Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 00:03:36 +0100 From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> To: "Mike Meyer" <mwm@mired.org> Cc: <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com>, <chat@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Feeding the Troll (Was: freebsd as a desktop ?) Message-ID: <015101c17b85$93b2a5f0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15370.33251.168127.204747@guru.mired.org><010701c17b7f$8fa060c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> <15370.45357.556794.821789@guru.mired.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Mike writes: > I don't resent Microsoft. I think they produce > shitty software, and have since I first encountered > it on CP/M. Virtually _all_ PC software is garbage, if you are accustomed to truly reliable, stable software. Microsoft software is actually more stable than average, in my experience. Adobe writes pretty solid stuff, too (relatively speaking). Many lesser companies write pure junk, and somehow manage to sell it. I think it is because most PC users (and even PC professionals) have no clue as to what constitutes a truly stable, reliable computer system, and just assume that bugs, errors, and crashes are normal for any computer. It's a good thing that NASA never had to recruit from this pool of misled individuals, or most of the Apollo program would have ended in smoking heaps on the launch pads. > I didn't pay more than I had to for the system, > I found a vendor that hadn't cuat that particular > deal. So much for the monopoly practices, eh? > Because that's basically what the judge said > in his findings in the most recent anti-trust > case. MS's licensing practices - requiring that > every complete system sell with an OS of theirs > - was a prime example of MS exercising their > monopoly position. A prime example ... or the only example? One of the problems for the plaintiffs in that case is that Microsoft's competitors were extremely hard pressed to actually produce any solid evidence to back up many of their accusations. They managed to produce enough to convince a severely biased judge, however. > First, I don't resent MS. I resent their repeated > use of unethical business tactics. But there is no such repeated use. I hear people complain about it, but the hard evidence is never there. I don't think that even 0.1% of the complaints I've ever heard about Microsoft have any documentation backing them up at all. It's just groups of young males all jumping on the same bandwagon. > Considering that you've already agreed that > Windows isn't suitable for desktop use, it > would seem that Apple made the right technical > decision, but the wrong business decision. You have to make the right _business_ decisions to remain in _business_. > Adobe and Perforce come to mind without thought. Adobe is no better than Microsoft. I have no experience with Perforce. > Stated with your usual accuracy. Prior to > Windows 95, at desktop prices, both the Mac > and the Amiga were availabe. Neither of them ran Windows applications. > There were at least two alternative to > Windows to multitask on top of DOS like > Windows did. There were _no_ alternatives, if you wanted to run the already large selection of Windows-only applications that were available. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?015101c17b85$93b2a5f0$0a00000a>