On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 15:11:53 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
> "Rick" <none@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:13n00g33rr8hh76@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:39:56 -0500, amicus_curious wrote:
>>
>>> <thad05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:feq445-vgr.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> And that multi-billion dollar stock buyback was on top of a muti-
>>>> billion dollar dividend payout (something they never had to do when
>>>> thy were a 'growth' investment). MS is far from dead, but things are
>>>> not as rosy at One Microsoft Way as they used to be. It means less
>>>> money to dump into new product development, acquisitions, and efforts
>>>> to compete with Linux/OSS.
>>>>
>>>> Linux and OSS remain immune to the pressures that threaten many
>>>> proprietary technologies during times of slow economic growth.
>>>>
>>> Do you really believe that? It seems odd to me that anyone with a
>>> college education could be so blind to facts. Mr. Softee is funding
>>> developments at a higher rate than ever and has made a greater profit
>>> this year than ever before in their history. Now you can say this is
>>> a sign of impending failure, but I would then say that you are daft.
>>
>> It is a sign of inflation, and the effects of an illegally maintined
>> monopoly. And there is no one named "Mr. Softee".
>>
> Oh, Mr. Softee's
There is no one named Mr. Softee.
> profits have grown a lot faster than inflation, if you
> care to look, and it is definitely not the effect of an illegally
> maintained monopoly. You would like to think so, I imagine, but that is
> just your own fantasy.
It is the network effects of an illegally maintained monopoly that has
fueled the continued sales of Microsoft products.
>>>
>>> Whatever would the OSS bunch copy if/when the commercial companies
>>> stopped creating new products?
>>
>> Whatever would Microsoft copy if/when other companies stop producing
>> new products?
>>
> Microsoft doesn't copy things the way that OSS does.
AHa hHA hhah HAHHAh ahah aha HAHah aha hAH ah.
> You miss the woods
> for the trees here. Microsoft will take a new technology concept and
> develop it into a commercially viable product or new feature for an
> existing product.
Embrace, extend, extinguish.
> If/when it proves popular, the OSS bunch will
> generally clone it to some extent if not exactly. This negates somewhat
> the commercial vitality of the technology and spurs Microsoft and other
> successful companies on to seek newer and better things to develop into
> more products.
Well, it might spurt other companies to truly innovate.
>
> To put it into your perspective, it is the well-funded city Fire
> Departments that provide the money for the fire engine companies to
> invent better and better equipment so that the rustics like yourself
> have used equipment to buy for your amateurs. OSS would disappear
> overnight if commercial software were to vanish.
You show your bigoted ignorance. You don't know spit about volunteer
emergency services, and yet you continue to make your disgusting insults.
>
>>> Do you see some kind of "open marketing community" arising out of thin
>>> air to guide future development of OSS? Unlikely, in my opinion.
>>
>> Market should not direct development.
>>
> "Marketing", silly. That's where the ideas for new products come from.
> Certainly not from you old curmudgeons and your pipe dreams of a
> distorted reality.
You keep showing your ignorance.
>
>> And, BTW, Mozilla's Firefox continues to take userbase from IE.
>>
> Does it?
Yes, it does.
> And what is the net net of it anyway? As long as people use
> it on Windows on the desktop, more power to them, I say. And the
> Firefox folks will tire of the game soon enough. Nothing in it for them
> but association with the likes of you and chrisv and 7 and such.
You're a bigoted, and stupid, liar.
--
Rick
|
|
