See link below (as provided by MBS) http://www.microsoft.com/education/competencies/humor.mspx
John W. Cook Systems Administrator Partnership For Strong Families 315 SE 2nd Ave Gainesville, Fl 32601 Office (352) 393-2741 x320 Cell (352) 215-6944 Fax (352) 393-2746 MCSE, MCTS, MCP+I, A+, N+, VSP4, VTSP4 -----Original Message----- From: Ben Scott [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 3:43 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Steve Jobs on Flash On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:07 PM, Mayo, Bill <[email protected]> wrote: > I just find your constant need to insult and belittle people to be > childish and annoying. While I readily admit that I do toss in the occasional snide remark, I was unaware that I was constantly -- or even regularly -- insulting and belittling people. If that's the case, I sincerely apologize. Additionally, I offer to provide a personal and on-list apology to anyone who felt insulted by something I wrote. I can see how some of my snide remarks could be taken as insulting. I generally thought I was making them in the spirit of "good-natured banter" for comic relief, but I can see how that could be lost in email. On this list, I will attempt to curtail snide remarks made towards private individuals, including list members.[1] I would also request anyone who feels I go stray to please call me out (on-list or off). [1] I reserve the right to make snide remarks directed at products, companies, public figures, situations, etc. If that's still too much for your tastes, we'll just have to agree to disagree about what constitutes "insulting". > In regards to how you have diagnosed Apple's problems, were you using > Macs at that time? I was supporting them professionally. Does that count as "use"? I recall users upset that: * Macs were slow or unusable when something else was running * Mac computers crashed a lot * Mac networking was unstable * Windows computers had more software available * Windows computers crashed less often Note that this was in professional settings, such as engineering or publishing. Home users often have a different take on things; I'm not qualified to speak to how home users perceived Macs at the time. > But you are completely incorrect that Mac OS X was what turned Apple around. > Instead, it was the first iMac, which ran the "toy" OS. It was YEARS before > Mac OS X shipped, let alone became usable (with 10.1)--long after Apple was > back in the black. In my analysis, I didn't really see Apple start to gain serious market attention again until Mac OS X. Perhaps iMac was good for Apple's finances because it was cheaper to make, but that didn't put them on the path they are on now. Perhaps my analysis is simply incorrect. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that Mac OS X had nothing to do with Apple's success, and that the biggest problem was that third-party development tools were the single biggest contributing factor to Apple's near-death. In that case, how do you explain the widespread availability of third-party development tools and software being available for Mac OS X *not* causing the downfall of Apple again? > If you make a cross-platform development > tool, how many resources are you going to devote to implementing a feature > that is only on one platform? Presumably, if there is any demand for the feature, the cross-platform developer will implement it, or the app developer will jump ship and implement native code on the popular platform. > If the feature is not available in the development environment, it > cannot be incorporated into the resulting application. We have the following possible scenarios: A1. Cross-platform tools are not available A2. Cross-platform tools (third-party or not) are available Given A1, application developers must target the platform natively. They have no choice. So developers face the question: Is there is enough demand to warrant re-implementing everything from scratch? Two possible outcomes: B1. There is enough demand; develop natively B2. There is not sufficient demand; do without Given A2, application developers have a new choice: Implement natively anyway, or use a cross-platform tool. If they already have working code for the cross-platform tool, that's an easy choice, but re-implementation is still an option Now let us suppose a new, unique feature appears on the native platform. The developers now face the same question ("Is there sufficient demand?"), and have the same two possible outcomes (B1 and B2). However, there is a third possible outcome: B3. Successfully convince the cross-platform tool developer to support the feature To review: Given A1, we have B1 and B2. Given A2, we have B1, B2, and B3. So I see the entire "third-party tools will kill Apple" argument as based on faulty logic. Respectfully submitted, -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: The information transmitted, or contained or attached to or with this Notice is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain Protected Health Information (PHI), confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, transmission, dissemination, or other use of, and taking any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient without the express written consent of the sender are prohibited. This information may be protected by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), and other Federal and Florida laws. Improper or unauthorized use or disclosure of this information could result in civil and/or criminal penalties. Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
