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

From: Richard Erlacher <edick_at_idcomm.com>
Date: Tue Apr 23 12:41:39 2002

When I said 'us' I certainly didn't include you. Of all the people with whom
I routinely interact, the only one other than myself, whom I know to be an
owner of a PostScript printer is a MAC user. I only know one of them, any
longer, since most of them have, ultimately, given them up in favor of PC's.

In terms of home and small-office computer users, I think your assessment of
my remarks is correct. That part of the world has no use for UNIX and those
who try to use it for those purposes are, indeed, deluding themselves that
it's going to be easier than taking the more popular course. Of course, if
one is sufficiently determined ...

Dick

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sean 'Captain Napalm' Conner" <spc_at_conman.org>
To: <classiccmp_at_classiccmp.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 10:47 AM
Subject: Re: Micro$oft Biz'droid Lusers (was: OT email response format)


> It was thus said that the Great Richard Erlacher once stated:
> >
> > > 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.
>
> What's this ``most of us'' business, Kimosabe? PostScript is of
> apparently no use to you; extrapolating that to the rest of the world is a
> leap of logic. By your logic, the world has no use for Unix and people who
> use it are deluding themselves, yet I still know a majority of people that
> use it.
>
> > > 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.
>
> If you have an assembler for a core, wouldn't you then just use the
> existing core? Call me silly, but to me that sounds like it wouldn't
> contribute to the bottom line since you are spending time designing a core
> which already exists.
>
> > > -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.
>
> Well gee, the box I use to store the money is is also overhead then.
> Might as well toss that out, along with the abacus.
>
You're allowed to "toss the baby with the bath water" if you like. It's your
choice. My point was that generating software is an indirect cost not
directly associated with the goal. You can take that wherever you like.
Received on Tue Apr 23 2002 - 12:41:39 BST