RoR: Forum

I edited my previous post to take out the quoted bits from Michael M. about Erica. She is perfectly qualified to be Rebirth of Reason Technology Leader. I also agree with her and Joe Rowlands' selective use of Microsoft products. Use the products where they work best.

It has been to the advantage of everyone that the marketplace has selected a dominant standard in operating systems and office suites and that it happened relatively quickly. It basically means you only have to learn one and what you do can be ported anywhere. I only wish that the marketplace had selected a different standard. Incidentally, I feel much the same way about Larry Ellison and Oracle.

I also am prepared to defend Gates when necessary against the irrational antitrust actions against him, but I'm not worried about what he does with his fortune. That's up to him and I'm not sure in the long run that Bill Gates' money would be smarter than anyone else's. In technology, you need the right idea at the right time and place, the money will follow. On the other hand, I definitely have no worries that Larry Ellison will feel guilty and give away his fortune :-) :-).

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/01, 8:37am)

Post 21

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 10:35am

To all who hate Microsoft Windows operating systems I have this to say.

Build a better operating system, package it, market it, and sell it. Until then, I and the rest of the millions of consumers out there will continue to use Microsoft Windows and be a satisfied customer, and continue to ignore any tirades against Microsoft Windows.

So enough complaining, get off your asses and make a better product otherwise I can only come to the conclusion you are all a bunch of whiny cry babies.

(Edited by John Armaos
on 7/01, 10:37am)

Post 22

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 11:02am

John A,

More and more people do use better products, MacOS and Linux. Why is it whining to point out obvious flaws?. You point them out and people can simply decide whether they want to buy a Windows-based system or not. I have an Objectivist friend who works in validation at Intel who has never bought a Microsoft product for his own personal use. He runs OS2. The operating system IBM was selling in the 1980's is better than Microsoft's product now.

I have not bought a computer since 1999. I just use a work computer and one that I got through Intel's Free PC program back in 2002. Since people are talking about the 90% of consumers that mainly surf the internet and use Microsoft Office, I would simply say: if you don't upgrade your operating system you probably don't need a new computer.

Jim

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/01, 11:19am)

(Edited by James Heaps-Nelson on 7/01, 11:32am)

Post 23

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 2:06pm

John, now you are torturing babies in order to make your point?

I'd just like to know where I used the term "hate," where I insulted Erica (the quote for which I sanctioned MEM was in the post explaining the sanction) where I burned anyone in effigy or stated anything other than reasons for my judgments.

I am no snob looking down on people who are happy with what they get from MS and IBM compatible PC's. I wonder why you protest so much? Please read my review of State of Fear. It's written by a very smart rich man who won't be endowing any charities with his cash, the topic of this thread.

Ted

Post 24

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 4:42pm

James:

OS/2 was available in the '80's? Yeah, I suppose so, but it was only for techies until OS/2 Warp came out in '95 to go head to head with Windoze 95. OS/2 was actually quite cool, especially the later versions, and there is still an OS/2 user group in the OC. When the Amiga died - not due to better products from MicroSoft BTW, but due to the investment banker management milking the company on insider info - a lot of the Amiga developers went to OS/2, and the OS/2 Warp developers looked long and hard at the Amiga OS as they were building WARP, which includes a lot of the neat Amiga user friendly features that are still missing from Windoze.

The problem is when you have to run Windoze compatible apps.

Post 25

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 7:28pm

Ted's post#9, and Marotta's post#19, do a good job of explaining the position that the initial subject of this thread could not be properly discussed without an examination of some of the criticisms of Bill Gates, which directly addresses my initial post. How did Michael put it?

Did Peter Keating deserve his money? Of course!
Is there a more basic question? Of course!

I went back and reread the posts, and I realized that my frustration came from my confusing the rational Gates critics with the ones who just post their laundry list of why he personally offends them, and who offer no philosophical basis for their complaints to help me understand why I should consider them. (See posts #1, #7, and #24 for examples.) Variations of "I work in IT, and Bill is a dick" don't sway me. Neither does "This/that software is really the BEST ever invented...Gates just fooled people into buying his crap," and so on.

And these people always appear in every Gates thread (the same ones, every time) and it's tiring...hence my initial tirade.
My sloppiness is in not separating the "wheat from the chaff", so to speak.
They appear to be allies, (because these threads do become exactly what I described...a war of words) so I find it easy to lump you all in together.

Apologies. I'll be more careful next time.

Question:

What do I have to say to get you to jill off with us? (M. Marotta)

Hint:

Michael, your post#19 has a much better chance of creating that outcome than anything you said in post#15. Reread both, and I'll bet you'll be able to figure out why.

I'd just like to know where I used the term "hate," where I insulted Erica (the quote for which I sanctioned MEM was in the post explaining the sanction) where I burned anyone in effigy or stated anything other than reasons for my judgments. (Ted K.)

I haven't accused you of the above, Ted, and unless I missed something, I didn't think John's message was specifically directed at you, either.

Erica

Post 26

Sunday, July 1, 2007 - 9:28pm

Erica,

I'm sorry for throwing gasoline on the fire. We could substitute someone like Warren Buffett for Gates and have the same thread and it would probably be free from some of these tangents. The central argument is of the following form: Buffett is a producer and wears an Objectivist white hat. However, he has succumbed to altruism and views it as a necessity to give his money away through philanthropy. He should stop feeling guilty for his wealth and celebrate wealth creation as an ideal.

I am sure we would all agree with that argument. The biggest and most important thing this would do is not to preserve their wealth, it would do that also, but to establish that the fortune was Buffett's or Gates' by right. I think there is considerable debate whether Gates wears an Objectivist white hat or an Objectivist gray hat, but his fortune is his by right and he should not apologize for it or give it away.

Jim

Post 27

Monday, July 2, 2007 - 12:19am