IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Needs more washing
"Microsoft is terrified of Web Services."

That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it?
Afraid I can't see the logic in that position.

No doubt in the MS ideal, Web services are all MS-only. But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products.

Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.

New Needs a LOT more washing.
That's why they are marketing Web services so heavily? They are scared of it so they market it?

Their version(s). Yes. The interoperatability is still in question, to say the least.

But, they certainly haven't moved in that direction. On the contrary they have made a big push to build SOAP and XML into their products.

On the contrary? Ok, so can you show me the Microsoft documentation for non-microsoft interoperation?

I don't know it doesn't exist, but my limited experience would indicate that you're repeating their PR.

Re: Java, MS wanted to change Java to create their own unique, version yet still call it Java. Sun said no way, took them to court and won. Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.

I hope you're charging by the hour for that. That's absoutely ludicrous - and why I don't believe you on the above.

You might note that HP is supposedly (I don't know the status) "clean-rooming" Java. IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs.

Microsoft wanted to subvert Java so that if you used tools for Windows, it would only work on Windows.

Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.

And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise?

Addison
New Interoperation?
If you define interoperation as something like the capability to service non-Windows OS calls on a Windows platform, then you are correct, MS has no interoperation strategy. But, what is the business justification for creating this capability when SOAP & XML allow cross platform provision and consumption of services?

As has been pointed out elsewhere, SOAP is a generic interface that allows processes to be invoked irrespective of the providers implementation technology. In much the same way, XML allows data to be transferred between systems with dispirit technologies.

"IBM puts out their own JRE and JDKs."

IBM's Java is licensed from whom?


"Sun wants no competition from other vendors for the Java franchise.

And how much competition does Microsoft brook for the Windows franchise?"

None, which is exactly my point. IT vendors don't congregate so they can sing the Barney theme song. They all want you to use their technology exclusively.

     Bill Gates's way, or no way - (addison) - (105)
         A lesson - - (imric) - (104)
             At last I see, the only viable solution next: - (Ashton)
             Wrong lesson. - (addison) - (102)
                 This faith may not be entirely misplaced but.. - (Ashton)
                 And the Thousand Year Reich would have corrected itself . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                     Touch\ufffd____cackle___cackle_____Market Forces for Dummies\ufffd - (Ashton)
                     Markets, Andrew, not Governments. - (addison) - (5)
                         False Godwin. - (inthane-chan) - (1)
                             False False godwin. - (addison)
                         I fail to see the difference. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                             The one sentence version - (Andrew Grygus)
                             I agree, its a failing. :) - (addison)
                 I disagree. - (Another Scott) - (15)
                     Re: I disagree. - (addison) - (14)
                         The infrastructure would still be there . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                             That's a "presume" not a "simply". - (addison) - (3)
                                 What's Microsoft's ratio of "plants, trucks, etc"... - (CRConrad) - (1)
                                     Erm. I think you got mixed up. - (addison)
                                 Counterexample. - (a6l6e6x)
                         SOAP - (Decco Dave) - (8)
                             Needs more washing - (addison) - (3)
                                 Re: Needs more washing - (Decco Dave) - (2)
                                     Needs a LOT more washing. - (addison) - (1)
                                         Interoperation? - (Decco Dave)
                             Re: SOAP - MS 'invented' SOAP ? - (dmarker2) - (1)
                                 Pleasing MS - (Decco Dave)
                             Microsoft did not invent SOAP. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Dave Winer. - (static)
                 Antitrust law IS a 'market correction' -NT - (imric) - (76)
                     No, its an artificial outside influence, like ceiling/floors -NT - (addison) - (43)
                         Wrong. - (imric) - (42)
                             If you insist on perverting the language, fine. - (addison) - (41)
                                 noting previous antitrust vs. Microsoft - (wharris2) - (1)
                                     Absolute faith in a simplistic concept, 'free market' - (Ashton)
                                 So hostile... - (imric) - (38)
                                     Because its a "concept" that disallows agreement. - (addison) - (37)
                                         Now we know - (Silverlock) - (4)
                                             Re: Now we know - (addison) - (3)
                                                 Just going by history - (Silverlock) - (2)
                                                     I suggest you repeat History, you've forgotten it. - (addison) - (1)
                                                         Sorry dude, you just rub me the wrong way - (Silverlock)
                                         Sure. Whatever. - (imric) - (3)
                                             Re: Sure. Whatever. - (addison) - (2)
                                                 ? - (imric) - (1)
                                                     You've gotten confused. - (addison)
                                         Shoplifting is a market force . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                             WOT - (jbrabeck)
                                             Not really. - (addison)
                                         Huh??? - (CRConrad) - (4)
                                             Context, CRC, context. - (addison) - (3)
                                                 What, you think BeeP is the only economist in here??? - (CRConrad) - (2)
                                                     No idea how many there are in here. - (addison)
                                                     Econometrics...cool - (bepatient)
                                         Good point... - (hnick) - (17)
                                             Two approaches to "the market" - (Andrew Grygus) - (16)
                                                 Re: Two approaches to "the market" - (addison) - (11)
                                                     BTW: - (addison) - (10)
                                                         Which is why you adhere . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                                             Which is why I asked... - (addison) - (8)
                                                                 How "Super Buys" work . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (7)
                                                                     Hey! I think I see a 'graph' in there________:-\ufffd - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                         Adventures in marketing #48734655j - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                                     Or, for the 'engineering model' - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                                         No problem - it's "Faith Based" -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                                     Missed item - (wharris2) - (2)
                                                                         dollar stores also - (boxley)
                                                                         No, I got that . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                                 Boys boys boys.... - (bepatient) - (3)
                                                     Now don't spoil it, BP - (Ashton)
                                                     How much is this a semantic argument? - (drewk) - (1)
                                                         Definition... - (bepatient)
                                         hate to let a perfectly degenerating thread go to waste. - (boxley) - (1)
                                             Ah.. but the *Biggest* 'marketing force' has to be - (Ashton)
                     I think there is a definition issue here - (ben_tilly) - (31)
                         Exactly. Thanks. - (addison) - (30)
                             Fine! - (imric) - (7)
                                 Market theory assumes idealized conditions. - (drewk) - (2)
                                     Oh, shut the (*#@$ up. - (addison) - (1)
                                         *chuckle* -NT - (imric)
                                 Re: Fine! - (addison) - (3)
                                     Thanks for an illuminating thread, all. - (Ashton)
                                     Aieee! - (imric)
                                     In support of your position - (boxley)
                             Where do you get this stuff from??? - (CRConrad) - (21)
                                 Many years of econ classes. - (addison) - (17)
                                     How many? And of *what* -- Econ 101, over and over again...? - (CRConrad) - (6)
                                         3. - (addison)
                                         Apologies to Mr. Smith, for having blamed him for - (Ashton)
                                         Natural monopoly - (bepatient) - (3)
                                             yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley)
                                             yeah right Auburn :-) - (boxley) - (1)
                                                 Just had to give the credit.... - (bepatient)
                                     Not just time but method - (mhuber) - (9)
                                         Yep...sometimes what is substituted... - (bepatient) - (8)
                                             How so? - (Silverlock) - (7)
                                                 Issues... - (bepatient) - (6)
                                                     Good! the nitty-gritty.. finally. - (Ashton)
                                                     I figured Billy needs a personal punishment. - (Andrew Grygus) - (3)
                                                         Well... - (bepatient)
                                                         Then why didn't you describe one? :-) - (static) - (1)
                                                             Nope. Then he'd go into politics directly, 'stead of buying' -NT - (Ashton)
                                                     Re: Issues... - (addison)
                                 Oh it will... - (bepatient) - (1)
                                     Well... we are still waiting on that last supposition - (Ashton)
                                 AT&T - (wharris2)

Do you know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I'll BEAT YOU WITH until you realize who's in command.
169 ms