RoR: Forum

Sam, this is fantastic!!! I loved the line about the Mac. ;)

Post 1

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 2:39pm

Yeah, I read this joke sometime ago. It is hilarious. There is even a Chinese version of it.

Post 2

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 3:21pm

If the computer industry were regulated as much as the automotive industry, then computers would cost as much as cars...

Post 3

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 4:10pm

The state building and maintaining the roads that cars drive on, would be like the state running the internet.

It would become slow, unreliable, congested, always breaking down and ten-times the current cost to taxpayers.

Post 4

Sunday, January 30, 2005 - 6:09pm

I've always loved this joke, too, but the line about the Mac has never struck as being a proper analogy.

Saying that the Macintosh car would run on only 5% of the roads suggests that the Mac can, say, read only 5% of the internet or read 5% of the file formats used out there.

If you're going to play up the 5% angle on the Mac, and do a proper analogy, then I'd think the end of the Mac line should read, ". . . but they would be only 5% of the cars on the road."

Of course, if we keep going with this analogy, then we'd also have to add that critics would keep reporting that BMW's and Mercedes' small market share mean that they're going out of business any day now.
(Edited by Scott Cram on 1/30, 6:10pm)

Post 5

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 1:01pm

Would some one clarify for me whether you forum posters hold a low opinion of the Windows operating system?

Nicholas Balcolm

Post 6

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 2:08pm

Nicholas,

"You" forum posters? I have no opinion on the question you posed specifically, but I'd like to ask why you take such an adversarial tone. Was that intentional?

Jason

Post 7

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 2:36pm

Would some one clarify for me whether you forum posters hold a low opinion of the Windows operating system?

I do. Why?

Post 8

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 2:45pm

Let's see...our relationship started well, but after the crash that resulted in the loss of all my data and e-mail, I'm bitter.

And I want alimony.

Post 9

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 2:49pm

And for those of you who might proffer, "Jennifer, why didn't you back up your data?" I say:

I was in the midst of a system backup when the "error" occurred. Sigh.

Thank Shiva I had already saved all of my writing.

Post 10

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 2:50pm

Nicholas:

I for one, have nothing but the highest praise for Bill's entrepreneurial wisdom and relentless pursuit of market share. And I would even go to say that Windows XP is a very, very good operating system.

That said, I think we will see a lot, lot better in the next few years, and that the very best (as history would foretell) will not come from the near monopoly player. Apple is doing great things, but I think their focus is more on applications (gadgets, if you like), and they will remain a marginal competitor in operating systems.

No, what I truly believe is going to come, is the commercial application of Open Source software, and Linux in particular. My personal favourite, right now, is Xandros, which is a wonderful Debian-based operating system which is incredibly simple and easy to use for those (like me) who are Windows-heads and not inclined to spend a lifetime learning to handle command-prompts.

I also happen to love Firefox- which I use except for when writing posts at SOLO :-).

David

Post 11

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 6:24pm

As for Windows and Mac, I'd say that this entry from Peeve Farm sums things up quite nicely:

Backward-compatibility is the PC's great advantage�and the huge ball chained around its ankle. Whereas Steve Jobs thinks nothing of breaking everyone's third-party software with every major OS release just because the engineers have reworked some key library from scratch, Microsoft cannot countenance disrupting the vast infrastructure of computers all across the world�from PCs to servers to embedded point-of-sale kernels�by changing anything. Any attempt to modernize Windows is ultimately hamstrung and converted into a skin-deep simulacrum of the change they'd originally yearned for. They can't afford to do the kinds of ground-level architectural redesigns that are par for the course in the Mac world.

That's why Apple will never replace Microsoft as the dominant platform in all the humdrum installations of the world... but it's also why there will always been a demand for an Apple to exist.

As to the question of the future of open source software, all I can offer is some perspective. Open source software is great, but what does it offer the end user? Why benefits/advantages does open source software offer the accounting dept that needs to balance the company books? The 5-year-old learning from educational software? The senior citizen who only uses their computer to keep in contact with the rest of the family via e-mail?

To go back to our car analogies, being able to improve and customize your vehicle constantly, and with little hassle is a wonderful thing, but the great majority of people who just need a car to go from point A to point B and back won't consider such a feature a high priority.

As to the general question of computer user interfaces, Jef Raskin has developed a "unique" new type of "humane" interface. Will it be the next great thing, or the next Edsel?

Post 12

Monday, January 31, 2005 - 9:08pm

Quoting Mr. Dixon:

""You" forum posters?� I have no opinion on the question you posed specifically, but I'd like to ask why you take such an adversarial tone.� Was that intentional?"

I chose "you forum posters" because I did not wish to indirectly put words into the mouth of others who would be subsumed under somthing like "SOLOists," or "you people." I meant "you who have posted to this forum previous to me."

Why did I ask that question? Because I was curious as to what degree you posters "feel... love and affection for the way computers have enhanced [y]our lives." All of you, to some degree or another, have gained value from the use of PCs. To ridicule a value is despicable, regardless of any flaws it may have, and as a rule, I give those who make a claim to Objectivism the benefit of the doubt.

As for my personal computer tastes, I am a recent convert to the Macintosh.

Quoting Mr. Bertelsen: "Apple is doing great things, but I think their focus is more on applications (gadgets, if you like), and they will remain a marginal competitor in operating systems." The fact is that Apple is does not try to compete directly in the operating systems market. Their OS is tied to their proprietary hardware platform, which is their main source of revenue. They are not easy candidates for dominance, because they cannot benefit from the success of cheap "clone" machines (as Windows has the IBM PC clones).

Apple is primarily a platform for content creation, and these "gadgets" you speak of, Mr. Bertelsen, are Mr. Jobs' attempt to broaden Apple's base of users, by making available as part of every Machintosh the software necessary to edit video, create custom DVDs, record live music, and edit and organize photos.
None-the-less, such standard software as MS Office and Quicken are available in continually updated versions for the Mac.

As for the future of common personal computing, it is in the hands of people who are entrenched in the world of My Documents/Start Menu/C: drive/Outlook, and I don't think they will change: stability problems are finally coming under control in Windows. I did not switch because my computer crashed and lost my data. I switched because I need to do massive multi-tasking and Mac OS X makes this possible by allowing quick switching/hiding/viewing of many windows/apps, maximizing efficiency and logical organization (see apple.com's info on Expose).

By the way, Mac OS X is a "commercial application of Open Source software." It runs on a variation of the FreeBSD kernel. And, the average user doesn't know there's a command line.

Nicholas Balcolm

Post 13

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 9:33am

All of you, to some degree or another, have gained value from the use of PCs. To ridicule a value is despicable, regardless of any flaws it may have, and as a rule, I give those who make a claim to Objectivism the benefit of the doubt.

How quaint. Do you know anything at all about software technology? Or are you just a user?

Obviously engineers at Microsoft have worked very hard. Obviously their applications are useful. I'm using one right now, and it works fine most of the time. Obviously (to us) the anti-trust lawsuits against Microsoft are unjust. Obviously, in the context of what is presently available, Microsoft technology is a great value to many, including myself. So how dare I criticize it?

Well many in our government have worked very hard. Obviously our country's government is useful. I'm taking advantage of it right now, enjoying my property being mostly protected from crooks, enjoying being able to ride my bike on the public roads, etc. In the context of what governments are presently available, American government is a great value to many, including myself. So how dare Objectivists criticize it?

Another post in the space of a week that makes me think of Tibor Machan's article: http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/machan/machan7.html. What is it with some Objectivists and this issue anyway?

Unless you're a software engineer, how dare you try to tell me how I may and may not properly criticize the technology that you are ignorant of! I'm the expert, you're the layman. All you see is what the outward effects are, I see how those effects were achieved vs. how they could have been achieved. Are the effects good? Sure they are. Obviously they are or no one would buy the product. But inside is a messy pile of pragmatism. Since the moral is the practical, I find it obscene the lengths Microsoft goes to to avoid doing things the right way - nay, to avoid even discovering that there is a right way.

The better apologists say things like what Scott Cram posted above, that Microsoft maintains the mess in order not to break everyone's infrastructure. A valid objective? Sure. But it's not the either/or proposition that Cram's quote makes it out to be. You can maintain legacy support without compromising your future design. Is it difficult? Sure. But not nearly as difficult as abandoning engineering ideals.

Post 14

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 12:12pm

Mr. Wissler:
You should note that the word I used was "ridicule," not "criticize."

The Merriam-Webster 11th Collegiate defines "ridicule," in part as "a deliberate, often malicious belittling."
The entry for "criticize" is "to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly."

I myself have major critisisms of Microsoft (likening to what you hint to about the principles of engineering), but this thread was created as a commentary on a derisive "joke" which maligned Microsoft, without *criticizing* the "messy pile of pragmatism" that their software is.

I have not adopted a policy of "If you don't like it, then leave," (I still own and use a Windows PC) but those who get pleasure from this joke have adopted a policy of "if there are flaws in an otherwise valuable product, make a mockery of it." and, as one who takes values seriously, I find that sickening.

My commentary on the Macintosh and on the "entrenched," was meant as a response to the movement of the thread toward a discussion of the future of the computing market. By the "entrenched" I refer to the majority of people who hold to the only thing they have experience with, and when problems arise, they don't criticize, but whine and malign.

By the way, I am a Computer Engineering student, and I don't appreciate your presumptuousness, your blatant misinterpretations, or your tone.

Nicholas Balcolm

Post 15

Tuesday, February 1, 2005 - 2:42pm

"...but those who get pleasure from this joke have adopted a policy of "if there are flaws in an otherwise valuable product, make a mockery of it." and, as one who takes values seriously, I find that sickening."

Look - it was a joke - just calm down. If you find it distasteful, then feel free to wrinkle your nose but do not presume to attack those in this forum and make sweeping generalizations like the above. Trying to psychologize about why someone got "pleasure" from the joke is what I find sickening.

I will add that your statement is even more offensive to me personally because you have a post talley of 8. SOLO is an open forum - but good lawd man, don't you think a little more prudence would be..well..prudent?

Jason

Post 16

Wednesday, February 2, 2005 - 1:58pm