OT Bill Gates tells senators "we need more foreign programmers to remain competitive"

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Pretty soon the Mac OS or something will all of its features and full
compatitibility will be available for PCs. Then what?

Then nothing, unless Apple lowers its prices to make its products
truly competitive with PCs.

Ultimately we will all be using some kind of Unix type OS, with
unlimited flavors but a base of open-source code.

There is absolutely no way to know what we will be using in the
future. About all we can say is that it will either be Windows or
something else.

Meanwhile, MS is plodding along with an ex-CFO at the helm, mired in
the torpor of quarterly earnings targets, hoping to cram a new desktop
OS down peoples' throats and get a fresh run out of the deal. It
can't last forever.

I agree. Bill Gates made the company, and he is no longer in the
driver's seat. I knew there was a problem as soon as MS declared its
first dividend.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sat, 01 Apr 2006 23:53:20 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Pretty soon the Mac OS or something will all of its features and full
compatitibility will be available for PCs. Then what?

Then nothing, unless Apple lowers its prices to make its products
truly competitive with PCs.

Well, if the Mac OS will run on PCs, Apple will have relinquished its
closed architecture.

Ultimately we will all be using some kind of Unix type OS, with
unlimited flavors but a base of open-source code.

There is absolutely no way to know what we will be using in the
future. About all we can say is that it will either be Windows or
something else.

Only a fool hesitates to predict the future, because such predictions
are quickly forgotten unless they turn out to be true, in which case
the prognosticator gets a cheap halo.

That is why I confidently assert that Unix, or Linux, or some flavor
of nix, is the wave of the future. Or, to be more precise,
open-source code is the wave of the future as developers find it
necessary to port to various interfaces, different sized screens,
different keyboard layouts, etc. etc.

Mark my words.

Charlie

Meanwhile, MS is plodding along with an ex-CFO at the helm, mired in
the torpor of quarterly earnings targets, hoping to cram a new desktop
OS down peoples' throats and get a fresh run out of the deal. It
can't last forever.

I agree. Bill Gates made the company, and he is no longer in the
driver's seat. I knew there was a problem as soon as MS declared its
first dividend.

"Schrodinger's cat" martin scotland.org wrote:


The penny dropped when I realised he was snipping my posts down to
half sentences to move away from his early indefensible
statements.

You have no argument, you are just an insulting tough guy Wanna-be.








Regards

Martin



Path: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net!newsdbm05.news.prodigy. com!newsdbm04.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prod igy.com!prodigy.com!newscon06.news.prodigy.com!pro digy.net!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk !news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!newsrouter-eu.astraweb.com!news.astraweb.com!router1.astraweb .com!not-for-mail
From: "Schrodinger's cat" martin scotland.org
Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
References: Xns9795EC3699674follydom 207.115.17.102 122oi973ilgpr96 corp.supernews.com Xns97969C30FD367follydom 207.115.17.102 122sjegg0ekfidd corp.supernews.com
Subject: OT Bill Gates tells senators "we need more foreign programmers to remain competitive"
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 18:14:54 +0100
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2670
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2670
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Response
Lines: 15
Message-ID: 442eb508$0$17008$c3e8da3 news.astraweb.com
Organization: Unlimited download news at news.astraweb.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: c30b39af.news.astraweb.com
X-Trace: DXC=\^YHh[?MEg4YUQJRTa54B1L?0kYOcDh :TE6nc^O4LM?K2NJfOES?6jFjRXhIVFT1IdaDJLgOgf6Zi;=S ekcka;
Xref: prodigy.net alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:462853

John Doe rattled our cages with this on Thursday 3/30/2006


Bill Gates was in Washington this week, as usual lobbying for an
increase in H-1B visas. The richest man in the world earned his keep
when he looked our president in the eye and (without laughing) said
"Microsoft needs cheap, easy to control foreign programmers to
remain competitive". Both Bill Gates and our president probably get
a good laugh out of that one.

If it weren't for the Wall Street investors consumate greed, maybe old
Bill wouldn't be looking for all that cheap labor. Must satisfy those
double digit returns money grubbing sons-a-bitches. The people who
contribute the least, demand and get the most. Present day proof? Oil
industry.

To satisfy those demands? Cheap labor.

--
__________________________________________________ ___________

That's all,


"Just because you're not paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get
you"

Colin Sautar

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Well, if the Mac OS will run on PCs, Apple will have relinquished its
closed architecture.

It doesn't run on PCs.

Only a fool hesitates to predict the future, because such predictions
are quickly forgotten unless they turn out to be true, in which case
the prognosticator gets a cheap halo.

That may be true for predictions alone, but when predictions are
enshrined in engineering or business decisions, they tend to be
remembered whether they are true or not--and since most predictions of
the future are incorrect, only a fool would make predictions that are
likely to be so enshrined.

That is why I confidently assert that Unix, or Linux, or some flavor
of nix, is the wave of the future. Or, to be more precise,
open-source code is the wave of the future as developers find it
necessary to port to various interfaces, different sized screens,
different keyboard layouts, etc. etc.

Open-source cannot work because it is not economically viable. The
world's software cannot be written by geeks working in their bedrooms
part-time for free on only the projects that happen to interest them
at any given moment.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

John Doe writes:

And last I heard, Microsoft has Adobe in its sights. If so, that
means no more Adobe.

Microsoft has always had Adobe in its sites, but it lacks ammunition;
that is, MS does not have the technical competence necessary to
compete with Adobe. Remember PhotoDraw 2000?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 06:15:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Well, if the Mac OS will run on PCs, Apple will have relinquished its
closed architecture.

It doesn't run on PCs.

Connect the dots. Apple has gone to Intel, and their OS is
unix-based. They are ready to challenge MS again, but the cost will
be the loss of their proprietary hardware.

Apple has a history of taking risks, most of which don't pay off, but
they have hung in there. I think their perilous history has poised
them to take advantage of device proliferation.

MS has succeeded consistently because of risk aversion and ruthless
exploitation of their dominant position. They wait until something is
a clear winner, and then buy it in. But they can't control cell
phones, media players, home theaters, automotive computers, and
everything else all at the same time.

MS has never developed anything worthwhile on their own, and they
always look foolish when they try. Making the help file into a
cartoon paper clip... that's MS innovation. Even when Apple fails,
they don't look foolish, and sometimes they really nail it. They are
in touch with the marketplace because they haven't had the luxury of
controlling and dictating to the marketplace.

Only a fool hesitates to predict the future, because such predictions
are quickly forgotten unless they turn out to be true, in which case
the prognosticator gets a cheap halo.

That may be true for predictions alone, but when predictions are
enshrined in engineering or business decisions, they tend to be
remembered whether they are true or not--and since most predictions of
the future are incorrect, only a fool would make predictions that are
likely to be so enshrined.

My predictions don't bear such a burden. I can drop them if they turn
out wrong, and refer to them for the rest of my life if they turn out
right. Nice, eh?

That is why I confidently assert that Unix, or Linux, or some flavor
of nix, is the wave of the future. Or, to be more precise,
open-source code is the wave of the future as developers find it
necessary to port to various interfaces, different sized screens,
different keyboard layouts, etc. etc.

Open-source cannot work because it is not economically viable. The
world's software cannot be written by geeks working in their bedrooms
part-time for free on only the projects that happen to interest them
at any given moment.

No, that's a narrow view of what open source software is all about.

Put yourself in the situation of a hardware manufacturer that wants a
custom interface ASAP. Do you want to reinvent the wheel, or do you
want to build on an open-source base?

Computer hardware is getting less generic, and the OS will have to be
less generic as well. MS has XP media edition, a step in the right
direction... but the obsession is Vista, the magical new OS that
people are going to buy just for the pleasure of having a different
OS. That is what I mean when I say MS is plodding along... they have
a history of earning windfall profits with each big new OS release.
Well, it's been 4 years, time to pull the rabbit out of the hat once
again. Will it work this time?

It's quite true that the world will need a 64-bit OS at some point,
when RAM goes past 4gb in the average machine and 64-bit media apps
and games start to come out. But, it's an open question whether Vista
will be the only reasonable choice, or the best choice.

Charlie

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 06:15:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Charlie Wilkes writes:


Well, if the Mac OS will run on PCs, Apple will have relinquished its
closed architecture.

It doesn't run on PCs.


Connect the dots. Apple has gone to Intel, and their OS is
unix-based. They are ready to challenge MS again, but the cost will
be the loss of their proprietary hardware.

Apple has a history of taking risks, most of which don't pay off, but
they have hung in there. I think their perilous history has poised
them to take advantage of device proliferation.

MS has succeeded consistently because of risk aversion and ruthless
exploitation of their dominant position.

You've got a chicken and the egg dilemma with your scenario. They couldn't
have a 'dominate' position before they succeeded with something so it can't
be the 'dominate' position that allowed them to succeed in the first place.

They wait until something is
a clear winner, and then buy it in. But they can't control cell
phones, media players, home theaters, automotive computers, and
everything else all at the same time.

MS has never developed anything worthwhile on their own, and they
always look foolish when they try.

Your knowledge of Microsoft's history is apparently lacking but that's an
interesting 'complaint' to make visa vie Apple when they've abandoned their
own O.S. for something they perceive an already developed 'clear winner'.

Making the help file into a
cartoon paper clip... that's MS innovation.

Close. Rather extensive context sensitive English language help and wizards
are more like it. Something the open source community has a tendency to
dismiss, or think that slapping up a man page qualifies as. If a car were
as 'O.S.' the difference for 'start car help' would be akin to: MS help
tells you to insert key, labeled "ignition key," into ignition switch on
steering wheel column. Turn key to the right till motor starts, then
release. Move transmission lever on center console to D... In Linux you'd
get an exploded engineering drawing of the automobile and the text
beginning with internal combustion theory, the history of gears and
materials technology as a background prelude to explaining the reason for
every nut and bolt in the thing so you can make the car do 'whatever you
want' by re-engineering it, except you'd have to find the Libc gas station
and decide whether you wanted to use, and install, the gnome ignition key
system or one of the 15 others that 'come with it' (see 'appropriate' man
page) bearing in mind you've got a KDE radio and your transmission isn't
fully supported yet (see man transmission).

That, btw, is one reason why MS succeeded.


snip

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 05:46:46 -0500, David Maynard
wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 06:15:51 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:


Charlie Wilkes writes:


Well, if the Mac OS will run on PCs, Apple will have relinquished its
closed architecture.

It doesn't run on PCs.


Connect the dots. Apple has gone to Intel, and their OS is
unix-based. They are ready to challenge MS again, but the cost will
be the loss of their proprietary hardware.

Apple has a history of taking risks, most of which don't pay off, but
they have hung in there. I think their perilous history has poised
them to take advantage of device proliferation.

MS has succeeded consistently because of risk aversion and ruthless
exploitation of their dominant position.

You've got a chicken and the egg dilemma with your scenario. They couldn't
have a 'dominate' position before they succeeded with something so it can't
be the 'dominate' position that allowed them to succeed in the first place.

They succeeded in making a sale to IBM, and IBM did the heavy lifting
for them. DOS wasn't exactly an MS innovation. Win 3x... well, it
worked. 9x? XP? Reactive engineering, every step of the way.

They wait until something is
a clear winner, and then buy it in. But they can't control cell
phones, media players, home theaters, automotive computers, and
everything else all at the same time.

MS has never developed anything worthwhile on their own, and they
always look foolish when they try.

Your knowledge of Microsoft's history is apparently lacking but that's an

Sorry, I forgot Microsoft Bob.

interesting 'complaint' to make visa vie Apple when they've abandoned their
own O.S. for something they perceive an already developed 'clear winner'.

Making the help file into a
cartoon paper clip... that's MS innovation.

Close. Rather extensive context sensitive English language help and wizards
are more like it. Something the open source community has a tendency to
dismiss, or think that slapping up a man page qualifies as. If a car were
as 'O.S.' the difference for 'start car help' would be akin to: MS help
tells you to insert key, labeled "ignition key," into ignition switch on
steering wheel column. Turn key to the right till motor starts, then
release. Move transmission lever on center console to D... In Linux you'd
get an exploded engineering drawing of the automobile and the text
beginning with internal combustion theory, the history of gears and
materials technology as a background prelude to explaining the reason for
every nut and bolt in the thing so you can make the car do 'whatever you
want' by re-engineering it, except you'd have to find the Libc gas station
and decide whether you wanted to use, and install, the gnome ignition key
system or one of the 15 others that 'come with it' (see 'appropriate' man
page) bearing in mind you've got a KDE radio and your transmission isn't
fully supported yet (see man transmission).

Yeah, what you're talking about is writing good documentation.
Techies are averse to any kind of knowledge sharing and they are
purposefully obscure. But any company with a decent staff can do it
if they are motivated. Plenty of software companies produce good
docs.

Sell 'em short, I say. You'll be rich.

Charlie

That, btw, is one reason why MS succeeded.


snip

Charlie Wilkes writes:

Connect the dots. Apple has gone to Intel, and their OS is
unix-based. They are ready to challenge MS again, but the cost will
be the loss of their proprietary hardware.

I don't think they are willing to sacrifice the cash cow of their
proprietary hardware.

Put yourself in the situation of a hardware manufacturer that wants a
custom interface ASAP. Do you want to reinvent the wheel, or do you
want to build on an open-source base?

If I need a custom interface, then by definition it doesn't already
exist, so I'll have to pay to get it written. Open source won't help.

That is what I mean when I say MS is plodding along... they have
a history of earning windfall profits with each big new OS release.
Well, it's been 4 years, time to pull the rabbit out of the hat once
again. Will it work this time?

I don't know. I hope not. MS needs to be weaned from this habit.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.