One of the big problems is that Microsoft builds systems on a scale that are much larger and more complex than small firms do. Inherently, the bugs are caused by the complexity of the system, but it also means that they become that much harder to fix.
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens.
Translation: Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
Re:Testament to Open Source Software Developers
on
OpenOffice Bloated?
·
· Score: 1
You know what fascinates me? The fact that people complain to no end about how bloated Office is, but if a single feature doesn't seem to be there they will scream to high heaven that the software is incomplete and inadequate. The bloat comes from the amount of stuff that Office can do. Granted, most of us only use about 10% of it, but if we wanted to use the other 90%, at least it's there.
That's right! It's not fair!! We need nay, must, nay need again to widen the difference between "popular" artists and other artists. Obviously if you're popular, you're of higher quality and therefore deserve more. David Brubreck? Phah!! Give me Britney Spears any day!!
Windows is the OS of the masses, yes it can be a good OS and in some respects it is, however... the bottom line is that Windows is being designed to appeal to people who buy the system based on what they *see*.
And that's Microsoft's choice. Microsoft has always catered to the masses, and there is definitely room for that. It is pure arrogance to assume that simply because an operating system doesn't do precisely what you want, it is therefore inferior.
Microsoft, in my opinion, should be applauded for making computing accessible to the masses. I'm sorry if that trounces a few of the citadels of incomprehensability that self-important computer nerds have built around themselves, but that's called progress.
Catering to the masses is not inherently evil. It never has been. Shakespeare played to his crowd. Mark Twain was popular within his own lifetime. Spielburg makes blockbusters. Are they examples of inferiority?
Microsoft software isn't perfect, but their place in the history of computing is, without a doubt, essential. Computing wouldn't be where it is without them.
P.S. Writing this from Firefox running on a Fedora Core Linux box
Here's the trick though: Movie prices don't follow the same inflation pattern as other things. Things have gone up in price, but the local theater where I'm from has gone from $7.00 to $9.50 in a around 3-4 years. Now, I'm not all that great at math, but that looks shockingly like around 10% increase per year. That's not the current 3-4% inflation rate.
Plus, I hate to be the one to say this, but throwing more money at movies doesn't make them any better. Let me give examples: Van Helsing, Alexander, Waterworld (i cringed when I wrote that one). Great movies can be made on small budgets when things are done right. Even LOTR had a smallish budget of 300 million when you consider that it was 3 movies total and 12 hours long when the final extended editions were released.
Hollywood needs to try this on for size: make better movies. make them cheaper. lower prices. watch profit margins soar.
Slashdot Mirror
One of the big problems is that Microsoft builds systems on a scale that are much larger and more complex than small firms do. Inherently, the bugs are caused by the complexity of the system, but it also means that they become that much harder to fix.
I for one welcome our new engineer overlords.
I would love to see Chuck Norris getting all "Walker" on some Sony Executive butt.
Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens. Translation: Against stupidity the gods themselves struggle in vain.
You know what fascinates me? The fact that people complain to no end about how bloated Office is, but if a single feature doesn't seem to be there they will scream to high heaven that the software is incomplete and inadequate. The bloat comes from the amount of stuff that Office can do. Granted, most of us only use about 10% of it, but if we wanted to use the other 90%, at least it's there.
That's right! It's not fair!! We need nay, must, nay need again to widen the difference between "popular" artists and other artists. Obviously if you're popular, you're of higher quality and therefore deserve more. David Brubreck? Phah!! Give me Britney Spears any day!!
Here's the trick though: Movie prices don't follow the same inflation pattern as other things. Things have gone up in price, but the local theater where I'm from has gone from $7.00 to $9.50 in a around 3-4 years. Now, I'm not all that great at math, but that looks shockingly like around 10% increase per year. That's not the current 3-4% inflation rate.
Plus, I hate to be the one to say this, but throwing more money at movies doesn't make them any better. Let me give examples: Van Helsing, Alexander, Waterworld (i cringed when I wrote that one). Great movies can be made on small budgets when things are done right. Even LOTR had a smallish budget of 300 million when you consider that it was 3 movies total and 12 hours long when the final extended editions were released.
Hollywood needs to try this on for size: make better movies. make them cheaper. lower prices. watch profit margins soar.