Re: Part of the Microsoft Agreement

[Chip Richards <chipr@tomquartz.niestu.com>]

  On Tue, Dec 09, 1997 at 06:47:45AM -0800, Milton Ponson wrote:
  
     At least Sun has the decency to put this stuff in writing.
  
  I think it was a matter of covering their asses.  As an engineer, I felt
  sympathy for Sun's engineers.  Their legal department went a bit overboard
  on the wording, although it's hard to make a case that it's inaccurate.
  There was a brisk discussion on the tech-oriented newsgroups back when it
  first came out about how the Sun engineers felt naked and a bit betrayed by
  their cowardly running-dog shysters.  Hell, *everyone's* software has
  risks--Java no more or less than any other complex system.  It seemed a bit
  much to tar it with such a flaming brush.
  
     Similar wording, it seems, is appropriate for quite a few situations
     where fault-tolerance and OLTP is required and I would not trust any
     medical, or critical process control systems with Windows or Windows NT.
  
  I write software for a living, and I think people are fools to trust
  anything they value to a complex software system.  Especially one they
  didn't write themselves.  It has to be done in some circumstances, given
  what we've come to desire and expect out of life, but the risks must be
  understood.
  
  As for NT, well, it's just one more raggedy cheap-ass over-hyped piece of
  shit, pardon my French, developed under the most horrid abusive sweat-shop
  conditions.  It's amazing that it runs at all.  But as much as I fear NT's
  reliability (don't even *talk* about Win3.x or Win95), I fear Microsoft's
  business practices even more.
  
  I'd sooner let a Visual Basic program drive my car than let Bill Gates
  decide my future.
  
  -- 
  Chip