[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Brave New World
You begin with the statement:
Valid comment on the editorial control of the encyclopedia
so I think you see one point I was trying to make, and, in fact,
With respect to my objections about Microsoft's "pioneering" remarks...
Much real work had be done in GUI design and object-oriented programming.
before Microsoft became involved. It is my opinion that MS does not
give credit where it is due for that development. You may be right
that I have overstated the case against Microsoft--by interpreting
"pioneer" as though it meant "innovate". Still, they over-emphasize
their contribution, and it I still believe it is fair for me to characterize
this as a rewriting of history.
Incidentally, just in case you do not know it, rewriting history plays a
large role in the book Brave New World, by George Orwell.
With respect to philanthropy...
Donating computers and software to schools is commendable, but
hardly evidence of social conscience. Microsoft DOES SELL
educational software that can use the good press, after all But perhaps
you have other examples of Gates philanthropy?
With respect to your question "Did I miss something?", you can
see that I think so. But I want to thank you for the calm tone
of your email, and particularly for the fact that it reflects thought!
GUIs and object oriented programming
Dave Hamilton wrote:
> Tod Landis wrote:
> Big difference. Before the acquisition the "Gates"
> entry emphasized his competitiveness; after the
> acquisition: his "philanthropy"! What philanthropy?
> (Many of us wonder if he will EVER develop
> a social conscience and make donation for the public
> Valid comment on the editorial control of the encyclopedia, however on
> the issue of philanthropy, Gates has given millions to charity.
> Remember a short while back when Ted Turner gave 1 billion to the UN? A
> big deal was made that Gates had _only_ given millions. You can argue
> about the amounts, but you can't say "What philanthropy". Of local note
> (to me), Microsoft, on behalf of Gates' wife has setup quite a computer
> education program at some of the high schools in Dallas (where his wife
> is from), both public and private. So, there is evidence of
> philanthropy. I try not to assume what people do in their private lives
> - those assumptions are usually wrong.
> As far as public good, there are a lot of people employed by Microsoft
> directly, and a lot of people in the software industry employed by
> companies who deal with Microsoft technology and products (including
> me). If you consider employment as part of the public good (as I do)
> then Gates/Microsoft has done pretty well. IMHO.
> There are other examples of history rewritten.
> I was at a Microsoft Internet Developers'
> conference where a speaker said that Microsoft was a
> pioneer of GUI development. Of course, that is a great
> exaggeration. Xerox PARC and Apple were the real pioneers.
> This is a somewhat arbitrary line you are drawing. Why include Apple?
> If you are making a point about "pioneer", I would argue that only Xerox
> was the pioneer of the GUI. If you are talking about "inovation", then
> you have to include anyone who has added or tweaked the GUI, which
> includes a lot of companies, including Apple and Microsoft.
> Similarly, Microsoft did not pioneer object oriented
> or C++ programming, though MS speakers sometimes
> claim this. AT&T and Stroustrup get the credit there. And
> I think Borland had a C++ compiler on the market before
> Microsoft, though I could be wrong.
> Once again, pioneer or innovate? I have never heard Microsoft claim to
> have pioneered object oriented or C++ programming. There were plenty of
> C++ compilers that pre-dated Visual C++, including Borland, Zortech,
> Watcom, and others. Each of these companies (and Microsoft) did
> innovate, none of them pioneered.
> Besides taking issue with some of your facts, I don't argue your point.
> Mostly because I don't see that you are making one. Did I miss
> Dave Hamilton