[KLUG Advocacy] Interesting . . .

[Adam Williams]

>>He (or what) holds the rights is what matters, not who actually wrote
>>the code.   For every this-is-just-a-copy-of-that statement it is
>>usually possible to go back and show how the copied was a copy itself. 
>>Mac invented the GUI which M$ copied is a common one (albeit impossible,
>>look at the dates).  But Apple didn't have the first GUI by at least ten
>>years,  that was Xerox.
>Lisa was the first gui. 

Nope, maybe the first on cheesy consumer grade computers,  but if you
had the bucks GUIs (with drag-n-drop, etc...) existed long before Apple
sired the Mac.

>>>Their inferior software was cheap enough to get  others to use it.  
>>For a period of time there software was hardly inferior.  Sure WingZ on
>>the $57,000 RS/6000 I had access to was one awesome (and GUI)
>>spreadsheet for its day.  But on a $1,200 IBM AT?  Not a chance.  M$ won
>>the PC market straight up by releasing software that made those machines
>>usable by minimum wage workers.  That was "success".
>I was referring to their spreadsheet solution (before excel) and their
>word processors.  Their OS alternatives were IBM PC Dos and QDOS (which
>are all really the same thing with different wrappers)

But "people" don't buy platforms,  they buy applications.  If it runs on
bank switched cooperatively multitasking Zilog 80s, they simply don't
care. 

On a second point, while i don't use word processors calling Excel crap
is very harsh.  My own extensive testing with *LARGE* data sets proves
it is the *ONLY* one (including Lotus Millenium, OO, SO, & Gnumeric)
that is left standing.

Except for Wingz, but my copy is like 8 years old, and most users
(today) would be repulsed by the UI.  It is interesting that (a) it
still works just fine and (b) none of the current open source
spreadsheets can touch it.  Amazing engineering.

>M$ marketed to and cut deals with the OEMs to saturate the market.
>>>They started out cheap to get everyone to have a piece  of it.  
>>A legitimate arguement to use Linux today. :)  There is nothing new
>>under the sun.
>>>Then the prices started going skyward to the point it has the most 
>>>expensive software out there (and by no means is the BEST).
>>Well, they are capitalists, so one honestly can't get worked up over
>>that.  They charge what the market will bear.  If the market finds in
>>unbearable (is that a pun?) it will go elsewhere.  Or at least that is
>>the theory, assuming the market is free.
>And that brings us to today.  I am tired of hearing people get caught up
>in brands.  I don't care if your T-shirt says Tommy Hilfinger
>(intentional mispelling for comic effect), JCrew or Izod.  Does it fit?
>Does it cover skin?  

Brands serve a useful and legitimate purchase.  Example - I don't like
cars,  and I don't want to spend time thinking or reading about them, 
they do not interest me.  But since the corporate puppets in power can't
provide public transit that can take me the ~2 miles to work in less
than ~40 minutes I have to own one.  So I go to the used car lot, find
an Oldsmobile, and I buy it.  Irrational? No.  I've owned one before and
was happy with it,  it required little of my thought or attention, it
just bloody worked.  I've owned several Fords, and they asked alot of
me, so I don't buy them again.  Are Oldsmobiles better than all other
cars?  Beats me, probably not,  and I don't want to take the time to
find out.   I was a happy customer, why change?  Are Fords worse than
other cars on the whole?  Beats me,  don't care.  I was unhappy I won't
do that again.  Somebody obviously buys Fords. and that is just fine, I
don't care.

If I buy a package from Informix and am very happy with it, and they
come out with something new,  I'm more inclined to take a look than
something from someplace I've never hard of.  Irrational?  I think not, 
there are only 24 hours in my day.

>Materialism creates irrational consumers. You have
>consumers that will spend more for a swap-meet knock off screen printed
>on a low quality shirt than a higher quality 100% cotton shirt.

I'd argue that this is not "materialism".  True materialism would create
exactly the opposite response.  What you see in markets like the fashion
industry are the expression of innate tribal instincts that are not
being satiated by the persons social/religions/family context.  Yes,
those are irrational.  But one could make the case they've done a great
deal to keep the species alive.  So the good with the bad.

>What my point? Technology is the same way.  Consumers assume
>Microsoft=good.  See the name, it must be good (for M$ not Joe
>Consumer).  So they are not free to choose because they are ignorant
>that there exist other choices.  Best Buy offers no alternative OS
>(because they are a puppet of M$ who provides their IT support services
>that don't work anyway)

I'd agree that the market is not free.  And despite all the blather most
of the people want it to stay that way.