🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <40lm46$ngb@mp.cs.niu.edu>, z911588@cs.niu.edu (Xcott Craver) wrote:

> Lawson English spewed forth the following profound insight:
> 
> ==> Dave Glue (daveacg@interlog.com) wrote:
> ==> : english@primenet.com (Lawson English) wrote:
> ==> : >Multi-finder pre-emptive multi-tasking is so Mac-specific that I'd 
> ==> : >suggest that it is an Apple original.
> 
> ==> : Agreed.  It is such poor quality, that it can only be attributed to
> ==> : Apple.
> 
> ==> Oho. Then you are saying that YOU, all by your lonesome, could implement 
> ==> such a thing in your spare time?
> 
>     ???
> 
>         Whenever I get in a ratty mood and bitch about a stupid feature in 
>     an OS/program/whatever (No, I'm not talking about Multi-finder's PM 
>     when I say 'stupid feature' -- I never played with it, so I wouldn't know)
>     the first response I get from an advocate is, "Oho, like you could do 
>     better?  Fine, then SHADDUP."
> 
>     Okay:  I, one person, in my spare time cannot outdo an entire team of 
>     programmers at Apple or Microsoft.  Should I be expected to?  Does 
>     that mean I can't be critical of their products because I couldn't do 
>     better?
> 
>     Is the fact that a large number of paid professionals can crank out 
>     something of higher quality than can a hobbyist in his basement mean 
>     that their product not crap?
> 
>     I'm certain that whoever you are reading this post, whatever your level
>     of skill, there exists at least one product that in your opinion SUCKS,
>     but that you couldn't outdo in your spare time by yourself.  
> 
>     My typical response:  "No, and I can't build a better car than a Ford
>     Pinto either.  's still a piece of shit."

But how do you know?  People build things like kit Cobras- it *is*
possible for you to build a better car than a Pinto- and you'd be
qualified afterwards to criticize the Pinto.  As is, you have no
qualifying credentials.

-- 
Chris Thomas, ckt@best.com
Obnoxious Academia Groupie