Tuesday 22 June 2004
Well, not quite. But in a presentation to students at Melbourne, Australia vice president of engineering Wayne Rosing has hinted that its time for the company to give something back.
Craig Silverstein, technical director at Google has started a project to look at Google code and to figure out what parts they can give back.
Rosing commented it is not fair for Google to draw smart people from all over the world and "just keep it all for ourselves".
The news came as part of a presentation to software engineering students at Melbourne as Google considers the city to be home to a regional research and development centre in an effort to tripple its global workforce from 700 to 2100 over the next 12 months.
>I've asked the same question all day and no one has responded to the subject of the question.
I've answered a number of your questions during the day...I think maybe you just don't really know what it is that you're wanting to ask.
I'm not sure how I can help you with that.
You seem to have this idea that with MSFT, IT will fall apart...like there's something inherent in MSFT's market that noone else could fulfill.
If MSFT disappears, its because someone has come up with other products or software that does the job as well as, or better than and/or cheaper than MSFT. Sucks for MSFT, but software users, including corporate users...*shrug*...they go on with the other software, and no big deal.
<you're comparing taking down an industry to fighting a few direct competitors? come on dude.>
So open source is doing more harm to companies and the industry than MS? Please....
And open source doesn't compete with the entire industry. Doesn't compete with Autocad, doesn't compete with games, doesn't compete will a whole host of things.
It competes in database, OS, webserver, ftp-server, etc. But MS competes in all those areas too. To say that open source is more harmful to the software industry than MS is ridiculous.
<anyway, I think netscape did more to bring down netscape (and I am close to netscape), but if I had to choose, as an ms stockholder at the time darn right I want to see them win over netscape, and sun.>
Netscape is just one example, there is doublespace and stack, and a whole host of other examples.
As an MS stockhold you may want to see MS win, but as a user of software I don't want to see that because it is harmful to me. It drives up the cost of software I use and drives down the quality.
<unless you are an ex-nutscraper or someone still toiling for scottie I fail to see how you can derive the moral equivalency here though.>
That has nothing to do with it. As a _user_ of software what is good for me is not good for MS or its shareholders. And so what? There are a lot more _users_ than MS shareholders; the needs of the many hold more weight.
<<The important thing is that IBM is no longer the thing holding the industry back, _now_ it is MS holding it back.>>
Nope. The DOJ addressed the behaviours that they felt needed it.
>>yes they are. but click_to_see_more, the poster you are discussing this with, is notoriously and willfully ignorant of microsoft<<
LOL Intento still believes Windows 95 supports 2GB of ram and that IE is currently not vulnerable. Now if that's not willful ignorance of Microsoft and factual evidence then I don't know what is.
"<<MS had held back the entire industry.>>
But not as much, or for as long as IBM."
I'm not sure which one held back the industry more. But, for sake of argument, let us say that IBM held it back more over the history of computing.
The important thing is that IBM is no longer the thing holding the industry back, _now_ it is MS holding it back.
So when would the amount of damage caused by MS be enough? When it reaches the level once caused by IBM? Should we wait that long before taking action?
you're comparing taking down an industry to fighting a few direct competitors? come on dude.
anyway, I think netscape did more to bring down netscape (and I am close to netscape), but if I had to choose, as an ms stockholder at the time darn right I want to see them win over netscape, and sun.
unless you are an ex-nutscraper or someone still toiling for scottie I fail to see how you can derive the moral equivalency here though.
"Fine. Now admit that you don't care that MS took down Netscape."
I know you didn't ask me but I think Netscape's horrible management had a larger hand in their own demise than Microsoft ever did.
I really wouldn't mind if Sun just went away, it's sad to see them suffer, but I wouldn't say that NT was a Unix killer.
<it is refreshing to see someone from the abm camp honestly say that they don't care if open source takes down the software industry (which is what "shrinkwrap" represents) as long as microsoft is taken down. kudos to you.>
Fine. Now admit that you don't care that MS took down Netscape. And that you wouldn't have minded if MS took down Sun and NT was really a Unix killer. Go ahead, admit it, its OK.