Text 1969, 100 rader
Skriven 2006-06-07 14:04:00 av Robert E Starr JR (2415.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
  * * * This message was from Carl to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * * *   
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <mP6dnYQDrcnVrBvZnZ2dnUVZ_rGdnZ2d@comcast.com>
@REPLY: <mbul72l385asn52fk8ncp3s49hs61e57gl@4ax.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:k5i9821vqsu6cbbt9nehp7jhjt38capnal@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 4 Jun 2006 05:31:07 +0000 (UTC), "Carl" <cengman7@hotmail.com>
> wrote:

<snip>

>>From a development point of view, Borland dominated the C++ compiler 
>>market
>>for years. Borland had an initial library for Windows development called
>>OWL.  When Microsoft came out with their first C++ compiler, they 
>>introduced
>>a much more efficient mechanism calleme message maps (as opposed to the
>>complete reliance on virtual tables that OWL had).  The next version of 
>>OWL
>>had message maps.
>>
>>It's a bum rap that MS doesn't innovate.  A lot of it is under the covers,
>>but that doesn't mean it's not there.  It is irrelevent whether you see it
>>or not.
>
> Wonder if they bought it or merely stole it.

I've exchanged emails with some of the people at MS that did create it.


<I wrote pages...then snipped it all out>

>>
>>Never mind... There's no point in continuing this.  You have yor mantra 
>>and
>>you're not really listening to anything I say.
>>
>>Anyone else reading this thread will make up their minds for themselves.
>
> Most of what you've said here is a recapitulation of what I already
> know and doesn't IMO contradict what I've said.

But it does; There's plenty of innovation in the industry, MS didn't kill 
it.
Even with spreadsheets...Google released a new spreadsheet TODAY
to compete with MS.

> Because, I think, you
> can't really contradict it: Microsoft has been found guilty again and
> again of violating the antitrust laws, and that isn't merely a
> function of its size, because we have mountains of testimony about
> their behavior.

MS had business practices that were legal until they were declared
a monopoly.  That formal declaration was during the same proceedings
that intended to penalize MS for monopolistic behavior.  In effect,
"MS, you're now formally a monopoly and as such we're proceeding to
the penalty phase."

MS challenged (and continues to) the ruling and thinks that although some
of it's practices are hardball, they're still legal.   They'll lose whether 
they're
technically right or not.  Opinion has swung against them; such is life.

You're interpretation of the events in the software industry are very
different from mine.  That's fine.

You minimize the positive effects of a standard and minimize the
importance of compatability.  I think that most businesses would argue
on my side of the standardization issue, and history has already voted
on the compatability issue.

Ultimately, you think that if MS hadn't been around or if they hadn't
become doiminant, the industry would be a lot better.

I think that someone would have become dominant, and I doubt whether
IBM or anyone else would have behaved any better after a while.

Countless times you've criticized the rich and big business.  I think it
interesting that you pick now to have more faith in businesses other than
Microsoft.

I can take issue with a lot of what you wrote...either the specific 
technical details
or the interpretation of events, but I think we've hit that point in the 
conversation
when I'll get (even more) boring, so I'd rather save everyone (including 
myself)
from that.


Carl

-- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer.
                                                  
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)