James Giles wrote:

> steve wrote in message <34994C79.504D2881@seasoned-software.com>...
> >
> >
> >James Giles wrote:
> ...
> >> There's no excuse for this attitude
> >> today - except that the vendors of systems have noticed that
> >> UNIX never failed in popularity because of these weaknesses.
> >> Bill Gates owes a lot to UNIX, if nothing else: for the pervasiveness
> >> of the attitude that the system *needn't* be secure, robust, and
> >> efficient.
> >
> >And windows with its DLLS is?  What of the security problems in IE4?  ...
>
> Exactly what I said.  Bill Gates (Slick Willie West) has learned his
> lessons well.  He'd never have got away with it if UNIX hadn't set the
> stage.  He observed that people's reaction to problems with UNIX
> was not to demand fixes, but to hire 'systems administrators' and
> 'programmer analysts' to carry on continued maintenence.  He just
> figured to build-in the same complexities and flaws in his own
> systems, and then corner the market on maintenence and upgrades.
> To have surpassed UNIX in this regard is no surprise, give that
> the lesson was clearly understood.

ACTUALLY, UNIX is MORE stable than WINDOWS.  Just basing that on a few dozen
systems I have seen at various sites, articles, and newsgroups.1

> If a *truly* robust, secure, and efficient system were available, most
> of those with the job titles I mentioned above (and a lot of others)
> would be out of work.  The ratio of installed systems to system
> maintenence personel should be about the same as the ratio
> of vehicles on the road to the number of auto mechanics: 500 to
> 1000 (or higher).

ACTUALLY, the average car seems too much like Windows! 8-(

> --
> J. Giles
> Ricercar Software