Well, Andy, I'm all for sarcasm and everything, but, like, what's the point? Backing up this particular tortured chain of messages, I get to 19914, where you write:
>>W. Brian Arthur, an economist at the Santa Fe Institute...>>
This idiot is an ivory-tower economist... what does he know about commercial software?
The Chicago School guys, thought to be in Bill's camp till Bork signed up on the wrong side, are all a bunch of ivory tower economists too. Having attended the Chicago School myself, I'd say it's the mother of all ivory tower institutions, and most people there would consider "ivory tower academic" a complement. Another one of those objectivity / bias things, I'd say, where people who stand up for Microsoft rate and those who don't, don't. Just another variant on the old ad hominem attack, merely the first step in mastering cheesy high school debate techniques.
He says MSFT hasn't innovated... i still maintain FAT was innovative at the time of DOS.
And everybody else can't quite fathom the point of this. Aside from the dubious proposition that FAT was innovative, it's not something that Microsoft (which was mostly Bill and a few close friends at the time) came up with to begin with.
MSFT puts new stuff out just as fast as all their little fingers will type... it's just that it's so difficult to get that ever-growing list of bloated features to work together... maybe COM will be the answer... (stifling a guffaw)...
There you're taking a sarcastic attitude toward mighty Microsoft- but by the end of this chain you're picking up a "right on" from the Mind of Reg(TM). Where do you go from here? Beats me, I'm just posting this because it's a slow news day.
Cheers, Dan. |
