Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 6th Apr 2008 09:38 UTC, submitted by Francis Kuntz
Ars analyses the concept of a modular Windows, and concludes: "Modularization - and the discriminatory pricing it permits - might appeal to accountants and economists. But it is bad for consumers, bad for Windows, and ultimately, bad for Microsoft. A modularized Windows, or worse still, a modularized subscription-based Windows, undermines the purpose and value of the Windows OS. If it comes to pass it will surely sound the death knell of the entire Windows platform."
Thread beginning with comment 308457
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage
by bryanv on Mon 7th Apr 2008 16:33
in reply to "RE: Comment by Darkmage"
Member since:2005-08-26
If pragmatism decided the direction, then management would have to be thinking pragmatically.
That doesn't happen in > 90% of the businesses out there.
I call your bluff.
Most of the time, what happens is you find a manager with a hard-on for company / technology X. They won't accept anything other than company / technology X. Why did they get such a boner for this decision? It could be pragmatism, but that would imply rational, conservative problem-solving being applied to a problem set.
Normally they read it under a headline written by some industry analyst blow-hard, or got a few nice steak dinners on the vendors dime.
RE[3]: Comment by Darkmage
by kaiwai on Tue 8th Apr 2008 02:12
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Darkmage"
Member since:2005-07-06
If pragmatism decided the direction, then management would have to be thinking pragmatically.
That doesn't happen in > 90% of the businesses out there.
I call your bluff.
Most of the time, what happens is you find a manager with a hard-on for company / technology X. They won't accept anything other than company / technology X. Why did they get such a boner for this decision? It could be pragmatism, but that would imply rational, conservative problem-solving being applied to a problem set.
Normally they read it under a headline written by some industry analyst blow-hard, or got a few nice steak dinners on the vendors dime.
That doesn't happen in > 90% of the businesses out there.
I call your bluff.
Most of the time, what happens is you find a manager with a hard-on for company / technology X. They won't accept anything other than company / technology X. Why did they get such a boner for this decision? It could be pragmatism, but that would imply rational, conservative problem-solving being applied to a problem set.
Normally they read it under a headline written by some industry analyst blow-hard, or got a few nice steak dinners on the vendors dime.
What the f*ck are you going on about "I call your bluff" - I made no such thing! idiot. I also said NOTHING about acquisition of information technology for companies - may I suggest that you're not so cocky next time.
The point I was making is that engineers within companies like Microsoft, Sun, IBM and so forth have to make pragmatic decisions; they have limited budgets, limited time, and ever demanding customers wanting more for less. It is up to the engineers to be pragmatic on what they can do given the constraints which are placed on them.
Again, read the posts before you start running off to the create reply button.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-06
In an ideal world we would be using the superior (technologically) operating system; Plan9 would become the new UNIX, people would clone/duplicate it and make it better. The sad reality is that pragmatism, not technology, decide the direction (along with success) of an operating system.
With that being said, UNIX isn't the greatest thing in the world, but when compared with the mess that is Windows NT, we could be doing alot worse.