The strange functioning of a typical liberal brain.

[nd]

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?

Thank you!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: nd

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

Did you even read my post? I don't think you did. Look at what I said:

I read what you said, and let me ask again. What is wrong with a closed source filesystem? A filesystem for most programmer and users is a very black box tool. Most programmer/users need not have a single clue how the fs works internally to effectively use it.

You did not see Microsoft try to adopt an open standard for these, and you certainly don't see them publishing documents of their formats. Now, that's their own business if they don't want to do that, and I'm not whining -- but it DOES mean they're not true supporters of open standards.Note how I'm not criticizing them for being closed source at all. Why can't you guys keep your arguments straight? It's not that difficult.

and earlier you said....

Proprietary file systems (NTFS)


sounds like a complaint against NTFS.

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

Open API does not an open filesystem make. I don't know what you mean by reading/writing with "standard compilers". Do you know what you're talking about? Sorry to be rude, but you're really not making sense.

fopen() works as well on ntfs as it does on hpfs,fat32,xfs,........
or pick your method of reading/writing a file from any language you want and it will work as well on ntfs as any other fs.
does java have problems reading from ntfs, no.

I guess the reason I did not make sense, is you have no clue how APIs, compilers and OS's work.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

Ah, the only clear way to follow up a misguided post -- make assumptions about my reasoning, convinced that I only have ulterior motives and couldn't possibly have a point. FWIW, Microsoft can keep their code. They're the ones that are anti-GPL yet pro-BSD-style open-source-license because they can't steal GPL'd code.[/quote]


Most business, just not microsoft would not touch gpl code with a 10 foot pole because it would largely force them to opensource what ever project the gpl code would be used with. This is not an option for most projects. BSD on the other hand only needs to give credit where credit is due and for that reason can be very attractive for businesses. This is far from just being a microsoft thing. Almost everywhere I worked, this has come up and everytime usefull GPL has been tossed out because of its restrictive liscense.

But let's not stray from the original discussion too much. I am not talking about whether it's Good or Evil to utilize/support/publish open standards, I am saying that Microsoft does not love them. None of you MS apologists have been able to refute this yet, despite claims that they are.

The nice thing about standards is there is so many to choice from.

It is ok for ms to follow standards, but people sure do get pissed off when microsoft sets them.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?

Where did Ameesh claim MS was an altruistic company?

Like any other company, MS will:

Follow standards.
Follow and extend standards.
Disreguard standards and try to make the rest of the world do things their way.


MS is no different than any other company.

 

[Martin]

Where did Ameesh claim MS was an altruistic company?

we're not arguing about altruism, we're arguing about open standards. I said "MS is not known for its love of open standards". If they really loved open standards, they wouldn't hide APIs, and they would make all protocols and files open. They don't, therefore they don't love open standards.

MS is no different than any other company.

Did we say they are? Macromedia keeps its .fla file types closed too.

Again, we're not pissed because they are not sharing info, but because you are trying to say they do.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: OmegaNauce

Originally posted by: SammySon
What does that have to do with being a liberal?

liberal=against big business, while not understanding how big business works

...and that, my friends, is just the tip of an immense iceberg.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: baffled2

Originally posted by: N8Magic
"Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, welcome to tonight's match between the Liberals and Conservatives here in beautiful Las Vegas, Nevada. This match is scheduled for 12 hours, with the TKO rule in effect."

LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLETS GET READY TO RUMBLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLE!

LOL, no rumbling coming from here, it's Sat nite,time to get chilled out

Phft! C'mon lefty whus! Let's box!

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: N8Magic
Here we go...

*fanning the flames*

<Jumps in with a blanket>

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: SammySon

How is that MS's fault?

By creating a standard that is so large, you must abide by it, or you fail. Or you get forced out of business.

The consumer created the standard by making it their OS of choice.

Yes, and how dare we criticize a company for their success? The liberal mindset is that nobody should be more successful than the other, dare the buy a new BMW or a two story house on a lake! Heaven forbid! Microsoft has earned their keep by making the best products on the market that play well with others the best. The market knows all, tells all.

 

[StattlichPassat]

Originally posted by: deftron
Yeah,

and Linux is for commies

Hehe! Oh man, I can't get wrapped up in this thread... I have massive amounts of studying to do tonight...

 

[nd]

I read what you said, and let me ask again. What is wrong with a closed source filesystem? A filesystem for most programmer and users is a very black box tool. Most programmer/users need not have a single clue how the fs works internally to effectively use it.

I never said anything was wrong with a closed source filesystem. Find where I did.

and earlier you said....

Proprietary file systems (NTFS)


sounds like a complaint against NTFS.

Why? I made a factual statement. Person 1 argued that MS loves open standards, and I point out an example of something that clearly contradicts that statement. If 'proprietary' has a negative connotation in your mind, that's your fault -- not mine.

I guess the reason I did not make sense, is you have no clue how APIs, compilers and OS's work.

OK, after this post I'm ignoring you. You've done nothing here but show your ignorance. I'm not the one who thinks compilers are used for reading/writing NTFS. A compiler has very little to do with filesystems other than reading the files they're compiling and writing the output to other files.

Most business, just not microsoft would not touch gpl code with a 10 foot pole because it would largely force them to opensource what ever project the gpl code would be used with. This is not an option for most projects. BSD on the other hand only needs to give credit where credit is due and for that reason can be very attractive for businesses. This is far from just being a microsoft thing. Almost everywhere I worked, this has come up and everytime usefull GPL has been tossed out because of its restrictive liscense.

Fair enough, this also is partly the reason why MS is anti-GPL.

The nice thing about standards is there is so many to choice from.

It is ok for ms to follow standards, but people sure do get pissed off when microsoft sets them.

Note that a "standard" isn't the same as an "open standard". Sure, if Microsoft invents some proprietary protocol that ends up being used by 90% of the population, then it's essentially a standard. That doesn't make it an open standard, however.

To help illustrate to you why I'm so frustrated, let me summarize this particular discussion of the thread (I'll try to be as concise as possible):

MartyTheManiak: Microsoft does not love open standards.
Ameesh: That's wrong, give me an example.
MartyTheManiak: (gives example #1)
nd: (gives 4 examples)
Ameesh: We embraced and extended example #1, so that doesn't count.
(more arguing about example #1, and whether or not it was implemented to spec or not)
Ameesh: About example #2, who cares if it's a closed protocol? Too bad! About example #3, even though it's not an open standard it's better. And your other example doesn't count because Microsoft made the right decision to implement a closed filesystem.
nd: You wanted me to give examples showing their lack of love for open standards and I did.
charrison: What's wrong with closed source? You're just pissed because they're not open.

sigh..

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?

I never said we do.

In fact I've always said that we embrace open standards that benefit the consumers and the company. When a standard doesnt position us to gain market share or hold on to the share that we have or provide a better solution for our customers then there is little reason to adopt it.

 

[charrison]

I never said anything was wrong with a closed source filesystem. Find where I did.

really? then explain this statement?

hy go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

Snide comment about the righteous move to ntfs. And then youmake the point of it being not an open standard. This very statement implies that a closed system is inferior to an open one. This definatly is saying that a closed filesystem is not an irrelivent feature. At least that is how I read it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and earlier you said....

Proprietary file systems (NTFS)


sounds like a complaint against NTFS.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why? I made a factual statement. Person 1 argued that MS loves open standards, and I point out an example of something that clearly contradicts that statement. If 'proprietary' has a negative connotation in your mind, that's your fault -- not mine.

I fail to understand how a filesystem being proprietary is any problem at all.

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess the reason I did not make sense, is you have no clue how APIs, compilers and OS's work.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OK, after this post I'm ignoring you. You've done nothing here but show your ignorance. I'm not the one who thinks compilers are used for reading/writing NTFS. A compiler has very little to do with filesystems other than reading the files they're compiling and writing the output to other files.

Ignore me if you must. But you are misreading what I have said. You are correct in that a compiler takes a source file, opens it, compiles and generates an executable is all goes well. But to make a source file be able to read a file in the target executable, it must be able to access the API of the filesystem. fopen in C is not magic, it has to access the OS api to open a file.

Note that a "standard" isn't the same as an "open standard". Sure, if Microsoft invents some proprietary protocol that ends up being used by 90% of the population, then it's essentially a standard. That doesn't make it an open standard, however.

Who would you prefer to make standards for new tech?

 

[Ameesh]

I never once said that we love or hate open standards, but here is a short list of open standards that we do conform to:





IP
TCP
UDP
ICMP
IGMP
ATM
IPSEC
ISAKMP
HTTP
SSL
XML
Xpath
XSL
XSLT
XQuery
SOAP
IPX



there are many many more.


i think gopunk said it well.


and with .NET we did release most of the source code for the frameworks to the BSD community and 40 of the nations top computer science departments have full access to the source code for window for people teach with.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?

I never said we do.

In fact I've always said that we embrace open standards that benefit the consumers and the company. When a standard doesnt position us to gain market share or hold on to the share that we have or provide a better solution for our customers then there is little reason to adopt it.

Yes, so they are not known for their love open standards. For example, if they opened the .doc or .xls files types, that'd face very still competition. They don't want that, so their closed.

So if you agree with me, why did you argue with me?

 

[Cyberian]

I wont deny ms got on top with some shady business deals, but by in large they produced a product that was "good enough" for the general population.

That was actually my only point. I am still in agreement with the decisions of the DOJ.

I am sure most people here will agree that win3x was crap. Win3x only competition at the time was OS/2 and OS/2 was far superior. However OS/2 had much high ram requirements since it was a modern multitasking/multithreading OS. OS/2 was taken out of the market by ram prices and IBM bungled marketing.

I totally agree, primarily with the 'bungled marketing' part.
I happened to have worked for IBM at the time, and I was quite pissed off by their decisions in this area!

[/quote]When win9x(less smelly crap) came out, it was good enough to compete with OS/2 and ram prices had fallen much. The day win95 came out, OS/2 died because it could not run the new win32 apps. OS/2 became completely irrelevent when NT 4.0 came out.
[/quote]I was not buying RAM at the time and am, therefore, unfamiliar with this part of the equation.
I will go and try to look it up. Sounds like a part of the puzzle that I never was aware of.

 

[dkozloski]

Isn't MS the largest supplier of office software for Macs? Isn't that a little like your dog eating the neighbors dog's poop?

 

[Ameesh]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: Ameesh

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: charrison

Why go on? I already clearly proved my point and you did not refute that at all. What you just did there was defended Microsoft's decision to move to NTFS. However righteous their switch to NTFS was, that still does not change the fact that it's a closed filesystem (read: not an open standard).

And what exactly is the problem with a filesystem being closed source?

You can read/write to ntfs with standard compilers.
You can do standard manipulation(compression/encryption/defrag) via open api calls.

I guess you are just pissed that microsoft is just not sharing their good ideas/code with the open source world?

No, we're not pissed MS doesn't share, we're pissed because Ameesh says they do, when in fact they dont. Get it?

I never said we do.

In fact I've always said that we embrace open standards that benefit the consumers and the company. When a standard doesnt position us to gain market share or hold on to the share that we have or provide a better solution for our customers then there is little reason to adopt it.

Yes, so they are not known for their love open standards. For example, if they opened the .doc or .xls files types, that'd face very still competition. They don't want that, so their closed.

So if you agree with me, why did you argue with me?

i was disagreing with your incoorect kerb example and i still stand by the fact that if it would benefit our cutomers and help MS gain markshare im sure they would open the standards but as of now it doesnt do either.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Thank you Russ, OmegaNauce, and glenn1 for your brilliant insights on what it means to be liberal. Where they put together with or without the use of a thinking cap?

I don't quite get why some people associate liberal with being anti-big business. I worked for GE for a while and it never flustered my liberal feathers (it's a conservative company with morals). If it's a case of pro-environmental liberals carefully watching big business... big business is often the largest polluters (might I suggest a dip in the Hudson if you disagree), but still. Anti-big business? No.

Typically liberals don't care about open standards unless good faith agreements are trampled. It wouldn't bother me if MS rubbed out a few dozen of more businesses. Just as long as they do it with morals intact.

-Reader