Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats
From: Marty Fouts (usenet-user@usa.net)Date: 02/20/02
- Next message: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Previous message: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Maybe in reply to: John R Pierce: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Jeffrey Siegal: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Jeffrey Siegal: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
From: Marty Fouts <usenet-user@usa.net> Date: 20 Feb 2002 09:51:33 -0800
"Dave Korn" <no.spam@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:
> "Marty Fouts" <usenet-user@usa.net> wrote in message
> news:ulmdomsaz.fsf@usa.net...
> >
> > "Dave Korn" <no.spam@my.mailbox.invalid> writes:
> >
> > > "Marty Fouts" <usenet-user@usa.net> wrote in message
> > > news:uadu5pcao.fsf@usa.net...
> > > >
> > > > The sad thing is that if software had been patentable back in the 70s
> > > > none of the copyright abuse might have surfaced. Of course, not
> > > > knowing the unintentend consequence that would result, many people
> > > > opposed software patents back then precisely because they were afraid
> > > > that it would destroy the balance.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, but only because there *wouldn't be* a PC industry, or at
> > > least none but a tiny one, without all that sharing of knowledge and
> > > technique during the formative years from the late 60s through early
> > > 80s.
> >
> > Um, no, that wasn't it. The hardware people did a fine job within the
> > patent system, and most computer companies used trade-secret status to
> > protect their software, or simply charged outrageous license fees to
> > those few who wished to see the source.
> >
> > You don't really think that DEC and Data General were sharing
> > knowledge about RSX, do you?
>
> As I clearly stated above, there wouldn't be a PC industry. I never
> said there wouldn't be a small mainframe industry, with a tiny
> priesthood of experienced programmers, all of whom kept all their
> secrets to themselves.
The 'small mainframe industry' remains larger than the PC industry to
this day.
> You didn't actually read that before replying, did you?
Yes, but apparently I didn't slow my response down far enough you
could follow it. Let me try it again: Your thesis that the reason
there's a large PC industry is flawed. The sharing that your talking
about happened just fine in hardware (and continues to do so to this
day) under the patent system and it was hardware far more than
software that made the PC industry what it is today.
Is that slow enough for you to follow, or do I have to dredge up all
the examples of GUIs from the 60s and explain the operation of Moore's
law to you?
- Next message: Bruno Wolff III: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Previous message: Marty Fouts: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Maybe in reply to: John R Pierce: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Next in thread: Jeffrey Siegal: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Reply: Jeffrey Siegal: "Re: Microsoft finally acknowledges the security drumbeats"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
