On Monday 29 December 2008 16:58, Dinesh Shah (દિનેશ શાહ/दिनेश शाह) wrote:
Terrence,
Generally I don't enter into such fruitless discussions as see it akin to masturbation. :)
Lot of heat and no production. ;-)
However,
You completely misunderstand. Every company exists to provide a service. They MAY fail because of many reasons. But they WILL fail if they cannot provide the service that they propose in a satisfactory way.
Your argument can be used to validate the M$ success! Since M$ has not failed so far can lead to point where they can say that they are providing the products/services in satisfactorily.
Make a measurement in a few years time.
I don't see why we should bash MS just for making money. If they had monopolistic practices its because the competition wasnt good enough and allowed it to be a monopoly.
Snip. As i said you really need to get the facts from some place other than wherever you are getting them from. Periodically we get thoroughly misinformed members on the list. However it has been sometime since the last one. Cant blame the poor members though, the disinformation from M$ and their puppets is huge and the poor reader thinks it's great marketing. If anything they are as terrible at marketing as they are at tech.
Isn't it strange that if someone don't agree with you are have views and opinions opposite ti you becomes M$ puppet?
My views are backed up by openly available data that everybody can refer to, which itself is backed up by even more data of M$ shenanigans over the years. The op started by quoting those parts of a study that were picked out by M$ puppets and bandied about in the press. They then never bothered to correct this subterfuge when the paper writer refuted M$ abridged theory.
Why we never attempt to learn from our opponents?
Are you implying we indulge in same subterfuge?. If any thing The opponent needs to learn from us. clarification: by opponent i mean M$ in this context. i do not consider anybody on this list to be an opponent. Everybody is welcome to their wise or otherwise views.
If our opponents are vastly successful does not always mean that they always employ unfair/illegal practices.
Definetly not. But in M$ case their "success" does not stem from any of the virtues people attribute to M$. As a tiny case in point, the samba team wrote a better package then the original WITHOUT documentation.
They must be doing something right - like not berating and attack newbies with insults and creating an ecosystem which feed on each other, however flawed.
No they wait for the trap to spring. Then screw the newbie customers with an audit and licence fees for the new improved equally fully of holes version. The poor sods realise only when they are neck deep in the cess pool.
YEAH i am waiting patiently for examples of something right. Maybe the op will actually do some research and point to some useful sources that will show that M$ "invented and popularised the desktop" (or anything else).
Strange how people get all twisted the moment you ask for (or point to) factual data. M$ is one of the few companies that pays for research, then quotes only the tasty bits to hook the gullible and FOSS developers have repeatedly ripped of the facade.