On 10/14/2011 1:47 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
Uh Jack ...
I got to spend a bit of time with Richie at a conference once. He was
a brilliant and interesting guy, but I suspect he'd reject status as
deity.
I of course meant he was a "god" to computing, creating not only a great
OS but also the programing language needed to write it. Deity was only
used as a tool to get the point across.
The economic value, the taxes, and the employment that Gates and
Jobs respectively are responsible for is every bit the equal of
Richie's contribution ... it's just a different kind of contribution.
I could say the same for other monopolies, like Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T.
These companies provided lots of jobs directly, and quality products
as well. Gates on the other hand provides few jobs directly, and lots
of jobs as millions are needed to keep his crap marginally working.
Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
Gates and Jobs were marketers that understood what the public needed,
that the public would live with "good enough" technology, and the
price point that the public would tolerate. That is a kind of genius
too.
Gate's "good enough" technology is a perfect example of why monopolies
are bad and why anti-trust laws exist.
Then this bit of very sane response follows:
And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity.
Yeah, real sane. First, he hasn't done it yet, and second, what does
thinking about giving away money ripped off the public with an illegal
monopoly and political graft have to do with subject? Ill gotten gains
that may be given away are still ill gotten gains.
Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.
Well that's not too far off. Gate's contribution is mostly negative.
The best I can say about him is he's set computing back 25 years.
If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.
That may have been "sane" but makes no sense, I'm certainly not looking
for saints.
I am surprised that you don't know the correct spelling of the name of
the guy you idolized/worshipped. I figured that having it spelled out
for you in the URL you provided would have helped get it right.
I don't know the man, I liked his code, I liked what he did, and I can
spell UNIX an C well enough to communicate.
I uesdnatnrd maikng a big dael out of slpeling is waht is iproamtnt...
Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.
I don't know much about Jobs, other than his OS is based on the UNIX
kernel and his company makes 40% profit margin. I know a lot about
Gates and I know his monopoly makes 30% profit margin. I know I'm
constantly told by the media that Exxon-Mobil is ripping me off with an
under 10% profit margin. I try not to miss an opportunity to point it
out to the idiots around me.
Why is it that the "free market" has decided that Apple's and MS'
pricing is acceptable, but you have a problem with it? Talk about
arguing out both sides of your mouth...
The free market was stifled by Microsoft's anti-competitive marketing
strategy. That's how you get stuck with crap.
And Microsoft was no predatory monopoly. Their prices have either
stayed the same or gone down (in real terms) while adding more and
more features to their products.
Microsoft was a predatory monopoly. The DOJ proved this in Judge
Sporkin's court after a 4 year investigation in 1995. After the DOJ won
their case, and the good judge said the consent decree the DOJ wanted
was not even close to the redress needed, the DOJ appealed their
VICTORY. This had to cost Gates and MS a TON and political
contributions have flowed from MS ever since.
Many of us involved in the PC scene in the early days, and familiar with
more than just DOS and Win, had no need for the DOJ and the judge to
prove this, we knew it already.
None of this will stop the Whiners (tm), of course. They complain
about businesses making "too much" profit, and then complain again
when unemployment is high, all the never connecting the dots between
those two ideas.
Get real. Microsoft has a crap OS, everyone knows this. They control
over 90% of the DT market with a crap product, and make 30% profit
margin. This combination screams monopoly even if Gates gives you a
hard on, and you are unfamiliar with all that went on to get him that
monopoly.
I'm an engineer. I am not particularly thrilled with Microsoft products.
I'm not an engineer, and I'm not particularly thrilled at all. To be
particularly thrilled, you would have to have your head buried in the
sand, or making money off his crap OS.
I much prefer Unix and all that goes with it.But Microsoft responds
to a need with a "good enough" product that serves 100s of millions
of people just fine.
No, it doesn't serve millions of users "just fine". It's a crap system
that should have been improved and replaced years ago. His system does
have millions pulling their hair out daily, most of them too computer
illiterate to understand it's not them, it's the OS.
On a smaller scale so does Apple, even though they
are one of the most closed off environments around (far worse than
Microsoft). Value is in the eye of the beholder not the pontificants
on the net ...
Jobs and Gates don't mind gouging the public at 30-40% profit margins.
It always amazes me that people get jumping ugly about the oil companies
"ripping off" the public with under 10% profit, and socialists calling
for a "windfall profit" tax on them, but get a hard on over Gates
ripping them off, and with a shoddy product to boot, and re-boot, and
re-boot, and re-boot...
--
Jack
I have not failed. I've just found ten thousand ways that won't work.
http://jbstein.com