7 Mar
2001
7 Mar
'01
8:34 a.m.
I changed the topic. My mail server rejected the posting because it claims
to contain a variant of the LoveLetter virus.
the
Why fault
Microsoft for making products that are popular and common?
(1) Their products' popularity and commonness is largely *not* a result of product's quality.
Their products are the result of one man's business acumen. I won't argue
the worthness/worthlessness of Microsoft products, that's an exercise in
futility. Microsoft was in the right place at the right time. Had it been
otherwise, we'd probably be running CP/M-2001 and complaining about the same
thing.
(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?
I have no belief in evolution, but this arguement is silly. You can apply
this to any technology. Would you have been at Gutenberg's door with torches
and pitchforks, shouting that books were for "smart people"? Do you blame
him for giving stupid people access to what had traditionally been reserved
for the realm of the universities?
Under this argument, we should also blame the likes of IBM, or Commodore,
Apple and Atari for bringing computing to the masses? Blame Microsoft all
you want, and remember that these machines also ran Microsoft products.