[linux-elitists] Fundamentally flawed (fwd)
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.
More information about the linux-elitists