3 ms·
I'm intolerant? I'm not the one ranting about how something I disagree with is evil and bad. I'm the one preaching tolerance here. Since you know absolutely no
by ebbv 13y ago
I'm intolerant? I'm not the one ranting about how something I disagree with is evil and bad. I'm the one preaching tolerance here.
Since you know absolutely nothing about me I find it hilarious that you would make assertions about my values.
- icebraining 13y agovenomsnake was criticizing things (closed products), you were criticizing people. Yes, I find your position the intolerant one.
- venomsnake 13y agoWell censorship is evil. Apple have the ability to censor what they put on their stores. (The drones tracking program) So we got the evil part. The 30% apple cut increases the software prices for the end user or prevents a software for even coming to the platform (thinking of skydrive here). That is bad for the end user.
- octopus 13y agoCensorship is evil, I could agree with that. About your second phrase now, you need to take into account the entire picture: * If you plan to sell an app on Windows Store you will need Microsoft approval, no app will be published without that. Also, Microsoft will take 30% from your app price (until you make $20k, after which the cut is 20%). * The only free market seems to be Google Play, after you pay a fixed fee you can publish your app. I'm sure even Google has the right to remove your app if you infringe the rules of your developer contract.
- icebraining 13y agoThe only relatively free market is the web (which doesn't mean all the products sold through it are free, of course).
- bcoates 13y agoNobody actually uses the Windows Store. The app store for windows is the web: put an installer on your website, user clicks it, IE runs it. No jailbreaking required.
- jholman 13y agoYou are the one ranting about how something you disagree with is bad, actually. (The only uses of "evil" have been by you, except for venomsnake discussing censorship.) Your comments have been much more nasty, dismissive, vitriolic, and over-the-top than those of venomsnake. I tried a little experiment: I supposed that venomsnake commented in good faith, and isn't crazy. I could not find disconfirmation. In his/her first sentence, there's a proposal that there are some virtues to MS's approach, and that dethroning those virtues might not be an unalloyed good. In the second sentence, there's an observation that the new regime has substantial drawbacks (for some people's values, including many HN readers). The third sentence is a bit hyperbolic, true, but the fourth sums up fairly even-handedly by calling the victory pyrrhic (which does still mean victory, btw). What's the problem? On the other hand, your first sentence is nothing but vitriol, your last sentence is nothing but vitriol, and you allocate time in the middle to a sarcastic "I'm so sorry", and to misrepresenting venomsnake's comment (about "open" and "backwards-compatible"), just so you can call it "stupid". All in all, not very nice. And venomsnake replied to you with far more politeness than you deserved, and for that you called him-or-her a zealot. I totally missed the bit where you're "preaching tolerance", sorry if that's thick of me. Could you point it out?