Re: Comparing apples and oranges (was Re: Ridin' Through Gateway Country, Roundin' up details....)

[damaged justice <frogfarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quoting Robert G. Brown (bob@acm.org):
> >In the professional market, I have no quibbles with this claim. 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", and they don't list any alternatives;
> 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. If you're gonna have a toy
computer, why bother having anything more than a toy OS? <grin> "Get a
REAL computer, luser!"

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. My point is that 95, toy though it may
be, is actually doing the job for some people. Nowhere near as many as MS
would have us believe, naturally. But it is fast turning from "the one true
way" to just another one of many choices. 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. I do my part by making people aware of
the alternatives, as I'm sure most people on this list do.

(95 works fine for my mom, for the most part. My stepsister has had less
luck. Part of this, however, can be explained by the fact that my mom,
despite her aversion to computers, has a long history with them, and is
more comfortable than my sister when it comes to getting her hands dirty.)

> Well, we're talking amongst ourselves here, and (I hope) most of the folks on
> this mailing list don't think of compiling ot multiple profiles, etc. as be-
> ing "wierd". ANY commercial grade OS oughta be able to handle that stuff, and 
> cleanly.

Oh mais oui. 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.
I think the world would be better off if all development tools for 95
suddenly vanished, forcing programmers to program with REAL development
tools in a REAL OS. But I'm not gonna go around wiping hard drives to
achieve that goal, desirable though it may be...

> >Depending on one's circumstances, one can often use free or low-cost
> >programs in a Windows environment. Obviously, the pointy-haired boss may
> >have ultimate say in what tools you are "allowed" to use on the job, but
> >there are often many alternatives to expensive commercial applications,
> >even in the non-Unix worlds.
> Ah, here's when we run into all that pesky practicality again. I have clients
> who have standardized on certain compilers and environments.The contracts I
> have specify that is "shall deliver the contracted software ready to install
> on platform XXX, compliant with all the conventions used by compiler YYY".
> Now, I can "choose" not to sign that contract, and go wandering about 
> like a lost child, digging up scraps of food and selling things at flea
> markets (or getting a REAL JOB, a frightening prospect :), or I can sign 
> and get on with the business at hand.  If I don't sign, someone else will,
> which doesn't excuse me from thinking but demonstrates that the market
> tendency is to sign.

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. (I hope
you aren't going to use the phrase "wage slave"... "What makes you wage
slaves? Wages!" -Groucho)

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. 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 bosses don't "trust" free tools because they're ignorant of history.
It's up to us to make sure everyone has a clue -- open source is what built
the Internet for all practical purposes; open source IS the "standard"; MS
did not invent the Internet or the personal computer; etc. Revisionists may
try to cover up, but truth will out.

--
frogfarm@yakko.cs.wmich.edu |  "From now on, you'll stand out in life as an
            Damaged Justice |  individual." "Will I?" "Well, of course you
        Will yodel for food |  will...all the other slaves will be black."
     Freedom...yeah, right. |                   - Black Adder