Rest in Peace, Mr. Ritchie

Page 1 of 4  
Steve Jobs was nothing, Bill Gates is nothing, Dennis Richie was a god. I, at one time, thought God came to Richie (and his partner Mr. Kernighan) after becoming frustrated with all the screwed up code being written at the time, and wrote C and Unix for these two. Nothing much has occurred to change those thoughts.
Gates and Job's were marketers that ripped off the public. Gates eliminated competition as much as possible and uses his monopoly to gouge the public with >30% profit margins. Jobs rips his customers off with a 40% profit margin. XOM rips us off with a 10% profit margin.
Almost no one knows who Richie and Kernighan are, quite normal for a screwed up society. God must have loved this guy to write his code for him, so I'm sure he is resting in peace. Gates and Jobs on the other hand...
http://tinyurl.com/3ztwfrr
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/technology/dennis-ritchie-programming-trailblazer-dies-at-70.html
--
Jack
Don't worry about your health... It'll go away!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 12:45:30 -0400, Jack wrote:

At what level would profit be acceptable to you, 5%, 2%, 0% ?
Personally, I don't like to work cheap.
basilisk

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/technology/dennis-ritchie-programming-trailblazer-dies-at-70.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/14/2011 1:24 PM, basilisk wrote:

I'm OK with the 10% Exxon-Mobil makes. I get edgy at 40% that Apple makes, but that doesn't bother me too much because I don't think they have a monopoly. I'm not OK with a 30% profit that a monopoly (90+% of the DT market) makes, particularly when the product stinks.
A perfect example of why monopolies are bad business.

Personally, I don't like having the choice to buy any color of car, as long as it's black.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't have a problem with 40% if they can get it. We have the option of saying "NO" and not using the product. After all, while it is a nice product, we lived on earth for thousands of years without any type of phone.
Most monopolies are temporary. If they are hugely profitable, competition soon goes for a share of the market and they usually go for it at a lower price.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/16/2011 1:38 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Perhaps, depending on your definition of temporary. Microsoft has been at it of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition, competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the market.
Just when do you think this "temporary" control will end?

Apple may or may not have a great product, I don't own or use anything of theirs, but my son has a Mac and an iPhone, and he likes them, and the mac runs on a Unix kernel so it should be solid. I'm not sure how they manage a 40% profit margin but I'm not a big fan of companies making that much of a profit margin. As you say, in this case, it may be temporary, who knows. I doubt Apple can put a retailer out of the computer business if they sell a competitors product, like MS could when obtaining monopoly status.
I suspect the few people willing to swim up stream against the MS monopoly are willing to pay exorbitant prices, so even Apple customers are a casualty if the MS monopoly.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/16/2011 1:45 PM, Jack wrote:

of a quarter century. Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T had to be broken up by the courts. The reason monopolies like MS are bad is by definition, competition is excluded via control of the market. When competition is stifled by a monopoly, progress stops, quality stagnates and people are forced to pay what the monopoly says they will pay. MS is a perfect example of this, providing crap at a 30% mark up to over 90% of the market.

Now let us inspect Reality to demonstrate why this is complete nonsense. At the beginning of the desktop/PC revolution, there were two significant OS players: Apple and Radio Shack (there were something like a half dozen TRS-DOS variants, the best of which was LDOS). Then IBM entered the market and Microsoft came with them, for the first time producing an OS.
Now let's fast forward. There are dozens of OS variants. Besides MacOS (a FreeBSD/MACH derivative) and Windows, there are a bunch of different Linux distros, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeDOS, at least one Windows clone OS (whose name I cannot recall). In the mobile device space, Microsoft's presence is too small to matter with Apple IOS and Android (another Linux derivative) splitting the market between them. Microsoft has no presence to speak of in the realtime/embedded space. They are not a force in supercomputer or high-availability clustering. They do not have a place in the multi-petabyte database space.
But you think they're a "monopoly". You are seriously disconnected from the current state of this business. It is a simple, demonstrable, and completely rational observation that Microsoft dominates only the desktop, and then only so long as they provide a good value. More and more people are turning to portable devices like high function phones and tablets - a space where Microsoft has almost NO presence. This, sir, is not a monopoly. This is a market with more product, more players, and more competition than has ever existed since the dawn of commercial computing. The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain high margins in this environment is to their credit.
P.S. Microsoft isn't as bulletproof as you seem to think. Go look at their stock performance over the last decade.
P.P.S. The only "predatory monopoly" that exists in our nation is the government and that's because they get to use force to keep themselves in power. Fortunately - for the most part - that use of force is narrowly bounded by rule of law.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/16/2011 5:45 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

Well, you certainly haven't demonstrated with this half baked reply. Lets "inspect" to see why you are off base.

These were meaningless. When IBM decided to enter the PC/DT market, who they picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.
Then IBM entered the market

Until IBM entered the market, the market was bare.

Lets not. From the beginning, there was little competition, since IBM, for whatever reason, chose MS. That meant that if you wanted to write software, sell software, or have anything to do with PC's, you had to go with MS because that was the platform IBM used. Those that attempted to get a foot in the door of any retail outlet was quickly stomped on by MS threatening the retailer to either withdraw their license to sell MS or with super high price for the product. Since IBM had set the stage for MS, if a retailer ignored MS threats, they were doomed, so they didn't, and no "feet" got in the door. All other products were like farts in the wind, had no chance, mattered not if they were good, bad or indifferent. They eventually all went away, which is exactly what monopolies do to the competition. Even if you think you know more than judge Sporkin, who listened to years of testimony laying out how MS violated anti-trust laws, and found them super guilty of violating anti trust laws, you cannot deny that controlling over 90% of the DT market is a monopoly. Well you can, but then you would be spouting nonsense.
There are dozens of OS variants. Besides MacOS

No DT product could get a foot in the door "in the early days" of the DT PC. MS made sure of it, and it was proven in court after the fact in 1995.

No shit Dick Tracy. I never said they dominated the mainframe market, or the cell phone market, or the meat market. They dominate over 90% of the DT market, they have a lousy product that is only "good enough" because the average consumer has little choice when shopping the DT market.

Microsoft has a monopoly on the PC DT market. We'll see how the cell phone market pans out.

Microsoft has over a 90% market share in the DT PC market. You can say that's not a monopoly all day long, you will be wrong.
This is a market with more product, more players, and more

Standard Oil, IBM, AT&T also knew how to prosper but they didn't make 30% profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day, or some combination of both.

Get real. Their profit margin has always been super high, what one would expect from a monopoly. They have been "bulletproof" for around 25 years, what happens in the future is a guess, the past is undeniable. They were able to maintain this control by stopping retailers from selling competing products and by changing the environment so software, often even their own, would not work between upgrades. This was deliberate to control the market, and it worked.

Unfortunately, the "rule of law" went out the window when MS got busted for anti-trust violations and all they got was a slap on the hands, and a dire need to contribute vast donations to those in charge of the "rule of law". The current regime is even worse, and thinks the "rule of law" is for you, not them.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/17/2011 1:23 PM, Jack said this:

picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.

You might want to mention that to the several millionaires that were made producing OSs long before MS/IBM entered the party. I personally know at least one.

whatever reason, chose MS. That meant that if you wanted to write software, sell software, or have anything to do with PC's, you had to go with MS because that was the platform IBM used. Those that attempted to get a foot in the door of any retail outlet was quickly stomped on by MS threatening the retailer to either withdraw their license to sell MS or with super high price for the product. Since IBM had set the stage for MS, if a retailer ignored MS threats, they were doomed, so they didn't, and no "feet" got in the door. All other products were like farts in the wind, had no chance, mattered not if they were good, bad or indifferent. They eventually all went away, which is exactly what monopolies do to the competition. Even if you think you know more than judge Sporkin, who listened to years of testimony laying out how MS violated anti-trust laws, and found them super guilty of violating anti

And this "lack of competition" is why we have more choices than ever today? Your narrative is falling apart in the face of observable reality.

cell phone market, or the meat market. They dominate over 90% of the DT market, they have a lousy product that is only "good enough" because the average consumer has little choice when shopping the DT market. Most of the systems I mentioned are available in desktop variants. Some, like Ubuntu, are very, very good. You know why they don't get selected? Because MOST people don't want to tinker with a computer, they just want to USE it. Microsoft gets them there at a very low cost and, these days, with a very robust product.

When there are a dozen *free* alternatives, it's not a monopoly.

profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day, or some combination of both. The oil companies' cost to produce it dominated by drilling costs. Software marginal cost for additional units is very low. This is not evil, it is Econ 101.

expect from a monopoly. They have been "bulletproof" for around 25 years, what happens in the future is a guess, the past is undeniable.

competing products and by changing the environment so software, often even their own, would not work between upgrades. This was deliberate to control the market, and it worked.

anti-trust violations and all they got was a slap on the hands, and a dire need to contribute vast donations to those in charge of the "rule of law". The current regime is even worse, and thinks the "rule of law" is for you, not them.

You desperately need to read a good book on economics. I'd suggest "Economics In Lesson" by Hazlitt. You're not even close to calling what's going at Microsoft accurately ....
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/17/2011 4:22 PM, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

picked to provide the OS determined who would ride the DC/PC revolution. The only thing stopping them from doing it themselves was fear of another anti-trust suit. They picked Gates, not because he had an OS to sell, but because the CEO or President of IBM, I don't recall which, was friends with Gates mother. Gates had to go out and find a workable OS, and he bought DOS from Patterson, for $100 grand. Gates eventually hired Patterson, because Gates and friends couldn't figure out how DOS even worked, and seems they never did, from the garbage they put out. Hard to imagine a company like IBM signing a contract with someone that had nothing to sell, but that's exactly what they did.

Surely you are not going to compare an almost nonexistent PC/Desktop market pre-IBM PC with a millionaire you know vs the IBM/MS PC revolution controlled by MS which made a ton of billionaires via almost total control of the DT OS market?

When you control 90% of the DT market, and about no one can market a competitive product, you in fact, have a monopoly.

Funny, when I go to Best Buy, or Gateway, or Dell, or Staples, or about any DT retailer, I can't find all these alternatives for sale.
The fact that Microsoft knows how to prosper and maintain

profit. They were broken up because they had monopolies and either were not as corrupt as MS or Government was not as corrupt in their day, or some combination of both.

No, this is stupid and has nothing to do with one company dominating over 90% of a market. In fact, just the opposite should happen. If development costs are low, as in software, competition should be stiff, if development costs are high, like in oil, competition should hard to find. It is just the opposite in MS case. Basic econ 101.

You read the book, and perhaps you might be able to say something meaningful other than MS is wonderful despite being found guilty of violations of the anti-trust laws. I thought you were smarter than this. Besides, I experienced the entire MS fiasco first hand. I knew what was going on before the good judge rendered his verdict, I was in the stores trying to buy alternative software, I was intimately familiar with DOS, UNIX and OS/2, even deskView for that matter. I knew what worked, what didn't, the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, and MS sucked, big time. Deskview was a DOS multitasker, it was as bad as windows, but amazingly, actually worked. OS/2 was the system that really worked and should have replaced Windows. It was said to be the windows that worked, and that was pretty close to correct. OS/2 could have easily replaced windows, and there was no technical reason it didn't.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A PC was never found in any decent size business until IBM's name went on the box.
You are correct in saying IBM essentially created the PC market and not Gates.
Now we should laugh about IBM and how they disconnected all interrupts in their boxes so all I/O was done by polling...LOL YUK!!!!
------------- "Jack" wrote in message You read the book, and perhaps you might be able to say something meaningful other than MS is wonderful despite being found guilty of violations of the anti-trust laws. I thought you were smarter than this. Besides, I experienced the entire MS fiasco first hand. I knew what was going on before the good judge rendered his verdict, I was in the stores trying to buy alternative software, I was intimately familiar with DOS, UNIX and OS/2, even deskView for that matter. I knew what worked, what didn't, the strengths and weaknesses of all of them, and MS sucked, big time. Deskview was a DOS multitasker, it was as bad as windows, but amazingly, actually worked. OS/2 was the system that really worked and should have replaced Windows. It was said to be the windows that worked, and that was pretty close to correct. OS/2 could have easily replaced windows, and there was no technical reason it didn't.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Very much so.

Indeed. After all, IBM contracted Gates' company to produce the OS for the PC, after they couldn't contact the guy from Digital Research. (it also helped that Gates' Mum was on the board of IBM but let's not go there now...)

Most of what IBM did with the PC was laughable but that is a totally other story, I'm afraid...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped their first PC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
That's one I have never heard of.
Geeezzzz I used a Radio Scrap CoCo II, running a multitasking, multi user O/S with 32K for a business.
------------- wrote in message
m II, I believe that United Technologies, which counts among its subsidiaries Pratt & Whitney and Sikorski, counts as a "decent sized business" and they had company-provide Apple IIs before IBM shipped their first PC.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There were operating systems LONG before the PC came along.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/18/2011 2:56 AM, Bob Martin wrote:

Yeah, and little market for DT/OS's until Gates bought his for the IBM PC from Patterson for 100g's. Once that happened, the door was soon closed on all competing DT/PC OS's. Gates and IBM made certain of that, and the home PC market has been paying the price ever since.
UNIX was developed by Kernighan and Ritchie around 1975, long before Gates bought his OS for the PC. Before that, things were rough, caveman like. So rough, they decided to develop a low level programing language, C, just to help code the OS. Pure genius, unlike Gates, who is more of a dunce compared to these two. Windows still hasn't caught up to UNIX after quarter century of work by the competent jerks at MS.
--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Poor put upon Jack. He's realized that Gates and IBM have been out to get him personally all these years. It must really suck to be Jack.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Hey Caputo...fuck off back to your failed Usenet business.
and stop bottom posting. Get with the modern times
------------ "Dave" wrote in message wrote:

Poor put upon Jack. He's realized that Gates and IBM have been out to get him personally all these years. It must really suck to be Jack.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Don't worry about TwatNoodle over there, Dave... (Caputo is his imaginary friend...ssshhhhhh)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I was thinking of main-frames ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Um, IBM was not broken up by the courts. There was a consent decree in '56, and they lost a suit to CDC, and a few others, in the '70s, but there was no breakup by the government.

...and just what 90% of the market wants.

If I knew, I'd be as rich as WGates. ;-)

A 40% margin isn't unusual for a high-tech business. It takes huge sums of money to stay on the bleeding edge. That's just the way it is.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.