanes-Oxley). But why expect just MSFT to do things based on ‘morality’?

I don’t. I expect them to realize at some point that creating a large group of people who despise them, and daring that group to do something about it will become counterproductive.

Maybe if most of my emergency problems for the last ten or so years weren’t created by WIndows, I’d have a kinder POV of the company.

“weren’t created by WIndows”

I would think ‘not taken care by’ as a more suited word than ‘created’. I even agree that MSFT could have done more.

Generally for any company would do something if at least one of the following is true -
1) Doing it would help the bottomline
2) Not doing it would affect the bottomline. As long as there is no perceivable direct or indirect monetary loss because from not doing something MSFT (or any other company) will not do it.

Do you think anyone @MSFT (even Ballmer) would really not be worried about the obvious anti-MSFT current? But not always can you make the decision that will please people. The ultimate boss of all these propreitery companies – The market – is a strange beast. It doesn’t reward ‘good behavior’.

(This is exactly where the opensource community could have done a lot. They can base their decisions purely on the pain factor to the user and not be bothered about whether something will make economic sense.)

I would think ‘not taken care by’ as a more suited word than ‘created’. I even agree that MSFT could have done more.

No, I meant “created”. The current need for three malware checkers in a windows network? The absolute stupidity of the Windows security model? The bullshit that allowed things like all the Office malware to hose your OS?

Microsoft *created* those problems by ignoring, and in many cases laughing at good security practice, and their answer in Vista is to annoy the shit out of you with inane dialogs?

They sure as shit created the problem, and they’ve yet to fix it.

Do you think anyone @MSFT (even Ballmer) would really not be worried about the obvious anti-MSFT current? But not always can you make the decision that will please people. The ultimate boss of all these propreitery companies – The market – is a strange beast. It doesn’t reward ‘good behavior’.

I think he looks at the market share and says “Yeah, we suck, so what”. I’ve yet to hear anything coming out of Ballmer’s mouth that even HINTS at contriteness for the bullshit and pain his company caused over the last decade or so. Just continuing arrogance.

The sad thing is, you can see the first signs of that same disease in the Adobe Acrobat team, for whom you don’t count unless you’re “Big” enterprise.

Sad.

“No, I meant “created”. ”
John, i think we have to agree to disagree on this.

While i don’t claim Microsoft is all sainty, i don’t agree that all the screwups were plain deliberate.

Given the amount of stick he got when he said ‘Vista forecasts were too bullish’ you don’t expect him to make a ‘We’re sorry’ statement. Do you?

Denounce is a neat little RSS/Podcast reader that you should take a look at.

http://www.thirteen23.com
blendout.blogspot.com