My observation seeks not to put a burr in the saddle of Mr.
Guralnick, but to bring to light the very important issue of software
diversity (as opposed to *market domination*) and open-standards.


Rob Guralnick, in his post (Sun, 23 Jul 1995 15:35:36)---
RE: Incompatibilities (Re: Upgraded WWW presentation)--- made many
points about the inconsistencies of Web browsers, generally favoring
Netscape and speaking ill of Mosaic.

As I claimed in an earlier post, my platform does not have a Netscape
browser compiled for it, hence, I claimed that I can be a voice for
the other 15% that form the underdogs not using Netscape. The
underdogs do adhere to the specified HTML standards--let's be clear
about that. In the Web world, a standard protocol for information
delivery IS the desired objective so that everybody has equal access
to information USING THE AGREED UPON STANDARDS. That is why Web has
become such a powerful information delivery/navigation phenomenon.

Mr. Guralnick makes the point:
>>"I cannot believe that more than 10% of the users out there still
use Mosaic."
10% of all Web users is not an insignificant number of people!!!
I beg the question, should I and the others not using Netscape be
rounded up and put to sleep as a humanitarian gesture, as so much of
the overpopulation of unwanted dogs and cats are? I AM PROUD TO NOT
BE USING NETSCAPE! The fact that there is still competition in the
marketplace makes for a better (software) future (exemptions allowed
for those who don't follow Darwin's school of thought.) There might
be other Browsers that might have features AS GOOD or BETTER than
Netscape... Will users seek better features, or just take whatever
Netscape provides forever more?

Rounding out his perspective, Guralnick indicates that he is:
>>>"...amused by all this fervent anti-Microsoft sentiment..."
It might be useful to point out that the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) is among those who have a hand in the anti-Microsoft sentiment
(on behalf of the citizens in this country), something which I happen
to applaud. Why would the Federal Trade Commission have such an
opinion? There are some very valid reasons! I generally do not feel
good about supporting businesses that the FTC investigates quite so
often.

And finally, while Guralnick responded to a previous poster, the
following question was posed that I would like to respond to on
behalf of every computer user in the world:
>>>What the hell has Microsoft ever done to you?
My answer to his question: They are holding back 85% of the world
from fulfilling their potential as productive human beings. And they
did it in ways that the FTC possibly finds in violation of the law.
That is what Microsoft has done to me.

Software allegiance is similar to religious belief---opinions are
heartfelt to the core and there is no "right" answer. I think that
these are timely debates because if the general computer user becomes
complacent and accepts the "most popular" mandate, quality and
diversity will completely disappear. Has anyone had a vine-ripened
tomato lately? They are nearly extinct because of marketeer driven
replacement with hard, squarish, flavorless tomatoes which can be
machine picked, have a long shelf life and don't bruise. I think that
*popular* software is similar.

Why am I waxing on so?

I use a computer platform that is very powerful and easier to use
than a Macintosh. It doesn't matter what it happens to be, it only
matters that it exists and many people find that it empowers their
productivity. When I consider what I can do with my common computer
desktop tools, I speculate about what the world would be like if
everybody had a similarly powerful computer interface. The workplace
has become a productivity place. It happens to run on 486, Pentium,
HP, SUN, etc. The company is also working with other companies on
"open-standards" and "object technology" which is the up and coming
buzz word in the computer industry. Alternatives to mediocrity are
out there. Alternatives to mediocrity need to survive. I AM PROUD TO
BE AN UNDERDOG, even though I can't claim to be among the 85 or 90
percentile of popular software usage.


The most alarming aspect of this topical debate can be gleaned by
reading various industry rags. Everywhere it is being declared that
"Windows has won the desktop market." Software companies are folding
at an alarming rate, and with them the diversity that we need for a
robust and comprehensive computing environment, especially one based
on open-standards.


In the 1980s, the common retort to any alternative computer
environment was, "It isn't IBM." Here we are in the 1990s and there
is a similar, "It isn't Windows/Netscape." Everyone is bullied into
thinking that they have to use the most popular software, even though
it may not be the best. Best for who, best for what--who decides this
critical question?


My formula for having a powerful computing environment which makes me
productive is this: "What do I want to accomplish with a computer
toolset and what hardware/software will allow me to achieve my
desired goals." Approaching it from this idealism is more empowering
and a far cry from, "what does everybody else use" or "I guess I'll
have to buy/use (fill-in-the-blank)..." I regret the attitude of
corporate buyers who again in the 1980s would buy only IBM because it
"is safe." Today it is Windows. But what does the end user need to be
able to work?

Web browsers should adhere to HTML standards (they can help to evolve
the standards, yes) and consumers should help to guide the software
evolution by being vocal about what they need and want. Doing the
right (vendor) thing is possible for the benefit of the user, the
industry and the future.

I remain an underdog with a more powerful, but less than,
"the-most-popular" software toolset. There are viable
alternatives---I recommend considering what they might be. Know
someone with a summer garden? Go ask for a tomato.

Ever happy to work for a better solution/world,

Robert MacKimmie
California Historical Society, San Francisco
[log in to unmask]