Christian Catchpole wrote:
> Business is modern day warfare. So we have laws which try to keep the
> war as civilized as possible. So it's not wrong to criticize the net
> effect a business has on the wider community. If the worst a company
> can do is overcharge for me a widget that I didn't need anyway, that's
> one thing.
>
> Microsoft has been credited for advancing computing. My opinion is
> that they hindered it. For if it wasn't them, it would have been
> someone else and they might not have bollocks it up so much from a
> technical perspective.
>
I tend to agree, although it is always hard to extrapolate in these
"what if" scenarios.
> In 1987 my Amiga outperformed PCs, could preemptively multitask and
> had a unix like operating system. But DOS and Windows 95 took hold,
> not because of technical merits but because of the manufacturing model
> which didn't lock it to one company.
In the 486dx days the best way to run WinWord was on OS/2. Most stable
and faster than the alternatives. You could also play some video
alongside if you wanted to, but somehow IBM never really advertised
those facts. And while OS/2 had a nice document-centric view on things
it was not pretty and had no catchy songs attached to it.
I hope one day we get back to something more document-centric. MS isn't
likely to do that, they want people to think about starting their cash cows.
> Apple suffered the same fate for
> a long time. They have now finally turned around as they can piggy
> back on enough technology and standards, that they can build machines
> that people can actually use.
>
My dislike of Apple is currently possibly worse than the MS one ;-)
Apple has always played games beyond those of MS since they managed to
sell hardware/software combos throughout their history. The only reason
they are not considered to be as evil is because they are not as big.
And of course they have managed to be shiny and new in recent years.
If Apple would own Windows and MS Office, they would look better, but I
would expect them to be even more closed than they are now.
Of course the really scary one at the moment is Google :-)
Peter
> On Jul 29, 9:23 am, Dick Wall <dickw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> While we are on the subject of engaging in a constructive dialog, I
>> similarly cannot let this statement go:
>>
>> "The
>> problem is with anyone that expects a company to act in anything other
>> than self interest. To expect anything different is foolish.
>> Frankly, what Microsoft did with ooxml is only evil if you are not a
>> Microsoft shareholder. :) It's all perspective."
>>
>> I believe it is our duty to keep a watch on this kind of behavior and
>> call attention to it when it occurs. Perhaps if enough stink is raised
>> about the kind of questionable business practices involved, that will
>> affect Microsoft's bottom line and that alone will affect the
>> shareholders value.
>>
>> Moreover, I totally disagree that becoming a microsoft stakeholder
>> suddenly makes this kind of terrible behavior OK. I have mutual funds
>> that no doubt have Microsoft stock in them somewhere, but the kind of
>> stuff Microsoft pulled with OOXML is unconscionable regardless of
>> whether they hide behind the shareholder value argument. Everyone has
>> a choice, companies too - how about taking the money they used to ram
>> this travesty through ISO and instead make their stuff better so that
>> people want to use it instead of being forced to, or tricked into it?
>>
>> And the flaw with the argument is, of course, that while nonsense like
>> this might have a short term positive effect on MS stock, the overall
>> damage done by once again falling back into incompatible document
>> formats for public documents (yes - that's why they pushed it through
>> - to stop the bleeding from Governments and Countries who were opening
>> up to ODF), the long term cost will likely be a great deal higher, and
>> harder to measure of course.
>>
>> On Jul 28, 2:17 pm, "pub...@lesstroud.com" <stroud....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Ok, I have gotta dive into this. You are correct that Gore did not
>>> claim to have "invented" the internet. However, he tried, in his
>>> statement, to take credit for it's invention as a political grand
>>> stand. He "acted stupidly". :) It was like me taking credit for
>>> paving the roads. Yes, my money payed for some infinitely small piece
>>> of highway somewhere, but it would be ridiculous for me to make a
>>> claim (especially for political gain) that I was responsible for
>>> creating the interstate system (or even the road outside my house).
>>> Yes, it is overplayed, but it was a really funny political mistake.
>>> Both sides make them (remember potatoe?). Frankly, they are all well
>>> intentioned and accomplish very little that actually is useful in my
>>> life (except asking for bigger checks to increase the size of my
>>> contribution to the interstate system :)). Such is the nature of
>>> government. I digress....
>>>
>>> Microsoft has earned an industry reputation over the years for being
>>> ruthless in business. They have a long history of business moves that
>>> are considered unethical. They practically invented the practice of
>>> entering into legal agreements with no intention to fulfill their
>>> obligations (the so sue me style :)). However, that is not unique to
>>> them. Most large businesses look to the bottom line and not toward
>>> the "right thing". So, when people say they are evil. Many times
>>> they are right. However, most don't know the details of why. The
>>> problem is with anyone that expects a company to act in anything other
>>> than self interest. To expect anything different is foolish.
>>> Frankly, what Microsoft did with ooxml is only evil if you are not a
>>> Microsoft shareholder. :) It's all perspective. I always felt Sun was
>>> a breath of fresh air. I hoped they could make it work. However, it
>>> appears that their approach to business was not sustainable. It will
>>> be interesting to see if google is able to survive and still be seen
>>> as a good guy.
>>>
>>> Ok, enough stirring of the pot.
>>>
>>> I appreciate your work and your willingness to engage in a little
>>> constructive dialog.
>>>
>>> LES
>>>
>>> On Jul 27, 4:10 pm, TorNorbye <tor.nor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 27, 12:29 pm, Ryan Waterer <aguitadel...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What Tor is saying that it is quite silly to think that Al Gore actually
>>>>> created/invented the internet.
>>>>>
>>>> No, that's not what I was trying to say -- I was saying it was silly
>>>> to repeat the meme that Al Gore -claimed- to have invented it.
>>>>
>>>> It was used (successfully) in a political campaign against him, but
>>>> that's in the past now and we can get back to facts. Yes, it was
>>>> clumsily worded (as is true for a lot of statements by politicians)
>>>> but no reasonable person would look at the complete statement and
>>>> believe he was claiming to have invented it.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, here's what Vince Cerf ("father of the internet") wrote
>>>> about this
>>>> story:http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/...
>>>>
>>>> -- Tor
>>>>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
