On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Ed Leafe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Aug 9, 2010, at 9:07 AM, Stephen Russell wrote: > >> If I wanted to do ruby programming I wouldn't think to do it in IRON. >> Not in the least. Same reason I wouldn't run an Oracle DB on Windows >> 200x. >> >> Maybe M$ got the same set of signals that I get form VS dev houses who >> are showing off Ruby/Rails apps these days? > > > You've got it backwards: Microsoft went out and actively promoted the > DLR to both businesses and the community. They had several speakers at each > of the last 3 PyCons, for example. It wasn't a matter of a Ruby programmer > suddenly wanting to work in .Net; it was Microsoft telling businesses to go > ahead and hire those Ruby/Python guys, because they can continue to work in > the language they are proficient in, while at the same time the company > continues to run their business on .Net. > > It's not that Microsoft suddenly realized that something was underfoot > and they put a stop to it; rather, Microsoft preached one thing loudly for > years, and then, without warning or explanation, did a 180 and left the poor > suckers who actually took Microsoft at its word in the dust. > >> There is always change in IT. You have adapted well and stayed ahead >> of the change as others have. You don't take it personally. > > It's not change; it's the deception; the bait-and-switch. Microsoft > has done that for as long as I've been involved with that company, so I no > longer believe a word that they say, and no longer use their products. It's > not change in the sense of iterative improvement; it's change for the sake of > generating new SKUs, new license terms and new revenue.
>> Kodak stopped making slide film. STOP THE WORLD! What is this >> business doing to those photographers? > > It amazes me how you consistently present backwards analogies. Kodak > didn't abandon photographers; photographers abandoned Kodak (and film in > general). Kodak actually tried to keep the film business alive, and lost a > lot of money as a result. Hardly what I would call analogous behavior to > Microsoft. -------------------- It is every thing similar and not at all different. M$ stopped making new versions of said product. Kodak stopped making unexposed film. Both companies expected to receive profits from continued production of either software or film. When the cost of production became out of sync with the profits decisions were made. How are these not at all similar? Just got a call. will try to be back later. >> Business makes decisions for the business interest. Always has and >> always will. Fact of life and not sure why you think it is different. > > I don't think differently; that's why I don't buy into Microsoft's > lies. But there are new generations of developers coming along who haven't > yet been burned by their lies, and these are the people who are up the creek. > > > -- Ed Leafe > > > > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
