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 Outlook.com.
Thread beginning with comment 545647
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:40 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I see you've resorted to the "if you can't counter argument, then change the argument" method of trolling the interwebs.

Well the de-facto standard is MS Office, so any competitor that wants to be able to read the same files need to support that or get out of the market.

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


Sun trying to make people use ODF was a silly move.

...and Google, IBM, KDE and plenty others I can't be bothered to list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Application_support

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.

C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

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.

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

Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't

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.

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.

What established standards? A Document standard on an Office suite with a quite a small user base and a programming language developed by the same people that wanted the said document standards.

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 ;)

KHTML and Opera have always had low market share and aren't significant enough to be relevant to the conversation.

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.

Firefox 1 was more standards compliant than IE6 because it was newer.

Even IE7 lacked backed standards features that FF1 supported.


2009 was when IE8 got released and was the first browser to support CSS 2.1 and XHTML 1.1 properly (I am sure you bring up Opera, but I don't see them as a serious competitor to the other browsers in Market share).

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.

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!)

Reply Parent Score: 10

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:47 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

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: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenDocument#Application_support


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

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:24 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

We're talking about open standards, not MS supporting something that nobody uses

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.

that doesn't even make sense.

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

You said MS support open standards. If that were true, then there would be motivation to do so. Ergo, you've just disproved your earlier statement.


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

Languages are neither open nor closed nor even copyrighted (as proved with the Oracle vs Google case). It's their framework the decides the open nature of a language. Thus I'm discussing the crux of the matter when arguing about open standards.


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

It like saying I am inventing PHP to break Python.

Now you're just arguing semantics. Clearly the context is talking about MS breaking from established standards rather than literally breaking the standards themselves.

Their Java IDE was still rubbish.

so you've basically used one IDE and feel you're qualified to make sweeping statements about an entire company? Well done.


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

Clearly there was, but such standards never made it into MS products. However there's a whole industry outside of Microsoft.

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

So, like with Borland, you're making a sweeping generalisation about a whole company based on one product.

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.

Yeah. sad but true ;)


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

Web developers weren't using advanced techniques because they'd lose a high percentage of Windows users (pretty much half the web). It wasn't a matter of choice, it was because MS forced their hand.

However IE was an improvement and IE9 is actually a fairly decent browser. So web developers are now adding advanced techniques they couldn't risk before.

Two arbitary specifications!! Only the most important 2.

You talk as if the other browsers didn't support everyday features. That wasn't true. Instead they used browser specific extensions because, up until then, W3C dragged their heals in formalising said specifications. (and to be honest, I blame the w3c as much as I blame MS for the fiasco we had in the 90s / early 00s).

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

We're talking about support for open standards, not how well web developers got at writing IE-specific hacks to make your browsing experience tolerable.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by sukru on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:57 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


"C# version 1.0 was a superior language to Java, Properties alone in the language make it vastly superior as well as the better designed DateTime libraries (two things I can think of off the top of my head).

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.
"

I remember reading "C# for Java Developers" when I was in college. I don't remember being impressed by many books on the technical level as much as I did with that one. Every decision they made was for fixing the problems I had with java (no signed integers, no easy way to talk native, no easy xml processing, and of course properties, and metadata).

C# was only built, because MS could not adopt Java for Windows development (as you said they were sued for J++). But they only reason they wanted to extend Java was they knew (Anders knew) Visual Basic did not have any future (i.e.: pretty much sucked), and Java was the best thing out there. But there were the issues with Java on the desktop front - which they fixed with C#, so they had to extend it. Even today, except for Eclipse framework, the standard Java GUI APIs are real bad compared to C#/XAML.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.


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


As I said, Java was not an open standard (still not an ISO/ECMA standard AFAIK).


"Borland Java IDEs were crap, thank goodness they didn't


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.
"

Again the Anders factor here. Borland was good, while he was at the helm. They went down when he left, and they did not know what to do. I remember trying to use their express editions to come back, but they would not let two different versions (e.g.: C++, and C#) at the same. Then they stopped distributing free starter versions all together. Now look at the size of Delphi developers, and I feel real sad (I started actual programming with Turbo Pascal back in the day).

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 15:25 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Interesting post. Thanks ;)

I to used to spend a great deal of time developing in Turbo Pascal. Awesome IDE, awesome language ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by JAlexoid on Fri 21st Dec 2012 00:57 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

You meant Java has no unsigned integers, or any unsigned numeric type.

Were Java an open standard at that time, Sun could not have sued for J++, and we would have a Windows dialect of Java, which would probably be backported to the main standard by open source hobbyists. But since Java was never an open standard (until maybe C# got pretty big), they closed it down from MS's use.

It wasn't due to Java not being an open standard. The issue was Microsoft's breach of contract with Sun.

And it wasn't J++, it was Microsoft's Java. J++ was a result of that legal dispute.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 09:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

I'll just jump in for the C# part. This is because I like the guy who did it (Anders Hejlsberg, who also gave us Turbo Pascal and Delphi before).


Anders Hejlsberg is a bad ass.

They should rename Denmark after him.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 09:03 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22

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


Java was never an established standard. It would be easier to argue that Java was invented to break established C++ standards.

But the real problem is that C++ was created to break ASM standards. And don't even get me started on what happened to the abacus.

Edited 2012-12-21 09:04 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2