Thank you for your insightful and humorous overview of open source. Ditto, to be sure. Please post more pictures of your girlfriend.

I've been accused of the same because of my defense of MS in their monopoly case, meanwhile it is more of a statement of my political and economic philosophy than it was pro-Microsoft.

BTW, dittohead is a term that was coined to describe listeners of the Rush Limbaugh radio program. Callers to his show would greet him on the air by saying "ditto" to indicate their agreement with his opinions.

Robin -

"Please post more pictures of your girlfriend"

I'm planning on featuring her in the next Neopoleon movie, so you'll get plenty of opportunities to watch her forwards, backwards, looped, etc... :)

Randy -

"...meanwhile it is more of a statement of my political and economic philosophy than it was pro-Microsoft."

That's a bit like my experiences with open source. I didn't write my "How to become a pompous open source dickhead" post because I wanted something that was *pro-Microsoft*. Rather, it was a result of experiences I've had over the years that have left me rather anti-OSS - And not even because I think OSS is a bad thing. I just think it's a world of bickering finger-pointers with which I don't want to associate.

Rory, I can relate to what you're saying completely. I don't have a lot of firsthand experience in the OSS community, but my reading on the subject has led me to some of the same conclusions that you reached. The same thing exists in other areas, and at that point you just have to pick the technically superior option and move forward.

BTW, keep doing what you're doing because there are tons of people enjoying it. If you're called a shill in the process, who cares? :)

"BTW, keep doing what you're doing because there are tons of people enjoying it."

Wow - Thanks :)

"If you're called a shill in the process, who cares?"

I've been called everything else. I prefer "Active Community Member," but what's in a name... Whether I'm a "shill" or "just some guy," I'll write the same stuff.

Well, until the commercial endorsements start rolling in anyway, at which time you'll probably find me mentioning Nike and Coke a little more often than I usually do :)

That's the spirit!!

A tall, toothless prositute once gave me some advice that you may find helpful as well:

"Go for the money, honey!"

(Then, of course, she laughed and ordered me to hand over my wallet. When I balked she offered to provide me with a view of some of my internal parts using a rather large looking knife, but that's a slightly longer story.)

Advertisements on blogs? Hmmm...

(I hope not.)

"Advertisements on blogs? Hmmm...

(I hope not.)"

You said it, Rick. I'd never want to see an ad on a blog.

And I *especially* wouldn't want to see one if I weren't lounging in the extreme comfort of my Nike sneakers, on sale now at a Foot Locker near you.

Rory (and Randy), I got a lot of the same treatment in the days before blogs when I would (like Randy) post in defense of Microsoft on articles related to the DoJ case. I've been called a MicroShill, MicroSerf, and many other terms that probably weren't even clever the first time someone used them, without any real consideration or rebuttal of the points I made.

There will always be people, both in politics and technology, who resort to ad-hominem attacks when confronted with things that don't jibe with their worldview. It's sad that some of the great effort people put into the OSS community ends up getting polluted by the constant anti-Microsoft drumbeat. It's like I pointed out in my blog (http://weblogs.asp.net/gad/posts/36297.aspx): if you can't define who you are or what you do without reference to some competitor or perceived enemy, you've got problems.

My recent posting about Open So(u)r(c)e - http://weblogs.asp.net/sbchatterjee/posts/34057.aspx
I think if they spent less time indulging in MS-bashing then they can devote that wasted time coding for the better. I had a tech lead in one of my .NET projects getting into regular bashing of MS & MS-related technologies (incl .NET). This was very demoralizing to the team and counter-productive, that OShole should have been fired.

Hey Rory, Clay Shirky's essay "a group is its own worst enemy" available at (http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html) also talks about this. Here's a quote:

"The second basic pattern that Bion detailed: The identification and vilification of external enemies. This is a very common pattern. Anyone who was around the Open Source movement in the mid-Nineties could see this all the time. If you cared about Linux on the desktop, there was a big list of jobs to do. But you could always instead get a conversation going about Microsoft and Bill Gates. And people would start bleeding from their ears, they would get so mad.

If you want to make it better, there's a list of things to do. It's Open Source, right? Just fix it. "No, no, Microsoft and Bill Gates grrrrr ...", the froth would start coming out. The external enemy -- nothing causes a group to galvanize like an external enemy."

Do you think the fact that M$ sent SCO 10 million bucks to finance the attempted destruction of Linux might make the OS community a little bitter? Or the fact that M$ calls the wholesale rip off of the Java language and runtime (aka C# and the CLR) "innovation" and not what it is-- a total rip off of someone else's idea. If M$ didn't do things on a regular basis to raise the ire of the OS community, nobody would be interested in bashing them. So, instead of being a mindless corporate drone--acknowledge that M$'s policies suck and we'll forgive you for ripping us off.

clr,

You so neatly exemplify *exactly* what everyone's talking about here, right down to the use of "M$" in your rant. Guess what...that wasn't all that clever in the '90s, and it's even less so in 2003.

Instead of worrying about whether or not Microsoft is "ripping off" the open source community (BTW - since when is Java OSS? Despite the JCP, Java is still owned by Sun, it's not OSS), concentrate on writing the best software possible. If you're concerned about the whole SCO thing, rip out the parts of Linux that SCO claims are infringing, and re-write them from the ground up.

And FWIW, claims of "ripping off" and lack of innovation ring awfully hollow from someone who is a proponent of an operating system that is a clone of a piece of commercial software that's decades old. I would be interested in hearing exactly which particular innovations the OSS community is responsible for...other than that using the dollar sign in "M$" thing.

Look, I don't mean to bash OSS. You want to write software for free, or contribute to OSS projects, that's cool. But when you get so completely unhinged about Microsoft, it not only makes it impossible to take you seriously, it also makes it harder to imagine you focusing on writing really good software, which is the point that Rory and many of the preceding comments were getting at.

Thanks for making such an instructive example of yourself.

"Or the fact that M$ calls the wholesale rip off of the Java language and runtime (aka C# and the CLR) 'innovation'..."

Hmmm... So VMs and curly braces come from Java? I think not, my friend.

Plus, what's the deal with defending Java? Don't you think $un (ha ha) has the same motivations as MS? Neither one is a charity. If Sun could switch places with MS, it'd do so in a heartbeat.

And now look at me :) I'm letting myself get dragged into a "pimple-popping 'Enterprise vs. Star Destroyer'" argument.

I'd have to agree with Duthie - You're kind of demonstrating exactly what I've been talking about. You should be off working on the software rather than working over the "other side."

I've already spent more time away from learning about Longhorn for this than I'd like...

I think that if you look closely, even on slashdot, that the majority of people in the 'oss camp' can't actually program. And if you look even closer, the few that actually can and do program usually have fairly intelligent things to say about software. Obviously buddy is in group one.

I think this is the main reason so many prefer to bash M$, or discuss the legal implicatons of various licences rather than discuss and improve code. Passion is a good thing, but enthusiasm is no substitute for ability.

Dude, you rock.

I've got you in my aggregator now! You're a great writer. Don't stop.

"Dude, you rock."

Whoah.

Thank you, Carl Franklin of .NET Rocks fame :)

It's interesting how these silly things escalate. Rory makes a post that comes off as severely anti-OSS. I refer to it and use the term dittohead (because I see a lot of similiarities between the pro-MS faction and Limbaugh and his dittoheads). Then Rory writes more widespread OSS criticisms which appears to move him even further away from the OSS camp.

OSS is just a licensing mechanism just like shareware, freeware, or payware. There is nothing inherently wrong with any of these mechanisms.

Balmer is opposed to OSS because the most famous OSS projects (Apache and Linux) are gaining ground on MS products. For some reason, the pro-MS developers have adopted his arguments (ref dittoheads). But, we can just as easily have a VC++ application that is OSS. Or a C# .NET application that is OSS (e.g. nant). Are these then bad?

Also don't confuse being pro-Java with pro-Linux, pro-Sun, or pro-OSS (doing so again reminds me of Limbaugh's distortions). Most Java developers are probably neutral about Sun. Very few are pro-Sun with significantly more anti-Sun. And being pro-Java doesn't necessarily mean pro-OSS (though typically does probably because both grew popular at the same time and the source code for Java is readily available).

Anway, ta ta.

"Rory makes a post that comes off as severely anti-OSS."

I made it abundantly clear in the beginning of that first post that I wasn't anti-OSS, and that the post was merely a response to Marc's post on "How to suck up to Microsoft." Consider this excerpt from the *top* of the post (which I'm sure you read):

"Although you probably won't believe it after you finish reading this, I would like it to be known that I like open source software as well as MS's competitors' products. I like Java - If .NET hadn't come along, I'd still be coding with it regularly. My last web site ran on Linux and was built with open source tools. I own a PowerBook. I run Linux on two of my PCs. I wrote a textbook for a local vocational school on Linux. I did it for very little money. I liked it.

However, my enjoyment of these things is nothing compared to my distaste for people who badmouth MS and its proponents out of hand."

Now explain to me how *that* is anti-OSS. It's anti-idiot, to be sure, but that isn't the same thing.

I clearly stated my stance regarding OSS, and I clearly stated the source of my irritation, which had to do *not* with people who are pro-OSS, but with people who are blindly anti-MS.

That's the problem with these discussions. People hang on to what they *want* to believe much more easily than what actually *is*. As long as you dismiss my rather *pro* OSS intro to that post, then yes, it looks pretty anti-OSS. However, read in context, the motivation for that post was my *disappointment* with OSS, and not my dislike for it (which is nonexistant).

The fact alone that I posted all of that off the top of my head indicates that I've at least given the issue *some* thought. And, the gripes weren't written from the perspective of someone who's spent his entire life outside of the OSS camp. I obviously have some experience with the OSS world. Granted, I didn't give it a fair treatment, but the point was to respond to Marc's unfair treatment of softies. If he had never written his post, then you never would have seen mine.

Best to read things in context, I think.

It's always weird when people start considering you a Microsoft apologist, just because you have the temerity to realize the obvious damn truth that Microsoft is putting out some good stuff these days.

I mean, over my career, I've been a Perl programmer, a Java developer (using all the open-source Jakarta goodness), and a Linux admin; and even now, I still read all my email in Pine and browse the Web with Mozilla Firebird. But because I think that .NET is the most productive programming environment out there, and that Windows is the best desktop OS, I'm in Microsoft's pocket? Come on.

"It's always weird when people start considering you a Microsoft apologist, just because you have the temerity to realize the obvious damn truth that Microsoft is putting out some good stuff these days."

I've just been sitting and nodding at this comment stupidly for the past five minutes, silently saying the word "yup" to myself.

Well said.

"...and that Windows is the best desktop OS, I'm in Microsoft's pocket?"

Again, right on. I love OS X, and I love the combo of Gnome with Enlightenment (I'm a real froo-froo GUI type :), but I feel like Windows is the porridge that Goldilocks chose. OS X takes it a little too far, and the Linux desktops (while very good) haven't taken it far enough for me. Windows just slides right in and takes the middle slot which is where you want to be if you're planning on targeting a wide audience.

That it appeals to me so strongly *and* that Windows happens to be made by MS is just a fact. I didn't pick MS and *then* choose Windows. I chose Windows and *then* MS.

I'm an OS slut, and I sleep around quite a bit. My eyes are always peeled for the next great experience, but it's perfectly obvious to me at the moment that the next great experience, of all the players right now, is going to be Longhorn.

I especially feel this way after having purchased OS X 10.3 on Saturday, a review of which I'll be posting at my earliest convenience...

"Now explain to me how *that* is anti-OSS. It's anti-idiot, to be sure, but that isn't the same thing."

Well you predicted it when you stated
"Although you probably won't believe it after you finish reading this, I would like it to be known that I like open source software"

You title your rant with "How to become a pompous open source dickhead in 10 easy lessons". You make many *personal* juvenile criticisms of OSS developers (including the comment about anti-idiot). And you wonder why people think you're anti-OSS? You apparently sensed this when you ended with "Sorry if I seem a little angry tonight."

I read Marc's blog too and it didn't come off anywhere near as mean-spirited as yours. Marc is a MS fan and it shows from his blog. He was just taking some *good natured* pokes at some pro-MS bloggers (of course I could be biased). You say it's about the technology but you don't talk about the technology.

Read too the comments of some of the people defending/supporting you: they are rabidly anti-OSS including the guy calling for OSS to start innovating. These guys feel you're anti-OSS too.

And in regards to context, you took my comment on TheServerSide out of context (and TheServerSide is not about OSS, it's about writing server-side code in Java). I made the mistake of assuming everyone was familiar with the term dittoheads and what it means. Limbaugh's dittoheads are proud to be dittoheads (http://www.dittohead.org/). Among liberals there is some negative connotation with the term but probably not as much as you think. Maybe I shouldn't have linked your blog entry because you claim not to be anti-OSS but your OSS rant certainly was apropos. You were complaining a bit a while back about having fewer blog subscriptions and you're back in the limelight again especially with the pro-MS camp.

Frankly, Rory, I read your blog off and on for amusement but after that OSS rant, I unsubscribed. I see plenty of similiar rants from other sources and have more useful things to do with my time (well, actually my employers time). I only happened upon these comments from another blog.

Don't let the browser hit you in the ass on the way out, Neil. :-)

"You title your rant with 'How to become a pompous open source dickhead in 10 easy lessons'. You make many *personal* juvenile criticisms of OSS developers (including the comment about anti-idiot). And you wonder why people think you're anti-OSS?"

I wasn't referring to *all* OSS developers with the post title. I was referring to the ones who actually *are* pompous open source dickheads. These guys definitely exist.

A friend of mine, Dominic, is very pro OSS, and I have the greatest respect for him. He's an incredible coder - maybe the most talented I've met in the 21 years I've been coding. I'd feel quite ashamed if I thought that I had included him under the "dickhead" banner. He's probably one of the single most fair and understanding people I've ever met, and he spends a great deal of his time working with OSS. So, if I came off as sounding like I was against *all* OSS developers, then I apologize. I'm not against the developers at all. I'm against the guys who just go looking for a fight (like Marc does - there's a lot of confrontation in him - he certainly seems like a nice guy, but he *does* go looking for fights).

I think I tend to communicate in implications rather than stating things clearly. This is obviously my fault. When I said that I was "anti-idiot," I didn't mean to imply that I was against OSS developers. I meant to imply that I dislike OSS developers who focus *more* on the religious battle than on OSS itself.

"I read Marc's blog too and it didn't come off anywhere near as mean-spirited as yours."

*Anywhere near as mean-spirited* - But still obviously mean-spirited, then. You might think my reaction was out of proportion to his post, but *you* try being the person who *genuinely* likes MS and is expected to just take anti-MS garbage up the ass all the time without saying anything back. It can be frustrating. If my reaction seemed strong, it's because, at least that night, Marc represented all the anti-MS sentiment that I feel is unwarranted. I was reacting to much more than just one guy and his post.

"Marc is a MS fan and it shows from his blog. He was just taking some *good natured* pokes at some pro-MS bloggers (of course I could be biased). You say it's about the technology but you don't talk about the technology."

I talk about the technology all the time. I didn't in my "dickhead" post because it was emotional rather than technical, and that makes it a rarity on the site.

"Read too the comments of some of the people defending/supporting you: they are rabidly anti-OSS including the guy calling for OSS to start innovating. These guys feel you're anti-OSS too."

I'm not responsible for what other people are saying. You should address them directly if you have issues with them.

That said, I wish that my softie buddies *didn't* think I was anti-OsS. If what you're saying is true, then it's obvious that I need to state my side much more clearly (although how I can say it more clearly than "I'm not anti-OSS" is beyond me - I've already tried that, and it doesn't seem to work).

"And in regards to context, you took my comment on TheServerSide out of context (and TheServerSide is not about OSS, it's about writing server-side code in Java). I made the mistake of assuming everyone was familiar with the term dittoheads and what it means."

I don't see how I took your post out of context. I linked directly to it so that people could read it in its entirety. If I could have done better, then please let me know.

"Limbaugh's dittoheads are proud to be dittoheads"

I'm not one of Limbaugh's dittoheads, nor am I one of MS's. I have my own ideas and opinions. They may not be *unique*, but they're mine. Nobody hands them to me. They come out of *my* experience. I'm not speaking for/with anybody else.

Being lumped in with a group called "dittoheads" is something I don't care for. Say what you want about my opinions (it certainly is your right), but don't try to tell me where they come from.

I've gone *quite* out of my way to be honest about things. When I say that I like OSS, and when I say that I like MS, I'm not making it up. I have no reason to. I'm certainly not getting paid for my opinions, and I've made money from gigs using MS *and* OSS technologies, so I don't have any sort of "financial" allegiance to either side.

So, if I say that I'm *not* anti-OSS, then you have two choices: Believe me, or don't. But if you aren't going to, and if you're going to say that you don't, you could at *least* pay me the respect of pointing out *why* you think I would lie. There just isn't a good reason for me to do so.

"Maybe I shouldn't have linked your blog entry because you claim not to be anti-OSS but your OSS
rant certainly was apropos."

Maybe it's that I fancy myself a bit of an armchair scientist, and one of the reasons I have such a strong belief in science is that in *good* science, there is a *great* deal of self-criticism. The ability to look at your own life, ask questions about it, and accept the answers whether you like them or not is very important to me. As I've pointed out, what *you* see as anti-OSS sentiments are really just disappointment with *my* experiences in the OSS world. I'm not saying that OSS is bad, or flawed, or a waste of time, or whatever. I'm saying that it didn't work for me - like saying grace.

"You were complaining a bit a while back about having fewer blog subscriptions and you're back in
the limelight again especially with the pro-MS camp."

I didn't complain. I joked about it - I said that I didn't lose readers, but that I had "gained bandwidth."

Nearly *all* of the major traffic to my site has been via links from MS bloggers, and that goes all the way back to the first few times Scoble linked to me *months* ago. And, if you go back and read my posts, you'll see that I questioned how I felt about getting those hits. You'll see that I was worried that "A-List" bloggers might have an integrity problem (just put "A-List bloggers and the integrity problem Neopoleon" into Google - you'll see).

If my readers went back down to zero, I'd still blog. I blog because I like to write, and blogging gives me a place/reason to do it. If I wind up getting good traffic because of it, then so much the better. However, I'm not going to start saying things I don't believe just to attract traffic. That's gross and offends me in so many ways that I'm not even going to go into it right now - that's anothe issue entirely.

"Frankly, Rory, I read your blog off and on for amusement but after that OSS rant, I unsubscribed. I see plenty of similiar rants from other sources and have more useful things to do with my time (well, actually my employers time). I only happened upon these comments from another blog."

Hm. I'm sorry that you're taking off. If there's *one* thing that I would have liked to communicate to *you* personally, it's that I'm not anti-OSS. I *am* pro-MS, but these sentiments are not mutually exclusive.

Anyway, if anything, I've learned quite a bit from this exchange. I see now that when I *do* post a rant (something I like to avoid (serious rants, anyway)), I need to be clearer. I need to clearly state why I'm writing it, and clearly define the offending subject. I honestly thought I had done this, but I was wrong, because we're having this conversation.

Anyway, there won't be anymore rants for a while. Although I'm putting a lot of time into this, I must admit that I'm not really enjoying it. I don't mind a bit of debate, but it stops being fun when I wind up spending most of my time just trying to convince people that I'm telling the truth.

One more thing about the traffic, Neil - I knew before posting this MS/OSS stuff that I'd probably alienate some readers. I was posting under the vain assumption that I could *add* something to the conversation and that it would be worth it. Whether that's true or not is a matter of opinion, I suppose.

I don't want to *lose* readers, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut for the purpose of retaining them. The only thing at stake here is my ego, and I can worry about that, thankyouverymuch.

When I was several years younger than I am now and rather worried about "making it" in the world and becoming financially stable, my dad told me that if all I wanted to do in life was make money, that I could just go ahead and do it. I didn't believe him, but I've since changed my mind.

Now, after having learned from experience that a particular goal is attainable based on your motivation/desire to achieve it, I'd like to add to my father's statement that if all you want in life is a crapload of readers, you can just go ahead and get them, too.

However, that *isn't* all I want in life.

What I really want right now, to be totally honest, is to go home and sit down on my couch with a glass of warm milk and some cookies.

And Cameron Diaz.

And maybe a million dollars.

And Cameron Diaz's sister, if she has one.

And eat the cookies off of Cameron Diaz's tummy.

But that's all. "Crapload of readers" isn't on my list today...

<rory>
Hmmm... So VMs and curly braces come from Java? I think not, my friend.
</rory>

Re-read what I said. Did I claim that VM's were invented @ $un? Attacking the origins of Java is nothing more than evasion of my question. It also proves that you can't (with a straight face) deny that C# is a rip off. If you ask the Java camp if they "innovated" the VM, they are happy to say they didn't, but it was a good idea, so they used it. On the other hand, the "deathstar" :-) camp will swear up and down that "oh... The fact that all the class names are identical is a result of our innovation" Whatever guys. Actually, I don't really care if its a rip off or not. It's great for me either way. I've been programming in the language that you guys "innovated" before it was actually "innovated" so consequently-- I can program circles around your crew of "recently converted VB kiddies" still struggling to cope with a language that supports inheritance! I actually like C# (and why shouldn't I?) It's really just the principle of the thing.

<rory>
Plus, what's the deal with defending Java? Don't you think $un (ha ha) has the same motivations as MS? Neither one is a charity. If Sun could switch places with MS, it'd do so in a heartbeat.
</rory>

I don't care to defend $un. Although I could b/c they could have made Java closed source and "innovated" (read: purloined then bastardized) existing standards in the development of Java in a feeble attempt at locking people into SunOS/Solaris (which was/is way overpriced) ... and you know what? -- they would have failed miserably (and you guys would still be programming in braindead VB b/c you wouldn't have had a model to "innovate" from) So, from both our points of view, its a good thing they didn't choose that pill, huh?

<rory>
I've already spent more time away from learning about Longhorn for this than I'd like...
</rory>

You're gonna be learning about Longhorn for a while, buddy... its not gonna ship till 2010 :-) By that time there will be 4 open source Java implementations of Indigo that run on a 4 different OS's that aren't security swiss cheese... but I digress.

clr

"Re-read what I said. Did I claim that VM's were invented @ $un?"

No, you didn't. As long as Sun has never claimed that Java was an innovation, then you're in the clear.

Oh - Hang on. Look what Google popped up for us!

http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2003-06/sunflash.20030611.7.html

"Attacking the origins of Java is nothing more than evasion of my question."

Would you mind restating your initial question in a clear fashion? There was a lot of mouth-froth on the last one that I couldn't wipe off, which made it a little hard to read.

"It also proves that you can't (with a straight face) deny that C# is a rip off."

C# is an evolution just like Java was. You *could* say that each one ripped off something else, or you could say that each one took features from earlier languages (C++ --> Java --> C#) and developed something new.

A common mistake in the Java camp is the belief that C# and Java are so close that you can just recompile your Java after a few search and replaces and have a working C# app. This might be true for an extremely simple app, but it doesn't hold for anything of any complexity.

What you're *really* upset about is MS marketing. You won't hear *me* saying that .NET is innovative because I don't really care. I like it because it works well with my brain.

You don't have to pay attention to the marketing. Ignore it all, look at the tool, and ask yourself if it's any good or not. Ask yourself if you think that .NET might be useful. Make your own decision based on the technology and just forget about the marketing. The marketing isn't targeted at developers anyway - It's all in the language managers speak.

If you come back to me and say, ".NET isn't useful to me because I spend most of my time in the *nix world and would rather not get into trying Mono before it's ready," then I'd understand. That makes perfect sense to me. You'd be choosing to use your platform/tool combo because it makes the most sense for you, and *not* because you don't like "the other team's" marketing department.

I've decided that I'm going to begin ending all of the comments that I leave in here which might seem negative with these words:

"I kiss you."

CLR, whoever you are, I kiss you.

<rory>
Oh - Hang on. Look what Google popped up for us!
</rory>

That link talks about using Java to create innovation, not that Java *was* an innovation. I agree that Java was an evolution of other languages, but C# is a *clone* of Java right down to the class names. Take that w/ the fact that M$ got sued (and lost) over Java in 96 and Bill seems like the type who holds grudges... its seems only natural that he would direct his minions to clone Java just to piss people off. :-)

<rory>
What you're *really* upset about is MS marketing
</rory>

My unhappiness started back in 93 when I exported an AMI Pro document to Word 1.0 format (which AMI Pro happily let me do) so I could view it on a school computer that had Word. I made a bunch of changes and tied to export it back to Ami Pro format so I could read it on my laptop again. Much to my surprise, there was no option to export as Ami Pro format. There was word and works, but not Ami Pro and no Wordperfect. "Huh, thats strange", I thought. Wordperfect and Ami Pro have options to export to a buncho formats including Word (which at that time had tiny market share compared to Wordperfect and even AMI pro). You see, I was naive back then. I thought computer programmers made *an effort* to interoperate. 10 years later... its still par for the course @ M$. Case in point-- the new MS Oriface XML format. What is XML? A medium for interoperation? Why then are some of the XML Schemas for Word proprietary? Its a sad day when a company perverts the beauty of a truly global means of interop (like XML) and rapes it by adding proprietary items that *prevent* other from interoperating. Is nothing sacred? Come on. Its not like marking up a word doc is rocket science. I can understand trying to protect it if every other word processor program coudn't do it, but its not "innovation". And even if it was, who cares if people can parse your xml format?

OK.. Here endeth the rant. I guess we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this. (which is usually how I end convo's w/ my microsoft buddies) Happy Longhorning. Thanks, but no thanks for the kisses (1. wouldn't want to bespeckle you w/ mouth froth, 2. I'm straight so I don't kiss dudes)

-clr

"I agree that Java was an evolution of other languages, but C# is a *clone* of Java right down to the class names."

No it isn't. There are similarities, yet, but it most definitely is *not* a clone.

If it were a clone, you could just recompile all your Java apps under .NET and they'd work.

The languages are extremely similar, but even they aren't identical by any means.

"Take that w/ the fact that M$ got sued (and lost) over Java in 96 and Bill seems like the type who holds grudges... its seems only natural that he would direct his minions to clone Java just to piss people off. :-)"

I realize you're joking, but MS probably went with Java as a starting point because people like curly braces, GC, and nice consistent frameworks against which to code.

"Thanks, but no thanks for the kisses (1. wouldn't want to bespeckle you w/ mouth froth, 2. I'm straight so I don't kiss dudes)"

I'm straight, too.

And I kiss you.

I have just added "Microsoft dittohead blogger" to the description of my blog. I have been called "Bill's Apostol" in the past, but I like "Microsoft dittohead" more. I think it also increases my chances to get scobelized (even without an RSS feed) ;)

And Rory, I can relate to all what you expressed. The honda-coke-tostitos thing was a lot of fun to read. There are other things about OSS and Java that are not that funny. For instance, I expected all of them to be far more competent. We used to live in interesting times. But the day Linus Torvalds got in the "bash M$" thing I almost cried. I remember I was the first to install Linux in my block in 1995.

Now, is there anybody I should ask permission for usgint the Microsoft dittohead thing in my own blog? Neil maybe?

Kisses also from here.

In case you wonder, my previous blog description was even sillier.

This link should help with some of those pesky new-fangled words, like pomosexual, etc.

Rory has been catching some flack lately....

Rory has been catching some flack lately...