5 ms·

If we put aside that the money isn't his, he kneecapped better products with such ferocity that a generation later our industry is still struggling to make up f

If we put aside that the money isn't his, he kneecapped better products with such ferocity that a generation later our industry is still struggling to make up for the lost progress.

philliphaydon 11y ago
The FDA, CDC, American Government, and Patent System, have all crippled progress far more than Bill Gates or Microsoft ever did.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  SCO
- jack9 11y ago
  That's debatable.
  - n72 11y ago
    In the sense that everything is debatable, yes.
  - kaoD 11y ago
    Then debate it, I'm interested in your perspective. Saying "that's debatable" adds nothing to the conversation and essentially means "I don't agree".
- erikpukinskis 11y ago
  How is that germain? THREAD OF CONVERSATION: Bill Gates is a murderer! PHILLIP HAYDRON: Jeffrey Dahmer has murdered far more than he ever did!
- mcguire 11y ago
  That he is not literally Hitler is a pretty damning complement. (CDC? Really?)
- tingol 11y ago
  Tu quoque?
WalterBright 11y ago
> lost progress Actually, MS-DOS was the first more or less standardized platform across diverse computers, which enabled software developers to develop for a market several orders of magnitude larger than what had existed before. The result was an explosion of software being developed. I don't see how this retarded progress.
- prodigal_erik 11y ago
  Both CP/M and MS-DOS enabled portable code that runs on various hardware, but devs wrote software that required PC-compatible hardware anyway because sometimes it was a lot faster to bypass the OS. MS got market share by being cheaper, and once the network effect was in their favor they kept it by threatening OEMs who dared sell anything else to willing customers.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    CP/M and MS-DOS weren't really an 'operating system' in the sense that they didn't mediate application access to system resources. They didn't let two apps share even fundamental devices like the clock, timer interrupts, networks, serial ports and on and on. In fact they didn't support multiple apps much at all. I would call both of them 'monitors' or something. Operating System is way to ambitious a name for what they did.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]

If we put aside that the money isn't his, he kneecapped better products with such ferocity that a generation later our industry is still struggling to make up for the lost progress.

philliphaydon 11y ago

The FDA, CDC, American Government, and Patent System, have all crippled progress far more than Bill Gates or Microsoft ever did.

jacquesm 11y ago
SCO
jack9 11y ago
That's debatable.
- n72 11y ago
  In the sense that everything is debatable, yes.
- kaoD 11y ago
  Then debate it, I'm interested in your perspective. Saying "that's debatable" adds nothing to the conversation and essentially means "I don't agree".
erikpukinskis 11y ago
How is that germain? THREAD OF CONVERSATION: Bill Gates is a murderer! PHILLIP HAYDRON: Jeffrey Dahmer has murdered far more than he ever did!
mcguire 11y ago
That he is not literally Hitler is a pretty damning complement. (CDC? Really?)
tingol 11y ago
Tu quoque?

WalterBright 11y ago

> lost progress Actually, MS-DOS was the first more or less standardized platform across diverse computers, which enabled software developers to develop for a market several orders of magnitude larger than what had existed before. The result was an explosion of software being developed. I don't see how this retarded progress.

prodigal_erik 11y ago
Both CP/M and MS-DOS enabled portable code that runs on various hardware, but devs wrote software that required PC-compatible hardware anyway because sometimes it was a lot faster to bypass the OS. MS got market share by being cheaper, and once the network effect was in their favor they kept it by threatening OEMs who dared sell anything else to willing customers.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  CP/M and MS-DOS weren't really an 'operating system' in the sense that they didn't mediate application access to system resources. They didn't let two apps share even fundamental devices like the clock, timer interrupts, networks, serial ports and on and on. In fact they didn't support multiple apps much at all. I would call both of them 'monitors' or something. Operating System is way to ambitious a name for what they did.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]