Generally I don't enter into such fruitless discussions as see it akin
to masturbation. :)
Lot of heat and no production. ;-)
On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 11:51 AM, jtd <jtd@mtnl...> wrote:
> On Monday 29 December 2008 11:21, Sachin Gopalakrishnan wrote:
>> > Companies exist to provide a service to society. In the process
>> > they make money.
>> No they dont. Name one company which exist only to serve society
>> and i shall show you a failed company!
> You completely misunderstand. Every company exists to provide a
> service. They MAY fail because of many reasons. But they WILL fail if
> they cannot provide the service that they propose in a satisfactory
Your argument can be used to validate the M$ success! Since M$ has not
failed so far can lead to point where they can say that they are
providing the products/services in satisfactorily.
>> I don't see why we should bash MS just for making money. If they
>> had monopolistic
>> practices its because the competition wasnt good enough and allowed
>> it to be a monopoly.
> As i said you really need to get the facts from some place other than
> wherever you are getting them from. Periodically we get thoroughly
> misinformed members on the list. However it has been sometime since
> the last one. Cant blame the poor members though, the disinformation
> from M$ and their puppets is huge and the poor reader thinks it's
> great marketing. If anything they are as terrible at marketing as
> they are at tech.
Isn't it strange that if someone don't agree with you are have views
and opinions opposite ti you becomes M$ puppet? Why we never attempt
to learn from our opponents? If our opponents are vastly successful
does not always mean that they always employ unfair/illegal practices.
They must be doing something right - like not berating and attack
newbies with insults and creating an ecosystem which feed on each
other, however flawed.
> Read the list for an abridged version. Or go to groklaw.net in the M$