7 Mar
2001
7 Mar
'01
8:07 a.m.
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. (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?
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].
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?
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...
(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.
Steve Robertson
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
7 Mar
7 Mar
8:53 a.m.
(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. 
9:48 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Hellige" <jhellige(a)earthlink.net>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:23 AM
Subject: Re: Virus Alert !!!
I believe that the point of his statement was that
marketing
has played too large of a role in the popularity of MS products and
in thier design without the substance to back it all up.
My biggest hate thing against Microsoft is not that the software has
bugs, but that
they want the end users to pay them for fixing it. "$25 per problem,
can I have your
credit card number please" when you call support. (I won't. Ever. I
don't even *have* a credit
card, nor does the school AFAIK)
I find the concept of selling something with faults, this is common
enough in software (I won't hold
this as a Microsoft only flaw) but that they have the unmitigated gall
to CHARGE the people they sold
the product to in the first place, for ms to repair what's broken.
This is like buying a fridge, taking it home, and having the light globe
continually blow, calling the manufacturer,
and being told that "This is a common problem, we charge $25 for
solutions, can I have your credit card number please?"
Yeah, right.
Though perhaps Windows has more bugs than it should, it's global
popularity
means they are certainly noticed more.
I *know* Windows and some of it's apps are broken in many places, and
has memory leaks (amongst other things).
If you leave a windows box with Outlook Express open over a weekend, it
will be slow as an XT on
Monday morning, until you get sick of it and reboot, or it locks up and
you have to reboot anyway.
Done this by accident a couple of times, obviously not a good procedure
with an MS based box, but it
STILL SHOULDN'T DO IT.
VMS systems (with or without Decwindows) can have up times measurable in
years without stuff eating all available
system resources. A respectable O/S should not permit this to occur.
What I *like* about windows and it's companion apps like Office, Outlook
Express (not forgeting it's virus vulnerabilities though)
is the user interface. It's a relatively easy to use system, for some
very complex and powerful apps, (word has features most of us never use
or need). It's fair to say if Windows worked as well as the interface
looks, Bill would be God, and everyone will be happy.
I guess that's it's biggest fault, it doesn't work as well as it looks
like it should.
My 0.02c worth.
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
Computer Systems Manager
Saint Mark's College
Port Pirie,
South Australia
geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au
ICQ: 1970476
If there's
one thing MS has proved itself to be a master of
it's marketing and
the media. I'm another that would hardly call thier products
'quality' driven. They've proven that marketing will sell even the
lamest thing while the lack of it will sink even the best of ideas.
Both Commodore and Atari learned that lesson the hard way while Sony
is another company that uses it to great advantage and has the deep
pockets to do so.
Jeff
--
Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game Systems:
Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
http://www.geocities.com/siliconvalley/lakes/6757
10:05 a.m.
New subject: Microsoft (Was: Virus Alert !!!)
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. (2) Their
products are designed for idiots.
So... I'm an idiot because I use MS products? 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 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]. 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.
No, but they *are* effectively excluded from rebuilding their engine or tearing
down their 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? 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 not really about what should be _allowed_, but about what can be _done_.
If you can't build a TV from scratch, then you probably can't, well, build a TV
from scratch. If you can't cook, you probably
can't cook. If you can't swim,
you probably can't swim. If any of
these seriously interfered with your
fitness to survive (as intelligence does), then you would be on the losing end
of the evolutionary spectrum.
(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.
No they aren't. I can 'engineer' equally good programs with or without the
presence of marketroids -- if they stay out of my way. If they try to
interfere, inevitably the quality of the result is decreased.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)ou.edu
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft advertisement
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
12:14 p.m.
New subject: Microsoft (Was: Virus Alert !!!)
please see my remarks embedded in the previous post, quoted below.
Dick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey S. Sharp" <jss(a)ou.edu>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2001 5:05 PM
Subject: Microsoft (Was: Virus Alert !!!)
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?
Right. When we ask "what is quality?" we run inevitably into a unsolvable
semantic debate. My personal definition of 'quality' is kind of fuzzy; I
believe Microsoft's products lack it for many reasons, including the
following:
No. A man can wear diapers, but that does not make him a baby.
While it's true that
computers are tools (not toys), so many people wish to make
them into toys, that treating them as tools is senseless.
Why should what anyone is permitted to do, for any legal reason, be limited?
tearing
TV
Why would anyone believe that
programmers (it's difficult to justify using the
words software and engineer in the same paragraph) ever had any control to give
away. Marketing is what determines what direction a company's product line will
take. Well-designed products don't necessarily sell, while well-marketed ones
always do.
Just exactly what would one do with a command
line interface that one can't do
The only problem is that you can't sell the product without the pre-design
effort of the "marketroids."
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.
(0) They are too big.
(1) They are too slow.
(2) They are too buggy.
(3) They are too ustable.
(4) They don't use open standards.
(5) They claim to use open standards, but instead use 'embraced and extended'
(read: raped) ones that are 'strategically documented'.
(7) They assume you are an idiot.
(8) They have inadequate documentation.
(9) WTF is up with their versioning? JEEZ!
regarding items 0..2, how large, slow (define slow), and buggy would be
tolerable?
I can't address item (3) since I don't know what's meant by
"ustable," but, in
the event that it's a spelling error for unstabile, I'd ask how untabile it
should be in order to be tolerable.
What's an open standard and who strictly follows it and with what product?
("Strictly follows" means exactly, to the letter, etc.)
Where's (6)?
re: (7) ... that's the only safe assumption.
so ... Who's got adequate documentation?
Who cares what their revisioning scheme is, and why?
(2) Their
products are designed for idiots.
So... I'm an idiot because I use MS products? > 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 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].
True, until the oppressors learned that there was nothing that made the
oppressed any less fit for survival. An non-white person can do anything a
white person can do, and a woman can do anything that a man can do. Stupid
people, on the other hand, *cannot* do everything that a smart person can do.
Certainly, there should not be laws to explicitly limit the rights of stupid
people, but there most definitely should be a limit on what is done to make
their life easier.
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.
No, but they *are* effectively excluded from rebuilding their engine or down their transmission.
... and that's as it should be.
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? 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 not really about what should be _allowed_, but about what can be _done_.
If you can't build a TV from scratch, then you probably can't, well, build a
from scratch. If you can't cook, you probably
can't cook. If you can't swim,
you probably can't swim. If any of these seriously interfered with your
fitness to survive (as intelligence does), then you would be on the losing end
of the evolutionary spectrum.
likewise, if you can't make the software work the way you want, then you
shouln't waste your time trying. It is your time, however, and nobody pretends
to try to control what you do with it.
> (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.
from a DOS window?
Microsoft would have then striven to make more *powerful* products instead of
things like Bob or MSN, and we would be doing much more with computers than we
are now.
Power isn't the issue. People are, for the most part, too lazy even to think,
so MS has attempted to save them the trouble.
Marketing is just as important to software
engineering as developers
are.
No they aren't. I can 'engineer' equally good programs with or without the
presence of marketroids -- if they stay out of my way. If they try to
interfere, inevitably the quality of the result is decreased.
--
Jeffrey S. Sharp
jss(a)ou.edu
"One World, One Web, One Program" - Microsoft advertisement
"Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Fuhrer" - Adolf Hitler
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
8691
days inactive
8691
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
edick＠idcomm.com -
geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au -
jhellige＠earthlink.net -
jss＠ou.edu -
optimus＠canit.se -
steven_j_robertson＠hotmail.com