HP Compaq merger, here we go again.
Bill Pechter
Don't know if I ought to EBay 'em for quick cash. Maybe a PII or PIII
for my new motherboard.
The logo d|i|gi|t|a|l in maroon (yeah it's the reworked logo not the
good old blue and white). The standard green UNIX license plate and Live Free
Or Die. (New Hampshire)
The other side a California (The Migration State) plate with the letters
Y W8 4 HP.
Damned if this wasn't prescient. Why Wait For HP --- cause Palmer,
Pfeifer, Capellas and Compaq made a big mess of it. I'm not sure Carly
will do any better. My judgement on Lucent/AT&T managers is they
aren't much better than Compaq's whiz types.
Bill Pechter
Ex DEC, Ex-Concurrent, Ex-Alliant, Ex-IBM, recently Ex Lucent,
Proabably Ex-Computer Hardware Industry for life
Digital Had It Then, Don't you wish you could still buy it NOW!
--
--
Bill Gates is a Persian cat and a monocle away from being a
villain in a James Bond movie -- Dennis Miller
bpec...@shell.monmouth.com|pec...@pechter.dyndns.org
Ambrose, Joseph
sniff
"Bill Pechter" <pec...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:9n6iee$gf3$1...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org...
Michael Roach
In article <9n6iee$gf3$1...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org>,
Bill Pechter <pec...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote:
>Ex DEC, Ex-Concurrent, Ex-Alliant, Ex-IBM, recently Ex Lucent,
>Proabably Ex-Computer Hardware Industry for life
From now on, wherever I currently work is my future PPOE ;^)
--
Chemistry is applied theology.
-- Augustus Stanley Owsley III
Richard Tomkins
The original digital logo was in fact 7 letters hand carved in wood. Thus,
the logo, when placed on a specific background such as white, always cam out
as white, or placed on black came out as black. The blue logo, came about as
someone decided to add some colour to the world and arbitrarily painted the
letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
that we were henceforth DIGITAL and not DEC. Almost all the manufacturing
facilities worldwide had logo's based on the original design and if you look
carefully, you can see that the dots of the i's are not quite round, nor
square nor are they th esame size. The second i was in fact slightly, just
slightly, taller than the first.
The d|i|g|i|t|a|l variant of the log became popular with the use of
All-In-One and the VT-100 terminals and the LA120 DECWriters. The corporate
law group were horified by this widespread sue of the logo, as it was a
mis-use of the logo and could have led to the same problems Hoover had when
they lost exclusive rights to thier name, through neglect and misuse. This
is another reason why the logo was rebranded and stated. It happened around
the same time that Microsoft tried to get Windows established as a
trademark. Of course, by then, if Digtial had applied for a trademark, they
would have been refused then as well.
rtt
"Bill Pechter" <pec...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:9n6iee$gf3$1...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org...
antonio.carlini
> letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
> logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
> slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
> specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
I remember the logo change, so it
must have been the early 1990s.
I remember the complaints about how
much it had cost to change the colour
and the the shape of the dots :-)
Antonio
--
---------------
Antonio Carlini arca...@iee.org
Allodoxaphobia
> Antonio
Isn't it nice how companies remain focused on their core competencies?
Jonesy
--
| Marvin L Jones | jonz | W3DHJ | OS/2
| Gunnison, Colorado | @ | Jonesy | linux __
| 7,703' -- 2,345m | frontier.net | DM68mn SK
Chris Hedley
> On Thu, 06 Sep 2001 19:44:23 +0100, antonio.carlini scribbled:
> > must have been the early 1990s.
> >
> > I remember the complaints about how
> > much it had cost to change the colour
> > and the the shape of the dots :-)
It was about '92 IIRC, although it's difficult to pinpoint an exact
year since it took so long. The corporate rebranding was pretty
pathetic; the indecision about whether to call it "DEC" or "Digital"
pissed off the customers and even the colour of the logo was a
fiasco when it turned out that using an RGB scheme they'd just swapped
the proportions of red and blue.
> Isn't it nice how companies remain focused on their core competencies?
DEC/Digital's sole competencies over the sad last few years of its
existance seemed to be limited to endless reorganisations, where it
was a common complaint that there were frequently two or three of them
in action at any given time because of their increasing number and the
amount of time it took to filter down through the bureacracy; shedding
staff through attrition; selling the "crown jewels"; and a bizarre
explosion in the number of VPs, the number being inversely proportional
to the amount of people actually working. The latter point was reflected
in the burgeoning and unsustainable number of managers at all levels; so
many that the only solution was to use the infamous "matrix management"
in order that they all had someone to report to them.
I can only assume that Bob Palmer was hired with the deliberate task of
running down the company. I just loved the way that we had almost weekly
satellite broadcasts from that greasy twat where he would tell blatant
lies to all the employees that were pretty threadbare at the start. Still,
he got his enormous bonuses while he ran the company into the ground and
grossly devalued the assets of the shareholders, the customers and the
people who were trying to do the jobs that they once enjoyed.
Which company is Palmer destroying at the moment? Any other profession
and he'd have long since been declared unemployable at the very least.
Chris.
Jim Thomas
Chris> It was about '92 IIRC, although it's difficult to pinpoint an exact
Chris> year since it took so long.
Chris> ...
Chris> ... and a bizarre explosion in the number of VPs, the number being
Chris> inversely proportional to the amount of people actually working.
Chris> The latter point was reflected in the burgeoning and unsustainable
Chris> number of managers at all levels;
Chris> ...
Sigh :-( Some may remember my bitching about the increase in middle
manglement when I left in 1975 :-(
Nothead
Lisa
Lisa
Lisa
"Bill Pechter" <pec...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org> wrote in message
news:9n6iee$gf3$1...@i4got.pechter.dyndns.org...
jmfb...@aol.com
"Richard Tomkins" <tomk...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>The original digital logo was in fact 7 letters hand carved in wood. Thus,
>the logo, when placed on a specific background such as white, always cam
out
>as white, or placed on black came out as black. The blue logo, came about
as
>someone decided to add some colour to the world and arbitrarily painted
the
>letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
>logo was in fact a very important element of the firm,
Nope. We already knew that it was important in the 70s. You should
have heard us carp about having to put it on all of our interoffice
memos :-).
> ..it was changed
>slightly, it became maroon,
It became maroon because Palmer thought the blue smacked of
Ken Olsen. So they paid somebody a lot of money to evaluate
which color would make the customers feel warm and fuzzy.
>and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
>specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
>that we were henceforth DIGITAL and not DEC.
That again was a Palmerism to remove all traces of the old
company. When the edict came down that nobody should speak
the swear "DEC", morale took a nosedive and it never recovered.
Managers became snooty so that noone was allowed to greet
a higher up in the halls. Sheesh! When I started working for
DEC, I said hi to Ken Olsen just about every morning and he
said hi back.
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
jmfb...@aol.com
"antonio.carlini" <arca...@iee.org> wrote:
>
>
>> letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that
the
>> logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
>> slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
>> specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used
and
>
>I remember the logo change, so it
>must have been the early 1990s.
>
>I remember the complaints about how
>much it had cost to change the colour
>and the the shape of the dots :-)
Not to mention how much it cost to choose the damn color. This
was all done at a time when Digital was bleeding its life
blood on the floor and cost cutting, aka eating one's seed corn,
was going on at the same time.
jmfb...@aol.com
They had Flemming doing make-do work with the management structure
setup so that nothing he did would make any money. You know how
depressing that would have been for him. It turns out that Palmer
had two separate groups doing exactly the same work. One of the
reasons that fucking asshole is on my shit list is the fact
that they didn't use Jim well nor treated his work well. What
a fucking waste.
Bill Todd
<jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9nabgc$cpa$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> In article <jfPl7.46550$w75.18...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>,
> "Richard Tomkins" <tomk...@home.com> wrote:
...
> > ..it was changed
> >slightly, it became maroon,
>
> It became maroon because Palmer thought the blue smacked of
> Ken Olsen. So they paid somebody a lot of money to evaluate
> which color would make the customers feel warm and fuzzy.
I'm not sure about the logo color itself, but 'Chinese Red' became the
corporate color before I left DEC in 1987.
>
> >and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
> >specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
> >that we were henceforth DIGITAL and not DEC.
>
> That again was a Palmerism to remove all traces of the old
> company. When the edict came down that nobody should speak
> the swear "DEC", morale took a nosedive and it never recovered.
Unfortunately, that also occurred under Ken's watch, before I left.
- bill
ChrisQ
>
> They had Flemming doing make-do work with the management structure
> setup so that nothing he did would make any money. You know how
> depressing that would have been for him. It turns out that Palmer
> had two separate groups doing exactly the same work. One of the
> reasons that fucking asshole is on my shit list is the fact
> that they didn't use Jim well nor treated his work well. What
> a fucking waste.
>
ROFL... Feel strongly about this then ?...
Chris
Charles Richmond
>
> The original digital logo was in fact 7 letters hand carved in wood. Thus,
> the logo, when placed on a specific background such as white, always cam out
> as white, or placed on black came out as black. The blue logo, came about as
> someone decided to add some colour to the world and arbitrarily painted the
> letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
> logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
> slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
> specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
> that we were henceforth DIGITAL and not DEC. Almost all the manufacturing
> facilities worldwide had logo's based on the original design and if you look
> carefully, you can see that the dots of the i's are not quite round, nor
> square nor are they th esame size. The second i was in fact slightly, just
> slightly, taller than the first.
>
and then there was the Digital-20, instead of the DEC-20...
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> Which company is Palmer destroying at the moment? Any other profession
> and he'd have long since been declared unemployable at the very least.
>
after fucking the world rotten...in the U.S., they get bonuses and stock
options. It is interesting to note that the companies in the U.S. who
have laid off (i.e., sacked) the most workers...are the ones where the
CEO's are making the most money...
Charles Richmond
the S.O.B.??? Even without Palmer, the VAX people would probably
*not* let TW and JMF do any real work to promote the 36-bit line...
/BAH, when you talk about DEC, you remind me of some of the ladies
on the radio talk shows: "Yeah, my husband comes home drunk twice
a week and beats the hell out of me...but other than that, he is
a really *good* man." Your DEC was the DEC of the 60's and 70's...
and I fear that unfortunately DEC will be more remembered for the
80's and 90's. (At least outside of the "old fart" circles that
exist in <a.f.c.> and <alt.sys.pdp{8/10/11}>...of which I claim with
pride that *I* am a part, however small.)
Hey, maybe we could get Gates and Balmer to hire Palmer to run Mi$uck...
at least *there* he might be able to do some good...if he could
manage to run Mi$uck into the ground!!! The way the unwashed masses of
computer userdom are hypnotized, even Palmer might have a hard time
to destroy the place...
Andy Newman
>...in the U.S., they get bonuses and stock options.
Unfortunately it's not just in the U.S anymore.
Jim Thomas
Charles> It is interesting to note that the companies in the U.S. who have
Charles> laid off (i.e., sacked) the most workers...are the ones where the
Charles> CEO's are making the most money...
Of course they are. They are saving the company lots of money.
[what's the smiley for thick irony and sarcasm?]
Jim
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
>Hey, maybe we could get Gates and Balmer to hire Palmer to run
>Mi$uck... at least *there* he might be able to do some good...
>if he could manage to run Mi$uck into the ground!!! The way the
>unwashed masses of computer userdom are hypnotized, even Palmer
>might have a hard time to destroy the place...
Maybe we just need a few more like him. I nominate Irving Gould
and Mehdi Ali, who systematically ran Commodore into the ground
while skimming off salaries of $1.75M per year - more than IBM's
head honchos were making at the time.
--
cgi...@nowhere.in.particular (Charlie Gibbs)
I'm switching ISPs - watch this space.
Charlie Gibbs
(Charles Richmond) writes:
>Chris Hedley wrote:
>
>> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>>
>> Which company is Palmer destroying at the moment? Any other
>> profession and he'd have long since been declared unemployable
>> at the very least.
>
>At least old dictators have the decency to shoot themselves in the
>head after fucking the world rotten...in the U.S., they get bonuses
>and stock options. It is interesting to note that the companies in
>the U.S. who have laid off (i.e., sacked) the most workers...are the
>ones where the CEO's are making the most money...
At least until they run the company into the ground. Of course,
by then they've used their golden parachute...
Wilko Bulte
>> letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
>> logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
>> slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
>> specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used and
>I remember the logo change, so it
>must have been the early 1990s.
>I remember the complaints about how
>much it had cost to change the colour
>and the the shape of the dots :-)
1991 IIRC. I was working for Philips Information Systems that was bought by
DEC. Or rather, we operated under Digital Equipment Enterprise (DEE).
We had a black logo with white letters on our rooftop. And DEE was printed
on our otherwise standard DEC badge.
After +- 6 months this rooftop logo became the familiar blue one.
And in the same year the burgundy red (that is the official color; not
maroon) logo came into fashion.
Sometime during that year I was wondering if I should go work in rooftop
logo supply ;-) ;-)
W/
--
| / o / / _ Arnhem, The Netherlands email: wi...@FreeBSD.org
|/|/ / / /( (_) Bulte
jmfb...@aol.com
"Bill Todd" <bill...@foo.mv.com> wrote:
>
><jmfb...@aol.com> wrote in message news:9nabgc$cpa$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>> In article <jfPl7.46550$w75.18...@news3.rdc2.on.home.com>,
>> "Richard Tomkins" <tomk...@home.com> wrote:
>
>....
>
>> > ..it was changed
>> >slightly, it became maroon,
>>
>> It became maroon because Palmer thought the blue smacked of
>> Ken Olsen. So they paid somebody a lot of money to evaluate
>> which color would make the customers feel warm and fuzzy.
>
>I'm not sure about the logo color itself, but 'Chinese Red' became the
>corporate color before I left DEC in 1987.
My calling cards were the blue. I got sick in '87. I remember
JMF's calling cards having to be repainted after that.
>
>>
>> >and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
>> >specific rules came into play as to how it was to be used or not used
and
>> >that we were henceforth DIGITAL and not DEC.
>>
>> That again was a Palmerism to remove all traces of the old
>> company. When the edict came down that nobody should speak
>> the swear "DEC", morale took a nosedive and it never recovered.
>
>Unfortunately, that also occurred under Ken's watch, before I left.
Nah, that morale plummit was a dimple compared to what happened after
that. Every programmer that I talked to had their innovation
instincts beat out of them.
jmfb...@aol.com
anniversary declaring that the DECsystem-1070 was a 32-bit
machine. Fucking idiot.
jmfb...@aol.com
<grin> You can kick me and get away with it--but don't hurt my
man. On top of that, I abhor wasted opportunities.
jmfb...@aol.com
The Board of Directors.
> ..Even without Palmer, the VAX people would probably
>*not* let TW and JMF do any real work to promote the 36-bit line...
We were already fighting that issue in 1978 or so. As of 1983,
I was working towards the goal of solidifying the TOPS-10
package so that, if customers wanted to run the system as an
end node for pure timesharing services, they'ld have all of the
tools to maintain their own with canned build and package
procedures so each site wouldn't have to go through what I had
experienced. I also figured that somebody, somewhere would
really build a desk top PDP-10 so the software packages had
to be as self-consistent as I could possibly make it.
>
>/BAH, when you talk about DEC, you remind me of some of the ladies
>on the radio talk shows: "Yeah, my husband comes home drunk twice
>a week and beats the hell out of me...but other than that, he is
>a really *good* man." Your DEC was the DEC of the 60's and 70's...
>and I fear that unfortunately DEC will be more remembered for the
>80's and 90's. (At least outside of the "old fart" circles that
>exist in <a.f.c.> and <alt.sys.pdp{8/10/11}>...of which I claim with
>pride that *I* am a part, however small.)
Now I'm really puzzled. I believe I bitch more about DEC than
praise it.
>
>Hey, maybe we could get Gates and Balmer to hire Palmer to run Mi$uck...
Gates already has Bell and Cutler; no more needs to be done.
>at least *there* he might be able to do some good...if he could
>manage to run Mi$uck into the ground!!! The way the unwashed masses of
>computer userdom are hypnotized, even Palmer might have a hard time
>to destroy the place...
Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned important.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
> the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
> of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned important.
Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to continue
as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to believe that
Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential is there, but I don't
really believe it would be that bad.
--
--
"Star Wars Moral Number 17: Teddy bears are dangerous in herds."
Chris Hedley
> 1991 IIRC. I was working for Philips Information Systems that was bought by
> DEC. Or rather, we operated under Digital Equipment Enterprise (DEE).
That is another one I still feel bitter about; Philips IS was a really nice
company to work for until around 1990 when control of the company had been
siezed by the incompetents amongst our glorious leaders, after which it was
all downhill, then DEC took it over and it got worse. Unfortunately this
type of extremely poor and incompetent leadership has become the norm over
most of my career; once a good little company has been sucked into the maw
of this league of idiots it has a year or two, maybe three, before it goes
out of business, by which time many of the key staff will have left because
of the intolerable conditions (not that it would've made any difference if
they'd stayed)
Chris.
lysse
> <grin> I got to hear Palmer make a speech at my 25-year
> anniversary declaring that the DECsystem-1070 was a 32-bit
> machine. Fucking idiot.
At which point did you all start referring to him as "a few bits short
of a DECsystem"...?
--
lysse at lysse dot co dot uk
"Why are your problems always so much bigger than everyone else's?"
"Because they're mine." -- Ally McBeal
Dave Daniels
Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
> options. It is interesting to note that the companies in the U.S. who
> have laid off (i.e., sacked) the most workers...are the ones where the
> CEO's are making the most money...
There is a good example of this sort of thing here in the UK. There
is a company in the telecoms sector called Marconi. Last year the
shares were worth over 1200 pence and they are now down to just
29. I understand that the reason for the decline is olympic-class
mismanagement (as well as all the current technology sector woes).
The company has not gone bust, but the CEO resigned last week with
a payoff of 1,000,000 UKP. This has gone down like the proverbial
lead balloon with many people. Actually, I'm quite enjoying the
Marconi saga. Obviously it is not in the slightest bit funny to the
people who work there, but it is a hoot for the rest of us.
Dave Daniels
jmfb...@aol.com
sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>In article <9nd3el$i2m$4...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
>> the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
>> of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned important.
>
>Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to continue
>as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to believe that
>Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential is there, but I don't
>really believe it would be that bad.
No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
I don't know about the business side of it.
Charles Richmond
Mi$uck ran into the ground to secure their world dominance. Sure,
it would take a while to sort it all out...but IMHO the computer
industry would *not* go poof...
Charles Richmond
>
> In article <3B9903DF...@ev1.net>,
> Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Then you must have called them "DigitalWriters" instead of "DECWriters"...
> >and then there was the Digital-20, instead of the DEC-20...
> >
> <grin> I got to hear Palmer make a speech at my 25-year
> anniversary declaring that the DECsystem-1070 was a 32-bit
> machine. Fucking idiot.
>
finding trip", Dilbert said he should go on a "clue finding
trip". (;-))
lysse
> No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
Intel have been lining up with Linux recently; not as much as AMD,
perhaps, but I think if Microsoft goes down, Intel would probably
not follow suit. What might happen is that we see a regrowth of
other architectures - if you don't have to carry Microsoft, and
all your software comes with source code anyway, you're free to
recompile for any architecture that comes through the door. We
might even see the return of the Alpha. But whilst Intel would
suffer from a complete lack of x86 sales, the XScale might keep
it alive. And they can drop x86 compatibility from the IA64,
thereby removing their most significant hurdle with getting that
processor out the door (as I understand it, x86 performance on
IA64s remains pathetic).
In short, the demise of Microsoft might just liberate the market;
certainly I think we'd survive it just fine.
Personally I'm just waiting for Transmeta to release a PDP-10
code-morpher for their chips...
jmfb...@aol.com
Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> In article <9ndbqs$g95$1...@daydream.shannon.net>,
>> sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>> >In article <9nd3el$i2m$4...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
>> >> the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
>> >> of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned
important.
>> >
>> >Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to
continue
>> >as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to believe that
>> >Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential is there, but I don't
>> >really believe it would be that bad.
>>
>> No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>>
>> I don't know about the business side of it.
>>
>IMHO there are *many* who would take up the slack...the ones that
>Mi$uck ran into the ground to secure their world dominance. Sure,
>it would take a while to sort it all out...but IMHO the computer
>industry would *not* go poof...
>
within a company is now dispersed and it will _never_ be restored
to the original dynamic. Thus, a learning curve gets involved
when any aspect of the biz recurs. Why do you think that Digital
nose-dived? They destroyed their knowledge pool to the point
that not much got done and _distributed_.
jmfb...@aol.com
lysse <ly...@retriever.lysse.co.uk> wrote:
>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>> No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>
>Intel have been lining up with Linux recently; not as much as AMD,
>perhaps, but I think if Microsoft goes down, Intel would probably
>not follow suit. What might happen is that we see a regrowth of
>other architectures - if you don't have to carry Microsoft, and
>all your software comes with source code anyway, you're free to
>recompile for any architecture that comes through the door. We
>might even see the return of the Alpha. But whilst Intel would
>suffer from a complete lack of x86 sales, the XScale might keep
>it alive. And they can drop x86 compatibility from the IA64,
>thereby removing their most significant hurdle with getting that
>processor out the door (as I understand it, x86 performance on
>IA64s remains pathetic).
>
>In short, the demise of Microsoft might just liberate the market;
>certainly I think we'd survive it just fine.
A demise will not liberate the market! It will reduce choice.
It is the _business practice_ of Misoft that is eliminating
competition. I am told that the company knows how to put out
good games. There are a couple of able people in that org.
As much as I despise the crap they produce, I am not about
to try to play god and 'decide' for everybody else that it
is crap. That would make me a bad ethically as Gates is.
>
>Personally I'm just waiting for Transmeta to release a PDP-10
>code-morpher for their chips...
Code morpher? What's that?
Richard C. Steiner
>A demise will not liberate the market! It will reduce choice.
>It is the _business practice_ of Misoft that is eliminating
>competition.
Perhaps, but its their proprietary file formats that are causing business
lock-in on Microsoft applications, and its the inflexibility of their OSes
(and sometimes their instability, though that's less of an issue with the
NT family) that is causing support headaches in IT organizations.
>I am told that the company knows how to put out good games.
Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> rste...@visi.com >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
Written online using slrn 0.9.5.4!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Richard C. Steiner
>No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
I left the Microsoft fold nine years ago, and my employer uses mainly Macs
and Solaris desktop boxes in my area, so the impact on me would be minimal.
The company is mainly driven by IBM and Unisys mainframe hardware and Sun
servers, not Windows.
Most ISPs are Unix-based (Solaris, BSD flavors) and provide Windows servers
only because some customers want server-side features specific to them.
Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux, and
Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting MacOS X?
Mike Schaeffer
> In article <9ni9qu$ke9$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >A demise will not liberate the market! It will reduce choice.
> >It is the _business practice_ of Misoft that is eliminating
> >competition.
>
> Perhaps, but its their proprietary file formats that are causing business
> lock-in on Microsoft applications,
Although with Office 97, they do seem to be standardizing on one file
format that will retain backwards compatibility as Office progresses. If
that's true, it'll be easier for 3rd parties to develop converters and
viewers, documentation or not.
> and its the inflexibility of their OSes
This is my biggest problem with Microsoft, and it extends past their
operating system products. _Everything_ they produce is quite intolerant
of being extended past Microsoft's expectations of how the product will be
used. I once saw a graph posted (to this forum?) that describes it well
MS
| *
| * . Unix, etc.
| *...
| ...
| ...*
^ |... **
| | **
W |**
+--------|----
c -> |
|
typical consumer?
c = Complexity of problem
W = Work involved in solution
The point being that Microsoft starts out being easier to use, but once
you hit the wall, you hit it hard. In contrast, Unix tends to be harder
to get started on, but easier once you get past the introductory stuff.
Perhaps the reason Microsoft does so well is that the point at which
Microsoft operates is below the break-even point for Unix. Perhaps, due
to the network effect (compatibility, etc.) Microsoft can effectively sell
to people working slightly above the break-even point.
IMHO, the best example of why Microsoft's curve is shaped as it is... the
Wizard. sigh.
> >I am told that the company knows how to put out good games.
>
> Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
> actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
> include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
Isn't that the model for most game companies? The developer is quite
different from the publisher?
-Mike
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
>In article <3B9B9DA6...@ev1.net>,
>Charles Richmond <rich...@ev1.net> wrote:
>
>>jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>> In article <9ndbqs$g95$1...@daydream.shannon.net>,
>>> sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <9nd3el$i2m$4...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
>>>>> the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
>>>>> of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned
>>>>> important.
>>>>
>>>> Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to
>>>> continue as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to
>>>> believe that Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential
>>>> is there, but I don't really believe it would be that bad.
>>>
>>> No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>>> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>>>
>>> I don't know about the business side of it.
>>
>>IMHO there are *many* who would take up the slack...the ones that
>>Mi$uck ran into the ground to secure their world dominance. Sure,
>>it would take a while to sort it all out...but IMHO the computer
>>industry would *not* go poof...
Agreed. At worst, it would go back to the way it was 15 years ago,
and a lot of useful work was being done even then. Considering that
Microsoft has held the industry back about 10 years, that might not
be as bad as it sounds. How many times have you said, "If only I
had a chance to do it over..."?
>Sigh! Consider layoffs. The knowledge pool that was organized
>within a company is now dispersed and it will _never_ be restored
>to the original dynamic. Thus, a learning curve gets involved
>when any aspect of the biz recurs. Why do you think that Digital
>nose-dived? They destroyed their knowledge pool to the point
>that not much got done and _distributed_.
I think you're being overly pessimistic. Sure, some knowledge pools
might be dispersed - but do you really care about how to fiddle with
fonts in the latest version of Word? There are huge non-M$ knowledge
pools out there (Unix/Linux and IBM mainframes, to name two), plus
many smaller ones (PDP-10?) which would be able to flourish in the
absence of Microsoft's corporate sabotage. The people who spend
their time playing computer games (and I include most web browsing
in this) might have to find useful work, and they'll be out of the
way of those who can do it.
Richard C. Steiner
Mike Schaeffer wrote:
It's true for the large comglomerates like Sierra, but not true for the
smaller companies like Westwood, Blizzard, or Stardock.
I just wanted to point out that the game programming talent which created
these games isn't necessarily inside Microsoft at all.
Richard C. Steiner
>Agreed. At worst, it would go back to the way it was 15 years ago,
>and a lot of useful work was being done even then.
Not that far. Remember that OS/2 Warp 4 was cutting edge at the time (at
least in most respects), and it was released in 1996.
That was only five years ago.
Because of the speed of industry change in the recent past, it only SEEMS
like it was 15 years ago. :-)
Alexandre Pechtchanski
wrote:
>Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
>actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
>include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
Can someone name _one_ Microsoft product (except spectacular flops, e.g., Bob)?
I mean something that they developed, not stole/bought/bought with the company.
--
[ When replying, remove *'s from address ]
Alexandre Pechtchanski, Systems Manager, RUH, NY
lysse
> Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting MacOS X?
It always surprised me that Apple called a halt to the clone market.
Didn't Jobs do that as almost his first act on rejoining? All became
clearer when he announced a large injection of MS cash, and since
then, Apple seem to have avoided any hint that they might want to
threaten MS by porting MacOS anything to Intel. I wonder what would
change their minds...?
lysse
>>In short, the demise of Microsoft might just liberate the market;
>>certainly I think we'd survive it just fine.
> A demise will not liberate the market! It will reduce choice.
But people would still be able to use the Microsoft systems; they
just won't be getting WIndows pre-installed on the computers they
get from the high street. But they will almost certainly still be
getting _something_ pre-installed; I think it would probably be
Linux, but maybe there'd be a BeOS renaissance.
The people producing software for Windows are doing so not because
it's the best platform, but because it's the default; almost every
computer is supplied with Microsoft pre-installed, and rumour has
it that their licence agreements prohibit the co-installation of
other OSes. If suddenly some other platform came pre-installed,
there'd be a bit of a lull as everyone converted, but thereafter
business would almost certainly continue as usual.
And MS wouldn't die quickly. They'd linger and linger, but with
steadily less and less market presence, until they decided it
wasn't worth their effort any more and frantically looked around
for a buyer for their technology line. Hmm... having shafted
every other company in the field, who's going to step up to bail
them out...?
> It is the _business practice_ of Misoft that is eliminating
> competition.
I know. But without that business practice as a factor, won't
companies be springing up to fill the gaps? The software is
already available, it's just not penetrating most people's
radars, and to a large extent that's _because_ of their business
practice. Their disappearance from the market still scares me
much less than if this business practice is allowed to continue
unchecked - and with the implicit approval of the current
administration of the USA.
> I am told that the company knows how to put out
> good games. There are a couple of able people in that org.
They won't disappear with the company, though. I'm sure they'll
be able to find somewhere else to play.
> As much as I despise the crap they produce, I am not about
> to try to play god and 'decide' for everybody else that it
> is crap. That would make me a bad ethically as Gates is.
I don't think there's any chance at all that MS will be snuffed
out from "on high" (at least for the next 3 years). But if they
go through with their rental plans, the market might just put
paid to them, as everyone shifts anyway. At the very least, MS
would find itself forced back to just the home desktop. Which
seems to be where they want to be anyway, judging by their XBox
activities. Businesses will continue; most would already have
made the switch, otherwise MS wouldn't have withdrawn from the
market in the first place.
As far as deciding for everyone else that MS = shite, I think
most people are aware that their computers shouldn't be crashing
twice a day and require a reinstall every 6 months, but they
aren't quite certain what their choices are. Most people, I
suspect, think that the Windows screen is part of the computer,
and don't realise they can replace it. Most people don't need
every last feature of Word and Excel, and would be fine with
StarOffice; Konqueror or Mozilla would meet most people's
browsing needs; and if it came pre-installed, most people
probably wouldn't think twice about it.
The games market might be the only place where MS proves to have
real staying power, because of the XBox. But even there, should
Linux become the default install, Linux would become the natural
target for anything you can't fit into an XBox.
Call me an overoptimistic fool if you want, but hell, I've got to
have _some_ hope. "MS has a stranglehold on the industry, but if
it dies that industry will cease to be" is far too depressing.
>>Personally I'm just waiting for Transmeta to release a PDP-10
>>code-morpher for their chips...
> Code morpher? What's that?
Transmeta's term for dynamic translation. Their CPUs are x86-
compatible, but don't look anything like an x86 internally;
instead, a small, smart piece of software translates x86 code
into Transmeta code on the fly, caching and optimising anything
that looks like it'll repay the effort.
Don Chiasson
"Alexandre Pechtchanski" <alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu> wrote in message
news:f2bqptg20tk2ocklt...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:55:51 GMT, rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C.
Steiner)
> wrote:
>
> >Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name
> >(at least to date) are actually written by third parties
> >and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
> >include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
>
> Can someone name _one_ Microsoft product (except
> spectacular flops, e.g., Bob)? I mean something that
> they developed, not stole/bought/bought with the
> company.
Explorapedia -- an interactive children's encyclopedia from the
days of multimedia. The development of this product is documented by
Fred Moody in "I Sing the Body Electronic." Interesting read.
M$ dropped several multimedia products including M$ Dogs,
M$ Dinosaurs, and others. I was surprised these products were
dropped because publishing costs must have been low. I assume
these products did not generate enough revenue and the company
put more effort into where M$ made lots of money,
Windows, Office, etc.
As a movie fan, I very much liked Cinemania. That would
have required annual updates, but was, IMHO, a great product.
Don
e-mail: it's not not, it's hot.
Pete Fenelon
> As a movie fan, I very much liked Cinemania. That would
> have required annual updates, but was, IMHO, a great product.
>
The only piece of MS software I've ever actually bought, as opposed to
receiving with a new machine was Cinemania 94. Prevented Windows from
becoming shelfware for a few months, anyway, and was fairly useful
before imdb.com really got into its stride...
pete
John Carlyle-Clarke
<Pine.LNX.4.33.010910...@eris.io.com>:
[snip]
>The point being that Microsoft starts out being easier to use, but once
>you hit the wall, you hit it hard. In contrast, Unix tends to be harder
>to get started on, but easier once you get past the introductory stuff.
>Perhaps the reason Microsoft does so well is that the point at which
>Microsoft operates is below the break-even point for Unix. Perhaps, due
>to the network effect (compatibility, etc.) Microsoft can effectively
>sell to people working slightly above the break-even point.
>
>IMHO, the best example of why Microsoft's curve is shaped as it is...
>the Wizard. sigh.
>
[snip]
I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I'm just getting over the
crest of the curve on Linux and its a lovely feeling.
I wanted to say though that even a wizard *could* be a good thing. IME a
good way to approach a new and unknown task is to take a template or
sample or generic piece and modify it to your needs. As any fule kno,
most Unixy things come with sample config files. Similarly, a lot of
programming tasks can be easier if you take a demo or sample and
add/subtract until it does what you want.
If a wizard asks you a few questions and generates a text configuration
or other output _that_you_have_access_to_ then that's fine. That's just
like a sample config but slightly smarter. It's the fact that the
wizards configure some mysterious internal binary gubbins that never sees
the light of day that makes them crappy. You then have to spend hours
trying to work out where they have hidden that damn option that you want
to change[1].
My point is a well-done wizard would not be necessarily evil. YMMV.
[1] Usually only to discover that you can't change it anyway.
jmfb...@aol.com
>
>>A demise will not liberate the market! It will reduce choice.
>>It is the _business practice_ of Misoft that is eliminating
>>competition.
>
>Perhaps, but its their proprietary file formats that are causing business
>lock-in on Microsoft applications, and its the inflexibility of their OSes
>(and sometimes their instability, though that's less of an issue with the
>NT family) that is causing support headaches in IT organizations.
>
>>I am told that the company knows how to put out good games.
>
>Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
>actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
>include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
>
Gates choose the games division after he dropped the CEO part?
Sheesh! Just when I thought I had it all figured out...
jmfb...@aol.com
>Mike Schaeffer wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001, Richard C. Steiner wrote:
>>
>>> Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
>>> actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
>>> include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
>>
>>Isn't that the model for most game companies? The developer is quite
>>different from the publisher?
>
>It's true for the large comglomerates like Sierra, but not true for the
>smaller companies like Westwood, Blizzard, or Stardock.
>
>I just wanted to point out that the game programming talent which created
>these games isn't necessarily inside Microsoft at all.
I've been lurking in a game newsgroup. The development cycles
and processes of those games sound eerily like what we always
went through when we did a development release of TOPS-10.
jmfb...@aol.com
joh...@nospam.europlacer.co.uk (John Carlyle-Clarke) wrote:
>Mike Schaeffer <msc...@mschaef.com> wrote in
><Pine.LNX.4.33.010910...@eris.io.com>:
>
>[snip]
>
>>The point being that Microsoft starts out being easier to use, but once
>>you hit the wall, you hit it hard. In contrast, Unix tends to be harder
>>to get started on, but easier once you get past the introductory stuff.
>>Perhaps the reason Microsoft does so well is that the point at which
>>Microsoft operates is below the break-even point for Unix. Perhaps, due
>>to the network effect (compatibility, etc.) Microsoft can effectively
>>sell to people working slightly above the break-even point.
>>
>>IMHO, the best example of why Microsoft's curve is shaped as it is...
>>the Wizard. sigh.
>>
>
>[snip]
>I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis. I'm just getting over the
>crest of the curve on Linux and its a lovely feeling.
I'm about to commit the first step. Even with all of my
background, I still can't predict the timing of crest
achievement.
>
>I wanted to say though that even a wizard *could* be a good thing. IME a
>good way to approach a new and unknown task is to take a template or
>sample or generic piece and modify it to your needs. As any fule kno,
>most Unixy things come with sample config files. Similarly, a lot of
>programming tasks can be easier if you take a demo or sample and
>add/subtract until it does what you want.
>
>If a wizard asks you a few questions and generates a text configuration
>or other output _that_you_have_access_to_ then that's fine. That's just
>like a sample config but slightly smarter. It's the fact that the
>wizards configure some mysterious internal binary gubbins that never sees
>the light of day that makes them crappy. You then have to spend hours
>trying to work out where they have hidden that damn option that you want
>to change[1].
Yeah! LONG LIVE ASCII!!!!!
>
>My point is a well-done wizard would not be necessarily evil. YMMV.
You Unix guys cook your wizards?
>[1] Usually only to discover that you can't change it anyway.
>
I always believed in options being in ASCII even if the
program has change capability. There's nothing like
curing a crippled system with a TECO command string.
DDT should only be used to show off ;-)).
jmfb...@aol.com
Alexandre Pechtchanski <alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Sep 2001 17:55:51 GMT, rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C.
Steiner)
>wrote:
>
>>Most games put out with the Microsoft brand name (at least to date) are
>>actually written by third parties and marketed by Microsoft. Examples
>>include AOE and AOE2, Midtown Madness, etc.
>
>Can someone name _one_ Microsoft product (except spectacular flops, e.g.,
Bob)?
>I mean something that they developed, not stole/bought/bought with the
company.
>
(which surprised the hell out of me because I didn't think the
company folklore allowed anybody to program their way out of a
an open space.
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins
>Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
>the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
>of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned important.
I don't think so. If microsoft went poof, the old versions of windows
could still be shipped. Other systems could be shipped. Office needs
can be met by other alternatives (such as Star Office) just as well as
with microsoft products, and server needs can already be better met with
other alternatives.
There would be a temporary hit in the consumer sector, but at least the
low end ($400) is already getting away from windows. New consumer
software would be written to the new platform(s).
It would be a blurp, but a small one.
hawk
--
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins, Esq. /"\ ASCII ribbon campaign
doc...@psu.edu Smeal 178 (814) 375-4700 \ / against HTML mail
These opinions will not be those of X and postings
Penn State until it pays my retainer. / \
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins
Alexandre Pechtchanski <alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu> wrote:
>Can someone name _one_ Microsoft product (except spectacular flops, e.g., Bob)?
>I mean something that they developed, not stole/bought/bought with the company.
1) Altair BASIC (well, there's a "steal" question about use of
resources, but I'll give them innovation credit for putting a high level
language on the little machine.
2) The *usable* footnote in Word 1.0 (mac) in 1984. [Although I've been
told there was a C64 word processor with footnotes available the same
year. I'd stopped paying attention to 8 bit rehashes by then, but I
seriously doubt that it was near the level/usability of Word's]
3) Bob. [Yeah, you excluded him, but these are all of the innovations I
know of, and it gets the list up to three entries :) ]
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins
>> Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting MacOS X?
>It always surprised me that Apple called a halt to the clone market.
>Didn't Jobs do that as almost his first act on rejoining?
Yes, and under the circumstances, it was a good move. Apple wanted the
cloners to take over the low end. Instead, they paid royalties based on
the low end buy ate the profitable high end. Their cost advantage
wasn't based on efficiency, but in not bearing the huge R&D
costs--afpple for all intents and purposes designed their machines for
them.
Apple didn't so much halt the clone market as demand royalties based on
its R&D costs. That comes to several hundred dollars per machine. THe
clone makers were unwilling to meet these fees, and there was no room on
either end to split the difference.
However, I have no serious doubt that apple has OS X running internally
on x86. However, short of an abdication by microsof, it is unlikely
that they could sell and support it for a mere couple of hundred
dollars a copy.
>All became
>clearer when he announced a large injection of MS cash, and since
>then, Apple seem to have avoided any hint that they might want to
>threaten MS by porting MacOS anything to Intel. I wonder what would
>change their minds...?
Apple is a hardware company that uses its software for an edge. Selling
OSX/86 for $200 a copy would just not make sense without a *massive*
market share. That "injection" of cash coincided with dismissing
litigation against MS; it was settlement money, not a bailout.
Bob Kaplow
> The original digital logo was in fact 7 letters hand carved in wood. Thus,
> the logo, when placed on a specific background such as white, always cam out
> as white, or placed on black came out as black. The blue logo, came about as
> someone decided to add some colour to the world and arbitrarily painted the
> letters. At some point in the 80's, management suddenly realized that the
> logo was in fact a very important element of the firm, it was changed
> slightly, it became maroon, and got cast as Letraset letters, and very
It's not maroon, it's RED. And it changed from BLUE to RED when all they saw
was RED ink, and management had to figure out what to do with it.
Charles Richmond
>
> In article <f2bqptg20tk2ocklt...@4ax.com>,
> Alexandre Pechtchanski <alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu> wrote:
>
> >Can someone name _one_ Microsoft product (except spectacular flops, e.g., Bob)?
> >I mean something that they developed, not stole/bought/bought with the company.
>
> 1) Altair BASIC (well, there's a "steal" question about use of
> resources, but I'll give them innovation credit for putting a high level
> language on the little machine.
>
these flowcharts were public domain. And although some thought it *not*
possible, IIRC there were others working to put BASIC on a microcomputer.
>
> 2) The *usable* footnote in Word 1.0 (mac) in 1984. [Although I've been
> told there was a C64 word processor with footnotes available the same
> year. I'd stopped paying attention to 8 bit rehashes by then, but I
> seriously doubt that it was near the level/usability of Word's]
>
everything else that Mi$uck puts out...except maybe for Bob.
>
> 3) Bob. [Yeah, you excluded him, but these are all of the innovations I
> know of, and it gets the list up to three entries :) ]
>
was roped into doing it by her...
jmfb...@aol.com
>
>>No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>>no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>
>I left the Microsoft fold nine years ago, and my employer uses mainly Macs
>and Solaris desktop boxes in my area, so the impact on me would be
minimal.
>The company is mainly driven by IBM and Unisys mainframe hardware and Sun
>servers, not Windows.
>
>Most ISPs are Unix-based (Solaris, BSD flavors) and provide Windows
servers
>only because some customers want server-side features specific to them.
I'm talking about the average, everyday grunt who never heard
of a computer until this Misoft biz. Do you remember (you might
be too young) how scared people were of touching any equipment?
Do you remember how people assumed that, if the computer says so,
it must be correct?
>
>Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux, and
>Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
It will if it can't sell to the masses. Production will go down.
Income will go down. The first place businesses seem to cut
is their seed corn these days. I have no reason to believe that Intel
hasn't become infected with bookkeeppers running the show too.
>
>Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting MacOS X?
>
AFAIK, Apple has their head wedged.
jmfb...@aol.com
That is possible. I based most of my planning on worse case
scenarios.
> .. Sure, some knowledge pools
>might be dispersed - but do you really care about how to fiddle with
>fonts in the latest version of Word? There are huge non-M$ knowledge
>pools out there (Unix/Linux and IBM mainframes, to name two), plus
>many smaller ones (PDP-10?) which would be able to flourish in the
>absence of Microsoft's corporate sabotage.
I'm thinking about the technology production gap that would happen
with an abrupt Misoft stoppage. I've got no problem with them
digging their own grave over time.
> .. The people who spend
>their time playing computer games (and I include most web browsing
>in this) might have to find useful work,
I'm actually using that pasttime to get them to learn about a
system. Just think of the kids who want to play Haunt but
have to install and startup the -10 OS first.
> .. and they'll be out of the way of those who can do it.
>
I'm trying to get those kids in the way and hooked on learning
about how an OS works underneath the covers which is an anti-Misoft
atttitude.
jmfb...@aol.com
ha...@fac13.ds.psu.edu (Prof. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:
>In article <9nd3el$i2m$4...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Please think twice about this. Assume that Misoft goes "poof";
>>the computer industry as a whole goes down with it. That's one
>>of the reason that having more than one choice is so damned important.
>
>I don't think so. If microsoft went poof, the old versions of windows
>could still be shipped.
I'm assuming it can't be shipped. Remember the Poof! business
is imposed upon them and not a side effect of capitalism.
> .. Other systems could be shipped. Office needs
>can be met by other alternatives (such as Star Office) just as well as
>with microsoft products, and server needs can already be better met with
>other alternatives.
It takes time and organization to get a package like that together
for general distribution. A Poof! doesn't give that time gap.
>
>There would be a temporary hit in the consumer sector, but at least the
>low end ($400) is already getting away from windows. New consumer
>software would be written to the new platform(s).
But this is a 2-4 year timeframe.
>
>It would be a blurp, but a small one.
Perhaps. I like to be wrong.
Richard C. Steiner
>rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>>In article <9nfm1b$cse$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>>>no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>>
>> [snip of my response]
>
>I'm talking about the average, everyday grunt who never heard
>of a computer until this Misoft biz.
Hold on, now. That isn't *at all* what you said above. You referenced
businesses, ISPs, and access in general, not joe-blow user.
I responded that I don't think that most businesses, ISPs, or access in
general would be adversely impacted to a great degree.
>Do you remember (you might be too young) how scared people were of
>touching any equipment? Do you remember how people assumed that, if the
>computer says so, it must be correct?
Many people believe have that attitude now about Wintel PCs, and only will
touch the few programs they are familiar with.
However, the machines they are using will simple NOT magically dissappear
overnight even if were Microsoft to dissappear.
You are speculating about an impossible event.
>>Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux, and
>>Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
>
>It will if it can't sell to the masses.
I think you're making some seriously off-base assumptions about the nature
of some of the alternatives available. Not all of them are Unix derived,
or have the level of complexity of a multi-user OS. OS/2 in particular is
a pretty good drop-in replacement for Windows in a business context.
--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Eden Prairie, MN
Richard C. Steiner
>In article <9nlp2p$m...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
> ha...@fac13.ds.psu.edu (Prof. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:
>
>> .. Other systems could be shipped. Office needs
>>can be met by other alternatives (such as Star Office) just as well as
>>with microsoft products, and server needs can already be better met with
>>other alternatives.
>
>It takes time and organization to get a package like that together
>for general distribution. A Poof! doesn't give that time gap.
No, it doesn't (not anymore). Such packages have been available for years,
so that sort of work has been done already.
Look at any of the major Linux distros released over the past 2-3 years
(SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, etc.). Most of them already ship with Samba (a
CIFS server) and StarOffice as bundled components, and have done so for
quite a while.
Solaris exists for Intel, and the Solaris 8 Media Kit comes bundled with
StarOffice and other things.
eComStation is an OS/2-based client available for Intel, and it comes with
both StarOffice and Lotus Smartsuite (includes Lotus 123, Lotus WordPro,
Approach, and Freelance Graphics).
There's also the Mac. Very well established and user-friendly.
Alternatives already exist. Most people choose not to use (or apparently
even acknowledge) them, but that doesn't make them less real...
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
>In article <slrn9pq00u....@isis.visi.com>,
>rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>
>>Most ISPs are Unix-based (Solaris, BSD flavors) and provide Windows
>>servers only because some customers want server-side features specific
>>to them.
>
>I'm talking about the average, everyday grunt who never heard
>of a computer until this Misoft biz. Do you remember (you might
>be too young) how scared people were of touching any equipment?
And now we've gone to the opposite extreme - everyone thinks
he's the equal of any publisher because he can put a few fancy
fonts and colours on the screen. Or he thinks he's a master
programmer because he can do the same in Visual Basic. The
result is a flood of lousy documents and programs - but they
sure have a lot of flash and dazzle.
>Do you remember how people assumed that, if the computer says so,
>it must be correct?
They've stopped? :-/
>>Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux,
>>and Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
>
>It will if it can't sell to the masses. Production will go down.
>Income will go down. The first place businesses seem to cut
>is their seed corn these days. I have no reason to believe that
>Intel hasn't become infected with bookkeeppers running the show too.
Any company that indulges in bad management will eventually get
its comeuppance, regardless of the market. Sometimes it's a case
of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".
>>Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting
>>MacOS X?
>
>AFAIK, Apple has their head wedged.
Perhaps Intel has too.
Charlie Gibbs
writes:
>In article <2658.653T6...@nowhere.in.particular>,
>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>
>>I think you're being overly pessimistic.
>
>That is possible. I based most of my planning on worse case
>scenarios.
Me too. But I like to think that such a scenario is more
deserving of the phrase "If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade."
>> .. Sure, some knowledge pools
>>might be dispersed - but do you really care about how to fiddle with
>>fonts in the latest version of Word? There are huge non-M$ knowledge
>>pools out there (Unix/Linux and IBM mainframes, to name two), plus
>>many smaller ones (PDP-10?) which would be able to flourish in the
>>absence of Microsoft's corporate sabotage.
>
>I'm thinking about the technology production gap that would happen
>with an abrupt Misoft stoppage. I've got no problem with them
>digging their own grave over time.
What is really being produced here? I really bristle when I hear
the word "technology" abused and overused as it is today. Much
of this so-called "technology" is a thin layer of crap spread
thickly with marketing hype. We'd be better off without it,
even though there might be a sizable hiccup during the transition.
>> .. The people who spend
>>their time playing computer games (and I include most web browsing
>>in this) might have to find useful work,
>
>I'm actually using that pasttime to get them to learn about a
>system. Just think of the kids who want to play Haunt but
>have to install and startup the -10 OS first.
That's a good thing if they want to look below the surface.
Many people nowadays don't. :-(
>> .. and they'll be out of the way of those who can do it.
>
>I'm trying to get those kids in the way and hooked on learning
>about how an OS works underneath the covers which is an anti-Misoft
>atttitude.
I salute you, fellow subversive!
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> In article <9ndbqs$g95$1...@daydream.shannon.net>,
> sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
> >Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to continue
> >as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to believe that
> >Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential is there, but I don't
> >really believe it would be that bad.
>
> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
Oh, that's a lot of assumptions in there, namely that no one else would
rise up to fill the void. I don't agree.
Certainly Apple would not disappear, millions of machines would continue
running existing Windows copies and software until they switched to
something else, and there many other ready alternatives.
I don't know understand the idea that there would be no ISPs. Microsoft's
disappearance would not suddenly cause everyone to get off the net.
I'm sure Microsoft would love for everyone to believe this, but I
don't buy it. I'm sure Apple would be thrilled... :)
--
--
"Star Wars Moral Number 17: Teddy bears are dangerous in herds."
jmfb...@aol.com
rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>In article <9nnijv$r4v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>>>In article <9nfm1b$cse$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>>>>no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>>>
>>> [snip of my response]
>>
>>I'm talking about the average, everyday grunt who never heard
>>of a computer until this Misoft biz.
>
>Hold on, now. That isn't *at all* what you said above. You referenced
>businesses, ISPs, and access in general, not joe-blow user.
>
>I responded that I don't think that most businesses, ISPs, or access in
>general would be adversely impacted to a great degree.
The biz seems to have changed when the term brick&mortar became
popular. That is due to the joe-blow guy learning about
using a computers now. Even the people in the biz only seem to
know a Misoft-type of interaction.
>
>>Do you remember (you might be too young) how scared people were of
>>touching any equipment? Do you remember how people assumed that, if the
>>computer says so, it must be correct?
>
>Many people believe have that attitude now about Wintel PCs, and only will
>touch the few programs they are familiar with.
>
>However, the machines they are using will simple NOT magically dissappear
>overnight even if were Microsoft to dissappear.
They won't be able to "upgrade" the inventory packages,
the accounting packages, etc. that depend on a business
that provides them. The way the software seems to be getting
set up (Misoft's releases) is that you have to have access
to _their_ sites to successfully run.
>
>You are speculating about an impossible event.
I sure hope so. I've got a pretty good record of anticipating
messes.
>>>Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux,
and
>>>Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
>>
>>It will if it can't sell to the masses.
>
>I think you're making some seriously off-base assumptions about the nature
>of some of the alternatives available. Not all of them are Unix derived,
>or have the level of complexity of a multi-user OS. OS/2 in particular is
>a pretty good drop-in replacement for Windows in a business context.
Shit...I can't think of the term I want. What is the term for
the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
go away?
Anyway, the days of each business having their own computer
intensive center were gone in the 80s. Even the mainframe
owners outsourced the work involved in babysitting the beasties.
The companies who outsource the work are the ones who are going
to be in trouble if a Poof! happens.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>In article <9nnijv$r4v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net> jmfb...@aol.com (jmfbahciv)
>writes:
>
>>In article <slrn9pq00u....@isis.visi.com>,
>>rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>>
>>>Most ISPs are Unix-based (Solaris, BSD flavors) and provide Windows
>>>servers only because some customers want server-side features specific
>>>to them.
>>
>>I'm talking about the average, everyday grunt who never heard
>>of a computer until this Misoft biz. Do you remember (you might
>>be too young) how scared people were of touching any equipment?
>
>And now we've gone to the opposite extreme - everyone thinks
>he's the equal of any publisher because he can put a few fancy
>fonts and colours on the screen. Or he thinks he's a master
>programmer because he can do the same in Visual Basic. The
>result is a flood of lousy documents and programs - but they
>sure have a lot of flash and dazzle.
Yup.
>
>>Do you remember how people assumed that, if the computer says so,
>>it must be correct?
>
>They've stopped? :-/
Yes. ;-) It's changed from _the_ computer to _my_ computer.
To get a tad serious, this is a subtle but important (sometimes
scarey) change.
>
>>>Good alternatives to Windows exist on Intel, including OS/2 and Linux,
>>>and Intel would be hurt but not seriously damaged by the change.
>>
>>It will if it can't sell to the masses. Production will go down.
>>Income will go down. The first place businesses seem to cut
>>is their seed corn these days. I have no reason to believe that
>>Intel hasn't become infected with bookkeeppers running the show too.
>
>Any company that indulges in bad management will eventually get
>its comeuppance, regardless of the market. Sometimes it's a case
>of "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory".
I'm not worried about the eventually part. We were talking about
a Poof! happening, not an evolutionary happening. There's a huge
difference in elasped time between the two.
>
>>>Perhaps the folks at Apple would pick up the slack by porting
>>>MacOS X?
>>
>>AFAIK, Apple has their head wedged.
>
>Perhaps Intel has too.
>
It sure appears that way all over which is certainly chilling
the warm feeling down my leg. It's what I'm trying to counteract.
jmfb...@aol.com
"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>In article <9nnivn$r4v$2...@bob.news.rcn.net> jmfb...@aol.com (jmfbahciv)
>writes:
>
>>In article <2658.653T6...@nowhere.in.particular>,
>>"Charlie Gibbs" <cgi...@nowhere.in.particular> wrote:
>>
>>>I think you're being overly pessimistic.
>>
>>That is possible. I based most of my planning on worse case
>>scenarios.
>
>Me too. But I like to think that such a scenario is more
>deserving of the phrase "If life hands you a lemon, make lemonade."
Sure. My style is have plans A-Z taking care of the problem of
the lemon being rotten, or a lime, or a mouse, or a rock.
>
>>> .. Sure, some knowledge pools
>>>might be dispersed - but do you really care about how to fiddle with
>>>fonts in the latest version of Word? There are huge non-M$ knowledge
>>>pools out there (Unix/Linux and IBM mainframes, to name two), plus
>>>many smaller ones (PDP-10?) which would be able to flourish in the
>>>absence of Microsoft's corporate sabotage.
>>
>>I'm thinking about the technology production gap that would happen
>>with an abrupt Misoft stoppage. I've got no problem with them
>>digging their own grave over time.
>
>What is really being produced here? I really bristle when I hear
>the word "technology" abused and overused as it is today.
The tech biz. Making production numbers of boards, boxes,
connections, ...that sort of stuff. It's called the technology
sector.
> .. Much
>of this so-called "technology" is a thin layer of crap spread
>thickly with marketing hype. We'd be better off without it,
>even though there might be a sizable hiccup during the transition.
>
>>> .. The people who spend
>>>their time playing computer games (and I include most web browsing
>>>in this) might have to find useful work,
>>
>>I'm actually using that pasttime to get them to learn about a
>>system. Just think of the kids who want to play Haunt but
>>have to install and startup the -10 OS first.
>
>That's a good thing if they want to look below the surface.
>Many people nowadays don't. :-(
Well, I don't expect every single one of them to look or get
curious. But I don't intend to have the possibility precluded.
That's my biggest bitch about not shipping sources.
>
>>> .. and they'll be out of the way of those who can do it.
>>
>>I'm trying to get those kids in the way and hooked on learning
>>about how an OS works underneath the covers which is an anti-Misoft
>>atttitude.
>
>I salute you, fellow subversive!
Subversive!!!!???!!! Shit, that's how DEC made billions.
It was damn good business. It sold so much hardware.
jmfb...@aol.com
sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>In article <9nfm1b$cse$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, <jmfb...@aol.com> wrote:
>> In article <9ndbqs$g95$1...@daydream.shannon.net>,
>> sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>> >Better for it to go down as a whole and have to rebuild than to
continue
>> >as we are. Besides, I think it's a heavy assumption to believe that
>> >Microsoft's death would cause that. The potential is there, but I don't
>> >really believe it would be that bad.
>>
>> No Misoft; no Intel; no personal computers on the shelves;
>> no net-based income; no ISPs; no access available. Poof!
>
>Oh, that's a lot of assumptions in there,
Yup. I know.
> ...namely that no one else would
>rise up to fill the void. I don't agree.
OK. That is certainly allowed :-).
>
>Certainly Apple would not disappear, millions of machines would continue
>running existing Windows copies and software until they switched to
>something else, and there many other ready alternatives.
>
>I don't know understand the idea that there would be no ISPs. Microsoft's
>disappearance would not suddenly cause everyone to get off the net.
No expansion ability to accomodate demand increases. ISPs
don't seem to sit still. (I wish they would.)
>
>I'm sure Microsoft would love for everyone to believe this, but I
>don't buy it.
They're guaranteeing it, aren't they?
> ...I'm sure Apple would be thrilled... :)
How much are they depending on certain money infusions.
jmfb...@aol.com
>
>>In article <9nlp2p$m...@r02n01.cac.psu.edu>,
>> ha...@fac13.ds.psu.edu (Prof. Richard E. Hawkins) wrote:
>>
>>> .. Other systems could be shipped. Office needs
>>>can be met by other alternatives (such as Star Office) just as well as
>>>with microsoft products, and server needs can already be better met with
>>>other alternatives.
>>
>>It takes time and organization to get a package like that together
>>for general distribution. A Poof! doesn't give that time gap.
>
>No, it doesn't (not anymore). Such packages have been available for years,
>so that sort of work has been done already.
>
>Look at any of the major Linux distros released over the past 2-3 years
>(SuSE, RedHat, Mandrake, etc.). Most of them already ship with Samba (a
>CIFS server) and StarOffice as bundled components, and have done so for
>quite a while.
>
>Solaris exists for Intel, and the Solaris 8 Media Kit comes bundled with
>StarOffice and other things.
>
>eComStation is an OS/2-based client available for Intel, and it comes with
>both StarOffice and Lotus Smartsuite (includes Lotus 123, Lotus WordPro,
>Approach, and Freelance Graphics).
>
>There's also the Mac. Very well established and user-friendly.
>
>Alternatives already exist. Most people choose not to use (or apparently
>even acknowledge) them, but that doesn't make them less real...
>
habits out of date, too?
Richard C. Steiner
Mac software and various Linux distros are available at normal retail
outlets like Best Buy and Computer City, at least around here. I saw
copies of Mandrake Linux and SuSE Linux at Best Buy last week. Also, a
boxed version of StarOffice was there (which surprised me).
To be honest, though, I've not purchased much PC hardware or software from
a real local software store for 4-5 years now -- that type of purchasing
has moved to the web for the most part, at least if one is a hobbyist or
(in many cases) a small business.
Richard C. Steiner
>In article <slrn9pv445....@isis.visi.com>,
> rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
>
>>Hold on, now. That isn't *at all* what you said above. You referenced
>>businesses, ISPs, and access in general, not joe-blow user.
>>
>>I responded that I don't think that most businesses, ISPs, or access in
>>general would be adversely impacted to a great degree.
>
>The biz seems to have changed when the term brick&mortar became
>popular. That is due to the joe-blow guy learning about
>using a computers now. Even the people in the biz only seem to
>know a Misoft-type of interaction.
I think the perception of that trend varies a lot depending on the types
of businesses that one interacts with.
I work for an airline, and I also know several people working for ISPs and
other Interner-related companies, and from what I know Wintel hardware is
present on the desktop in those places but not really in serverland.
>>Many people believe have that attitude now about Wintel PCs, and only will
>>touch the few programs they are familiar with.
>>
>>However, the machines they are using will simple NOT magically dissappear
>>overnight even if were Microsoft to dissappear.
>
>They won't be able to "upgrade" the inventory packages,
>the accounting packages, etc. that depend on a business
>that provides them. The way the software seems to be getting
>set up (Misoft's releases) is that you have to have access
>to _their_ sites to successfully run.
Keep in mind that the newest Microsoft software I've used is Windows NT 4
and Microsoft Office 97 (that is still the standard desktop software here
at NWA), and I know that didn't have that sort of requirement (we use a
standard disk image here with the software already preinstalled, and we
install that image on new PC's).
A Windows XP-style check at installation time would indeed be a problem
were MS to dissappear.
However, I was under the impression that large customers like ourselves
(and perhaps smaller businesses as well) would have access to a special
version of the various packages which bypassed the Windows XP-style
installation verification stuff.
>>You are speculating about an impossible event.
>
>I sure hope so. I've got a pretty good record of anticipating
>messes.
Assuming that Microsoft were to disappear and that XP-style installation
verification was built into the software, I think you have a valid point
(at least for those folks interested in installing new MS software).
>>I think you're making some seriously off-base assumptions about the nature
>>of some of the alternatives available. Not all of them are Unix derived,
>>or have the level of complexity of a multi-user OS. OS/2 in particular is
>>a pretty good drop-in replacement for Windows in a business context.
>
>Shit...I can't think of the term I want. What is the term for
>the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
>business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
>go away?
Consultants...?
>Anyway, the days of each business having their own computer
>intensive center were gone in the 80s. Even the mainframe
>owners outsourced the work involved in babysitting the beasties.
It's true that some of that has occurred (often initiated by management
against their technical staff's wishes).
>The companies who outsource the work are the ones who are going
>to be in trouble if a Poof! happens.
True. Those folks deserve what they get, IMO.
Nick Spalding
> Shit...I can't think of the term I want. What is the term for
> the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
> business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
> go away?
Turnkey?
--
Nick Spalding
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> The biz seems to have changed when the term brick&mortar became
> popular. That is due to the joe-blow guy learning about
> using a computers now. Even the people in the biz only seem to
> know a Misoft-type of interaction.
Hmmmmm... all the more reason this "Poof!" would be a great thing. I'm
looking forward to it more than ever now.
> They won't be able to "upgrade" the inventory packages, the accounting
> packages, etc. that depend on a business that provides them.
Those business won't disappear just because Microsoft does. Your
accounting package will not magically disappear the day Microsoft does.
There will be more than enough time to re-write the packages.
Oh, and such an event would pretty well force people to start writing
their software to be portable. It's not that hard. I mean if a game
like Quake 3 can be made portable to wildly different platforms, then
certainly an accounting package can.
> Shit...I can't think of the term I want. What is the term for
> the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
> business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
> go away?
Turn-key, hyphenated to avoid any unintentional assocation with
"turkey".
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> In article <9npomu$3pl$1...@daydream.shannon.net>,
> sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
> >Certainly Apple would not disappear, millions of machines would continue
> >running existing Windows copies and software until they switched to
> >something else, and there many other ready alternatives.
> >
> >I don't know understand the idea that there would be no ISPs. Microsoft's
> >disappearance would not suddenly cause everyone to get off the net.
>
> No expansion ability to accomodate demand increases. ISPs
> don't seem to sit still. (I wish they would.)
Why would there be no expansion ability? Most of them don't run
Microsoft software to support their operations. None of the good ones
do.
> >I'm sure Microsoft would love for everyone to believe this, but I
> >don't buy it.
>
> They're guaranteeing it, aren't they?
Garanteeing that everyone will believe it? I'm sure a lot do, but
they'll learn to deal with whatever change happens, mainly through
having no choice. That's why, in the end, it sucks to be computer
illiterate. You have your world shattered too easily.
> > ...I'm sure Apple would be thrilled... :)
>
> How much are they depending on certain money infusions.
If you mean from Microsoft, they aren't, and never were. The money
from M$ (was it 150 million?) was mostly a symbolic gesture from what
I can tell, and more to help quiet the fued between the two companies
it seems. Steve Jobs could have raised that much money by liquidating a
tiny fraction of his portfolio.
If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would find
that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of competitors and
probably it would be very active competition. Of course, that would be a
GoodThing(TM).
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> >even acknowledge) them, but that doesn't make them less real...
> >
> Why can't I find them on my retail shelf? Or is my shopping
> habits out of date, too?
Because Microsoft largely prevents that from happening.
You should talk to someone at a CompUSA or some place like that,
and the warfare over shelf-space that exist among software
companies.
The Windows area of those stores is fully staffed, but you have to be
an expert tracker to find anyone in the Apple and other non-Windows
section.
It's not because the alternatives don't exist, it's because they are
being prevented, on purpose. Microsoft spends considerable time and
money stifling the competition.
Their absence would be the best thing to happen to the industry.
D.J.
[]and the warfare over shelf-space that exist among software
[]companies.
the same thing happens at grocery stores and supermarkets. Well, not
software, but food, etc.
JimP.
--
djim55 at tyhe datasync dot com. Disclaimer: Standard.
Updated: September 2, 2001
http://www.crosswinds.net/~drivein/ Drive-In Movie Theatres
Registered Linux user#185746
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins
>> In article <f2bqptg20tk2ocklt...@4ax.com>,
>> Alexandre Pechtchanski <alex*@*rockvax.rockefeller.edu> wrote:
>> 1) Altair BASIC (well, there's a "steal" question about use of
>> resources, but I'll give them innovation credit for putting a high level
>> language on the little machine.
>IIRC, they used flowcharts from Dartmouth BASIC to design their BASIC...
>these flowcharts were public domain. And although some thought it *not*
>possible, IIRC there were others working to put BASIC on a microcomputer.
farbeit from me to defend microsoft, but . . . .
Yes, basic itself was hardly original. But actually doing it as a
commercial venture for those silly toys . . . .
>> 2) The *usable* footnote in Word 1.0 (mac) in 1984. [Although I've been
>> told there was a C64 word processor with footnotes available the same
>> year. I'd stopped paying attention to 8 bit rehashes by then, but I
>> seriously doubt that it was near the level/usability of Word's]
>I am*not* familiar with this, but I suspect that it is "borrowed"...like
>everything else that Mi$uck puts out...except maybe for Bob.
I used just about everything in the micro world available prior to that,
and never saw one (at least not a usable one). Footnotes were added at
the last minute with tricks in word star. I'd be surprised if mainframe
and maybe minicomputers (or troff/groff/etc.) at the time couldn't do it
with page description programs, but the one in word was trivial. You
juest hit cmd-e, it put in a self-renumbering marker, and you filled out
what you wanted in the bottom pane of the window. Word handled the
little line, finding space, changing to the smaller typeface, etc.
>> 3) Bob. [Yeah, you excluded him, but these are all of the innovations I
>> know of, and it gets the list up to three entries :) ]
>Yeah, my understanding is that Bob was Mr. Gates' wife's idea...and hubby
>was roped into doing it by her...
women :)
I want to say that bob predates melissa. wasn't it released in 94 or
so?
Hey, now that I think of it: one of my students actually saw a copy,
and *liked* it . . . (I even let him pass, anyway :)
Prof. Richard E. Hawkins
D.J. <dji...@cheesydatasync.com> wrote:
>sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>[]You should talk to someone at a CompUSA or some place like that,
>[]and the warfare over shelf-space that exist among software
>[]companies.
>the same thing happens at grocery stores and supermarkets. Well, not
>software, but food, etc.
Yeah, knock a sack of flour of the shelf, and there's a big "poof"
Dowe Keller
> In article <9nqk3q$1hl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, jmfb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >In article <slrn9pv4u0....@isis.visi.com>,
> > rste...@isis.visi.com (Richard C. Steiner) wrote:
> >
> >>Alternatives already exist. Most people choose not to use (or apparently
> >>even acknowledge) them, but that doesn't make them less real...
> >
> >Why can't I find them on my retail shelf? Or is my shopping
> >habits out of date, too?
>
> Mac software and various Linux distros are available at normal retail
> outlets like Best Buy and Computer City, at least around here. I saw
> copies of Mandrake Linux and SuSE Linux at Best Buy last week. Also, a
> boxed version of StarOffice was there (which surprised me).
I got my present distro (Mandrake <Blech!>) at *Walmart*! Sure
Mandrake is an awful Linux distro, but it sure beats the hell out of
WinDOS (even easier to install now), and it only cost me $24.95ish. I
am horified by these people that tried Linux once in 1995 and proclaim
loudly that it will *NEVER* be suitable for the desktop.
Oops, Did we drift off topic again ;-)
--
do...@sierratel.com Homepage: http://www.sierratel.com/dowe
Project : http://freshmeat.net/projects/vsh
Mel Wilson
>the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
>business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
>go away?
Value-Added Reseller. Though there was a time when M$
was less un-innocent that they had a campaign that would, if
the campaign had continued, and our company hd survived,
have made us an Independent Software Vendor for doing about
the same things.
I have a t-shirt to prove it.
Regards. Mel.
Mike Schaeffer
On 13 Sep 2001, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
> money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would find
> that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of competitors and
> probably it would be very active competition.
Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque tactics.
> Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom, the idea of
my co-workers (or external colleagues) with three different kinds of word
processors and spreadsheets presents its own challenges.
The economic cost of a diversified OS/Application base isn't trivial. Even
open standards have problems when people sitting on the standards
committees act in _their organization's_ best interest rather than the
standard's.
-Mike
Charles Richmond
>
>
> I used just about everything in the micro world available prior to that,
> and never saw one (at least not a usable one). Footnotes were added at
> the last minute with tricks in word star. I'd be surprised if mainframe
> and maybe minicomputers (or troff/groff/etc.) at the time couldn't do it
> with page description programs, but the one in word was trivial. You
> juest hit cmd-e, it put in a self-renumbering marker, and you filled out
> what you wanted in the bottom pane of the window. Word handled the
> little line, finding space, changing to the smaller typeface, etc.
>
under UNIX allowed you to specify a footnote with formatting tags (*not*
WYSIWIG), and then would place and format the footnotes for you on the
appropriate pages... Mi$uck could easily have taken the idea from this.
--
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond <rich...@plano.net> |
+-------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Schaeffer
On 13 Sep 2001, Dowe Keller wrote:
> I am horified by these people that tried Linux once in 1995 and proclaim
> loudly that it will *NEVER* be suitable for the desktop.
<off_topic>
What about the people who do the same in 2001? Linux has a lot of the
pieces of a good consumer desktop OS, but nowhere near the integration or
flexibility that people expect and need. What's worse, the trend among the
open source community to develop Microsoft knockoffs (KDE, Gnome, and
Mono) don't really do anything to really convince me it matters. Except
for some (admittedly important) philosophical points, there's not much
value for the average user in picking KWord over the bundled copy of MS
Word that came with her machine.
The things that made Linux so compelling to me in 1995 (good TCP/IP,
32-bit applications, distributed windowing, compatibility with Unix
applications) are all slowly being eroded away seemingly faster than
the Linux community is able to create new value.
</off_topic>
-Mike
lysse
>>Alternatives already exist. Most people choose not to use (or apparently
>>even acknowledge) them, but that doesn't make them less real...
>>
> Why can't I find them on my retail shelf? Or is my shopping
> habits out of date, too?
Probably. You can find SuSE Linux, Red Hat, Mandrake, and BeOS 5 on
the shelf of the local PC World, and I'd be very surprised if your
local PC supermarket didn't carry at least Red Hat. If you have the
bandwidth, you can also download a number of alternatives.
--
lysse at lysse dot co dot uk
"Why are your problems always so much bigger than everyone else's?"
"Because they're mine." -- Ally McBeal
Charlie Gibbs
msc...@mschaef.com (Mike Schaeffer) writes:
>On 13 Sep 2001, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>
>> If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
>> money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would find
>> that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of competitors
>> and probably it would be very active competition.
>
>Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque tactics.
And then we take them down too. You can't just weed your garden once.
>> Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
>
>Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom, the idea
>of my co-workers (or external colleagues) with three different kinds
>of word processors and spreadsheets presents its own challenges.
Not if they all speak a common format. New RFCs, anyone?
>The economic cost of a diversified OS/Application base isn't trivial.
No, but neither is it as onerous as Microsoft would have you believe.
And there are many benefits.
>Even open standards have problems when people sitting on the standards
>committees act in _their organization's_ best interest rather than the
>standard's.
Again, eternal vigilance is the only way it can work.
Mike Schaeffer
> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.01091...@hagbard.io.com>
> msc...@mschaef.com (Mike Schaeffer) writes:
>
> >On 13 Sep 2001, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> >
> >> If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
> >> money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would find
> >> that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of competitors
> >> and probably it would be very active competition.
> >
> >Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque tactics.
>
> And then we take them down too. You can't just weed your garden once.
That would _destroy_ any incentive to create better software. If you know
that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll get knocked down,
why compete? Furthermore, it'd place the software industy in an eternally
unstable state of flux with companies being periodically taken down by
some external entity that may or may not have the industry's best
interests at heart.
> >> Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
> >
> >Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom, the idea
> >of my co-workers (or external colleagues) with three different kinds
> >of word processors and spreadsheets presents its own challenges.
>
> Not if they all speak a common format. New RFCs, anyone?
And then the tools will be constrained by the common format. Unless, that
is, the format is extendable, in which case you have the same problem as
when before the format was standard.
> >Even open standards have problems when people sitting on the standards
> >committees act in _their organization's_ best interest rather than the
> >standard's.
>
> Again, eternal vigilance is the only way it can work.
Vigilance by whom? Are you advocating some sort of software-industry
oversight group: a regulatory agency for software companies? That almost
sounds worse than dominance of the industry by Microsoft.
Maybe a reasonable set of industry guidelines is to require that companies
publicize _their_ file formats, API's (all of them), and network protocols
as they release software products. Or, to be really ambitious, publicize
them six months or so before the product gets released. That, a ban on
software patents, and more government support of open-source software
projects (at universities, etc.) might do the trick. It's also all pretty
well-defined and easy to enforce.
-Mike
Andy Stoffel
>Shit...I can't think of the term I want. What is the term for
>the people who provide custom-made computer packages for a
>business, install the stuff, provide a bit of training, then
>go away?
[dot.com] Roadkill ?
-Andy-
Richard C. Steiner
>I got my present distro (Mandrake <Blech!>) at *Walmart*! Sure
>Mandrake is an awful Linux distro, but it sure beats the hell out of
>WinDOS (even easier to install now), and it only cost me $24.95ish.
I thought Mandrake 6.1 was rather good, actually. I'll be trying a later
version very soon now.
>I am horified by these people that tried Linux once in 1995 and proclaim
>loudly that it will *NEVER* be suitable for the desktop.
The word "never" is one which should never be used. ;-)
>Oops, Did we drift off topic again ;-)
Hrm. Is topic drift even possible in this newsgroup?
Charlie Gibbs
> On 13 Sep 2001, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
>
>> In article <Pine.LNX.4.33.01091...@hagbard.io.com>
>> msc...@mschaef.com (Mike Schaeffer) writes:
>>
>>> On 13 Sep 2001, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
>>>> money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would
>>>> find that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of
>>>> competitors and probably it would be very active competition.
>>>
>>> Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque
>>> tactics.
>>
>> And then we take them down too. You can't just weed your garden
>> once.
>
> That would _destroy_ any incentive to create better software.
You are twisting my words. Read the above quotes again. The only
way you could interpret them to mean we're destroying incentive to
create better software is if you believe that the one and only way
to create better software is Microsoft's way, complete with their
monopolistic practices.
> If you know that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll
> get knocked down, why compete?
That's exactly what's happening right now, except it's Microsoft
who's doing the knocking down.
> Furthermore, it'd place the software industy in an eternally
> unstable state of flux with companies being periodically taken
> down by some external entity that may or may not have the
> industry's best interests at heart.
And Microsoft does have the industry's best interests at heart?
>>>> Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
>>>
>>> Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom,
>>> the idea of my co-workers (or external colleagues) with three
>>> different kinds of word processors and spreadsheets presents
>>> its own challenges.
>>
>> Not if they all speak a common format. New RFCs, anyone?
>
> And then the tools will be constrained by the common format. Unless,
> that is, the format is extendable, in which case you have the same
> problem as when before the format was standard.
It's time we re-examined our obsession with perpetual change.
How many people need every bell and whistle that exists, plus
some that haven't been invented yet, just to write a letter to
Aunt Martha? Standards exist right now that will handle 95%
of typical user applications. There will always be people who
need something more, but to force everyone to be on the bleeding
edge of technology because of this is pure marketing bullshit.
Many changes are better known by the term "planned obsolescence".
>>> Even open standards have problems when people sitting on the
>>> standards committees act in _their organization's_ best interest
>>> rather than the standard's.
>>
>> Again, eternal vigilance is the only way it can work.
>
> Vigilance by whom? Are you advocating some sort of software-industry
> oversight group: a regulatory agency for software companies? That
> almost sounds worse than dominance of the industry by Microsoft.
>
> Maybe a reasonable set of industry guidelines is to require that
> companies publicize _their_ file formats, API's (all of them),
> and network protocols as they release software products. Or, to
> be really ambitious, publicize them six months or so before the
> product gets released. That, a ban on software patents, and more
> government support of open-source software projects (at universities,
> etc.) might do the trick. It's also all pretty well-defined and
> easy to enforce.
It sounds reasonable on the surface, although it raises the spectre
of government intervention in still more aspects of our everyday
lives. No, it would work better on the grass-roots level. What
would happen if a significent share of the market dumped Microsoft
products? I realize, though, that I'm going off into fantasy here.
People are, unfortunately, sheep. But if enough of us continue to
spread the word, perhaps some of these people will come to realize
that Microsoft isn't the great philanthropic organization that they
would have us believe they are.
MSCHAEF.COM
>msc...@mschaef.com (Mike Schaeffer) writes:
>> On 13 Sep 2001, Charlie Gibbs wrote:
[snip discussion of Microsoft going away and being replaced by a bunch of
viable competitors]
>>>> Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque
>>>> tactics.
>>>
>>> And then we take them down too. You can't just weed your garden
>>> once.
>>
>> That would _destroy_ any incentive to create better software.
>
>You are twisting my words. Read the above quotes again. The only
>way you could interpret them to mean we're destroying incentive to
>create better software is if you believe that the one and only way
>to create better software is Microsoft's way, complete with their
>monopolistic practices.
It's a truth of capitalism that people expect return on their investments.
This includes software. The other truth of the current market is that
Microsoft has competeted _very_ well and _very_ hard to get to it's
current position of dominance. Now that we've seen it happen, and see
the very real problems with a one-sided software community, we're in
a good position to define policy that keeps it from happening again.
If that means taking Microsoft down, so be it, but any action against
Microsoft needs to be accompanied by more forwards thinking changes
than a simple threat to take down any 'replacement' monopolist.
>> If you know that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll
>> get knocked down, why compete?
>
>That's exactly what's happening right now, except it's Microsoft
>who's doing the knocking down.
And you're advocating replacing Microsoft with the government? A government
that's supposed to foster free enterprise and a competition?
>>>>> Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
>>>>
>>>> Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom,
>>>> the idea of my co-workers (or external colleagues) with three
>>>> different kinds of word processors and spreadsheets presents
>>>> its own challenges.
>>>
>>> Not if they all speak a common format. New RFCs, anyone?
>>
>> And then the tools will be constrained by the common format. Unless,
>> that is, the format is extendable, in which case you have the same
>> problem as when before the format was standard.
>
>It's time we re-examined our obsession with perpetual change.
That goes far, far beyond the software industry. It's a very integral
part of the collective _American_ (I can't speak for other cultures)
psyche.
At any rate, my point is still valid. Any standard file format
constrains, to some extent, what can be done with the tools that
use it. As HTML showed, when it comes time to move past the basics,
you're stuck with either a propriatary extension or some kind of
embedded object. A third solution stores additional information in
a secondary file perhipheral to the first. Any of these solutions
introduces some of the same kinds of compatibility problems that
the standard file tries to solve.
>How many people need every bell and whistle that exists, plus
>some that haven't been invented yet, just to write a letter to
>Aunt Martha?
Virtually nobody. Although if a fixed file format constrains some
kind of usability improvement, it's certainly a bad thing. I guess
my general point is that fixed formats constrain avenues of
competition, in a competitive market. Telling people that they
don't really need a bell or a whistle isn't a good solution.
>Standards exist right now that will handle 95%
>of typical user applications.
Quite true. Even then, how do you structure a word processing file format?
Do you embed format codes, do you define frames, do you format based on
style or content? All these things are potential avenues for competion
that a fixed file format makes more difficult to implement.
>There will always be people who
>need something more, but to force everyone to be on the bleeding
>edge of technology because of this is pure marketing bullshit.
If keeping people at the forefront saves costs
>Many changes are better known by the term "planned obsolescence".
Quite true.
This is me talking, the quote within is Mr. Gibbs:
>> Maybe a reasonable set of industry guidelines is to require that
>> companies publicize _their_ file formats, API's (all of them),
>> and network protocols as they release software products. Or, to
>> be really ambitious, publicize them six months or so before the
>> product gets released. That, a ban on software patents, and more
>> government support of open-source software projects (at universities,
>> etc.) might do the trick. It's also all pretty well-defined and
>> easy to enforce.
>
>It sounds reasonable on the surface, although it raises the spectre
>of government intervention in still more aspects of our everyday
>lives.
That statement seems very inconsistent with your view that some
outside force needs to be there at the ready to knock down any
company that gets to influential. Even still, I'm curious how
you think my idea would cause signifcantly more government
intervention. Requiring interfaces to be completely documented,
a ban on software patents, and more grants to open source projects
(maybe just university research) doesn't seem that interventionist
to me.
>No, it would work better on the grass-roots level. What
>would happen if a significent share of the market dumped Microsoft
>products?
They'd lose a lot of value (file compatibility, software compatibilty,
flashy interfaces, commercial grade office suites) that people
can understand in favor of a value people generally don't understand.
>I realize, though, that I'm going off into fantasy here.
Yeah. I do believe it's _quite_ a shame that isn't more realistic
than it is.
-Mike
--
http://www.mschaef.com
Charles Richmond
>
> [snip...] [snip...] [snip...]
>
> It's a truth of capitalism that people expect return on their investments.
> This includes software. The other truth of the current market is that
> Microsoft has competeted _very_ well and _very_ hard to get to it's
> current position of dominance. Now that we've seen it happen, and see
> the very real problems with a one-sided software community, we're in
> a good position to define policy that keeps it from happening again.
> If that means taking Microsoft down, so be it, but any action against
> Microsoft needs to be accompanied by more forwards thinking changes
> than a simple threat to take down any 'replacement' monopolist.
>
*cheated* their brains out!!! They have pulled every immoral and
unfair business practice in the book...and they may even have
"innovated" a few bad business practices. They have forced computer
makers to buy a license for MS Windows for *every* computer built...
whether it actually uses the software or *not*. A local company was
forced to get rid of competing word processing software in order to
be allowed to buy a site-wide license for Word. And the list goes
on and on... So do *not* try to make Mi$uck sound like a hard-working
and well-run company...unless you plan to accord the same to
other elements of organized crime...
Charlie Gibbs
msc...@io.com (MSCHAEF.COM) writes:
>It's a truth of capitalism that people expect return on their
>investments. This includes software. The other truth of the
>current market is that Microsoft has competeted _very_ well and
>_very_ hard to get to it's current position of dominance. Now that
>we've seen it happen, and see the very real problems with a one-sided
>software community, we're in a good position to define policy that
>keeps it from happening again. If that means taking Microsoft down,
>so be it, but any action against Microsoft needs to be accompanied
>by more forwards thinking changes than a simple threat to take down
>any 'replacement' monopolist.
True, some novel thinking will be required. How's this for a wild
shot: set up Microsoft as a regulated monopoly, like the phone
company used to be (but post-Carterfone, of course).
>>> If you know that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll
>>> get knocked down, why compete?
>>
>>That's exactly what's happening right now, except it's Microsoft
>>who's doing the knocking down.
>
>And you're advocating replacing Microsoft with the government?
>A government that's supposed to foster free enterprise and a
>competition?
I wasn't specifically thinking the government, but I suppose it
would come to that, wouldn't it? Uh-oh...
>>It's time we re-examined our obsession with perpetual change.
>
>That goes far, far beyond the software industry. It's a very integral
>part of the collective _American_ (I can't speak for other cultures)
>psyche.
Sad but true.
>At any rate, my point is still valid. Any standard file format
>constrains, to some extent, what can be done with the tools that
>use it. As HTML showed, when it comes time to move past the basics,
>you're stuck with either a propriatary extension or some kind of
>embedded object. A third solution stores additional information in
>a secondary file perhipheral to the first. Any of these solutions
>introduces some of the same kinds of compatibility problems that
>the standard file tries to solve.
Yes, there can be problems. They can be reduced - but not
eliminated - if the format allows for extensions to be coded
in such a way as to allow older programs to at least say "I
can't quite grok this part" and carry on somewhat gracefully,
rather than falling over. The real problem comes when changes
are made with no goal other than to break competing products
(or even older versions of a vendor's own product, in order
to force users to upgrade).
>>Standards exist right now that will handle 95% of typical user
>>applications.
>
>Quite true. Even then, how do you structure a word processing file
>format? Do you embed format codes, do you define frames, do you
>format based on style or content? All these things are potential
>avenues for competion that a fixed file format makes more difficult
>to implement.
Good point. However, if each program supported some sort of
common interchange format, you could still get a file over to
a different platform (although you might lose those flashing 3D
characters that rotate on an axis 45 degrees to the vertical :-).
It's sort of like 8-inch floppy disks - everyone had his own format,
but everybody could read and write 3740 single-sided single-density
format, so files could still be transferred.
>>It sounds reasonable on the surface, although it raises the spectre
>>of government intervention in still more aspects of our everyday
>>lives.
>
>That statement seems very inconsistent with your view that some
>outside force needs to be there at the ready to knock down any
>company that gets to influential.
That's just me thinking that there could be other outside forces
than government. That's probably a rather outdated concept. :-/
> Even still, I'm curious how
>you think my idea would cause signifcantly more government
>intervention.
Paranoia, probably. They do seem to get their fingers into just
about everything these days. This will probably be true as long
as so many people approach a problem by saying, "Why doesn't the
government Do Something about it?"
> Requiring interfaces to be completely documented,
>a ban on software patents, and more grants to open source projects
>(maybe just university research) doesn't seem that interventionist
>to me.
Actually, it does sound rather good. The concept of software
patents is particularly silly, nasty, or <insert your favourite
word here>.
>>No, it would work better on the grass-roots level. What
>>would happen if a significent share of the market dumped Microsoft
>>products?
>
>They'd lose a lot of value (file compatibility, software
>compatibilty,
Although in the Microsoft world, such compatibility is a two-edged
sword. Backward compatibility is usually pretty good, but tricks
like "upgrading" a user's existing files (sometimes done without
his knowledge or consent) locks out anyone who doesn't pay his
annual tithe.
>flashy interfaces,
Sigh...
>commercial grade office suites) that people can understand
>in favor of a value people generally don't understand.
Ignorance is power. :-(
>>I realize, though, that I'm going off into fantasy here.
>
>Yeah. I do believe it's _quite_ a shame that isn't more realistic
>than it is.
Amen to that.
lysse
> That would _destroy_ any incentive to create better software. If you know
> that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll get knocked down,
> why compete?
Isn't the whole point about Microsoft that they _won't_ compete?
> And then the tools will be constrained by the common format. Unless, that
> is, the format is extendable, in which case you have the same problem as
> when before the format was standard.
Not if you require that all extensions are published as RFCs (or some
similar forum) before they are accepted into the next revision of the
standard, and also formalise a mechanism whereby an extension can be
handed off to a module that knows what to do with that extension.
A proprietary extension *could* exist, but if you also require that
any standard-compliant system complain loudly and vociferously about
extensions it doesn't know about, or even sending an automated mail
to the authoring program of the mail in question...
There are ways to make complying with the published extensible
standard rather more attractive that proprietarism; nobody said
OSS had to play fair. After all, it's not in the marketplace, so
it can hardly be sued for unfair competition. ;-)
> Maybe a reasonable set of industry guidelines is to require that companies
> publicize _their_ file formats, API's (all of them), and network protocols
> as they release software products. Or, to be really ambitious, publicize
> them six months or so before the product gets released. That, a ban on
> software patents, and more government support of open-source software
> projects (at universities, etc.) might do the trick. It's also all pretty
> well-defined and easy to enforce.
Requiring that companies publicise their file formats won't help to
generate competition based on compatible standards. The only thing that
will stand a chance of working is if the rest of the industry agrees a
formal, extensible standard with a GPL-inspired licence - in other
words, document your extensions or lose your right to implement the
format. Then we'd have an industry wide standard, and Microsoft; and
since one of the major excuses for the continued presence of MS in
the business world is Office's proprietary format, the allure of an
alternative which will work with whatever package you prefer, and
won't be out of date in two years, seems obvious.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
Giles Todd <g...@at-dot.org> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2001 12:33:06 -0400, sha...@daydream.shannon.net (Charles
> Shannon Hendrix) wrote:
>
> > Oh, and such an event would pretty well force people to start writing
> > their software to be portable. It's not that hard. I mean if a game
> > like Quake 3 can be made portable to wildly different platforms, then
> > certainly an accounting package can.
>
Well, Netscape is more an exersize in how not to do portable programming,
and how not to do a lot of other things.
I have yet to find a browser that doesn't suck.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
Mike Schaeffer <msc...@mschaef.com> wrote:
> On 13 Sep 2001, Charles Shannon Hendrix wrote:
> > If Microsoft went down, Apple would undoubtedly start making more
> > money, at least for awhile. I do think, however, that they would find
> > that Microsoft would be replaced by a larger number of competitors and
> > probably it would be very active competition.
>
> Until somebody else starts effectively pulling Microsoft-esque tactics.
I don't think anyone would be able to do that quite as much in the
future. Besides, they aren't the only ones doing it now, just the most
visible and extreme.
> > Of course, that would be a GoodThing(TM).
>
> Maybe... to play devil's advocate to the Conventional Wisdom, the idea of my
> co-workers (or external colleagues) with three different kinds of word
> processors and spreadsheets presents its own challenges.
I rather have that then have only Word.
> The economic cost of a diversified OS/Application base isn't trivial. Even
> open standards have problems when people sitting on the standards committees
> act in _their organization's_ best interest rather than the standard's.
True, but I don't see much point in doing one wrong thing to avoid another.
Let's solve one problem at a time. Closed standards are not the solution,
and the jury is still out on open standards overall. Certainly there are
many places where open standards have been proven.
Committees always have their problems, but having them do the standards
is better than having them to the applications, which is what you get
with closed systems.
One way or another, I think we can apply the eternal vigilance ideal to
computers. You'll always be facing obstacles to doing things as well as
they ought to be done.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
>
> That would _destroy_ any incentive to create better software. If you know
> that if you achieve a certain level of success you'll get knocked down,
> why compete?
Oh bullshit. Microsoft isn't being taken down because they have achieved
a certain level of (financial) success. They are being taken down for
very valid reasons.
There are alot of financially successful companies out there that people
are not complaining about like they do Microsoft.
> Furthermore, it'd place the software industy in an eternally
> unstable state of flux with companies being periodically taken down by
> some external entity that may or may not have the industry's best
> interests at heart.
If you embrace open standards, the flux won't matter, everything will
still work. Your argument here is a perfect argument against Microsoft
and companies like them. I couldn't have said it better.
> And then the tools will be constrained by the common format. Unless, that
> is, the format is extendable, in which case you have the same problem as
> when before the format was standard.
Why? The problem now is that the "standard" is controlled by a single
entity who changes it as much to screw people up as they do to add
features. Even when it's purely the latter, it's often bad because the
focus of computer development should be on usability and reliability,
not an endless stream of features. Talk about constant flux!
> Vigilance by whom? Are you advocating some sort of software-industry
> oversight group: a regulatory agency for software companies? That almost
> sounds worse than dominance of the industry by Microsoft.
Who said anything about oversight? Each person involved is individually
responsible for ethical decisions. It's up to you as a professional
to learn what that is. Have you ever read the bylaws of the IEEE or
the ACM? They don't have an oversight group, they say each member is
responsible himself.
> Maybe a reasonable set of industry guidelines is to require that companies
> publicize _their_ file formats, API's (all of them), and network protocols
> as they release software products. Or, to be really ambitious, publicize
> them six months or so before the product gets released. That, a ban on
> software patents, and more government support of open-source software
> projects (at universities, etc.) might do the trick. It's also all pretty
> well-defined and easy to enforce.
I'm a little confused, because here you seem to have done a bit of a
180. In any case, these are good ideas. But, they'll never work as long
as Microsoft is around, because they won't play that game all the way.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> <off_topic>
But too tempting...
> What about the people who do the same in 2001? Linux has a lot of the
> pieces of a good consumer desktop OS, but nowhere near the integration or
> flexibility that people expect and need. What's worse, the trend among the
> open source community to develop Microsoft knockoffs (KDE, Gnome, and
> Mono) don't really do anything to really convince me it matters. Except
> for some (admittedly important) philosophical points, there's not much
> value for the average user in picking KWord over the bundled copy of MS
> Word that came with her machine.
Amen. I think that Gnome, for example, is horrid. Hell, I rather go back
to Motif than continue that direction. It's a bloated, ugly mess. They
could at least have taken off after a more Mac feel. At least that would
have been differentiated from the mainstream.
I ran Ximian Gnome for quite some time because I thought Gnome would be
really good, but it just kept getting bigger, more features, and more
eye-candy. What happened to usability and reliability? Bah! (waves paw)
I really hate to see that happen too, because I _do_ want a nice desktop
system based on UNIX, but I want something that avoid the same crap I
get with Windows.
I was actually happy with what I saw from NeXT back in the day, and the
Motif setup on SGI systems is very nice. Both are doomed of course,
though the former continues on somewhat in MacOS X.
I refuse to believe that a nice GUI system with a decent OS underneath
mandates the kind of bloat we see everywhere now.
To be fair to Linux though, things like Gnome are really separate
projects, and are just as piggy when placed on Solaris or FreeBSD.
> The things that made Linux so compelling to me in 1995 (good TCP/IP,
> 32-bit applications, distributed windowing, compatibility with Unix
> applications) are all slowly being eroded away seemingly faster than
> the Linux community is able to create new value.
Yep. I actually prefer a fairly simple *BSD setup, but Linux supports
my hardware better for the time being.
The truth is, right now, I don't see a computer system and OS out there
that really excites me that much. The older stuff is the only thing that
I really like much these days, along with the occasional and usually
now dead marketing failures.
Charles Shannon Hendrix
> []You should talk to someone at a CompUSA or some place like that,
> []and the warfare over shelf-space that exist among software
> []companies.
>
> the same thing happens at grocery stores and supermarkets. Well, not
> software, but food, etc.
I know. I used to work in a building materials warehouse, and was always
amused at that kind of thing. I remember endless and totally wasted
hours moving everything around because some sales-droid from Levelor
didn't like the way the floor looked in front of their blinds display.
What really sucks is the space-inefficient packaging used these days.
Not only does it actually waste shelf-space attempting to attract
buyers, but it's usually not environmentally friendly either. It always
bothers me a little bit that something (I feel is) as important as
the computer industry focuses so much attention on seeking out people
attracted to shiny objects.
Chris Hedley
> Yeah, look at Netscape!
I can't, it keeps core-dumping.
Chris.