From: John Leppik (John_Leppik@knowledgesystems.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 07:33:47 MST
Eugen Wrote.....
"However, I won't keep my quiet if people are claiming that Redmond
is the
bee's knees, has invented everything there is, and is generally a
benefactor to the world. Because that's utter horseshit, and needs to
be
said straight. Let Microsoft's PR dish out the lies, but don't spread
the
lies yourself, ok?
"Innovation, my ass. Give me at least a single novel item Microsoft
invented. Surely, it can't be that hard?
"Ron, sorry to say, but you obviously have very little clue about the
industry, and Microsoft's role in it. As an engineer, you're surely
aware
of the dangers of talking about a field you know nothing about? It
should be easy enough to find the truth using Google."
------------------------------------
Let me start by saying that I have been in the software business for
over 40 years and have no interest in Microsoft except as a user of
some of its products, and yes, I have some problems with them and I
get good value from them.
What you write Eugen is, I think, abusive, biased, incorrect and much
more. I started when everything was open source and you could only
get it from IBM. Most people wound up writing their own at a cost of
many millions of dollars for one-of-a-kind programs. The software
industry got started when people decided that it would be better to
centralize talent and experience and buy application for several
hundred thousand to several million dollars a shot. The UNIX world
reduced purchase costs to the tens or hundreds of thousands of
dollars. Bill Gates was key in bringing the cost for quite elaborate
application down to the low hundreds. And yes, there always has been
free stuff, mainly used by people who are very good at programming
and
debugging themselves (that leaves out most of humanity).
Microsoft products are not all things to all people, but they are the
tools of choice of most people who have the option to choose. That is
where they choose to put their money and where they think they will
get the most gain. (I expect that you will come back with a
monopolistic conspiracy theory. I will wait to see what flavor yours
is.) I do not mean to imply that Microsoft products would serve you
well. You have apparently found a better option for yourself, but
why
are you so abusive of Microsoft and someone who thinks that there may
be something of value there?
I just don't know how to comment on the following politely "Ron,
sorry
to say, but you obviously have very little clue about the industry,
and Microsoft's role in it. As an engineer, you're surely aware of
the
dangers of talking about a field you know nothing about?" ...and I
too am an engineer. Is that my problem?
I don't think this is a transhumanist topic, but I could not let
abuse
pass without comment.
John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eugen Leitl" <eugen@leitl.org>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 6:23 AM
> Subject: Re: fruits of Bill Gates labor worth $50 billion
>
>
> > On Fri, 15 Nov 2002 Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > > In my entire engineering career I never once built anything that
I
> > > wouldn't have improved vastly had I had a 2nd shot at it.
> Naturally Ford,
> > > Gates, etal didn't do anything as well as someone else could
have
> done it
> >
> > Ron, stop assuming for a moment that Bill Gates personally
invented
> > anything. He wrote a Basic once, I've seen the code. It didn't
> strike me
> > as genius code, I'm afraid. Microsoft didn't write even DOS, it
was
> a
> > purchased 3rd party product.
> >
> > They do certainly have very good marketing and legal department.
> They
> > didn't make too many mistakes, or at least mistakes which
threatened
> their
> > existance. They kept bringing cash in, preparing for the winter,
> that
> > hasn't come yet. They play their monopoly position well, and they
do
> use a
> > lot of muscle behind the scenes. I would say their accounting
> practise is
> > fraudulent, except it's obviously not significantly worse than the
> rest of
> > the industry. Which is not saying much these days. In a sense,
> they're
> > just the biggest and baddest bully on school ground, who'll beat
you
> up
> > and take away your lunch if the principal is looking elsewhere.
> >
> > Now all the kids, their parents and school officials had enough of
> that
> > kid, and put him on trial, threatening him with expulsion.
> >
> > Here's where the analogy breaks down, because here Microsoft owns
> enough
> > politicians and judges to have a lot of control in the outcome of
> the
> > trial. The jury is out yet, because EU's sights are still on
> Redmond, and
> > they're less easy to buy.
> >
> > I'm usually not a Microsoft basher. I use their products when I
have
> to
> > (at work, for time being), and stick to open source in all other
> cases. I
> > can't really ignore the impact the iron fist has on hardware,
driver
> > availability, rights management, collateral damage on the
> infrastructure,
> > but open systems is a wide enough niche to be comfortable.
> >
> > However, I won't keep my quiet if people are claiming that Redmond
> is the
> > bee's knees, has invented everything there is, and is generally a
> > benefactor to the world. Because that's utter horseshit, and needs
> to be
> > said straight. Let Microsoft's PR dish out the lies, but don't
> spread the
> > lies yourself, ok?
> >
> > > later. But our system in its wisdom said we will go ahead and
> give
> > > innovators a patent and exclusive rights for a period of
years --
> it is
> > > better to have the innovation even at the price of the obvious
> inefficiency
> > > that causes.
> >
> > Innovation, my ass. Give me at least a single novel item Microsoft
> > invented. Surely, it can't be that hard?
> >
> > > If you look at Gates or Ford's works and say I can
improve
> on that all
> > > I hear is a recitation of the obvious. We should improve on
their
> efforts --
> > > we stand on their shoulders.
> >
> > Ron, sorry to say, but you obviously have very little clue about
the
> > industry, and Microsoft's role in it. As an engineer, you're
surely
> aware
> > of the dangers of talking about a field you know nothing about? It
> should
> > be easy enough to find the truth using Google.
> >
> > > Now, is the patent period proper? I think that is very
> debatable.
> > > But some want stronger laws, some want weaker.
> >
> > Patents certainly have their role, but not software patents. I
side
> with
> > Linus on this one: ignore them, as far as open source is
concerned.
> >
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:13 MST