Re: RE: Portable GUI (was Re: Future with Ada)

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

Luck probably has a lot to do with it. But then, you've got to do a lot of
practice to be standing at the plate during the World Series when that
easy-to-hit pitch comes your way by "luck".

Sure, Microsoft has been "lucky". (Whenever someone else wins and I don't,
its *always* because of luck! :-) Bill Gates got lucky that IBM, et alia,
dropped the ball on more than one occasion and he was there to pick it up.
It could have been someone else, right? But there still has to be plenty of
skill to explain the results as well. I believe that many of Microsoft's
competitors have dropped the ball and failed to exploit all of the
opportunities they might have had to win. But that doesn't mean that
Microsoft will *always* win or that luck didn't play a role.

But for some people, luck itself is a form of art. :-)

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Ted Dennison" <dennison@telepath.com> wrote in message
news:edsU7.5948$XC5.7777@www.newsranger.com...
> For instance, lets take the alternative theory that everyone is equally
> (in)compentent, but that everything's basicly a crap shoot. Whenever you
talk
> about gambling, in the long run the odds favor the party with the most
money.
> This theory would predict that if any software company were to get in a
dominant
> financial position, it could just outlast anyone it competes with because
it
> will have the resources to survive blunders that will take down the lesser
> companies. This theory may not be fully correct, but at least it explains
*why*
> the winners and losers are who they are, and gives you something you can
draw
> testable conculsions from.
>