Yeah, if I recall there was a similar uproar about the post office using zip codes around that time, too...
Yes, I know.
Visual Basic developers didn't like going to
I think we're in agreement here. I was trying to object to the original author's argument that the BSD license was more "free" than the GPL. If I miscommunicated, I apologize.
.NET was cross platform--at least cross hardware. Yes, it was Windows-only, but a
By "even more liberal", you mean less free, since BSD allows anyone to essentially take code for their own personal use without giving anything back to the project (like Apple using the BSD kernel to make lots of money, but not allowing the BSD folk any access to the Apple code that interacted with it).
Windows was cheap. For most people it appeared to be "free". A lot of their stuff seemed pricey at the time, but they were always cheaper than their competition. SQL Server cost less than Oracle. IIS cost less than Netscape Web Server. Windows Mobile cost less than Palm. Visual C cost less than Borland. Office cost less than Word Perfect. Mcrtosoft's pricing is what drove a lot of these guys out of business. Microsoft's products were cheaper quality-wise, too, which is why they have such a terrible reputation.
.NET seems to live in a zombie state, not really dead, but not really alive, either. They haven't killed it, but they aren't going to expand on it, either. Who knows where things really stand. The RT strategy seems to be in constant flux, too.
Their motto of "Developers, Developers, Developers" also disappeared with Ballmer's exit. Everything is now getting locked down to the max in their attempt to be like Apple. What makes it worse is that they don't seem to have a direction as far as application development goes. They were strongly pushing portable
Microsoft's previous success was based on offering very cheap products that were friendly to developers. Yeah, their products were buggy and unfinished, but they were a bargain, and you could always "embrace and extend" them as you saw fit. Now, they are trying to market themselves as a premium luxury product like Apple (at least the consumer end) and walling the garden as much as possible. They're locking down the hardware, too, and alienating their hardware partners, who were the greatest drivers of their previous success. It's a big change. Can they do it? Hyundai managed to convert themselves from being a discount car manufacturer to a more upscale brand, but Hyundai didn't have the problem with their brand reputation that Microsoft has. Microsoft has made cheap crap for so long, I don't see how they manage to convince everyone that they are now an "upscale" high quality manufacturer of products and services.
But maybe you want to be using your tablet for something else while watching.
Chromecast needed a "source" to transfer video from, like a tablet, smartphone or computer. This set top box will be all in one. I wonder if it will be able to run unmodified Android apps like Ouya. If it can do that and sideload, too, I'm in!
The big question is do games for the Fire TV require some special API or can any game from the Amazon game store work with it. Can regular Android apps be sideloaded onto it. If the answer is yes to both, then I could be interested...
They also cause impotence due to extra pressure on the perineum from the skinny seat and bent over posture. It's much better from your manly bits to be in an upright position. Much less pressure on the nerves and blood vessels supplying those vital areas.
I never liked the old "ten speed" or racing bikes. Maybe it's because I'm older now, but I'm much happier on a "comfort" or "cruiser" bike. It's easier on my carpal tunnel wrists as well.
....all the hatred for Kinect. People cite privacy and all that, but the hatred for Kinect goes back much farther than that. There was incredible hatred for the device at the initial release well before there were any privacy concerns. That's a shame, since it is the most innovative thing that Microsoft has ever developed. Download Kinect Party and play the demo for awhile--it's incredible that they actually were able to make something like this even work!! I have always thought it was very cool. The kids love it--a lot of them don't even know how to play a standard controller game. In fact, the only real "failure" of the Kinect system was by developers failing to realize its full potential. The reason it wasn't "optional" in the XBox One was that it's an important interface into the whole system--ideally, with its incredible revolution, it would also act as an add on controller in games (although that's not been realized, yet). I don't understand why people clutch so tightly to their 20 year old controllers like it's the Bible. Can't we try something new?