Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

--
Jack
Don't worry about your health... It'll go away!
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand....

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

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.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.

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...

R

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

At what level would profit be acceptable to you, 5%, 2%, 0% ?

Personally, I don't like to work cheap.

basilisk

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...ies-at-70.html

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

John

On 10/14/2011 12:01 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45 pm, 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.

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.



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.


Then this bit of very sane response follows:


And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

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.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. But, whatever.

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...

R

+1000

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. See:

http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa352.pdf
http://reason.com/archives/2001/11/0...-greatest-hits
http://www.cato.org//pubs/pas/pa-405es.html

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.

I'm an engineer. I am not particularly thrilled with Microsoft products.
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. 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 ...

On Oct 14, 1:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:











Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. *Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. *Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

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.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. *But, whatever.


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

**=Jack's type of conservatism that is. It doesn't have to be that
way, but in Jack's world anything he either disagrees with on doesn't
understand, needs to be either threatened or destroyed.
Sad, really.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

On Oct 14, 9:45*am, Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.


As a young computer science enthusiast I had my copy of K&R always
available whenever I was doing procedural code. At first object code
still had chunks of C and other procedural code in in but eventually
object code made K&R irrelevant.

As far as your hate on Gates and Jobs, please stop using all computer
technologies now or consider yourself a complete hypocrite. And don't
go calling me on your iPhone and ranting either or send me any mail
from your Outlook client.

On 10/14/2011 11:45 AM, Jack wrote:
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.
....

How fortuitous timing... I just very recently finished reading Jack
Ganssle's article "C Sucks" in his newsletter "The Embedded Muse 214"

http://www.ganssle.com/tem/tem214.htm

Couldn't have said it better meself...

--

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:24:45 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 14, 1:01*pm, RicodJour wrote:
On Oct 14, 12:45*pm, Jack wrote:











Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god.
* I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr.
Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being
written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. *Nothing much
has occurred to change those thoughts.

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. *Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with 30% profit margins. *Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. *XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a
screwed up society. *God must have loved this guy to write his code for
him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...

http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/te...chie-programmi...

And Gates is leaving $50 billion to charity. *Yep, he sure was a
schmuck that did nothing for nobody not ever. *Sheesh.

If you're looking for saints, go dig up a few.

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.

Ritchie made a huge contribution - don't see why you feel the need to
tear other people down to point that out. *But, whatever.


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way.

Hmm, are my filters slipping?


**=Jack's type of conservatism that is. It doesn't have to be that
way, but in Jack's world anything he either disagrees with on doesn't
understand, needs to be either threatened or destroyed.
Sad, really.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

I nominate this for the post of the month, if not year.

2 points, Toy! ROTFLMAO.


--
Every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are
based on the labors of other men, living and dead, and that
I must exert myself in order to give in the same measure as
I have received and am still receiving.
-- Albert Einstein

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 13:26:28 -0400, news wrote:

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

I'll "C" that and raise you a Z80-based CP/M systen :-).

And yes, it was a pretty full implementation - Eco-C. IIRC, it generated
either 8080 or Z80 assembler source.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

wrote:

I know the name - and have one of their earliest books.

C on the PDP 11/70, anyone?

John

I'll top that. I have an autograped copy of the "bible" by Ritchie,
addressed to me as someone he actually knew. I had the good fortunre of
installing two computers in his office and spending the time actually
talking with him about all this stuff - including what he did not like about
our roll out of his operating system...

--

-Mike-

Robatoy wrote:


That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

Gotta call you on this one brother. I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. You had to take this to a political point - huh? Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been dealt
with head-long. Sorry - bad call on your part.


Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull**** that
prevailed above it.


I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. Nowhere in Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time with
your comment above. The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. Sorry to see this from you.

--

-Mike-

Bull****!


-------------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Gotta call you on this one brother. I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. You had to take this to a political point - huh? Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been
dealt
with head-long. Sorry - bad call on your part.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull****
that
prevailed above it.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. Nowhere in
Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time
with
your comment above. The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by
hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. Sorry to see this from you.

advertising removed

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

On 10/14/2011 1:24 PM, basilisk wrote:
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates
eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to
gouge the public with30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off
with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.

At what level would profit be acceptable to you, 5%, 2%, 0% ?

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

Personally, I don't like to work cheap.


Personally, I don't like having the choice to buy any color of car, as
long as it's black.



--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 12:28:23 -0400, Jack wrote:



I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary. If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up
by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition,
competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is
stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are
forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect
example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the
market.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

Apple may or may not have a great product, I don't own or use anything
of theirs, but my son has a Mac and an iPhone, and he likes them, and
the mac runs on a Unix kernel so it should be solid. I'm not sure how
they manage a 40% profit margin but I'm not a big fan of companies
making that much of a profit margin. As you say, in this case, it may
be temporary, who knows. I doubt Apple can put a retailer out of the
computer business if they sell a competitors product, like MS could when
obtaining monopoly status.

I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS
monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers
are a casualty if the MS monopoly.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/16/2011 1:45 PM, Jack wrote:
On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition, competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the market.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?




Now let us inspect Reality to demonstrate why this is complete nonsense.
At the beginning of the desktop/PC revolution, there were two significant
OS players: Apple and Radio Shack (there were something like a half dozen
TRS-DOS variants, the best of which was LDOS). Then IBM entered the market
and Microsoft came with them, for the first time producing an OS.

Now let's fast forward. There are dozens of OS variants. Besides MacOS
(a FreeBSD/MACH derivative) and Windows, there are a bunch of different
Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDOS, at least one Windows
clone OS (whose name I cannot recall). In the mobile device space,
Microsoft's presence is too small to matter with Apple IOS and Android
(another Linux derivative) splitting the market between them. Microsoft
has no presence to speak of in the realtime/embedded space. They
are not a force in supercomputer or high-availability clustering. They
do not have a place in the multi-petabyte database space.

But you think they're a "monopoly". You are seriously disconnected from
the current state of this business. It is a simple, demonstrable, and
completely rational observation that Microsoft dominates only the desktop,
and then only so long as they provide a good value. More and more people
are turning to portable devices like high function phones and tablets -
a space where Microsoft has almost NO presence. This, sir, is not a
monopoly. This is a market with more product, more players, and more
competition than has ever existed since the dawn of commercial
computing. The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain
high margins in this environment is to their credit.

P.S. Microsoft isn't as bulletproof as you seem to think. Go look at their
stock performance over the last decade.

P.P.S. The only "predatory monopoly" that exists in our nation is the government
and that's because they get to use force to keep themselves in power.
Fortunately - for the most part - that use of force is narrowly bounded
by rule of law.

On Oct 15, 9:22*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
Robatoy wrote:

That is the conservative** way. Destroy what's in your way. There are
many many examples of the way(say Perry) a conservative** politician
will show that he/she is better by shoving the opponent down, not by
showing any personal merit.

Gotta call you on this one brother. *I'm pretty conservative in certain
respects, but that's not why I'm calling you. *Your diatribe is just
uncalled for. *You had to take this to a political point - huh? *Jack's
comments had nothing to do with political bend and could have been dealt
with head-long. *Sorry - bad call on your part.

Jack's political bend is well known and my comments and the comparison
to Perry were based on that knowledge.
Move along, nothing to see here.

Ritchie, Gates, and Jobs are all gifted, but now that Jack has
'judged' for us whose gift was acceptable to him, we can now go on
hating the other two.

Might have been a good point had it not been for the political bull**** that
prevailed above it.

Alright. Do poo-poo everything I said because I also said something
that didn't quite suit you.
That's the chances I take when I comment on things.

I really don't recall anybody in here with that much hate. A special
hate. A christian hate. The worst kind of hate, fuelled by hypocrisy.

Now you had to go throw that "christian" thing in there. *Nowhere in Jack's
reply did he speak to politics or religion, but you ****ed up big time with
your comment above. *The worst kind of hate is indeed fueled by hypocisy -
your type of hypocisy. *Sorry to see this from you.


I wasn't talking about Jack's reply. Mine was more along the lines of:
"How typical"
The christian reference was about that whole self righteous
'conservative' group, like Perry that seeks to tear down anything and
anybody that gets in the way. Like Jack. Comparison made and I stick
by it. If that bothers you, Mike, I am sorry, but I am not
apologizing. After all, WHO TF is Jack Stein to instruct us who to
hate? And for me to point out that behaviour is a non-christian one
is something you'll have to agree with. Are politicians really
incapable of believing in situational christianity?

You've got your view and I have mine
Jack Stein is a hypocrite plain and simple.
--

-Mike-

On Oct 15, 9:51*pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

Robatoy wrote:


I wasn't talking about Jack's reply. Mine was more along the lines of:
"How typical"
The christian reference was about that whole self righteous
'conservative' group, like Perry that seeks to tear down anything and
anybody that gets in the way. Like Jack. Comparison made and I stick
by it. If that bothers you, Mike, I am sorry, but I am not
apologizing. After all, WHO TF is Jack Stein to instruct us who to
hate? And for me to point out that behaviour is a non-christian one
is something you'll have to agree with. Are politicians really
incapable of believing in situational christianity?


I'm not sure just where in the hell your rant comes from. There was nothing
in Jack's post that legitimized your obvious issues with whatever, and I do
happen to take personal affront to your bull**** about Christians. On that
single point - you can sit on your opions and I'm not feeling bad about
telling you that. You're entitled to your feelings but you may just need to
figure out just when to keep them to yourself. I like you a lot and I'm not
going to let this come between a pretty good internet relationship, but
you're too full of yourself on this particular point. In your own words...
WYF are you to tell... Pot, kettle, black.


You've got your view and I have mine
Jack Stein is a hypocrite plain and simple.

I don't care about Jack. I asked about your comments that had nothing to do
with a posted usenet comment.

--

-Mike-

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:45:06 -0400, Jack wrote:

On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
Jack wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple
makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they
have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of
the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.

A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the
option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it
is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without
any type of phone.

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up
by the courts.

Um, IBM was not broken up by the courts. There was a consent decree in '56,
and they lost a suit to CDC, and a few others, in the '70s, but there was no
breakup by the government.

The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition,
competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is
stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are
forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect
example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the
market.

....and just what 90% of the market wants.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

If I knew, I'd be as rich as WGates. ;-)

If they are hugely profitable,
competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go
for it at a lower price.

Apple may or may not have a great product, I don't own or use anything
of theirs, but my son has a Mac and an iPhone, and he likes them, and
the mac runs on a Unix kernel so it should be solid. I'm not sure how
they manage a 40% profit margin but I'm not a big fan of companies
making that much of a profit margin. As you say, in this case, it may
be temporary, who knows. I doubt Apple can put a retailer out of the
computer business if they sell a competitors product, like MS could when
obtaining monopoly status.

A 40% margin isn't unusual for a high-tech business. It takes huge sums of
money to stay on the bleeding edge. That's just the way it is.

I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS
monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers
are a casualty if the MS monopoly.

On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 15:08:50 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 15, 9:51*pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

--
....in order that a man may be happy, it is
necessary that he should not only be capable
of his work, but a good judge of his work.
-- John Ruskin

Damn Canadian trolls and they should know better, too.

---------------
"Robatoy" wrote in message
...

On Oct 15, 9:51 pm, "m II" wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

Ohh Bull****!

again?

------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
I'm not sure just where in the hell your rant comes from. There was
nothing
in Jack's post that legitimized your obvious issues with whatever, and
I do
happen to take personal affront to your bull**** about Christians. On
that
single point - you can sit on your opions and I'm not feeling bad about
telling you that. You're entitled to your feelings but you may just
need to
figure out just when to keep them to yourself. I like you a lot and
I'm not
going to let this come between a pretty good internet relationship, but
you're too full of yourself on this particular point. In your own
words...
WYF are you to tell... Pot, kettle, black.

You seemed knowledgeable until you attempted ad hominem BS and
overstepped your knowledge.

No decent code writer would use self-modifying code! This indicates you
have absolutely **NO** experience in this field.
Self-modifying code would violate all the protection traps in any
modern O/S and would error out as a violation.

Sorry Chris...exposed again in the wrong game.

-------------------
"Tim Daneliuk" wrote in message
...
And another amateur heard from. Self modifying code is hardly the
mark of a beginner. It is necessary in certain cases and requires
a pretty rigorous understanding of the underlying machine architecture.
Gates and Co. were many things, but "incompetent" was not among them.

P.S. All success is partly driven by good fortune. But chance favors
the
prepared mind. That's why Gates is a multi-billionaire, and you're
not.

On 10/17/2011 7:00 AM, m II said this:
You seemed knowledgeable until you attempted ad hominem BS and overstepped your knowledge.

No decent code writer would use self-modifying code! This indicates you have absolutely **NO** experience in this field.
Self-modifying code would violate all the protection traps in any modern O/S and would error out as a violation.

Sorry Chris...exposed again in the wrong game.


Go have a look at how real time and embedded systems work and get
back to us ..

(And a "modern OS" can be something other than Unix, Windows, or
MacOS...)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/17/2011 7:00 AM, m II wrote:
....

No decent code writer would use self-modifying code! This indicates you
have absolutely **NO** experience in this field.
Self-modifying code would violate all the protection traps in any modern
O/S and would error out as a violation.
....

Nonsense!

Gates was _WRITING_ the OS...

You're also not accounting for the time and place and state of hardware
at the time.

Self-modifying code (along w/ a lot of other "tricks") was done in years
gone by to save either memory or execution cycles or to simulate higher
level constructs that weren't yet supported (FORTRAN didn't include a
CALL statement in first releases so writing code to data and executing
it was a way to simulate it) by many. Like any other technique, it can
be (and was on occasion) abused.

But, on its own it certainly doesn't mean those who used it weren't
competent. Granted that w/ current processors, modern OS'es and the
rampant expansion of memory there's little reason for it any longer but
none of those were true then as now.

It's highly likely in the field of tiny embedded systems that are still
memory and cpu-cycle limited that one can find places it has application
even today.

--

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:40:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk Go have a look at
how real time and embedded systems work and get
back to us ..

(And a "modern OS" can be something other than Unix, Windows, or
MacOS...)

Tim, why are you talking to this twit? He has absolutely nothing to
contribute to this newsgroup.

In article , says...

On 10/17/2011 7:00 AM, m II wrote:
...

No decent code writer would use self-modifying code! This indicates you
have absolutely **NO** experience in this field.
Self-modifying code would violate all the protection traps in any modern
O/S and would error out as a violation.
...

Nonsense!

Gates was _WRITING_ the OS...

You're also not accounting for the time and place and state of hardware
at the time.

Self-modifying code (along w/ a lot of other "tricks") was done in years
gone by to save either memory or execution cycles or to simulate higher
level constructs that weren't yet supported (FORTRAN didn't include a
CALL statement in first releases so writing code to data and executing
it was a way to simulate it) by many. Like any other technique, it can
be (and was on occasion) abused.

But, on its own it certainly doesn't mean those who used it weren't
competent. Granted that w/ current processors, modern OS'es and the
rampant expansion of memory there's little reason for it any longer but
none of those were true then as now.

It's highly likely in the field of tiny embedded systems that are still
memory and cpu-cycle limited that one can find places it has application
even today.

Wait a minute--I didn't see the original post. Dennis Ritchie died?
Steve Jobs is all over the news, but there doesn't seem to be a peep
about Ritchie, without whom Apple would still be in the OS dark ages and
as dead as Imsai.

On 10/17/2011 9:27 AM, Dave said this:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:40:02 -0500, Tim Daneliuk Go have a look at
how real time and embedded systems work and get
back to us ..

(And a "modern OS" can be something other than Unix, Windows, or
MacOS...)

Tim, why are you talking to this twit? He has absolutely nothing to
contribute to this newsgroup.

He seemed mildly knowledgeable on the topic...

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk

On 10/16/2011 5:08 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 pm, "m wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.




DIRECT HIT!

Battle ship sunk!

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:13:49 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 10/16/2011 5:08 PM, Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 15, 9:51 pm, "m wrote:
Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

DIRECT HIT!

Battle ship sunk!

Not even close. m II's ship is still logging miles on this traffic.

--
Good ideas alter the power balance in relationships, that is why
good ideas are always initially resisted. Good ideas come with a
heavy burden. Which is why so few people have them. So few people
can handle it.
-- Hugh Macleod

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 08:53:36 -0500, dpb wrote:

Gates was _WRITING_ the OS...

You're also not accounting for the time and place and state of hardware
at the time.

Self-modifying code (along w/ a lot of other "tricks") was done in years
gone by to save either memory or execution cycles or to simulate higher
level constructs that weren't yet supported (FORTRAN didn't include a
CALL statement in first releases so writing code to data and executing
it was a way to simulate it) by many. Like any other technique, it can
be (and was on occasion) abused.

Well said! You saved me from having to write something similar. I have
no fondness for Bill Gates, but that's based on his business practices,
not his coding practices :-).

I remember writing code for NASA way back when that filled a DMA buffer
with a pattern and then checked the pattern to see when I could flip the
pointers and start refilling the buffer. Or replacing one instruction
with an equivalent one because the second was a hair faster. Things were
different then.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:41:16 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Wait a minute--I didn't see the original post. Dennis Ritchie died?
Steve Jobs is all over the news, but there doesn't seem to be a peep
about Ritchie, without whom Apple would still be in the OS dark ages and
as dead as Imsai.

The public sees the mass marketers - they don't see the guys in the back
room who generated the product being marketed.

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Oct 17, 12:23*pm, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 10:41:16 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

Wait a minute--I didn't see the original post. *Dennis Ritchie died?
Steve Jobs is all over the news, but there doesn't seem to be a peep
about Ritchie, without whom Apple would still be in the OS dark ages and
as dead as Imsai.

Google Richie - maybe that'll help. ~

The public sees the mass marketers - they don't see the guys in the back
room who generated the product being marketed.

I wonder if it could be any other way. It's a rare person that
combines creativity, financial skills and technical and marketing know-
how. Artists are an example. Most of them hate the marketing end of
things and many serious artists are willing to give up their monopoly
on their own artwork to become minority partners with a dealer.

R

On 10/17/2011 11:21 AM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
....

I remember writing code for NASA way back when that filled a DMA buffer
with a pattern and then checked the pattern to see when I could flip the
pointers and start refilling the buffer. Or replacing one instruction
with an equivalent one because the second was a hair faster. Things were
different then.

Indeed they were.

I remember the "unlimited" expansion of capability when the systems I
was working on at one time went from 1- to 2(!!!!)-MHz clock cycle time
(w/ the incredibly rich instruction set/addressing modes) of a M6809E.

W/ the indirect addressing mode it made an almost perfect silicon
implementation of a Forth interpreter engine w/ the ";" next operator
implementable in, iirc, 2 instruction cycles as compared to 5 or 7 on
6502 or some other similar at the time.

--

On 10/16/2011 5:45 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
On 10/16/2011 1:45 PM, Jack wrote:
On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken
up by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by
definition, competition is excluded via control of the market. When
competition is stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality
stagnates and people are forced to pay what the monopoly says they
will pay. MS is a perfect example of this, providing crap at a 30%
mark up to over 90% of the market.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

Now let us inspect Reality to demonstrate why this is complete nonsense.

Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated with this half baked reply.
Lets "inspect" to see why you are off base.

At the beginning of the desktop/PC revolution, there were two significant
OS players: Apple and Radio Shack (there were something like a half dozen
TRS-DOS variants, the best of which was LDOS).

These were meaningless. When IBM decided to enter the PC/DT market, who
they picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC
revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was
fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had
an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall
which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a
workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates
eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure
out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they
put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with
someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.

Then IBM entered the market
and Microsoft came with them, for the first time producing an OS.

Until IBM entered the market, the market was bare.

Now let's fast forward.

Lets not. From the beginning, there was little competition, since IBM,
for whatever reason, chose MS. That meant that if you wanted to write
software, sell software, or have anything to do with PC's, you had to go
with MS because that was the platform IBM used. Those that attempted to
get a foot in the door of any retail outlet was quickly stomped on by MS
threatening the retailer to either withdraw their license to sell MS or
with super high price for the product. Since IBM had set the stage for
MS, if a retailer ignored MS threats, they were doomed, so they didn't,
and no "feet" got in the door. All other products were like farts in
the wind, had no chance, mattered not if they were good, bad or
indifferent. They eventually all went away, which is exactly what
monopolies do to the competition. Even if you think you know more than
judge Sporkin, who listened to years of testimony laying out how MS
violated anti-trust laws, and found them super guilty of violating anti
trust laws, you cannot deny that controlling over 90% of the DT market
is a monopoly. Well you can, but then you would be spouting nonsense.

There are dozens of OS variants. Besides MacOS
(a FreeBSD/MACH derivative) and Windows, there are a bunch of different
Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDOS, at least one Windows
clone OS (whose name I cannot recall). In the mobile device space,
Microsoft's presence is too small to matter with Apple IOS and Android
(another Linux derivative) splitting the market between them. Microsoft
has no presence to speak of in the realtime/embedded space. They
are not a force in supercomputer or high-availability clustering. They
do not have a place in the multi-petabyte database space.

No DT product could get a foot in the door "in the early days" of the DT
PC. MS made sure of it, and it was proven in court after the fact in 1995.

But you think they're a "monopoly". You are seriously disconnected from
the current state of this business. It is a simple, demonstrable, and
completely rational observation that Microsoft dominates only the desktop,

No **** Dick Tracy. I never said they dominated the mainframe market,
or the cell phone market, or the meat market. They dominate over 90% of
the DT market, they have a lousy product that is only "good enough"
because the average consumer has little choice when shopping the DT market.

and then only so long as they provide a good value. More and more people
are turning to portable devices like high function phones and tablets -
a space where Microsoft has almost NO presence.

Microsoft has a monopoly on the PC DT market. We'll see how the cell
phone market pans out.

This, sir, is not a monopoly.

Microsoft has over a 90% market share in the DT PC market. You can say
that's not a monopoly all day long, you will be wrong.

This is a market with more product, more players, and more
competition than has ever existed since the dawn of commercial
computing. The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain
high margins in this environment is to their credit.

Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T also knew how to prosper but they didn't make
30% profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either
were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day,
or some combination of both.

P.S. Microsoft isn't as bulletproof as you seem to think. Go look at their
stock performance over the last decade.

Get real. Their profit margin has always been super high, what one would
expect from a monopoly. They have been "bulletproof" for around 25
years, what happens in the future is a guess, the past is undeniable.
They were able to maintain this control by stopping retailers from
selling competing products and by changing the environment so software,
often even their own, would not work between upgrades. This was
deliberate to control the market, and it worked.

P.P.S. The only "predatory monopoly" that exists in our nation is the
government and that's because they get to use force to keep themselves in power.
Fortunately - for the most part - that use of force is narrowly bounded
by rule of law.

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" went out the window when MS got busted
for anti-trust violations and all they got was a slap on the hands, and
a dire need to contribute vast donations to those in charge of the "rule
of law". The current regime is even worse, and thinks the "rule of law"
is for you, not them.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/16/2011 7:57 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Sun, 16 Oct 2011 14:45:06 -0400, wrote:

On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Most monopolies are temporary.

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been
at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up
by the courts.

Um, IBM was not broken up by the courts.

There was a consent decree in '56,
and they lost a suit to CDC, and a few others, in the '70s, but there was no
breakup by the government.

True, they were found in violation of the Sherman Antitrust act, in
court. My guess is that had them on pins and needles when they opened
the PC/DT market.

The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition,
competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is
stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are
forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect
example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the
market.

...and just what 90% of the market wants.

And you know this how? Because the market is controlled by one company
doesn't mean 90% of the market wants it, it could (and does) mean that
90% has no choice but to "like" what they get. Same as you can buy any
color car you want, as long as it's black.

Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

If I knew, I'd be as rich as WGates. ;-)

Funny, but they have already controlled 90% of the DT market for about
25 years. In the computer age that changes minute by minute, that is a
hell of a long "temporary". Any company that had monopoly control of
90% of a market for this long is missing competition, particularly if
profit margins are significantly high. This is why we are stuck with
the worlds worst OS, like it or not.

A 40% margin isn't unusual for a high-tech business. It takes huge sums of
money to stay on the bleeding edge. That's just the way it is.

Well, IBM is a high tech business and it's profit margin is high,
usually below 10% or so. Intel averages around 17%. EXXON-Mobil has
under 10% and our socialist democrats want to slap a windfall profit tax
on them... MS is 30%, Apple 40% and everyone seems to get misty eyed
around those two.

I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS
monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers
are a casualty if the MS monopoly.


--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 10/17/2011 11:13 AM, Leon wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
"m II" wrote:

Bull****!

**** off, you little weasel.

DIRECT HIT!

Battle ship sunk!

Robocop couldn't sink a dinky boat let alone a battle ship!

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com