Quote

My list of basic tools is a partial answer to the question about what has changed: Over the past few years, large numbers of programmers have come to depend on elaborate tools to interface code with systems facilities.

I have this hope that there is a better way. Higher-level tools that actually let you see the structure of the software more clearly will be of tremendous value.

We have a lot of existing customers which are also considering Linux desktop migrations and rolling out some of these programs, so we're learning from them.

I don't like creating software anymore. It's too exact. It's like karate; there's no room for error.

Red Carpet has a nice package abstraction layer that allows us to support RPMs and DEBs transparently.

I think it is going to be hard for individual OEMs to create a platform on top of which people will write content and services and which users will transact.

Well, the first thing to say is that we've worked hard to maintain compatibility, so that any program written with an earlier version of Mathematica can run without change in 3.0, and any notebook can be converted.

To create a new standard, it takes something that's not just a little bit different; it takes something that's really new and really captures people's imagination, and the Macintosh, of all the machines I've ever seen, is the only one that meets that standard.

Like any well designed software product, Windows is designed, developed and tested as an integrated whole.