[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Also <sigh/>. I should know better than to get involved in threads like
this.
"Bullard, Claude L (Len)" wrote:
> It is a good way for the customer to purchase based on a
> precise definition rather than a loose and unbounded
> requirement for which they have no FAT test. We prefer
> to do business honestly, not by relying on buzz and
> open systems rant.
A precise definition is a good thing. But if the precise definition is
wrong (or wrong-headed), then fulfilling it is not a good thing. That is
what I was reacting to.
> So MS is the Big Bad Wolf? Ok.
Actually, no. MS is very good at what they do, which is to give
customers almost everything they ask for. This evidence (allegations of
monopolistic practices aside) seems to indicate that this is a very good
way to run a business. It doesn't always lead to clean design,
especially when it is done fast enough to beat your competitors to the
punch, and that is my gripe.
One of the interesting things here is that MS is successful based on
software that many purists (myself included at times) turn up their
noses at. This has always been a source of wonderment to me, and I've
come to the same conclusion as you -- customers just don't care, as long
as they can solve their problem and solve it now.
I suspect there's a strong parallel between the success of MS's
sometimes chaotic software over more orderly versions and the success of
democracies over more orderly (dictatorial) governments. Both give
people choice, even if they make poor choices.
I'll shut up now.
-- Ron
|
