Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Apr 23 10:05:36 2002

see below, plz.

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_conman.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)


> It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
> >
> > From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_conman.org>
>
> > > But to catagorize all of them as ``development-related tools'' is a
> > > disingenious thing to say.
> > >
> >
> > disingenuous, is what you mean, isn't it?
>
> Yes it is. That's what I get for not taking the time to look up the
> proper spelling.
>
Well, I had to pick on you about something.
>
> > Why would anyone outside the UNIX/APPLE world care about postscript files?
> > That was once a popular format, but things change.
>
> PDF seems to be a very popular format these days and that's based upon
> PostScript. You can still get printers that support PostScript but hey, if
> PostScript isn't your bag, then there are programs to convert the output
> from TeX/LaTeX into your favorite printer format (as long as documentation
> exists for it that is).
>
Which is why PS is of no particular use to most of us.
>
> > > > Even in hardware development, the
> > > > software is a burden. It's a burden on the cost of other goods and
> > > > services.
> > >
> > > What does this even mean?
> >
> > It simply means that if you have to generate software that's not what your
> > main product line is, it's overhead. If you're a school system and you
have
> > to write your own code to manipulate the test score records demanded by
the
> > legislature, that's an overhead item, since it doesn't contribute to the
> > process of educating the kids. If you're a hardware developer and you
have to
> > write a compiler for the CPU you've designed into the gate array you're
going
> > to ship, that's overhead that adds to the systemic burden, yet doesn't
> > increase the price you can get for your product. Unless you're selling
> > software, generating software is a cost, not a benefit.
>
> You can either manage the test scores on paper, or on a computer. While
> it may seem to be cheaper to do it by hand, there are benefits to going the
> computer route, expense or not. Storage space is one consideration. Speed
> of processing is another. Unless you really advocate going back to paper
> records for everything?
>
Whichever way you do it, it's overhead, since it doesn't contribute to the
bottom line.
>
> You're going to have to write an assembler too, else you end up with a
> useless piece of silicon. Face it---without software, programmable hardware
> isn't going to do much other than be an expensive paperweight. I would
> contend that without software, then who in their right mind is going to use
> your hardware?
>
Well, you CAN design in a core for which you've already got an assembler.
>
> And it's not like you, as the hypothetical hardware chip maker, have to
> start from scratch and generate a compiler from the ground up. GCC can be
> configured to compile code for your chip, and while such a task isn't
> trivial, it's easier than having to generate a compiler from the ground up
> (and yes, documentation exists for this although how good it is, I'm not
> sure). And with GCC, you get not only a C compiler, but C++, Fortran and
> Ada as well. And if GCC is not to your liking, there is also LCC, which was
> designed from the ground up to be an easily retargettable C compiler (and
> that comes with extensive documentation).
>
That doesn't take the task out of the overhead column, though.
>
> -spc (Guess its back to using the abacus to keep business records ... )
>
The abacus is in the facilities column, which is overhead, and using it is
overhead.
>
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 10:05:36 BST