Text 1629, 333 rader
Skriven 2006-06-03 22:54:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2075.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Josh Hill to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <pni482tlomeu2s985jmf09jur80i6nob28@4ax.com>
@REPLY: <L_veg.878$VE1.89@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>
On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 21:50:32 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:f3r382hhngpp9cbgii1em4l3g03ime4lgk@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 04:21:33 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John W. Kennedy" <jwkenne@attglobal.net> wrote in message
>>>news:yI7gg.3677$n91.1519@fe09.lga...
>>>> Carl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yeah, Gates has been too busy giving $29 Billion to charities and 
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to bring medicines to third world countries.  I can see where you'd be
>>>>> looking for a 666  birthmark. :)
>>>>
>>>> Bill Gates has, almost single-handedly, brought the entire software
>>>> industry to a screeching halt. He has ruined the careers of thousands, 
>>>> and
>>>> he has done it by repeated criminal acts, and by a completely lack of
>>>> personal and business ethics.
>>>
>>>Nonsense.
>>>
>>>He's made the careers of hundreds of thousands and made many people
>>>millionares.  He's also invested heavily in communications and medical
>>>technologies (among others).
>>>
>>>The entire software industry is not at a screeching halt;
>>>
>>>There are other (free) platforms if you don't like Windows, and the 
>>>criminal
>>>acts you refer to (I'm assuming you mean monopolistic practices) were 
>>>mostly
>>>criminal retroactively after MS got big.... the one unforgivable sin.
>>
>> I watched those things happening and they seemed plenty criminal at
>> the time. It was a given that Gates would do anything, no matter how
>> underhanded and odious and illegal, to put a competitor out of
>> business
>
>They never did find Phillipe Kahn's body, did they?
>
>>  -- rewriting DOS to make his software incompatible
>
>Contrasted to the other big players at the time that wanted to
>control both hardware AND software.

And didn't use illegal means to do so.

>> , imitating his innovative program and bundling it for free,
>
>Apple "Stole" from Xerox, Konfabulator and others.

>Do you think any software company says
>"That's a really good idea.  Users like it, it's intuituve, let's NOT use it 
>or try to learn anything from it!"

Of course not. But other companies innovate as well. Microsoft does
not: they merely imitate, to the point at which their stolen products
resemble the products they've imitated more than they resemble other
Microsoft products. Then, when they've driven their competitor out of
business, they cease changing the product.

By way of contrast, we have thousands of valuable innovations from
IBM. I can't think of /one/ innovation from Microsoft.

>> forcing him into a fire sale,
>Yeah, let's see.  Microsoft Money took the world by storm. MSN has taken 
>over.
>Not charging for IE made Netscape reduce their price from ... Free.

Yeah, and the neighborhood crook doesn't always succeed at his bank
robberies either. Doesn't mean I'm going to let him off the hook for
the ones that do succeed.

>> writing licenses so that companies couldn't sell
>> competitors' products, what have you.
>
>>And he ruined the software
>> industry and, by sticking us with cruddy, high TCO software,
>
>As opposed to what?   If you wanted to lock yourself into a platform that
>was closed and expensive (Apple) you always could. OS/2 PM sucked.

The people I know who used OS/2 loved it. It was /way/ ahead of both
Windows and the Mac.

>The other options were worse, and you might not like Windows, but it
>works for 850 million people. A LOT of the bloat in Windows comes
>from having to support apps going back to the early DOS days.

But it didn't work. It cost a fucking fortune to run because it was a
piece of crap that was designed to sell rather than to work.

Typical of Microsoft's business practices: adding features to Word
that /they knew didn't work/ so they'd look good on the comparison
charts in magazine reviews.

>You try writing an OS that's backward compatable to the 80's and has
>countless existing apps to keep running.  Do you have ANY idea what degree
>of difficulty that really is?  That and trying to move forward too.

They chose to emphasize compatibility over quality. It was a decision
based on greed rather than on service to the customers, because they
knew damn well that their customers would spend a lot more money
dealing with the bugs and shortcomings than they would have on
software upgrades. And that's why they split with IBM: IBM just wasn't
accustomed to putting out crap software that didn't run and was never
fixed. In those days, few computer companies were.

>It's easy to take pot shots.  Let me know if you can write a better OS.

Anyone can write a better OS, and many have.

>> has
>> placed an immense tax on the businesses that are dependent on it.
>
>But Josh...you LOVE high taxes, particularly on business.

I challenge you to show me one post in which I've advocated high
taxes. What I don't believe in is fiscally irresponsible tax cuts that
provide unfair advantages to the rich.

>Businesses didn't have to use it.  They could have chosen Apples or Unix.

Apple was never competitive except in niche markets, and their OS was
a piece of crap before OS X. Unix was too difficult for small
businesses and end users.

>> And, of course, the courts have ruled again and again that Microsoft
>> violated the law. The man is a criminal, pure and simple.
>
>No...the company commited criminal acts that became criminal after
>a retroactive change in the rules because they became successful.

No, that just isn't true: retroactive laws are unconstitutional. Many
or most of the antitrust laws date back to Teddy Roosevelt. Microsoft
violated them repeatedly and knowingly, and Gates lied about having
violated them in court, and then ignored the court when they were
ordered to change their behavior.

>Bill Gates was not convicted of anything.  Please be precise here.

That rests upon the questionable thesis that when a corporation is
found guilty of breaking the law the officers who ran it aren't
themselves guilty of criminal behavior. As a legal fiction, it may
work, but only as a legal fiction: a crook is a crook.

>> As to those millions, they would have been employed if he'd lived --
>
>Sure, but at one point 20% of MS employees were millionares.  I doubt that 
>would have happened.

No, but the wealth would have been spread elsewhere.

>> people were writing operating systems and software long before Gates stole 
>> their work.
>
>Whoa.  Check this nonsense at the door.
>
>IBM (a company with OS writing experience) approached Bill asking about an 
>OS.  There weren't any 16 bit OSs for the 8088 Bill sent them the Kildall 
>(of CP/M fame) with a high recommendation of Kildall's ability. Kildall (or 
>Kildall's wife, depending on who tells the story) blew them off and refused 
>to sign the non-disclosure agreements.
>
>IBM went back to Bill, who saw the opportunity and bought the rights to the 
>code (and distribution rights) from someone else
>that was... here it comes.... porting (stealing?) CP/M to the Altair.  At 
>this point the effort was a hobbyist effort....much like the rest of the 
>"industry" at the time.
>
>There really weren't any other options at the time.  So much for the absurd 
>assertion that Bill stole the OS or that OS programmers were out there in 
>droves.  That just wasn't the case.

Yeah, he bought DOS. Doesn't change what I said. He's a software
thief. He creates nothing, imitates everything. It's the old Japanese
business philosophy, less the devotion to quality.

>> But they would have been part of a larger, more diverse, competitive group
>
>Josh...that's just wrong.   From an IBM perspective, IBM made a serious 
>mistake by allowing MS to release MS DOS as well as PC DOS, but they never 
>considered that the PC would become anywhere near as popular as it did.  The 
>whole project was done almost as a garage project within IBM.  The goal was 
>to slap together something out of off the shelf parts that could connect to 
>the mainframes.
>
>The fact that Bill thought to release MS DOS as well allowed for the 
>creation of the IBM compatable market, which lead to the rise of Compaq 
>early on.   If that didn't happen, the market would have been fragmented 
>between business users (IBM) and hobbyists and the whole market would have 
>been a mess.

Not sure I follow you there. In any case, I'm not just talking about
DOS days, but about the whole history of Microsoft. They put
competitors out of business using illegal tactics. Result: no
competition, no innovation, low quality and a high TCO which is in
effect a tax on American business. 

>> -- more people producing more and better
>> and more innovative and more useful products. Market competition as
>> opposed to socialism.
>
>What do you do for a living Josh?  It doesn't seem that you work in the 
>industry, because there is a lot of innovation...more now than in a number 
>of years.  A lot of people are doing a lot of interesting things and the 
>nextr few years will be a lot of fun.  If you don't see that, then you 
>aren't looking closely enough.

One doesn't have to look closely to know that software has become a
static bore, or come to me to find people who will tell you that.
Sure, innovation still happens around the edges, but it doesn't affect
the major niches that Microsoft controls.

>>>> Now he is trying to bribe God.
>>>
>>>A long time ago when he was just beginning to be noticed for his wealth he
>>>said that he planned to give most of it away.
>>>
>>>You apparently don't know anything about his past or his family.
>>
>> Giving away wealth one doesn't need is a cheap trick to increase one's
>> popularity while making no sacrifice whatsoever, promising to give it
>> away while not doing so an even cheaper one.
>
>Intetresting that you're so certain that you know what's in his mind and 
>heart
>that you feel qualified to judge him in absolute certainty of his intent.
>
>Giving away 29 Billion dollars by setting up a foundation and being actively 
>involved trying to bring medicine to the third world is soemthing that he 
>wanted to do.  He didn't have increase his popularity; he's wealthy enough 
>not to give a rat's behind as to what you think of him.  He's been 
>interested in medical technology, and health related issues for decades. 
>His father is well known for being very giving to charities as well.
>
>Just because you say he does it as a popularity stunt doesn't make it so. 

Billionaires all say the same thing: after the first billion, it
doesn't matter, because you can't possibly buy anything you don't
have. As I said in another post, compare Ted Turner, who did make
genuine sacrifices.

>Just because he's rich doesn't make him evil.

No, but I never suggested it did. He's evil because he's a law breaker
whose behavior is well known for being petulant, bullying, selfish,
and thuggish, and whose contempt for product quality is legendary.

>> What does hurt people is the money one spends: a 200 car garage could
>> feed a lot of hungry people, and would be more than enough to damn
>> someone in any Hell I'd care to live in.
>
>You're as quick to damn others as some of the "neocons" are accused of.
>>
>He did employ the people that built the garage, and there are MS people that 
>go there to work.  It's not just a private garage.  Apparently his house is 
>used as a lab for developing and integrating new technologoes into the home, 
>and there is a dedicated lab section away from his actual living area.

Seems to me there's some strange alchemy here that's trying to
transmute ostentation into modesty . . .

>So far Gates has given away over 1/3 of his wealth and he has stated that he 
>intends go give away almost all of it.  The fact that he wishes to keep a 
>sizable amount of stock and a degree of controlling interest in MS for now 
>is not confusing or damning.  He has said that he absolutely does not want 
>to leave his kids with a huge amount of money; he wants them to accomplish 
>something on their own.

Yeah, figures he'd be a cheapskate with his kids as well.

>Gates has done more to help people than most.  He's employed tens of 
>thousands directly, many more than that indirectly and helped to direct an 
>industry in a way that made it boom from the 80s through today.
>
>You assume that you know his motives, but it's just your assumptions based 
>on your own pre-conceived bias.

It's based on the record. He's a selfish petulant underhanded shit
who's reviled by his business peers for his bullying tactics, the sort
of fellow who said early in the days of his company let's hire a woman
because we can pay her half of what we'd pay a man for doing the same
job, the sort of man who codes his applications and writes exclusive
licenses to put competitors out of business.

>Let's contrast Gates charitable giving to say...Al Gore, whose 1997 return 
>showed a whopping $353 dollars to charity.
>http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/04/15/gore.taxes/
>
>Certainly he could afford more than that.  Gore, being the political animal 
>that he is/was had more reason to give to charity for PR reasons that Gates 
>ever did.  Other years he gave more...

We were talking about Bill Gates, not Al Gore.

>specifically earmarked from book 
>sales, etc, but never tapping into his real wealth.   There is no reason to 
>believe his habits have changed now, even though his worth has skyrocketed 
>due to his Google stock.  He is reported to be worth more than 100 mmillion 
>dollars.

Sure, and Gates never liquidated any Jews either. This makes him good?
And if so, what am I to make of the many honest, upstanding,
law-abiding people I've known, the people who care about the quality
of the work and the job they're doing for their customers, the people
who give a dollar to charity even though they're scrimping on lunch
money? I'm lucky enough to have known lots of people like that, and I
think it insults their decency to compare them to Gates and others of
his ilk.

-- 
Josh

"I'm not going to play like I've been a person who's spent hours involved with
foreign policy.
I am who I am." - George W. Bush
                                                                               
                                 
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)