[linux-elitists] Fundamentally flawed (fwd)

Bulent Murtezaoglu bm@acm.org
Wed Jul 4 12:48:37 PDT 2001


    BCEO> I don't know of anything they have every shipped that is not
    BCEO> fundementally flawed.

This I'll buy.

    BCEO> Everything, ever they created and sold has fundemental
    BCEO> abuses and problems technically.

But this is way too broad.  If you wanted a CP/M for 8086 (their
order), you'd be hard pressed to do fundamentally better than MS-DOS.
IIS is not a bad http server if you get anyone other than MS certified
monkeys to run it.  I think ASP, given the market it serves, is not
too far off base.  The fundamental abuse with MS-DOS was the
per-machine-shipped licencing scam; with IIS, the gratuitous
incompatibilies they sneaked in (eg: I am on my 4th message with Intel
"premier" support and still they don't understand mime type
application/x-msdownload is crap especially when the file in question
is in PDF format); and with ASP the abuse is inherent in VB (re
Dijkstra's brain damage paper).  

Of course you can come up with a suitable definition of "fundamentally
flawed" make what you say true.  But then, I suspect, Unix itself, C as a
programming language, x86 ISA, and many other things out there come
into question.  (and Gabriel's first generation "worse is better"
stuff starts being relevant: http://www.dreamsongs.com/WorseIsBetter.html ).

I don't like Microsoft any more than you do, but I am not sure
broad generalizations are not fundamentally flawed!  IMHO If you assert
that someone does _nothing_ right, they'll have a very easy time
disproving you without changing their ways.  Anyhow, I'd gladly defer 
to others for the PR on this, I just pointed out _I_ didn't have the
stomach for it.

cheers,

BM



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list