1. 5
  1.  

  2. 2

    Author had a lot figured out for the time. The explanations for bad or no maintenance are all correct:

    “Another answer: It’s to the benefit of a giant in the industry to make it impossible for users to move away from its hardware/software because it would cost the user too much to re-write everything (I only half believe this one)

    A third answer: We’ve grown so fast that we haven’t taken time to learn our own minimal past; our teachers don’t even know we’re all (including me) working in the era of the Barber Surgeon.

    My own answer: I don’t. I refuse. If I can’t get a Multics or a Symbolics Lisp machine or a Macintosh or some other half-reasonable system, I’ll quit.(However, I do limp along on some half- baked systems for some of my work. But I’ll never accept it)”

    It was later shown in court that suppliers were locking users in. Mainly use patents and copyrights today. The field’s participants, esp INFOSEC, don’t take much time to see what the past has taught them. And you still have to use niche systems with small ecosystems or high prices if you want highest quality assurance.

    1. 1

      It was later shown in court that suppliers were locking users in.

      You made me curious. Where could I read more about that?

      1. 1

        IBM and Microsoft were the leads in these strategies with especially U.S. vs Microsoft case having some of it come out on the record. I don’t have my original links any more from long ago. Wikipedia has nice coverage of the case and Microsoft’s practices in general:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft_Corp.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

        These practices are shared by competitors. Obfuscated formats for data, obfuscated protocols, modifying open standards, secret/undocumented API’s critical for functioning, and OEM deals to make it hard to get competing products all combined to create lasting lock-in where a business could loose a fortune or even collapse trying to switch vendors. These days, they like doing is patenting a ton of attributes or even obvious stuff to sue the competition. Apple vs Samsung and Oracle vs Google are great instances of that where billions were at stake to protect monopolies of the plaintiffs. Generally, formats, interfaces, or key features for market are monopolized to prevent competition. On that note, Oracle got some kind of ruling that API’s themselves are copyrightable. That might preserve lock-in forever if the user depended on closed-source software.