Throwing apples and Oranges (seeing if anyone notices a new subject)

["Robert G. Brown" <bob@xxxxxxx>]

>>>...The home market can still be well served with "toys" more often than not. 
>>So are you saying that Win95 is the OS for these "toys"? 
>>Gateway puts Win95 on ALL of it's "toys"....I had to ask about NT, recall?
>>My notion of a "toy" is NOT a 400Mhz Pentium II, 128 Mb, 14.4 Gb of disk, 
>>an x2 modem, multimedia features and a 19" monitor. This sounds like a 
>>fairly serious machine, yet they ship a "toy" OS on that platform?!
>Well, that sure sounds like a toy to me.....
Har, Har.

>But seriously, anyone buying a system past a certain "power point" would
>be better served by getting a real OS and investing the time and effort in
>learning how to use it effectively. ...
Maybe.. someone USING a system past a certain "power point".... After all, use 
determines delivered value in this.

>My point is that 95, toy though it may be, is actually doing the job for some 
>people....
Perhaps, but what's "The job"? After all, if a lot of people are buying 
computers from places like Gateway, and they know about as much as my 
character did, and the salespeople are as informative about things as
they were, then how does ANYONE know what "The job" is, or if Win95 is
"doing" it?

>...it is fast turning from "the one true way" to just another one of many
>choices. 
Well, it always was, but maybe... maybe, a few of them are starting the see 
that.

>We may cringe at the notion of crippling a nice fast system with a bloated, 
>inefficient OS, but people have the right to make bad choices. 
Please consider that the word CHOICE in this context is not appropriate. 
Choice only exists when there is knowledge -- prior, informed consent. 
Without understanding, without any knowledge of the implications of picking
one thing over another, there's no such thing as choice, anymore than the
natives I spoke of "choose" to get malaria.

>>...(I hope) most of the folks on this mailing list don't think of compiling
>>or multiple profiles, etc. as being "wierd". ANY commercial grade OS oughta
>>be able to handle that stuff, and cleanly.

>Oh mais oui.
I'm sorry, was it good for you, too?  :)

>I still doubt the average Win95 user will EVER compile a
>program, and I don't see much of a point to programming under 95 anyway.
Hey, if I hafta support my junk on a Win95 box, I'm going to put one up here
(or put up with one here), if only to test what I've written and compiled 
(there or someplace else, probably in NT).

But you're right, statistically speaking.

>Yes, signing a contract is a choice. Some people choose moral principle
>over profit, some choose otherwise, and most people try to balance them
>in some fashion. Richard Stallman, for instance, consistently chooses
>principle -- but not all of us can live on grants and fellowships.
But signing a contract doesn't mean you're violating any principles. I
find your equating the signng of a contract with not being sincere or 
principled, and that's not only untrue, but most distasteful.

>(I hope you aren't going to use the phrase "wage slave"... "What makes you 
>wage slaves? Wages!" -Groucho)
"This Liniment makes my arm smart"  "Better rub some on your head!"
                                                                 "rimshot"

I don't need to use the term "wage slave", mostly 'cuz I ain't one, and have
not been for a long, long time (if ever). I beleive most people who use the
term have made a series of choices that have become a trap.

>IMO, I would say that a boss that wants that much control over the way you
>get the job done is not worth working for. How you do the job should be
>immaterial, as long as it is done to specification's satisfaction. 
But part of the specification is that the finished product run in environment
X, Y, and Z. One of these (I won't say which :) is called "Microsoft Windows
NT, Version 4.00 Workstation". So I must be able to comple, test and operate
the software in that environment, regardless of where the development is
done.

>If they can't stand the idea of you using open source tools to create what
>they want...well, as you say, it's your choice whether to work for them or
>not.
Most full-time employees are furnished with a corporate standard SDE, and
that may be to one's liking, and may not be.  I do know that in most cor-
porates, it's VERY HARD to buck whatever has been adopted as the standard.
One is expected to use that to develop software, and if you can't live with
that, why, thank you very much and good luck to ya.

In a lot of regulated industries (aerospace, nuclear, financial, drugs,
defence, etc.) the organization is under one charter or another to maintain
"cradle to grave" or "full life cycle control" over internally developed
software. Introducing other than approved tools is not appreciated, to say
the least.

I don't have these problems, 'cuz I'm an independent software developer. As
such I stand outside many organizational rules (at least sometimes). My 
clients trust me and they want results, which I produce, according to 
contract, in environments compliant with agreed upon specifications.
HOW I do that is apparently none of their concern; it's not been an issue.

I have no idea what you do for a living, but you really need to read a
standard NDA or employment agreement covering things like software develop-
ment.

>Most bosses don't "trust" free tools because they're ignorant of history.
Your statement would be more correct if you removed these words--^^^^^^^^^

Most good manager are more or less up on what's what, but would freely admit
that they don't know all the details of the latest technology. Even if they
were good at that game once upon a time, they've just spent at least 2 1/2 
to 5 years learning how to be a good manager, worthy of scuity, promotions, 
etc., and that's left little time to keep up on things.

                                                              Regards,
                                                               ---> RGB <---