Reputation
1,886
Top tag
Next privilege 2,000 Rep.
Edit questions and answers
Badges
2 12 23
Newest
 Yearling
Impact
~75k people reached

Feb
4
comment Easy way of engaging non-programmers (i.e. designers) into using version control?
I think you missed the "for non-programmers" part. All the tasks you mentioned are programmer tasks.
Feb
2
comment .NET Reflector is no longer free - how does everyone feel about this?
@Schnapple - The other issue is one of ethics. If they want to turn it into a pay product, fine. But time bombing the existing free version just makes this the worlds longest "free timed trial" in history. It's unethical to time bomb the existing version and replace it with a pay version.
Feb
2
comment .NET Reflector is no longer free - how does everyone feel about this?
@Schnapple - also zdnet.com/blog/burnette/… "Our commitment is to maintain an amazing free tool that will continue to benefit the community while seeking input from users on ways to make .NET Reflector even more valuable." - I don't know about you, but "committment" means "Promise" in my mind, the dictionary suggests the same thing.
Feb
2
comment .NET Reflector is no longer free - how does everyone feel about this?
No, they said it would be free. simple-talk.com/opinion/opinion-pieces/the-future-of-reflector- "Under an agreement announced on Wednesday 20th August , Red Gate will be responsible for the future development of .NET Reflector, the popular tool authored by Lutz Roeder. Red Gate will continue to offer the tool for free to the community."
Feb
2
answered .NET Reflector is no longer free - how does everyone feel about this?
Feb
2
comment .NET Reflector is no longer free - how does everyone feel about this?
The issue to many people is not the $35, which I feel is more than reasonable for the product. The issue is that they acquired it from Lutz and promised to keep it free, then they add the time bomb to it (a move many people questioned, and felt was the first step in making it no longer free) and were told "don't worry, it will still be free". It's really a question of the unethical behavior that Redgate used to get to this point, not whether or not the product is worth $35.
Jan
22
answered Do Microsoft Certifications matter?
Dec
30
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
You know, there's people on both sides of the fences. There are Linux people claim Windows crashes 3 times a day. Does that mean that Red Hat is paying them to say that? The conspiracy arguments are silly.
Dec
30
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
I'm not talking about pirating here, nor am I talking about the ethical issues. I'm talking strictly about the legal ones. Whether or not you think it's ethical to do what they do, it's legal, and media companies can legally dictate that if you want to watch their content (even if you've paid for it) you have to use their approved systems. What that means is that either a company plays ball, or they don't offer the feature at all. Microsoft wants to offer media playback, so they have to play ball with them. Trusted Computing is grossly misunderstood, it refers to YOUR rights, not theirs.
Dec
29
awarded  Scholar
Dec
29
awarded  Supporter
Dec
29
accepted How can you plan long range resources and budgets when using Agile methodology?
Dec
29
answered As a code monkey, how to discuss programming with a guy who almost has a doctorate in computer science
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
@Paulo - You said "BTW it's why we have the whole free software movement". You didn't say "open source", you said "free software".
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
@Paulo - No, it wasn't. The basic freedoms of the GPL are designed to ensure anyone can take a GPL'd work, make their own changes to it, and redistribute it.. either for sale or free, doesn't matter. The only thing it's designed to prevent is doing so without providing source. Regardless, it doesn't change my point. You couldn't take, for example, OS 360, make some changes and sell it (even if you included the source) as your own product. It wasn't open source just because they included source with it.
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
@Orbling - I don't understand your point. It's irrelevant as to WHY the laws exist. The fact that they do exist means that if you want to legally do it, you have to follow the laws.
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
You think it is, doesn't end the universe. I could get together with a bunch of people and create a standard for "question and answer" websites, that doesn't mean anyone has to follow it, even if the ISO approves it.
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
No, Standards are there because some people got together and said "Let's make this a standard". A standard does not "ensure" anything. If that were the case, then one could create interoperable ODF documents without resorting to looking at how OpenOffice does things, which simply isn't the case. I'm sorry if you view the truth as "vitriolic", i suppose it would be when it violates your reality distortion field. The simple fact is, standards are just documents that define a way of doing things. Either you use them, or you don't. It's your choice. Passing a standard, no matter how bad
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
@Paulo - Because that's what the GPL is designed to allow, and in fact was the impetus for its creation (Gosling took Emacs, modified it, then started selling it without source).
Dec
29
comment Why does Microsoft have such a bad reputation with the people involved in open source?
@Paulo - They were sold with sources because you had to compile them for your given platform. You were not legally allowed to take that source, modify it, then resell the new product.