From: John Leppik (John_Leppik@knowledgesystems.com)
Date: Tue Nov 19 2002 - 07:36:01 MST
Samantha claims...........
> No. I do not stand on his shoulders. I take nothing from him or
from
> Microsoft as a starting point. Generally I did it (for most values
of
> "it") better from the beginning and have been wondering for years
what
> the heck the problem is with MicroSloth. There is not one
fundamental
> thing they did that I have not at one time done more elegantly and
> generally long before they did their relatively shoddy version.
Wonderful! We can now look forward to a new system that will be
perfect and satisfy everyone's needs. I hope she makes $100B
honestly
and that she will deign to sell me a 1% share for this encouragement.
Surely you will not let this opportunity pass Samantha.
John
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Samantha Atkins" <samantha@objectent.com>
> To: <extropians@extropy.org>
> Sent: Saturday, November 16, 2002 7:34 AM
> Subject: Re: fruits of Bill Gates labor worth $50 billion
>
>
> > Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >In a message dated 11/15/2002 2:49:04 PM Central Standard Time,
> > >puglisi@arcetri.astro.it writes: The vast majority of the
technical
> community
> > >regards Microsoft products as low quality, bloated, and focused
> much more on
> > >bells and whistles than actual functionality. A high percentage
of
> the
> > >"innovations" were actually bought or stolen from somewhere else.
> The market
> > >dominance is the result of the biggest flaw of a real-world free
> market
> > >system, non-informed consumers, readily exploited by a very good
> marketing
> > >team. The subsequent monopoly was the result of various illegal
> activities,
> > >as found by a variety of legal courts.
> > >
> > >Alfio,
> > > 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
> > >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.
> > >
> >
> > Excuse me, but in a company as rich as Microsoft you can afford to
> take
> > 2nd, 3rd, Nth shots at most everything. Ford is irrelevant to
this
> > conversation. Gates went out of his way to squash "better" in
> several
> > well documented instances. He went out of his way to introduce
> > incompatibilities not for the sake of "innovation" but to screw up
> the
> > competition and to reduce the freedom of those in the market for
> > software. It has all been exhaustively spelled out in the court
> case so
> > there is little need to attempt to resurrect it at this late
hour.
> So
> > why this ridiculous soft soap on a known monopolistic jerk who has
> > scraped a significant quantity of the world's wealth to his own
> coffers
> > without offering enough real value in return?
> >
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > No. I do not stand on his shoulders. I take nothing from him or
> from
> > Microsoft as a starting point. Generally I did it (for most
values
> of
> > "it") better from the beginning and have been wondering for years
> what
> > the heck the problem is with MicroSloth. There is not one
> fundamental
> > thing they did that I have not at one time done more elegantly and
> > generally long before they did their relatively shoddy version.
> >
> >
> > - samantha
> >
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:13 MST