Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Josh Ryan, Jan 25, 2006.
Not exactly what I would call on objectively written piece, but then again it is an editorial.
True, though I think my thread title accurately points out the lack of objectivism. I posted it to merely to give an alternative viewpoint to the "Gates is the devil" ideology that many hold so dear, and not so much as an attack on Jobs, whom I do not see as particularly evil myself.
I've been pretty ambivalent about Jobs only because I don't care. He's not in the news for doing something bad, so why can't he be indifferent? I've never had a problem with Gates and think that it's great that he gives away so much of his money.
I think most of the beefs that people have with Billionaire Bill is the fact that A) He's the richest and therefore an automatic target of scrutiny and B) Lots of people have no choice but to depend on his products that aren't really known for their stability, security, or robust design.
I'm a linux user and advocate and I really loathe Microsoft's products (for perfectly legitimate reasons), however I can't say a bad word about Bill Gates - he gives an aweful lot of money away and of course has the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (Melinda? Is that her name?). I simply don't have ANYTHING to say about Steve Jobs, he doesn't seem to make the news as much.
I've never really understood loathing MS products. I mean, sure, they're not without problems, but at least Windows would recognise my modem. I do like the degree of customisation you can get with Linux, though.
Lets not go into the products of the two companies or the somewhat open source community.
In an ideal world, both of them would be able to get filthy rich and spend, or not spend, their money however they want, and rather than be demonized for it, held up as examples of what you can achieve in America. This is obviously not the case. We don't have Royalty in the US, but people still seem to expect Nobles Oblige out of rich people for some reason.
I like how the article first sets up how evil jobs must be for not publicly being charitable then quickly glosses over how not only he, but many billionaires are very charitable anonymously, then it goes on to talk about how jobs likes living a private life, yet it does not see any conflict with the above statements.
Gates gives tons to charity, he also gets railed on for doing so as many people think that much of his charitable donations are not wrought from a desire to do good in the world, but a desire to make himself look good. Whether or not this is true, I do not know, nor would I make such a statement, but the fact that such sentiments exist(not just for gates but virtually every other billionaire that donates heavily to charity) shows something.
I'm not saying jobs isn't a self-centered *******, he lives his life the way he wants to live it, mostly privately, it's pretty absurd to make any judgment calls on the man(that he's a saint or a demon).
Heck, a couple years ago Jobs held the world record for lowest paid CEO.
Interesting... the editorial is thought-provoking for a Mac guy like me, and WR's suggestion that perhaps Jobs simply keeps his charitable activities private throws another interesting curve on that spin. Huh.
That's faulty cause and effect - your modem is recognised by windows because it is almost certainly a WINmodem - it was designed from the ground up to work with windows. Manufacturers choosing only to support windows is not a flaw in linux. I loathe MS products primarily because of the licencing - everything should be open, I want to SEE what code is being run on my computer - I hate proprietry file formats. My OASIS documents are usually just over half as big as my MS Word documents, with the added bonus that the file format is plain text so I can see what exactly is stored therein. No cryptic headers. To crash a linux box you have to work at it - to crash a windows box you only have to work on it
The article is a waste of time. The point of posting it was to show that as Mac gets bigger, it becomes a bigger target (like Bill Gates). They become subject to the same weird ass stuff other big companies do in terms of random attack. I personally think this article was motivated by the pixar thing more than anything else.
Komakino, is the Mac OS open?? How about SCO Unix? You do know that saving as plain text is an option in msword right? I'd hate to think you were saving as .doc all this time for no reason.
Another thread derailed.
-that was in the the guys diatribe SD.
I think his point is that open, XML-based file formats are better than binary proprietary ones, eg you can open an OD* file in an archive manager, and there is a directory structure containng several XML (plain text) files and media files in their original format if appropriate. Supposedly the next MS Office will use similar formats.
If most of the computing world adopts one set of proprietary file formats, then everyone's essentially forced to use the company that made the format's programs. This has happened with MS's office formats. OpenOffice and some other programs can infact read/write to MS Office files, but only because of extensive reverse-engineering.
Ok, I guess I was not giving him enough credit.
yeah, really. people who hold grudges against the most popular techie company at the moment need to stop playa hatin' and start congratulatin'.
hell, maybe even participatin'.
and i can not say a bad thing about bill gates because of his gates fellowship.
unless, of course, i don't get it when my time comes.