From: William (williamweb@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Nov 20 2002 - 07:18:23 MST
> Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:45:20 +0100
> From: Max M <maxmcorp@worldonline.dk>
> Subject: Re: fruits of Bill Gates labor worth $50 billion
>
> Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> > Redmond has turned the clocks in the computer industry way back, and
> > is still going strong. The combined impact of IBM, Intel and Microsoft
> > on the nascent PC landscape has been a lot like nuking it to
> > radioactive glass.
>
>
>
> However much I agree with you, I think it is difficult to judge somebody
> from how things would have gone if they had not been around.
>
> What I AM shure of though, is that if I at some time get to upload my
> mind to a computer, I would hate it to be on an operating system from
> Microsoft.
>
> And as more and more of society is modelled and/or "uploaded" to a
> computer, I find it very disturbing that much of it is onto MS software.
>
> I find it to be a little like trusting your corpse to a cryogenic
> service run by the Siberian Russian mafia.
>
> So if I can say allready now that I don't want my vital systems to be
> run on a proprietary system I should make shure allready now, that there
> is an alternative.
>
>
> regards Max m Rqasmussen, Denmark
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
To Max m Rqasmussen et al.:
I agree that I'd not agree to a proprietary OS running my cryogenic chamber.
I think that the investments of the Pentagon, IBM, etc. in developing Linux
and
UNIX based OS versions is because they realize that computers are too
important at least in some areas to let one company control. When an OS is
running medical equipment or some sort of Stategic Defense Initiative and
the
risks are the life or death of many patients or millions of people, I doubt
many
people would want fewer eyes able to study and debug the source code.
(Yes, I realize that there are other reasons to support a different OS such
as
competitive advantage or independence such as for IBM or cost savings in
not paying lcensing fees, etc.)
If the OS, in contrast, is not so mission critical as above and the ability
to
quickly and easily develop new software for entertainment or other not so
critical functions, a proprietary OS with more bells and whisltes make make
more sense. - Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:15 MST