331–340 of 500 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What sorts of things are wrong with .NET in your view? As someone who recently started working with it after using Java for years, it has been refreshing and largely enjoyable for me.
You must have not had to work with SOAP then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did JetBrains open source their debugger?
No, they are equally "guilty". At least they don't brag how OSS friendly they are. There is open source debugger from Samsung ( https://github.com/Samsung/netcoredbg/ ), but it does not see much use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird. Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies wil…
I’d say companies are inherently amoral. Not evil. Subtle, but important nuance. It’s only when evil and greedy people are in charge that companies become evil. Sadly an all too common state of affairs, but not a law of the universe.
I'm an old-school GNU stalwart, and after Mircosoft has done in 1990s-2010s I wouldn't touch anything Microsoft makes even with a 10 feet pole, nor suggest anyone touching it. They say they're different now, open source and all, but still, nah. It is a wolf in a sheep's clothing. Anything Microsoft does is a potential Trojan horse, don't use it.
I can understand your sentiment, it is just time to embrace the the list of non free places need to be extended by many more companies and the FUD solely on Microsoft need to be extinguished.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d say companies are inherently amoral. Not evil. Subtle, but important nuance. It’s only when evil and greedy people are in charge that companies become evil. Sadly an all too common state of affairs, but not a law of the universe.
Corporations are sociopaths by their very design. Their number one mandate is to make money for their shareholders and to grow. This colours every decision they make.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Typically such contributions come from the PR budget.
Bruh, they’re carbon capturing or offsetting their entire carbon output since they’ve been in business. All in the next few years. No other major public company even comes close. Being anti-“M$” is one thing, but you it’s hard to disagree with their stance on philanthropy and environmental issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny, I don't see any good from IKEA when you look at the greater picture. More waste, un-accounted for externalities all over the board (labour laws, environment exploitation), extremely well-honed organisation designed to evade taxes through "charities".
IKEA in a vacuum has many many flaws. As I see it though, what IKEA displaced wasn’t the family owned expert artisans manufacturing built to order furnitures. It was piss poor, badly designed, actual shitty materials, poor country labor intensive flat packs. When I was a kid my family bought cheap mass produced furniture from shopping malls, the looks were fine, it came from Vietnam or China [0], and the quality was…
"The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money. Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles. But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while a poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. This was the Captain Samuel Vimes "Boots" theory of socioeconomic unfairness."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 2 major GUI toolkits, ... multiple DEs, frequent upgrades to them, also with breaking changes, a full decades of bickering I was using Linux desktops 20 years ago and the same arguments were made. They were FUD and they still are. 1) having "too much" choice is nothing to complain about. 2) if you are a beginner, pick a stable distribution and your desktop will be completely immune to churn. Use it as a productivit…
Nothing like telling your boss "Sorry I missed the deadline, but my desktop needed maintenance"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird. Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies wil…
That companies (or their officers or directors) have a legal obligation to boost share price (or maximize profits or similar) is one of the most widely believed myths about companies. Google for something like "obligation to maximize shareholder value" if you want to find numerous articles debunking the myth. Here's a good one [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...
Why does it matter? Well, because the higher valued your company is, the more investment you can get, and with more investment, the better you can beat the competition.
And if you don't do it (bad stuff), then your competition will do it and will ultimately will beat you.
So it is basically the only way to survive. That is, keep growing. Stop growing, and you are on path to demise. No public company have the luxury of saying "Well, we have grown enough. Let us just focus on sustaining what we have got".