Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 16:54:37 -0600 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> 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: <15370.45357.556794.821789@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <010701c17b7f$8fa060c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com> References: <15370.33251.168127.204747@guru.mired.org> <010701c17b7f$8fa060c0$0a00000a@atkielski.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Anthony Atkielski <anthony@freebie.atkielski.com> types: > Mike writes: > > Because I don't see the point in paying for software > > I'm not going to use. > I don't see the point in paying more than you have to for a system just because > you resent Microsoft. I don't resent Microsoft. I think they produce shitty software, and have since I first encountered it on CP/M. I didn't pay more than I had to for the system, I found a vendor that hadn't cuat that particular deal. > > This strange state of affairs is the result of > > MS's illegal and unethical licensing practice. > Why do you say that? 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. > > But we were discussing why Apple didn't go > > anywhere, and the Mac didn't run MS-DOS > > programs. > If Apple had been managed like Microsoft, Steve would have found a way to make > MS-DOS programs run on the Mac. But Apple was managed in a very different, far > less rational way, and providing MS-DOS support on the Mac would have "tainted" > the Mac's sacred purity, angering the highly emotional user base that tends to > prefer the Mac. Mac users are kind of like you in their resentment for > Microsoft, it seems, and would rather lose big themselves in order to inflict > some imaginary injury on MS. They pay too much for their computers, too. First, I don't resent MS. I resent their repeated use of unethical business tactics. 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. > > Ok, they might have been a large company turning > > out mediocre software, instead of being a mammoth > > company turning out mediocre software. > Very few companies do _not_ turn out mediocre software. Can you think of any? > Especially any with more than 25 employees? Adobe and Perforce come to mind without thought. I'm not sure Perforce has more than 25 employees, though. I can certainly come up with a longer list if I think about it some. > > Then why were they using it? > Because prior to Windows 95, there was nothing else. Stated with your usual accuracy. Prior to Windows 95, at desktop prices, both the Mac and the Amiga were availabe. I don't recall if the Atari ST died before then or not. OS/9 was available, and is still around for those who want it. There were at least two alternative to Windows to multitask on top of DOS like Windows did. If Windows 3.0 wasn't good enough, there were lots of options. It was good enough to do the job, but people wanted better things. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/ Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information. 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?15370.45357.556794.821789>