"Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> Ezekiel wrote:
>> "Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>> "Matt" <matt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> Ezekiel wrote:
>>>>> I don't expect it would take much to know more about OS than nearly
>>>>> all the senior execs at Microsoft.
>>>> That's why there's often people who manage "business" and other people
>>>> who manage the technical aspects of a company. But it's ridiculous to
>>>> believe for one second that there aren't some very, very smart
>>>> technical people working at Microsoft.
>>> Oh, I wouldn't dispute that. For instance I find now that Allchin has
>>> some very impressive technical accomplishments, also that he came from
>>> poverty, also that he didn't much want to work at MS but was convinced
>>> by Gates to join.
>> It ended up working out pretty well for him.
> An interesting question is why he didn't want to go to MS. By his emails
> about how MS had lost its way, and by his resignation upon Vista's
> release, you sense that he has some vestige of conscience, that he would
> like MS to be true to the beneficent image it presents of itself.
There's plenty of possible reasons. Some people don't like MS. Others don't
like working for large companies and prefer working somewhere small where
they can have more of an impact. Some people won't or can't move to the
Redmond area. It's not necessarily a sinister reason why he didn't want to
>>> I don't see that their occasional technical excellence justifies their
>>> habit of attacking standards.
>> I don't agree that developing new technologies and products is attacking
> Of course it isn't, but hiding your APIs and arbitrarily and heedlessly
> changing your APIs so that competitors can't use them is not an essential
> part of developing new technologies. The pattern you should discern is
> destruction of standards that they can't control.
If you're going to make a statement like this then I'll have to ask you to
give an example or two where an existing API was "changed" - let alone
changed to thwart a competitor. You'll need to name the actual API (or two)
that was changed. I've used the Win32 API for many years and I can't name
an API that was arbitarily changed. You'll need to back this up. (Try to
make it an API that changed in the last 10-15 years. I really don't care
about some arcane system call in DOS 2.1 that might have changed.)
>> Companies extend standards to provide additional functionality that
>> doesn't exist in the standard. Firefox has non-standard features in
>> their browser. The gcc/g++ compiler has non-standard compiler features.
>> MySQL has it's own set of features that aren't part of the SQL standard.
>> What's the point in developing a language like Python.... what
>> "standard" does Python adhere to? Clearly Python exists to create
>> lock-in and to attach languages like Perl.
>> Once again... computer technology evolves and changes over time. Things
>> would be extremely stagnant if nobody released any features until they
>> were officially part of some committee approved standard that took
>> months or years to approve.
> We've been through all this before. There is a clear pattern of
> hostility to standards that they don't own as well as hostility to
> competitors using their APIs (e.g. DR-DOS).
Have any examples that are less than 20 years old?
> Their intent is to advance MS, not primarily to advance technology.
No kidding. So how is this different from say IBM, Google or HP?
> Now that the possibilities for OS improvement have pretty much run out,
> advancing the technology isn't even much of an option. They can't do
> much other than to keep changing the APIs, and hardly anybody wants to
> buy it.
Here we go again with the "changing the APIs" nonsense. Since you've
claimed this multiple times and used it as a plural (API*s*) do provide
examples (plural) of APIs that have been changed. I'm calling total Rex
Ballard nonsense on this one.
> Linux is driving the price of Windows and Office closer to zero in one
> market after another, and they will be running short of revenue to pay
> for development.
Interesting statement given how many "advocates" in COLA constantly whine
about how expensive MSO and Windows are and how free software offers these
huge cost savings. So which is it... does it cost several $100's of dollars
or is the price being driven down close to zero. And exactly in what market
has the price been driven down to nearly zero. (Emphasis on the "driven
> I believe I mentioned the MS identity crisis in a previous post, and you
> denied that there was one. Allchin's email clearly shows that there was
> one in 2002. Has it somehow been resolved?
I don't recall any identity crisis. You'll need to provide more details
about what you're talking about here.
> MS will survive in some form for many years yet, but they know their old
> business model in OS and office software is not going to work much
Sounds like the predictions that "advocates" were making over 5 years ago.
How'd those predictions work out? Last I checked MS continues to make about
a BILLION (with a *B*) dollars a month in profit from MSO and Windows. That
/profit/ each month... not sales. And that number is growing... not
shrinking. I don't know what the basis is for your "prediction" but it
certainly isn't based on any sort of facts.