Is Microsoft Afraid to Say the L-word?
computerworlduk.com
computerworlduk.com
It strikes me as pretty disingenuous to say that only Windows can run the "top 10" downloads when your top 10 list includes vectors for installation of a target application that does run on other platforms, albeit with a different installation routine.
So when Windows is not your primary target, for an open-source project is just a nice-to-have (that's why many projects look/behave like ass on Windows, and this isn't mentioned in the report).
Personally I wouldn't mind for those developers on Microsoft-platforms to contribute more. It would mean more open-source for everybody. But culture matters a lot and I don't see this happening too soon.
But there's a basic cultural difference - there are a boatload of cheap closed applications on Windows and people just kind of expect them to cost around $30. I spend the extra little time to find the open ones, but it's difficult sometimes. You really have to know what OSS is to start with, then really care about finding it. Most people just run their Outlook email and IE browser because it's what came installed. They don't even know you have the option of running Thunderbird and Chrome.
For instance the author of Paint.NET (a former open-source project) started releasing only binaries because some individual ripped off his work, taking all the credits (in breach of its license), and probably bundling it with spyware / charging money for it ...
http://blog.getpaint.net/2007/12/04/freeware-authors-beware-... http://blog.getpaint.net/2009/11/06/a-new-license-for-paintn...
To see your work used like that, most likely without a Thank You, probably hurts a lot.
The author also said he doesn't have the money or the time for legal recourse.
I also don't fully agree with Mark ... there is an unwritten rule in any society ... when people are being nice giving you stuff for free / helping you out, don't piss on their lawn ;)
In real-life when this happens, you just slam the door on his face next time. This also happened here, but unfortunately because of the easy means of redistribution, the author just slammed the door on everybody.
Honestly, is this really news? Company X writes an article and fails to mention a competitor? Where's the conspiracy?
This is according to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp of course
Without the Office monopoly and the Server+SQLServer+IIS or exchange licence fees MS doesn't look so good.
It doesn't really matter about linux's 10% of the desktop market if the EOM copy of windows that came with your machine is the last bit of MS software you (or your company) ever buys.
For example, if Coke ad (as someone else also reported) mentioned Pepsi, then not only is a consumer seeing "Coke" but is also seeing "Pepsi".
The only time you see the competitor brand mentioned is when the ads are very specifically negative or when they come from an underdog against a market leader. The usual examples are Verizon-AT&T, Apple-MS, etc. Here the underdog or newcomer has nothing to lose so they will mention the market leader's brand.
So, here MS is not afraid, rather it doesn't make sense for them to mention Linux or rather any *nix by name. But, if it was reverse, it totally makes sense for Red Hat to mention MS Windows by name.
What you are referring to is running some sort of Posix system on top of Win32 (Cygwin), but NT is capable of running Posix natively.
Services for Unix doesn't install a Posix subsystem, it replaces it with another called Interix.
The POSIX subsystem has been removed from the installation since Windows XP.
n.b. : Subsystems are how programs interface with the "real" NT API. Win32 is a subsystem as well.
I assume platform agnostic means "both windows and linux [and everything else]"? so therefore how does Windows having 82% and Linux 94(ish)% coverage add up?
Or have I read it wrong?
Which means the numbers dont add up.
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1605966/20090226/story.jhtm... http://www.lazygamer.co.za/xbox-360/its-ok-to-be-gay-microso...
Steve Balmer when talking about search never mentions Google. He says the market leader. An advertising man must have told them that its bad to indirectly promote other products.