JTK wrote:
> > But even an MBA can know nothing about software programming.
> *Even* an MBA? Whoah, now *that's* crazy-talk!
YEs, even an MBA as opposed to your minor. I would wager that someone with an
MBA has put in more time and effort to learn more about the subject than someone
with a minor.
> > And despite your minor is Econ., you don't seem able to differentiate
> > between being in business and making a profit.
> I'd have to check the definitions, but actually I don't think there is a
> difference. There certainly isn't one in the long run.
I'll tell you now. Being in business is somehow trying to sell something to
create revenue. Making a profit is when your revenues are greater than your
expenses. As for being the same in the long run, it all depends on how you
define 'long run'. Amazon hasn't made a dime since they opened. Nortel lost $19
billions in a single quarter. Apple was hemorrhaging red ink for years.
> What error again? You said something about Red Hat never having turned a
> profit, is that correct?
No, I said Redhat is not currently profitable. I do not know how they did in the
beginning, but since the IPO, they have yet to make a profit. Amazon.com has
never made a profit.
> >Comments to Mozilla's 'bloat',
> So you are going to tell me Mozilla is *not* a complete pig?
Compared to other browsers, that's exactly what I'm going to tell you. Show me a
full install of IE that is 8 megs.
> > speed relating to the use of XUL, to start with.
> I long ago proved that XUL was a major factor in Mozilla's slowness. Well
> actually K-Meleon did. And from the few non-private posts that leak into
> performance, it sounds like I'm not the only one who knows it.
K-M does not use everything in Mozilla except the UI. It's just the renderer in
another app. This does not constitute proof. That's the equivalent of running
Quake 3 on a Pentium with a double speed CD drive, then running it on an Athlon
4 with a 36x drive, and claiming the speed increase is solely due to the CD
drive.
> >After being corrected about XUL, you persisted.
> How can you correct an already-correct statement, complete with proof?
Because the statement is neither correct, nor proven to be so.
> Again rabbi, quote please. And no nitpicky "whaaaa! You said Mathuzilla had
> only 3% market share when it's really a whopping 3.00001%!" crappola.
No, you stated NO ONE used either Mozilla or Linux. You stated NO ONE was
developing applications with Mozilla. And please do not call be rabbi. I am
neither Jewish, nor a rabbi, and frankly, it's childish. The joke was old after
the first time you tried it.
> You're either lying or you slept through it. You have demonstrated on two
> occaisions now that you do not know the difference between fixed and variable
> costs. IIRC, that's in the Remedial Econ 101 book just before the preface.
> Regular Econ 101 expects you to have already consulted a dictionary and
> figured it out before the first day of class.
Then what exactly is your definition of those terms? I wonder if this is the
problem. If your definitions of these terms are similar to your ideas of "proof"
about XUL and market penetration, then I see why we're going in circles.
> > and find that it's
> > riddled with factual errors
> List one.
I have done so on many occasions, including in this and the previous post.
> Disregarding that, you are arguing from a position of ignorance, and now lying
> about it. I think that if I indeed am 'registering your disagreement as
> ignorance', I am being rather magnanamous.
So, because I disagree with you, I am now lying. Incredible.
> > A person who disagrees with you is not necessarily
> > ignorant.
> Technically no, practically yes.
You sound like Rush Limbaugh with his "monopoly on the truth". How does
disagreement with you make someone ignorant?
> > In the matters going on pertaining to Mozilla, I'd say I'm much more
> > qualified to discuss the technical details than you are.
> How much of the Mathuzilla code have you written?
Very little, due to time constraints.
> Ok then, how much code of any sort have you written?
More than I could recall, and in a number of languages.
> > Further more, you insist that Mozilla is Netscape, and vice versa. This is
> > also not true,
> It is true, and you're simply fooling yourself if you can't see it.
Please show proof of this. Rather than telling you that you are wrong, I want to
see why you feel you are right on this topic.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
