Re: Why Lisp is too hard for me to use

From: Greg Menke (gregm-news_at_toadmail.com)
Date: 12/28/03 

Date: 28 Dec 2003 09:25:59 -0500

tayss_temp2@yahoo.com (Tayssir John Gabbour) writes:

> igorcarron@yahoo.com (Igor Carron) wrote in message news:<ef3c551.0312271537.36ab4f79@posting.google.com>...
> > By the way, I surely do not advocate solving this library issue in the
>
> It is quite fun to write a pretty system from scratch, without the
> need for backwards compat. Especially when you control the damn
> hardware. Microsoft took the tack of having none of these advantages,
> and further underpricing their OS (a double-edged sword -- it leads to
> devaluation). And for all that work, they actually changed the world
> for the better. In fact, Gates was right for claiming some credit for
> gnu/Linux's success -- MSFT forced PC hardware companies to be
> reasonably standardized, which is really an artificial situation.
> gnu/Linux users would be in a lot more pain if this were not so.

Not quite. Windows benefited from the standardization and contributed
to it- but remember all the OS's preceeding Windows. IBM & Intel
pretty much did all the big PC standards up until the mid 90's- and
I'll be you a penny that OS/2 drove more of the fundamental
architecture of PC hardware than Windows did since Windows 3.x was all
Microsoft had for such a long time. There have been a few standards
that evolved since then, USB, WinModems, etc.. which Microsoft was
probably involved with and/or dominated but thats hardly a cause of
Linux's success. I think Microsoft is probably a major part of the
cause, but for a different reason; if they were not so dominant and so
monopolistic and writing such unportable, inflexible and low quality
software, then there wouldn't be as much pressure for an alternative.

Are you really asserting Windows is underpriced?

Gregm

Relevant Pages
Loading