Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Jeroen Wenting" wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > >>Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's > >>not monopoly, i don't know what is. > > > > They got where they are by CHEATING. That is why they are evil, not > > because they have a large market share. > > no, they got their by clever marketing and generally having a product that > was easier to use for the average user than anything the competition made > and a lot more powerful than other products created for their main target > market. > > Microsoft isn't evil, they're not a monopoly either. > If they were a monopoly they'd have 100% of the market and there'd be no > other software manufacturers at all. > Prices would be far far higher than they are today, like they were back in > the days before Microsoft started competing with the likes of Ashton Tate > and WordPerfect corporation by offering similar products at 20% the price > (which is the real reason they got to be top dog, they delivered a working > product for a fraction of the price their competition did, and the > competition couldn't drop their prices that much and remain profitable). > > Without Microsoft 90% of us would never have seen a computer more powerful > than a ZX-81 and 90% of the rest of us would never have used only dumb > mainframe terminals. > IBM's prediction that there would be 5 computers (not counting game > computers like the Comodores and Spectrums) by 2000 would likely have come > true. > I'd be VERY surprised if IBM predicted that there would be only 5 COMPUTERS in *2000* - perhaps you mean 5 *manufacturers* of computers? - unless the prediction was made a VERY long time ago. I think you are giving a badly-mangled version of something I saw when I worked at IBM. About 10 years ago, when I was working at IBM, there was an employee newsletter circulated commemorating the death of Thomas J. Watson Jr., a former CEO of IBM. They cited an old interview with him in which he had predicted that the world wide market for computers would be 3 in the next year; in other words, he expected IBM to sell three of their computers in that year. However, he was not making this prediction in or for the year 2000; the interview had taken place just after World War II - 1946 perhaps - and was for the next year. I wasn't born then but, from what I recall about computer history, selling 3 Eniacs (or whatever model they were making that year) isn't too far out of line with what actually happened. Of course, we are talking about a time when computers were absolutely immense, ran on vacuum tubes (the transistor hadn't been invented yet) and filled very large rooms - and yet probably had less computing power than the average microwave oven you can buy today. Only very large companies or national governments would want or need a computer in those days. Everyone else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in those days - for their business needs. Rhino -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Real Gagnon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > I'd be VERY surprised if IBM predicted that there would be only 5 > > COMPUTERS in *2000* - perhaps you mean 5 *manufacturers* of computers? > > - unless the prediction was made a VERY long time ago. I think you are > > giving a badly-mangled version of something I saw when I worked at > > IBM. > > "I think there is a world market for maybe five computers." ~ IBM Chairman > Thomas Watson, 1943. > > ref : http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Computers > > Bye. I stand corrected; I understated the world market by 2 units and was 4 years late in my guesstimate for the timing of the quote :-) Oh well, not bad for something I read 10 years ago Rhino -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John W. Kennedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Rhino wrote: > > Everyone > > else was still using typewriters - which was IBM's bread and butter in those > > days - for their business needs. > > Oh dear, no. Not quite. There were, going back decades, machines that > used punched cards, relays, stepper wheels, and punched cards. It was > /that/ that was the foundation of IBM's business, and IBM had an > effective monopoly. This was not altogether due to evil; their one > competitor, Remington Rand, made machines that were slightly better, but > had to be factory-programmed, whereas IBM's machines used panels full of > jumper wires, and the panels themselves could be swapped, so that you > could have a "program library" of prewired panels. Which would /you/ buy? > > Remington Rand made a similar mistake with computers. They wouldn't give > you a programming manual until you contracted to buy the bloody thing. > IBM pulled ahead of them during the year when Univac computers were real > and IBM computers weren't, and they never looked back. > Sorry, my mistake. I knew that IBM had collators and such things back in those days but I didn't know what percentage of their business they comprised. I used to work with a long-time IBMer who had started out in marketing in the 60s or so and I got the impression from him that typewriters were still the bulk of IBM's business. Perhaps he was just in that division and didn't know the "big picture". My apologies for inadvertently misleading anyone. These events took place before my time so I probably should have researched more before making those remarks. Rhino -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: A critic of Guido's blog on Python's lambda
"I V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Fri, 05 May 2006 17:26:26 -0700, Xah Lee wrote: >> Regarding the lambda in Python situation... conceivably you are right >> that Python lambda is perhaps at best left as it is crippled, or even >> eliminated. However, this is what i want: I want Python literatures, >> and also in Wikipedia, to cease and desist stating that Python supports >> functional programing. (this is not necessarily a bad publicity) And, I > > What does lambda have to do with supporting or not supporting functional > programming? > What does any of this have to do with Java? -- Rhino -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: dynamic drawing in web page
"barbaros" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hello everybody, > > I need to put some dynamic drawings on my web page. More precisely, I > need to draw a number of geometric figures (circles, rectangles) which > evolve into a graphics windows according to some law (a little bit like > the solar system). I need also to have several fields aside the window, > where the visitor can change values for several significant parameters > (like the mass of each body). > > Could you please suggest a solution (preferably not involving hundreds > of lines of code) ? The computations should be performed on the client > machine. > Basically, it sounds like you're talking about writing an applet. An applet is a Java program that sits on a web page. You can write an applet so that it draws circles, arcs, etc. and you can give the user the ability to interact with an applet. If you look at the sample applets that Sun has written for Java - http://java.sun.com/applets/jdk/1.4/index.html - you'll see that a few applets are doing at least some of what you want to do. Each example includes source code so that you can get a rough idea of how much code is necessary to do what you want. In your case, you might want a single applet with several distinct canvases for drawing or a separate applet for each canvas; either way could probably work. -- Rhino -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
