Just because it's not plastic wrapped in a box doesn't mean it's not software.
Of course it is software, but it is not shipped to anybody in a sense that I understand the term 'to ship product'.
Whether by download for installation on end-users computers, cd, dvd or papertape is not the issue, the issue is whether or not the software remains installed on the users machine when they are not using it.
Key difference between a web application (even one with a bunch of client side scripting such as scribd) and a product that actually ships is that you can't modify it as easily (even with auto-update) as you can with server side deployments. If you mess up with a web app, no big deal, fixes are minutes away, hours at worst. When you've shipped product to a few hundred million installations all over the globe and you find a problem, you have a problem.
If you're lucky it isn't going to end up as a 0 day exploit, and it won't nuke your customers machines.
So Q&A in that situation is a lot more involved than it is for most webapps, and the penalties are significantly larger.
For the OP to compare scribd with microsoft in this way and to claim that 'microsoft has no clue how to ship software' is downright silly.
No there isn't. Features. Users' hands.
You are not helping yourself and I think that by dragging scribd in to it you are also not helping them.
You are not making a coherent argument by any stretch of the imagination and people mights start to think that your attitude is representative of scribds. I take it that is not the case, but you really should have left them out of it.
So please, take my advice and let it go.
I'm not aware of that use of the word but I'll amend my dictionary, here we call that 'deploying'.
I had to look up what a 'concern troll' is, I can't really understand which part you refer to, the wikipedia entry writes:
"A concern troll is a false flag pseudonym created by a user whose actual point of view is opposed to the one that the user's sockpuppet claims to hold. The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group."
Are you telling me I am using a pseudonym ? A sockpuppet ? Am I sowing fear, uncertainty and doubt ?
Or do you think it was bad advice that he should stop posting dumb stuff ?
A person who posts on a blog thread, in the guise of "concern," to disrupt dialogue or undermine morale by pointing out that posters and/or the site may be getting themselves in trouble, usually with an authority or power. They point out problems that don't really exist. The intent is to derail, stifle, control, the dialogue. It is viewed as insincere and condescending.
It was completely sincere and I don't give a rats ass about whether you, PG or anybody else for that matter believe me or not.
It wouldn't be the first time I receive an email a day after an exchange like that when it turned out someone was roaring drunk behind the keyboard.
This comment is the one that prompted it:
"Please -- the company that bought is vista and can't even get critical patches for 0days out in less than a month?"
I can't even parse that. So I suspected the OP may not have been entirely sober. I can't tell from here of course so that's purely speculative but people that post with the names of their employers in their comments should be a bit more circumspect of how they present their arguments.
Feel free to disagree, as you can see above you're in good company. But that won't stop me from speaking my mind.
I wonder if the 'no name calling' on HN goes for the boss himself as well.