|
The perennial, just-under-the-surface flame war regarding MS (or anyone else) and it's competitors is mainly a waste of energy and probably should be officially classed as a sport.
The fact is that MS was made, and Intel rejuvenated, by IBM's choice of them for platform and OS when they decided to enter the PC market. Gates was just a college kid who had "acquired" an operating system. IBM's goal was to dominate the market, whatever it took. Technical excellence is NOT a requirement for successful marketing; it only helps some.
If one's goal is to make money hand over fist, one puts on the plaid jacket and the white shoes and belt and becomes a used car salesman or something of that ilk. The little old lady from Pasadena doesn't give one big R's A whether her intake manifold is polished and chromed. One only has to TELL her that the vehicle will get her from point A to point B without fail. One doesn't have to be truthful! That is the unfortunate world of the bottom line. My own personal moral code doesn't subscribe to it, but a fact is a fact and scams and unethical deals are thick on the ground.
MS's predominant policy is to get to market rapidly with something they can call "New and Improved". Just like soap powder. There are lebenty-kazillion PC users who have no clue; they're a flock of sheep. They can be sheared and the fleece sold. This does NOT mean that MS doesn't have some sharp and innovative programmers. You bet your ass they do. They don't get to run the bidness, any more than most of YOU do. By and large they go to work and do their best, or what they think is good enough, or screw off, depending upon the person, just like any sample of any other group.
The fact that something is open source doesn't make it good, or innovative, or any other thing. If it's good, it's good; if it's not, it's not. A philosophy doesn't guarantee a cottonpickin' thang. A policy, coupled with a skillfull and craftsmanlike approach, does.
|