MS, AT&T, IBM
I was born before 1960 and was young when the IBM and AT&T
monopolies were broken. I was at a biometrics standards meeting
today and one of the informal pre-meeting discussions was on MS
v IBM v AT&T. One viewpoint was:
"IBM, AT&T & MS were all monopolies, but IBM and AT&T were at
least interested in their customers."
- The mainframe computer may have been expensive, but when
there was a problem, IBM had technicians coming in by parachute.
- The phone may have been expensive, but AT&T would get you a
- MS, on the other hand, ....
I admit it. I worked long and hard to master VB Classic
(versions 2-6), COM, DCOM, VC++6, & ATL. I wrote "niche"
software that was successfully deployed worldwide. I resent
that MS, by fiat, has obsoleted my hard-won knowledge. I agree
that eventually .NET will benefit me as a software developer,
but I also believe that *MY* benefit of .NET dominance is
0.000004% of the benefit of MS's .NET dominance. That is to
say, my impression is that MS went with .NET because it benefits
MS, not their users or developers.
My (argumentative ;-) viewpoint is this:
"Microsoft is a functional monopoly. They are abusing their
monopoly. They are acting as a non-benevolent monarchy."
My question is:
"Is Microsoft qualified to lead us into the 'Promised Land'?"
Personal option for argument's sake: Had MS given a d*mn about
their customers they'd have gone with Java and J2EE rather than
creating functionally identical but incompatible strategies.
Comments? (What if all the MS Mensan's had gotten behind Java
& J2EE? Where would computing be today?)
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL