Re: Something to remember ...
Mate, you don't half talk a load of rubbish.
"They started commercial computer work with Windows 2.x and DOS 4.0 (or thereabouts), and have become conditioned to the Redmond Way ... In their minds (and the generations following) it's supposed to be shoddy code, it's supposed to not be secure, it's supposed to break at the least convenient time, it will crash at random, updates will make things worse, over time it gets bigger and worse, if you turn it off and back on again it might fix it (maybe; try it again) ... these are all enshrined in the corporate attitude.
So why bother building clean, elegant code that just works when the underlying OS doesn't support such a concept? There is no point."
OK, let's see what boxes this ticks:
1) laying on the usual, generalised anti-microsoft sentiment.
2) stating your own very personal and subjective opinions about Microsoft as fact, of course this helps you bask in the glow of self-generated admiration of just how amazing you are.
3) ensuring those opinions you passed as facts are so vague and general that they can't be fact checked - therefore buttressing the confirmation bias of other MS bashers who share your beliefs (not facts).
4) demonstrating you have no idea about modern MS products, e.g. "it will crash at random", really? What 'crashes' at random? Have you used MS products in the last 20 years? You're just wrong.
5) brazenly making shit up to falsely support a false narrative that everybody these days accepts crap software, because MS are crap and have enforced their standards of mediocrity on to the collective corporate attitude. Total BS.
6) providing irrelevant info dripping in false equivalence: "Those of us who started coding in the 60s or earlier are just left shaking our heads. Can you imagine what the reaction in Corporate America would have been if DEC or Burroughs or Sperry or IBM had made just one release that was as buggy as the code that is run as a matter of course on modern computers? Or worse, the drek in "the cloud"? The company's stock would have tanked, they would never have been trusted again, heads would have rolled ... ugly wouldn't even begin to describe it." Really? You are comparing:
i) the high-end, rare and expensive tech of yesteryear (when hw and sw were designed and created specifically for each other) which did a very specific job, with:
ii) software running on mass market (i.e 100's of millions) of commodity pieces of technology (PCs / laptops etc), each of which can have any combination of third party hardware AND any combination of poorly crafted software, written any of the ten's of thousands of software houses around the world.
You're not even comparing chalk and cheese, it's more like shit and satsumas.
7) Claiming it was better in your day, that they were real techies and today's techies are just can't-give-a-shit, complacent simpletons, lacking the smarts and ethical approach of your generation: "But these days? Navigating through crap, buggy, crash-prone bullshit has become business as usual. Because THAT'S HOW COMPUTERS ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK! Ask any manager. Or coder under 50. (Thankfully there are still a few real programmers out there in each generation.)" Not only is this complete BS, it's so frigging patronising and insulting. I'm one of those idiots under 50, and neither me, nor any other techy under 50 I know, resemble your lazily assembled straw man. I have written loads of software that lives depend on, critical stuff, so I understand why quality matters. Hey, some of it even ran on Windows! You really are one massive condescending a hole, so please just stop with the patronising BS, NO ONE thinks that, apart from you.
BTW. I now mostly use Mac OS and Linux on desktop, but I have used Windows desktop for 30 years. I hate Windows now it has turned into an advertising/tracking/data-mining system and will not use it unless I am absolutely forced to. However, I get far more lock ups / panics on either Mac OS or Linux than I ever have on Windows. And if we're talking servers, Windows if properly managed, is these days absolutely rock solid.
Someone as expert as yourself will of course know that Dave Cutler was the brains and driving force behind Windows NT. You'll also know that he was poached from DEC, where he led OS development on: RSX-11M, VAX/VMS, VAXELN and MICA . Did he suddenly become complacent when joining MS? Not from what I've read! But he was working on a product with vastly different FRs, used for vastly different purposes, aimed at a vastly different market. And toughest of all, he had to contend with supporting any of several quadrillion possible combinations of hardware and software.
I'm no fan of Microsoft, but I'm a fan of the the truth, and what you've spewed here is just rubbish, and lazy rubbish at that. Not only is it full of stuff you made up and pass off as fact, it shows a real disrespect towards others, and is thoroughly patronising. Thank God I don't have to work with you.