I don't know if you can dismiss his entire argument because of his alleged "anti-foss" stance.
He is simply pointing out that in the light of a much, much larger than standard break-up fee someone in the deal (Motorola) must have concerns about it being approved. You don't tack on a 'ohhh and by the way if this doesn't go through you still owe us 2.5 billion' just for fun, and Google doesn't agree to it because they are such swell guys.
His remarks about using search to subsidize below/at-cost competition is a legitimate concern for a competitiveness perspective. It is one of the things that got Microsoft in trouble (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-0002856...), specifically the part of leveraging cross-subsidies to avoid having to worry about financial success of an unrelated product (see: Android) and using said lack of concern to smother your competitors ability to make money/drive them out of business.
I personally don't know how this whole thing will play out, but I would strongly suspect Google's mobile channel partners (the ones licensing Android + paying Google a fee for use of their stack on said devices) are NOT thrilled with the idea that the one licensing them the technology has now become a possible competitor. They may say one thing in public, through their PR agents, but I strongly doubt any of them like this turn of events.
They (Google) seem to believe they will be able to do what few if any companies historically have been able to do. Buy a large, established business in an area they are not expert in then run it as an isolated entity within their larger organization. Sounds good on paper, doesn't tend to work out so cleanly in real life with all the complexities that arise. We shall see, assuming the deal goes through.
>Also, people who support Google believe in what Google believes - freedom, openness, personalization, and not getting overcharged and arm and a leg for the service they provide.
Openness, unless of course you are talking about the one thing that brings them money, that is surprisingly not open...I am sure it is just a coincidence...ohhh, no wait, it is for the 'good' of the end user, I forgot. Luckily for them it happens to also work out perfectly since it is their dominant source of income.
People's blind belief that Google's motivation is solely the good of the world is amazing, especially for people that claim they are objective.
I like when developers can put aside the retarded faux hatred we are all supposed to have for each other as dictated by our corporate / OSS overlords and do things like this, of course I am sure many will find some demeaning/ulterior motivevs, because you know, no way the IE team actually has human beings on it.
Have you tried disabling the use of hardware acceleration? WPF seems to have some issues with some graphics cards, or more accurately some graphics cards have some buggy hardware acceleration. Another thing I have noticed is that use over remote desktop and on VMs (specifically VMWare) can have quirks, then again I thought I read somewhere that WPF has to use bitmap remoting instead of primimtive remoting because Windows doesn't offer them any way to take advantage of primitive remoting because they aren't Win32 based (except their root visual which is an HWND, but everything else uses DirectX surfaces), which is a great example of Microsoft teams having pissing contests that just hurts users.
That has been true in most every version of VS I have used...almost like Resharper itself sucks from a software engineering point...hmmmm
>Crashes every 30 mins or so. Using SP1.
Try taking off Resharper. I hate how Visual Studio is so unguarded against poorly written components / extensions, but it is. The single biggest point of slowness / crashes I have ever seen is in third party crap, they just figure you'll blame Visual Studio so they don't care.
Do you have third party things installed like Resharper? My Visual Studio runs like a champ then again I don't install giant steaming piles of shit like Resharper, which has always struck me as something that was written by idiots or drunken monkeys. The fact that so many people install tons of add ins and extensions and then say 'Visual Studio perf sucks' baffles me. It is like installing a bunch of crap toolbars in IE and then saying 'IE perf sucks'.
He is simply pointing out that in the light of a much, much larger than standard break-up fee someone in the deal (Motorola) must have concerns about it being approved. You don't tack on a 'ohhh and by the way if this doesn't go through you still owe us 2.5 billion' just for fun, and Google doesn't agree to it because they are such swell guys.
His remarks about using search to subsidize below/at-cost competition is a legitimate concern for a competitiveness perspective. It is one of the things that got Microsoft in trouble (http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/ms_tuncom/major/mtc-0002856...), specifically the part of leveraging cross-subsidies to avoid having to worry about financial success of an unrelated product (see: Android) and using said lack of concern to smother your competitors ability to make money/drive them out of business.
I personally don't know how this whole thing will play out, but I would strongly suspect Google's mobile channel partners (the ones licensing Android + paying Google a fee for use of their stack on said devices) are NOT thrilled with the idea that the one licensing them the technology has now become a possible competitor. They may say one thing in public, through their PR agents, but I strongly doubt any of them like this turn of events.
They (Google) seem to believe they will be able to do what few if any companies historically have been able to do. Buy a large, established business in an area they are not expert in then run it as an isolated entity within their larger organization. Sounds good on paper, doesn't tend to work out so cleanly in real life with all the complexities that arise. We shall see, assuming the deal goes through.