7 Mar
2001
7 Mar
'01
10:07 a.m.
Steve Robertson skrev:
> > Why fault Microsoft for making products that
are popular and common?
>Their products' popularity and commonness is largely *not* a result of the
>product's quality.
Well... I happen to be a quality engineer and I
strongly disagree with your
assertion that MS does not produce quality software. So in order to get this
discussion on an intellectual tract, I'd be curious as to your definition of
software quality, and the specific attributes that define it?
Quality of a thing is measured against its peers.
>(2) Their products are designed for idiots.
Computers are tools for smart
>people. Should we let evolution gradually filter out stupid people from
>the species, or should we allow them to be our least common denominator,
>thereby limiting the power of the species as a whole?
So... I'm an idiot because I use MS products?
Yes.
I also take exception to your assertion that computers
are for "smart"
people. Let's see... Not so many years ago, the consensus was that freedom
was only for white people, that voting was only for men, and [fill in the
blank with your favorite excluded activity / group].
Well, there is no need to be smart to use a computer. Less smart people have
been using computers at least since the sixties. Or rather, they have been
using specific applications, or Macs.
There was also a time where you had to be a mechanic in
order to drive
because the cars were unrelyable and difficult to maintain. Should we
exclude every one from driving that can't rebuild an engine or tear down a
transmission. Let's see... Like the rest of us, you probably watch TV on
occassion. Is there anyone on this list (Tony excluded) that could build one
from scratch? Does that mean no-one else should be allowed to watch TV?
The problem is that Microsoft actually make software which is disruptive to
the environment into which is introduced. As for an M$ car, it sounds very
much like the Trabant. Driven by an entire people, built out of plywood. Cars
can be lethal, that's why there are driving licences. You actually aren't
allowed to drive a car if you haven't got a licence.
TV is a one-way medium. The only thing you hurt while watching is your own
brain. M$ email is detrimental to the brains of others, however.
Let's see... If you can't cook, you
shouldn't be allowed to eat... If you
can't sew, you shouldn't be allowed to wear clothes... If you can't swim,
you shuldn't be allowed to bathe...
It's more a matter of being able to user utensils properly in order to eat, or
being able to tie your shoelaces in order to wear shoes, than actually
fabricating them.
>(3) Their software engineers have given far too
much design control to
>their marketing droids.
Bull Shit... Without marketing, WINDOWS would have a
f***ing command line
interface and only the eliteist "smart" people (like yourself) would be
entitled to use it. Marketing is just as important to software engineering
as developers are.
But it shouldn't be. Why should it? And what's wrong with a command line? And
why would smart people use Windows?
--
En ligne avec Thor 2.6.
optimus@dec:foo$ make love
make: don't know how to make love. Stop