It is you who is biased and cant see the truth.
>They have a fine line to walk and I'm not all that upset about what
>they've chosen. There a
Thats becaus you worked there and see why those choices were made
and attached personally to them. You dont see them as "evilly bent"
Other people on the outside, lets say gays or lesbian churches
who were blocked by your silly boy in the bubble filter might
think otherwise.
>Porn email and "cyber-sex" chatting are huge on AOL. Unless someone
>complains that child-porn or a crime is involved, or that it
>was sent to
>them unsolicited, there is no censorship that I know of.
I cant have "bigPenis" as my handle/account name.
>> --]For the most part, I disagree. There are (security)
>reasons why their
>> --]client is closed and development reasons why they are
>Win32 mostly and
>> --]Mac slightly. I can't say much more than that.
*snore*, you're constant avoidance of reality or support
with facts is tiresome.
Look, Microsoft is better, just trust me. I cant
tell you why, its a matter of national security.
--]Their only screwup was the .ART format and everything related to it,
--]although it did buy them a bit in caching. Well their other major
--]screwup was not letting (My) Instant Images go live (bastards!), but I
--]digress.
How about not letting Instant Messaging work openly, or across services?
It was fair to reject MS's attempt to work just like GAIM, but
now they are clearly clinging to their closed proprietary
model. I think we all know that IM will be like email;
you can IM sdw@aol from josh@xyz. I hope you're not going to
stand up and pathetically defend the company you love so much
on this one...
So far, their IM expansion is a mockery. They are doing
deals with Sprint, as an example, which makes sprint
give up not only its precious subscriber base to AOLs "evil ways"
but also pushes the AOL brand on to the phone.
AOL is putting the carriers over a barrel and making
them bleed.
--]C) MS practices are intolerable in many ways,
Really? what "practices" *directly* affect you...
Please dont count the OEM licensing thing, that was
your OEMs deciding that it was cheaper not to deal with you..
>> --]AOL doesn't have the same evil bent as MS as far as I'm concerned.
This is just asinine. You have been drinking the cool aid too much.
You should stop watching TV so much and stop listening to Scott Mcnealy
and Larry Ellision. It's perfectly reasonable to say that you
think MS products suck, but evil ?
Basically most of your arguments in this thread have come down to
this. You dont like Microsoft. Fair enough.
>MS frequently doesn't live up to my standards, regardless of how many
>billion they could spend to get it right.
You are a power user. Just the same way that your precious AOL
is appropriate for your daughter or mother, Microsoft's products
are targeted at the same group. It happens that those type
of consumer users are the vast majority of the consumer market.
In the corporate world, things are no different; the products
are targeted at the simple professional who doesn't know alot
about computers, doesnt really want to, and just wants to get
work done.
It's natural that these products would frustrate a power user like
yourself. I feel the same way actually, but I know that Im uncommon
in the world and I am glad that Microsoft doesn't target customers like me.
If they did, my stock would be worth nothing.
>The problem is that their motives are always suspect.
Microsoft's motive is to make profits.
My opinion is that Microsoft is about business first, technology second.
Microsoft doesn't give anyone anything unless it makes sense for Microsoft.
Microsoft can be obstinate, aggressive, a ruthless competitor.
Business isn't necessarily "fair".
AOL is the fucking same way as Microsoft.
If these things make you sick, then frankly, I would suggest
that you never start your own company. I think not doing these
things would be avoiding your fiduciary duty to your shareholders.
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:15:07 PDT