Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Microsoft Microsoft has just responded to Google's move regarding Exchange ActiveSync. Sadly, instead of addressing the very real problems consumers are about to face, Microsoft starts talking about switching to
Permalink for comment 545650
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:47 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
Member since:

You're now moving the goal posts as 'de facto standard' isn't the same as 'open standard'. You were arguing about open standards.

TBH I don't really care one way or another. I do care about people complaining about Microsoft supporting something that nobody uses and doesn't benefit their customers.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list:

And? So you have the most popular document format in the world and they make their own competeting standard and it didn't work out well.

Why would Microsoft support such as move, I don't know.

If I made my own popular file format and someone told me I should support it and it isn't nearly as widely used, I wouldn't bother to support it either.

ODF support was one second to MS's own proprietary formats. So if Microsoft cared about open standards, then they'd have switched to an established and widely supported format instead of creating their own one from scratch.

Why would they do that? there is no motivation to do so.

Weird, I seem to recall that .NET v1 stank (and back then I was 100% a Windows user and developer). Though I'll grant you that things have improved massively over the years. I quite enjoy using .NET these days.

YES .NET 1.0 and 1.1 weren't great. C# != .NET.

However technical merits of C# aside, we're talking about open standards. C# was invented to break established standards.

How can something be invented to break standards? It doesn't make sense.

It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.

You're obviously too young to remember what life was like before MS's monopoly. Borland's IDEs used to be second to none. It's 'only' in 10 / 15 years that MS had overtaken Borland.

Their Java IDE was still rubbish.

However that's besides the point as you're now arguing about the quality of the IDE, which absolutely nothing to do with the open standards of languages.

I was just stating my preference.

I guess if you've only ever used MS technology then you're bound to be ignorant to the rest of the IT industry and their established standards ;)

There was nothing that was a dejure standard that everyone used.

You're hardly one to comment on the relevance of example given the number of times you've changed the argument to suit your bias.

To be honest I went down this road because of ASP.NET being open sourced recently.

TBH I don't really care about the rest.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.

Yes IE7 was rubbish and had no excuse to be.

2009 was when IE8 got released and was the f
when talking about standard compliance, you can't just exclude figures that disprove your point, simply because of market share. That's just a whole new level of narrow-mindedness.

Well this is what a lot of developers are currently doing on Mobile. Webkit is king and anything that isn't Webkit is a second class citizen. Like it or Lump it that the way it is.

IE8 for CSS and XHTML was fine, If you whine about SVG and other things ... these simply aren't used by web developers.

What's more, you're just picking two arbitrary specifications chosen specifically because IE happened get there first. However when you look at the overall performance (eg using ACID as a benchmark), you'll see that IE was consistently one of the last browsers to meet standards (and that's even excluding Opera!)

Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.

Because I rate my browsing experience on whether something can pass the ACID test.

Reply Parent Score: 0