Subject:
|
Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Oct 2001 10:46:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
874 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Low writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> >
> > > By developing both the platform and the applications that 90%
> > > of users want, MS gains a massive advantage over anyone who wants to develop
> > > either a platform or apps separately.
> >
> > Yes, yes, yes, it does.
> >
> > But I'm still sort of missing how that's a bad thing.
>
> Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^)
Indeed. Need to dig into the "why" of that, because just about everything
you've posted as a disadvantage I see as an advantage!
>
> > By developing both the
> > engine and the transmission that 90% of users want, already preengineered to
> > work together, GM, Ford, Daimler, Toyota, et al gain a massive advantage
> > over those manufacturers who want to develop either an engine or a tranny
> > separately. Yet we still have the Rousch Racings of the world, developing
> > massively blown hemis that just take a little (!!!) work to bolt into your
> > Holden Commie. Or Falcon for that matter if you're determined enough.
> >
> > How is that different, fundamentally?
>
> Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary
> stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone
> from Australia actually say that or are you just expressing a political
> preference for Fords? fut .fun
I heard "commo" and "commie" a lot while I was there. Even the Holden guy at
the torch relay ceremony Holden show tent (they had a special edition Golden
Ute there on show, it was a beaut) in Parmatta called it that. I think it's
a cute name, and as I said, apparently GMH is about the best division of GM
extant since they seem to actually come up with neat stuff (cf. the Pontiac
Aztec for an example of the screwed up thinking at GM NA). So no, it's not a
Ford bias, per se.
> > I'm not trying to be difficult here, per se. I just don't get most of the
> > "obvious" arguments as being at all obvious, or even true, and I think a
> > healthy dose of "why"-ing might actually work to bring you and others to
> > wonder about it too. Besides, I'm entitled to a little "why"-ing don't you
> > think? Goodness knows I got enough of it from others.
> >
> > So examine your premises. Why is dominance (without coercion) bad, per se?
>
> I suspect that has a lot to do with my perspective -- I tend to see coercion
> as implicit in dominance, at least in practise.
You're going to have to show that, I think. It's not at all obvious to me
that a superior product that everyone wants is at all coercive.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) and typically Strine too (eg brekkie=breakfast, kindie=kindergarten). I'd never heard it before: as far as I knew "commo" and "commie" exclusively referred to communist. Ross mentioned the Holden vs Ford clan rivalry -- maybe that satisfies (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gotta love Oracle...
|
| (...) Or I'm missing why it's not a bad thing... ;^) (...) Huge snip, while I actually print out Larry's post and think about it (scary stuff). In the meantime, where did you pick up Holden "Commie"? Did someone from Australia actually say that or (...) (23 years ago, 25-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
173 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
