Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Will Roy Schestowitz..................

On Jul 18, 3:18 pm, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> * Rex Ballard peremptorily fired off this memo:
> > On Jul 17, 3:58 am, Linonut <lino...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> Sounds a bit confabuous to me.
> > Truly amazing, you used a word that even Google can't find.
> > It did find your posting though.
> Confabulous.  My bad.

From:
http://sabinehikel.blogspot.com/2007_10_01_archive.html

Confabulous
Cultural observations and critical commentary sprinkled with glitter

That was the only version of the word that I have seen that seems to
be even close.  Dictionary didn't have the word listed.

Still, I supposed that's a fair assessment.  Keep in mind that when
Bill Gates spoke to the PC users and called them Pirates and Thieves,
most of the Microcomputer user community thought he was a total jerk.
Later, he was just a wimpy nerd who was probably going to screw
Commodore the same way he screwed Altair.  He dumped commodore for
Radio Shack, and then dumped Radio Shack for IBM.

Most people read the "histories" and read them from the viewpoint of
Bill Gates becoming the richest man in the world.  That's a "filter"
that tends to blur their perception of his actions.

For those of use who actually did business with Microsoft and the rest
of the computer industry, Gates was neither deamonized nor deified.

People read the success stories of Bill Gates and ignore the
deceptive, unethical, and even criminal nature of his business
dealings.  No big surprise that many of those who Idolized Gates ended
up at WorldCom, Enron, and working for Jack Abramov.  They figured
they could dance under, over, and around the law, and get away with it
with impunity, the same way Bill Gates did.

What they didn't realize is that Gates father was a brilliant legal
mind who had made his fortune defending big corporations from
Misdeeds, and winning by offering clever "settlements" that often
resulted in granting the express permission to do the very things the
plaintive had claimed was illegal, and that federal court judges had
ruled as illegal.

My biggest problem with so many of the WinTrolls is that they seem to
have so Idolized Gates and Ballmer that they have lost their
perspective.

They assume that because Bill Gates is making $billions extorting
corporations and OEMs, that the only possible explanation is that
Microsoft's technology was vastly superior to that of all other
competitors.

The problem is that most people in this group weren't around when
Microsoft did have real competitors.  There are even people who want
to try and compare Windows XP to BSD 2.1 on a PDP-11, using a VT-100
terminal.

What I try to do is point out what the competition was doing, and how
Microsoft tried to thwart that competition.

If that's "sprinkiling with Glitter", I guess I'm guilty.

Maybe it's more like pointing a high intensity spotlight at some of
the events Microsoft would like history to forget.  There are a few
people who know where a few of the dead bodies are buried.  There are
probably close to 5,000 corporations that have been driven into
bankruptcy or otherwise destroyed by Microsoft.  Being purchased by
another company in a bankruptcy, such as what happened to Lotus,
WordPerfect, and Gateway computers is one way to "die", but it's
probably the least painful way.

> Rex, it seems clear to me that you've had a lot experience at the heart
> of the computing experience of the 70's and 80's, because a lot of what
> you say is in accord with my recollection at the time, although I was
> more peripherally involved.

I was much more closely involved, because I was directly involved with
most of the new technology back in the days with the "best corporate
jobs" were programming in COBOL on Mainframes, or programming for a
proprietary Burrows or Sperry computer.

When I first started using CP/M, very few people had a computer at
their desktop.  Even when Microsoft came out with PC-DOS and MS-DOS,
most people had to buy their own computer if they wanted to bring it
to work, and often, they had to share that desktop space with a 3270
SNA terminal.

When I started using UNIX, it wasn't the platform of choice for most
corporations.  There were probably only 30-40 companies using it
commercially (including AT&T and it's vendors).

While I like to share my experience with the winners, I was off target
a few times.  I really though the Atary 1040 ST would blow away the
market.  I thought DR-DOS with GEM would blow away the Mac.  When we
had all those orders for Sun workstations, I really thought Sun would
put a huge dent into Microsoft, especially with X-Terminals.

But because I so close to the guys who had a great product, that
didn't make the market window, I also got the early reports of the
tactics that were being used to black these hot new competitors.

Microsoft was usually at the center of the conspiracy.  For example,
it wasn't just IBM that swamped the FCC test labs to keep the ST from
getting it's certification in time for it's market window, it was IBM,
Compaq, and all of the other PC "Compatibles" makers.

> However, sometimes you seem to be emitting a stream-of-consciousness
> story with some facts that seem pretty incredible or contrived.  Enough
> so to put a dent in the reader's perception of your veracity.

Anybody can look up a WIKI and get somebody's sanitized worship of
Microsoft, Gates, and Balllmer, and they can share their favorite
"wasn't Bill Brilliant", story.

When I share some of Microsoft's less honorable activities, even when
they are verifiable by looking at court records that have not been
sealed, or that were published before they were sealed, I'm obviously
delusional according to the WinTrolls.

> Roy has a bit of the same effect -- high volume making accuracy harder
> to attain.

The biggest problem with Roy is that he puts out so many different
subjects that it's very easy to respond to one of his deluge and end
up having the response lost in the deluge.

Roy points out lots of articles showing where Linux is winning, what
Microsoft and other rivals are doing to take back market that Linux
has won, and keeping everybody busy.

> Unfortunately, there aren't many resources on the internet about the
> 70's and 80's, since most of the stories of those times are only in
> print format (and, as you noted, microfilm).  So we have to count on
> your accuracy.

No, you don't.  You can, and should, learn to do research in a public
library, and browse the copies of Byte, MicroWorld, E-Week, and other
publications of that era, to see the reports on competitors and court
cases involving Microsoft.  For the stuff in the 70s try looking at
ham radio magazines, including 73, QST, Ham Radio, and Kilobaud.

You should also read Fahrenheit 451.  In that book, the "fire chief"
explains why they burn the books, and leave people only the
information that is on the "tube".  The biggest problem is that print
(and photographic archives) don't get purged the way online content
does.




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index