Everything in the app I mentioned is compatible under mono except for the browser integration (at least it was at that point, wouldn't swear to it now). We went with IE because the full API did what was required. I appreciate that we could have created our own API to Gecko, but from what we saw, the crucial bits were missing. More to the point our goal was to create an application that happened to have some browser functionality - not to create a rich API to a platform when a ready to use alternative was already at our disposal.
Some may not like mono, but in my experience it is a pretty decent platform.
As far as the quality of the app, I'm glad you won't be using it. You sound like someone I'd give their money back to if I ever had the pleasure of taking a support call from you. You must be a super genius to know all about it based on the presence of a single component.
It has the ability to support older API's that aren't available on all platforms. Developers who care about maximum cross-platform reach just won't use them. On the flip-side, if it didn't allow interop with the old stuff, the current adopters would be pissed for obvious reasons.
This way the people creating Silverlight apps have freedom of choice and choice is good.
As far as IE goes, I have a product that integrates with IE. I looked closely at Webkit and Gecko. Neither one is very friendly to program against with
Why should Microsoft do it? As far as I know, anyone can create and distribute Silverlight components. If you want a good API for WPF/Silverlight for Gecko, talk to the Mozilla Foundation. I'd be glad to have it, but I'm not mad at Microsoft because it doesn't exist. (BTW, I am aware of GeckoFx and XulRunner. The API is very shallow compared to the IE COM interfaces.)
Whoever modded you offtopic must really like Google.
I have to agree.
It seems they are getting a lot of press for a pretty underwhelming idea - a browser with direct access to the underlying hardware. wow
Speaking for myself, the things that I didn't like about Vista were lots of little things related to the shell and 7 addressed those for me. The new window manager and taskbar are huge improvements and make me a lot more productive. The multi-monitor support is also better. So, as a 'regular user' I think you'll find that it really is very different from Vista and you will like it more.
As a software developer it is really compelling. I use virtualization extensively and there are many improvements here assuming you have hardware to support it. VMWare is still the technology I use the most, but I find myself drifting toward the MS technology more and more. The OS allows you to mount a VHD as a disk. More impressively, the boot manager allows you to boot from a VHD giving it direct access to all of the hardware - even the video card.
What kind? The kind that requires a building that sits on land and is full of hardware.
$32 million isn't that much when you consider that.
Here is an estimate for an empty 80000 square foot office building with no contents and no land. ~$12 million.
http://www.reedconstructiondata.com/rsmeans/models/offices3/
So what you are saying is '2013 will be the year of the Linux desktop'?
Bottom line is: avoid proprietary lock-in.
So then why are you using Google's proprietary products then?
Google makes it easy to extract your data and put it somewhere else. Sharepoint does not.
The only problem I can see with your statement is that it is completely wrong.
Getting data or files out of SharePoint is dead simple. Aside from a large number of client choices including Windows Explorer, Outlook, Excel, Access, and SharePoint Designer you can create custom interfaces. If you want to create your own interfaces, there is a well documented Web Services API, a well documented RPC API, and over course a set of components if the custom code is running on the server.
The Office apps cost money, but Windows Explorer is Windows, SharePoint Designer is free, and the only things that would stop you from using the programmatic interfaces would be a decision to them to harden security or a lack of knowledge.
I still can't believe the board of directors hasn't fired this fat-ass clown. He sucks and his management team sucks too.
You have a point, but the problem with what you are saying is that all of the examples you give had increasing market share with each version and also made money.
You must not remember WordPerfect 5.0. That version had a lot to do with the rapidly growing popularity of Microsoft Word in the early 90's.
It wouldn't surprise me if he's right about this. I have a lot of friends who work for Microsoft in various divisions and I can say without a doubt that the rank and file of Microsoft considers Windows Mobile to be an embarrassment. They've done a piss-poor job with the platform for years now and everyone knows it.
I think Microsoft is over the line with this campaign from a legal standpoint and will get the smackdown from the FTC.
Fromt the STATEMENT OF POLICY REGARDING COMPARATIVE ADVERTISING http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/policystmt/ad-compare.htm.
"The Commission has supported the use of brand comparisons where the bases of comparison are clearly identified. Comparative advertising, when truthful and non-deceptive, is a source of important information to consumers and assists them in making rational purchase decisions."
If the page "Clearly Identifies" the basis of the comparison, I don't see it.
And
"Some industry codes which prohibit practices such as "disparagement," "disparagement of competitors," "improper disparagement," "unfairly attacking," "discrediting," may operate as a restriction on comparative advertising. The Commission has previously held that disparaging advertising is permissible so long as it is truthful and not deceptive."
As many others have pointed out, several of the claims are, to put it generously, a stretch.
UNIX is hot. It's more than hot. It's steaming. It's quicksilver lightning with a laserbeam kicker. -- Michael Jay Tucker