Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Xah Lee]

Microsoft Hatred, FAQ

Xah Lee, 20020518

Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.

Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
right.

Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
is better to put some effort into it.

How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.

When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.

Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
not monopoly, i don't know what is.

A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.

Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
Mac/Linux/UNIX?

A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
decisions that you liked.

Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?

A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
It's nothing like under gunpoint.

Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
applications or OSes.

A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!

Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
using their “monopoly� power to put Netscape out of business.

A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.

Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
bought out by AOL and still shit.

• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
industry shock
http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html

• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html

• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet

• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html

• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_...s_netscape.zip

• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt

Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
Extend to lock out competitors.

A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
Now, lots of “standard� protocols in the industry is a result of
popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
not that they haven't.

Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.

Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.

A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:

• http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
login, rsh, rlogin.)

• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_..._overflow.html

• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_.../fastfood.html

• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/

• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html

and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
technically slacking in the “security� department, but the unix
ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
to discuss.

The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
system and “philosophy†� created an entire generation of incompetent
programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
history combined. See also:

• Responsible Software License:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...e_license.html

Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.

A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).

e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
Playstation 2. (2002-02):
http://www4.tomshardware.com/consume...204/index.html

the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.

Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
basically at the end fucked Be up.

A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?

Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.

A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
rape the morning after.

Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.

A: •
http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaign...AQ/default.htm
(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)

• http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_repo.../friedman.html (The
Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
local copy

Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
do you suggest to begin with?

A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_di...economics.html

Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
what you say?

A: No. But I put my reputation in.
-------
This post is archived at:
http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/w...hatredfaq.html

Xah
xa*@xahlee.org
∑ http://xahlee.org/

[Iain King]

David Blomstrom wrote:

A bit off topic, but it amazes me that people in the
web design/Internet industry don't take a more active
stance against Microsoft.

Think about it: The health care industry has been
privatized in the U.S. I spent sixteen years in
education, another institution that has been
privatized. (It has largely become another Microsoft
subsidiary.)

So here we have web designers, who are among the
freest people in the world, able to choose their
specialties, hours, fees and even where they work. Yet
they surrender to Microsoft's "standards" without a
fight.

Frankly, I think every self-respecting webmaster ought
to be campaigning against Microsoft on their websites.
Tiny, simple messages like "Microsoft-Free" or "If you
like George AWOL Bush, you'll love Bill Gates," could
go a long ways in educating the public.

Or, you know, just code your website to be W3C compliant, which IE will
invariably choke on.

Iain

[Tor Iver Wilhelmsen]

entropy <en*****@domain .invalid> writes:

IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.

.... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the
existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.

[axel]

In comp.lang.perl. misc Steven D'Aprano <st***@removeth iscyber.com.au> wrote:

Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.

You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft? In 1988, there were something like ten or a dozen word processors
available to choose from, and they were competing on price and features
Yes... I think I used a couple around then.
like crazy. That was then, now there is just MS Office. The most
innovative things Microsoft has added to Office in the last decade? Clippy

Er... Open Office, Apple Works.

Axel

[David Schwartz]

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message
news:5a******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es...

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote:

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es... I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation
most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their
wholesale
distribution network.

Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet. (What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and
arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns).

So is Microsoft, except the clowns write the software. When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.

All I'm saying is that if Microsoft had insisted on exclusive deals to
offer Windows at wholesale, that would have been entirely reasonable.
Microsoft actually insisted on something less than this. The Windows name is
a valuable brand, and advertising it and promoting it got you business.
Microsoft doesn't want to see customers drawn in by the power of its brand
being switched to competing products.

How would the McDonald's corporation feel if you walked into a store
because of the pretty golden arches (that in McDonald's opinion, assure the
customer of getting quality McDonald's food) and the person at the counter
said, "try a Whopper, it's cheaper and tastes better too".

There is nothing unusual about wholesale agreements that restrict your
ability to sell competing products.

DS

[David Schwartz]

"Eike Preuss" <us****@eikepre uss.de> wrote in message
news:3s******** ****@individual .net...

Right, except that's utterly absurd. If every vendor takes their tiny
cut of the 95%, a huge cut of the 5% is starting to look *REALLY* good.

Sure, that would be true if the market would be / would have been really
global. In practice if you have a shop you have a limited 'region of
influence'. Optimally you are the only shop in this region that sells
the stuff, or perhaps there are a few shops that compete with you. Lets
say in your region are two shops competing with you, and you must decide
wether to sell product A (95%) or B (5%), but you may not sell both.
Decision 1: Sell A, share the 95% of the local market with two -> about
32% of the local market for all of you, if all perform equally good
Decision 2: Sell B -> you get the 5% of the market, the others 47% each

This calculation is probably still a very bad approximation of the
truth, but things are definitely not as easy as you state them.

It depends upon how different the products are and how easy it is to
shop out of your local market. If the products are equally good and
reasonably interchangeable and it's hard to shop out of your local market,
then you're right. The more the smaller product is better than the larger
product, the less interchangeable they are, and the easier it is to shop out
of your local market, the more wrong you are.

How often do you hear, "I'd like to use Linux, but I just can't get
ahold of it"?

And how many people do you hear saying, "I'd like to use Linux, but I'm
not willing to shell out the bucks to buy it since I already bought Windows
with my computer".

On the other hand, where you might be right is in the possibility that
Microsoft's lock on the market prevented other companies from making
operating systems at all. That is, that had Microsoft used different
policies, other companies would have introduced operating systems to compete
with Microsoft, and we'd all have better operating systems for it. If
Microsoft's conduct was legal, this argument establishes that the conduct
was necessary.

DS

[David Schwartz]

"Tor Iver Wilhelmsen" <ja********@hot mail.com> wrote in message
news:ub******** ***@hotmail.com ...

entropy <en*****@domain .invalid> writes:

IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.

... and were told not to by a court. Which is the whole reason for the
existence of IBM clones, whether PCs or mainframes.

And, perhaps, is the whole reason for the existence of Microsoft. (In
its present form, as the OS vendor for the majority of desktops.)

DS

[Peter T. Breuer]

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote:

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message
news:5a******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es...

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote:

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message
news:0h******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es... I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation
most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their
wholesale
distribution network.

Then they are not in the wholesale business. So lock the drugs cabinet. (What they are marketting is a "brand", complete with clowns and
arches, and a secret formula for making up patties in buns).

So is Microsoft, except the clowns write the software.
No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM
pc is an open format. There is no "microsoft computer", and there is no
such thing as a "microsoft computer shop".

The closest you can get to a complete closed branding in that field, is,
coincidentally, an apple o/s, and an apple computer, and an apple
computer shop. And that's because apple make the confusers in question,
and their o/s. However, I don't think they can stop the shops which
sell apples from mselling pcs too, but then I have never had the
slightest inclination to buy a "brand" like an apple, so I have never
looked, so I don't have an inkling if that is so or not.
When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.

No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.

Really - bar all the argument-shifting and picking up from nonsense
points, I wish I could find some kernel of sensibleness in your
argument because at times in the past you have acted sane. But not
here! If you have an argument, out with the bones of it. What is it?
Something like "MS can do anything they like to make a profit"? No -
they can't. Is it "MS can't be criticised for behaving like mad bad
bullies"? Uh, uh, yes they can. And so on. What IS your line?

Peter

[David Schwartz]

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message
news:b9******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es...

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote: No they aren't. A pc o/s is something you load on an IBM pc, and an IBM
pc is an open format. There is no "microsoft computer", and there is no
such thing as a "microsoft computer shop".
That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large
numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If
you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you.

When a shop sells
machines that ship with Microsoft Windows, it is to some extent the power
of
Microsoft's brand that brings them into the shop.

No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.
And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in
the ad.
Really - bar all the argument-shifting and picking up from nonsense
points, I wish I could find some kernel of sensibleness in your
argument because at times in the past you have acted sane. But not
here! If you have an argument, out with the bones of it. What is it?
Something like "MS can do anything they like to make a profit"? No -
they can't. Is it "MS can't be criticised for behaving like mad bad
bullies"? Uh, uh, yes they can. And so on. What IS your line?

No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser*
tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing
wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals.

What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper. If you want to
sell a competitor's products, Microsoft wasn't going to let you use their
popularity to draw that person in.

Why should Microsoft let him build his business selling PCs with Windows
and then let him sell the customers that he admits he would have only
because he sells Windows PCs on a competitor's OS? He says he wouldn't have
had enough customers to stay in business if he didn't offer Windows. Then he
wants to concvince those customers to use a competitor to Windows. Why
should Microsoft let him do that?

If I am working on a new burger that competes with the Whopper, do you
think Burger King corporate is going to let any restaurant sell my competing
burger? So that people who go into a Burger King because they want a Whopper
can be told how my competing burger is cheaper and better?

Exclusive wholesale arrangements are not unusual at all. And one of the
main reasons is that you don't want someone specifically looking for your
brand to then be switched to a competitor.

The point is, he wouldn't have customers if he didn't offer Windows. His
customers are coming to him *because* he offers Windows. Microsoft wants a
portion of the money that he gets solely because he offers Windows. Why
aren't they entitled to it?

He admits, he wouldn't have any business or any customers unless he
offers Windows. That is, it is his offering Windows that allows him to build
a business, a customer base, and so on. Why is it wrong for Microsoft to
want a cut of the business that he has only because he offers their
products?

This is what Burger King does if you want to sell their burgers.

DS

[Peter T. Breuer]

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote:

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc 3m.es> wrote in message news:b9******** ****@news.it.uc 3m.es...

In comp.os.linux.m isc David Schwartz <da****@webmast er.com> wrote: That doesn't at all address my point. The point is, there are large
numbers of people looking for computers with Windows installed on them. If
you sell this type of computer, this type of person will come to you.

That is an item of data which is largely true - it's not totally true,
because most people could not care less what operating system is on
their computer so long as it is one which causes them no trouble and
which doesn't get in the way (uh, fail to MS win there, twice) and
which in general is a plus for them rather than a minus (porbably true
for MS windows and most of the hoi poloi, not me). But it's not a
POINT, at least not the intended conclusion of an argument or
subargument, which is what I understand a point to be. The type you
score, that is.

No it isn't. Quite the opposite - look at a computer shop or a
computer advert, and you will see "Pentium 4 3.4GHz 1MB cache, 1GB DDR
RAM", etc. etc.

And you will also see "Designed for Windows XP" or a Microsoft logo in
the ad.
If they said that, that would be an actionable statement, because it
isn't, if it is a PC clone - PC's have defined standard interfaces,
that's the idea and design of a PC. Therefore a PC cannot be designed
for an operating system, just as a wall switch cannot be designed for
a lampshade. A PC is designed without reference to an operating
system, just as a lightswitch is designed withut reference to a
particular lampshade.

Will you PLEASE stop these nonsense detours! You know perfectly well
that there is no "windows franchise" in the sense that there is a
MacDonalds franchise. Shops which sell computers do not have
(metaphorical) MS arches over the door. They say "get your compyutas
'ere", not "welcome to the Microsoftiland total experience. Enjoy".
And MS in particular has no hardware side (modulo the mouse and matching
mat). They tried to rig the market in operating systems for the IBM PC,
not get a monopoloy on PC manufacture.
No, my point is that this specific Microsoft tactic was a *lesser*
tactic than offering only exclusive wholesale deals and there's nothing
wrong with a company that only offers exclusive wholesale deals.
That is not a point, it is an incomplete claim of fact plus a judgment
(first half-sentence), and a hypohetical case plus judgment (second
half-sentence).

claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define)

hypothesis 2a) Company Z (arbitrary) offers exclusive wholesale deal.
judgment 2b) Company Z does no wrong in doing so.

I presume your argument then goes via 1b and 2b to conclude that there is
nothing wrong with Microsofts tactic X. The logic is fine - it remains
to dispute your claims and judgments.

What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper.

Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you
trust).
Peter

[David Schwartz]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

claim 1a) Microsoft's tactic is X (fill in, please)
judgment 1b) tactic X is somehow not as bad as (sense?) offering
"exclusive wholesale deals" (please define)
Umm, it's not a judgment. Microsoft said you can sell Windows and other
operating systems, but there will be a charge for every machine you sell
without Windows -- if you want to be able to buy Windows wholesale. Someone
could comply with this by not selling any other operating systems at all and
never pay the fee. Therefore, this is a lesser restriction than saying you
can only sell Windows wholesale if you don't sell or offer any competing
systems. If I have the right to say you can't use my car at all, I have the
lesser right to impose the lesser restriction that you can only use my car
if you pay me $10.

Microsoft's specific tactic was to offer Windows wholesale only as part
of a franchise arrangement. The franchise arrangement stipulated a fee per
system sold, whether or not the system included Windows. This is a lesser
version of the more typical franchise arrangement which only lets you sell
branded products and doesn't let you sell or offer non-branded products.

If you want to sell meals with Whoppers in them, you have to get
permission to do so from Burger King corporate. And they will not let you
also sell Big Macs in the same store, even if McDonald's had no objection.

If you owned a Burger King and wanted to offer a competing burger,
Burger King corporate might let you do so, but it would be totally
reasonable for them to insist on a fee even for non-BK products sold. This
is because it is their products, reputation, and marketing that creates the
customer flow that you are using to sell your products. Similarly, by his
own admission, it is his ability to sell Microsoft products that allows him
to have a business at all and it creates the customer flow that he would use
to sell the competing products. Microsoft's insistence on some money in
exchange for this is not unreasonable.

Many companies require you to agree to various types of things in order
to obtain their products wholesale. The Microsoft Windows wholesale
agreement was not vastly different from many such agreements.

If another company with smaller market share made a similar insistence,
nobody would have raised so much as an eyebrow.

What Microsoft didn't want was someone going to a store to buy a
PC with
Windows and being told that another OS is better and cheaper.

Tough - that's what salespeople are for (notionally, in a shop you
trust).

So should Burger King be required to allow McDonald's salesman in their
stores? Or should Burger King corporate be prohibited from disallowing
Burger King store owners from telling their customers that the burgers are
better across the street at the McDonald's he owns?

DS