Hello Scott,
Alas, I am growing fatigued of this discussion, but must needs that I respond once more -
<<<I'm disappointed by the response ... so instead of addressing the issues, and even taking a shot at answering questions, you decide to attack at me personally? How lame ...<<<
I reread my post, I think I expressed the issues very succinctly and answered your responses that were lucid as best possible. I didn't attack you personally, or call any of your responses "lame" as you did above, I even paid homage to your software acumen as follows -
"You are impressive in your posts that reference your knowledge as a software architect, but your strategic thinking and arguments regarding Microsoft are weak."
So I advised that your strategic thinking and arguments regarding Microsoft are weak, not you. YOU took it personally, which you seem to do with nearly every poster on this thread.
<<<Ah ... please don't show lackof knowledge of Java ... I have several applications (one of which we are completing now) that are 100% Java ... on Windows. I would love to hear of one "API that is not open" or what would force you to use Microsoft tools ... these are lame excuses.<<<
This is a strange response, considering you posted the day before to the effect 'Where is the mighty Java now' Well, it appears it is alive and well and being used for development by Scott Lemon !
<<<As for 68 developers ... so what metric are you proving with this point? Does this mean 68 new Java projects? Or 68 people to write one app?>>>
They only want Java developers, they want as many applications as possible written in Java, something about "strategic direction". Again, this was in response to your sarcastic "Where is the mighty Java now?" query.
>>>SuperNOS? It was never delivered! It never arrived ... it was all vaporware ...>>>
When you used this term "SuperNOS", I thought you meant it as a euphemism, and were deriding Netware in a sarcastic manner, not in its context as an actual product name. Regarding the "SuperNOS" Netware 5.1, I did read the announcement today for Netware 5.1, highlighting HTTP support and bundled WebSphere. I get great comments regarding WebSphere from some friends at Keane.
<<<One thing that people (who know me) understand is that I speak my mind, and what I believe. I seldom pull punches ... this is one thing that many people at Novell couldn't handle.>>>
Just like we (the unwashed) can't handle your posts on this board?
<<<As for your suggestion that I have criticized the Win32 API, I'm hoping that you can point me to a post so that I can clarify my writing.>>>
I guess this could be somewhat embarrassing for your in your new world. I have many shortcomings, but my memory is still razor sharp, you were definitely uncomplimentary of the Win 32 API when you were at Novell. I don't know what the archives are like here, but I will look. I remember that post and the one regarding NT not being a good "data pump" compared to Novell (that term really stuck with me). You sounded like you were a Novell employee who knew what you were talking about, so I bought more. Good for me !
>>> "I am not asking this sarcastically, its just an amazing change of heart."
Is it the honesty that surprises you?>>>
First, please note that I inserted a clarifier that I was not trying to be sarcastic. You on the other hand, INSERTED the tag "begin sarcasm" in a recent post to Paul.
Anyway, if you are being honest NOW, what were you doing when you were posting on this board as a Novell employee, tickling the wire? I am certainly not the only poster on this board who has noted this.
<<<I guess that per your comments about what I have, and haven't, done>>>
People walking down that hall and making the large money requests for software are the ONLY reason software companies make money (except of course, for MSFT and the guaranteed preload PC revenue stream, with no other option for customers).
<<<... I'd have to say that you've never really looked at the issues involved in architecting a protected-mode operating system on an evolving processor architecture?>>>
They got the instruction sets from Intel ahead of time, every time, always got strategic direction for going forward. Hell, they dictated to Intel development milestones, and killed NSP! No other set of developers had this information, or even had a chance to try to do better.
<<<You've never had to figure out how to try and remain compatible with a whole slew of legacy applications, while evolving the functionality to try and improve features, stability, security, and then also follow the customers requests for other things that you didn't even think of?>>>
What bold new features, what stability, and what customer requests, it was all crammed down their throat. Stability has been achieved only by more RAM and more powerful processors, which is exactly my point. What great new software functionality have we gained by having one company control the BASIC INSTRUCTION SET. Nobody else even gets the chance. The kernel is still the same. Thank God for Intel, but I've got a PENTIUM III at work with 128 megs RAM with MSFT Office, it still crashes, and that's a closed box, not a network, not the web. That's not even the point, why am I forced to spend another $2,500 to make their $89 upgrade more stable? I have just upgraded to one of the best machines made, and I see no noticable performance gain. It's insane.
<<<Then, on top of this, you have to create a properly abstracted development environment which covers all the core services that applications want access to ...
And you suggest that "any developer" could do these things in a week? Wow ... I might have to quote you "What a pathetic joke." ...>>>
Well if it's that hard and complex a problem, they should have no problem opening up the API. Surely developers that have never been involved with Windows would have no clue, and could never get it cleaned up before MSFT could.
<<<ahhh ... now this is a more interesting question ... so to your analogy to AT&T ... where did their revenue come from?>>>
After the market was opened up, their revenue came from selling a commodity service for less and less money per minute. Due to demand elasticity, revenue loss due to lower rates was made up in volume of minutes sold, but the company had to get much leaner, much more productive, and MUCH MORE service, product, and customer oriented. Plus, T didn't have a mammoth employee option program to support with shares that were valued at a very high PE.
As mentioned above, this is getting repetitive, I am through. The finding of fact phase of the trial could not have gone any better, and is real validation for a lot of what we have posted here for years, going back to Joe Antol.
jww |
