7 May
2000
7 May
'00
12:59 p.m.
That, sir, is my point, quite precisely put. I'm for defining a system the
primary goal of which is to accomplish eful work as easily as possible.
Software development is a task for systems tailored for software
development, and they don't do "useful work" as easily (for the people who
normally do it) as a system optimized for "useful work."
More below:
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner <spc(a)armigeron.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 07, 2000 1:57 AM
Subject: Re: I wrote 'Nuke Redmond'
Yes, but as you've pointed out already, that case is ground-ruled out of
this discussion. I have used their products too, in fact since their
CP/M-based Turbo Pascal, and miss the no-nonsense approach they seem to have
taken with respect to almost everything they did.
It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once
stated:
>
> > This is the sickest aspect of the whole computer industry, ALL of the
> > companies that made fairly good reliable products went under from the
> flood
> > of dollars the BAD heavily marketed software generated via updates.
> >
> Well, I wish a few more of them would go. I can't imagine what
companies,
> now defunct, produced this set of "fairly
good reliable products " have
gone
> down the toilet because they were outspent or
outmarketed by MS. An
example
or two would
be nice.
Borland? Oh that's right, you don't do software development. Umm ...
-spc (Hey, at least that's one ... )