From: Mark Steven Heyman (markheyman@infoproconsulting.com)
Date: Sat Jul 10 2004 - 22:35:27 BST
Hi Mel,
Thanks for the feedback. Don't think we have much argument. A few
comments interspersed, below.
On 10 Jul 2004 at 13:34, ml wrote:
After Microplop 'stole' their operating system, they follow IBM's
example and Marketing was king over Quality.
msh says:
Actually, they hitched their wagon to IMB's star. The first IBM PC's
cost around three grand, as I recall, about a third the cost of an
Apple. If you bought an IBM, or later, a clone, you were pretty
much stuck paying for DOS as well.
mel:
Not a fan, I use Linux on most of my Systems...but gotta give the
devil his due.
msh says:
Yeah, I use Linux too. But, because all of my clients use Windows, I
gotta keep up with it. It's not as bad as some old hackers say,
just not as good as MS would have us believe. And dangerously
insecure, as we're discovering daily. I think they're app dev
software, VC++ and VB, are just fine.
mel:
Most folks still would not use a PC without MS's pre-literate-grunt-
click operating system.
msh says:
Yes. But this is because MS refused resale licenses to any OEMs wo
wouldn't sell their boxes with Windows pre-installed. Most people
simply went with what they got. You couldn't buy a PC w/o paying for
Windows, even if you zapped the hard drive and installed your own OS,
and tried to return the unopened Windows package and license. No
refund, sorry.
Then, of course, MS began bundling other apps right in with the OS,
IE and MediaPlayer for example. It was this sort of business
practice that eventually, but way too late, got them into a little
trouble. Finally, for non-MS developers, there's the additional
problem of not being able to see the Windows source code, which is
guarded like the president's nuclear football. This gives MS
developers a real advantage in writing Windows apps.
Oh well. It's not becoming for me to whine too much about MS; I've
been piggy-backing of them for 20 years. ;-)
> msh says:
> Or, maybe, some of them preferred making a living without
exploiting
> others, even if it meant being exploited themselves. And, since
you
> seem to be confused by the word, I'm using "exploited" in the
> economic sense of paying an employee less than the value of his
> product, so that the product may be sold for a profit.
mel:
Sorry for the subtlety, but I was gently trying to point at a piece
of ideology to which you seem wedded, you use EXPLOIT in a
paternalistic manner. You seem to allow no possibility of free will
on the part of the employee, which truly would be a low quality
position. Apologies if I am mistaken...truly.
msh says:
You're right. I DO get a little strident about this sometimes. It's
just that in situations such as the one described by Arlo, where
people are so desperate they'll accept just about anything, free will
is almost a negligible factor.
>
> mel:
> I think history and economics shows this assertion not to be true.
> Economies South of the Rio Grande are traditionally paternalistic
> systems run by a small group of elite in each country. Only at
the
> village and produce market level are they dynamic and free. If you
> are looking at real money you must make deals with the "right"
> families. That was a Spanish creation, but the families are also
> the ones who traditionally 'pick' their country's rulers.
>
> msh says:
> I find it difficult to believe that you belive this. And don't
know
> what to say, after that. I can recommend some books on American
> interventions in Latin America, I suppose.
mel:
My opinion on Parternalistic Economies is based on having
read about them and having known the scions of two of the
"RIGHT" Familias, un de Venezuela y un de Guatemala.
En Argentina y en Mexico, hay lo mismo cuando las moneda
es miliones. Also from some amount of international mining
business involvement. Sorry, on the ground, you gotta be with
the right people or a project goes nowhere.
Lo siento amigo, pero Paternalismo es la verdad!
msh says:
No need to apologize. Ok, sure. Paternalism is for real, if by
"paternalism" you mean a privileged elite has the power and wealth to
run the country. In that case, it's more than alive and well in the
USA as well. And Canada. Any European country. In fact, just about
any nation-state I can think of.
mel:
Much as Yankees like to think themselves strong and smart, we get
duped and played the patsy by one group or another in Latin
countries. As my father is fond of stating, no matter what you do
you are going to be wrong.
msh says:
The Gringos don't need to be smarter to get their way. Just more
powerful and more violent. Again, you might want to take a look at
the history of American interventions, south of the border and all
the way to Chile, over the last 100 years.
Thanks again for your thoughts, Mel. Welcome to the group.
Best,
Mark Steven Heyman (msh)
--
InfoPro Consulting - The Professional Information Processors
Custom Software Solutions for Windows, PDAs, and the Web Since 1983
Web Site: http://www.infoproconsulting.com
"Thought is only a flash between two long nights, but this flash is
everything." -- Henri Poincare'
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 11 2004 - 01:48:36 BST