"Kyle Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >> would rather have Microsoft make obfuscate things, to make it >> "easier" for >> them, than to try to understand themselves. >> > Why are you making out people and Microsoft in such a negative way?
JS is reflecting a commonly held view of Microsoft and their "contribution" to computing among the computing community who do not use Microsoft! I agree it is a little harsh since Microsoft are following a publickly declared policy to bring a PC to every home, but... > Also, how is it "harder" for them when things like file extensions > are > obfuscated? Its harder in the sense that by dumbing down the user experience they are making Windows less predictable to use. As was seen in this thread when a filename turned out to be bogus because there was really an extension attached. MS have brought this particular "problem" on themselves by insisting on using file extensions to associate files with applications, in fact this is not necessary and Unix, for example, can associate files with apps even with no extension. The technology to do that has been there for at least 30 years but MS persist on using their own brain-dead scheme and then trying to "fix" it for the user by hiding bits of the name. Its a bad solution to a problem which should not exist in the first place. The OS should not need to use extensions, and then the users could name the files as intuitively as they liked. I have no problem with non techie users not liking extensions, but Microsoft should have done a better fix. But Microsoft do not have a good track record of adopting good ideas from elsewhere. They are very much a "Not Invented Here" type of company and that is bad for users and bad for the industry because MS nearly always introiduce inferior alternatives to existing technologies and use their marketing dominance to force them into wide use. Leaving poor programmers like us to work with multiple standards and the users having to deal with incompatible applications and computers. Microsoft like to portray themselves as a leading light of computer development when in fact their contribution has been minimal and frequently negative. The only positive contributions I can think of offhand are the ergonomic keyboard (is it really an improvement?) and the scroll-wheel control in mice (I think most accept it as a good idea). But in software(*) and OS their added value is mostly marketing hype! I hope that explains some of the hostility often expressed by programmers towards Micro$oft. (*) Actually it could be argued that their early advocacy of Component Based software (ie COM) being superior to OOP based software has proved to be correct, but there are plenty who would disagree, or at least contend that they are complementary and not competing technologies. -- Alan Gauld Author of the Learn to Program web site http://www.freenetpages.co.uk/hp/alan.gauld _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
