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/

[Paul Rubin]

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmast er.com> writes:

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.

Why do you keep comparing Microsoft with Burger King? They are not
the same. Burger King is operating in a competitive environment.
Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist. Monopolists are not
allowed to do the same things that competitors are allowed to do.
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.

[Roedy Green]

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmast er.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

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.

It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly.

If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell
wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively."

What Microsoft did is different for three reasons:

1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a
business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract.

2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case,
failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me
out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose
my business.

3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Roedy Green]

On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<ja********@hot mail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

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.

Back in the early days, IBM was just as bad as MS. Competition and
some smackdown by the DOJ, have made them much better behaved.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Peter T. Breuer]

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

. 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.

No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a
penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both
are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules).

Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are
always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence
as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by copying
RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance support- I
recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty for doing so
is what is at issue.

So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the
argument cannot proceed.

And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would
fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways
that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and
I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit
in the setting of market regulation law.

Peter

[Peter T. Breuer]

In comp.os.linux.m isc Roedy Green <my************ *************** ***@munged.inva lid> wrote:

3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.

I'm a bit curious about this. If I were a business person, I would
simply have created two busineses (two accounts, etc.). One business
sells only machines with MS on and pays the MS tax on all its machines.
One business sells only machines without MS on and pays the MS tax on
none of its machines.

What's up with that?

Peter

[David Schwartz]

Paul Rubin wrote:

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmast er.com> writes:

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.

Why do you keep comparing Microsoft with Burger King? They are not
the same. Burger King is operating in a competitive environment.
Microsoft is a convicted illegal monopolist. Monopolists are not
allowed to do the same things that competitors are allowed to do.
So, your observations about Burger King are irrelevant to Microsoft.

Because the error I'm correcting is the belief that Microsoft's conduct
was extremely unusual (unlike anything any reputable company had ever done,
essentially). I understand that people think it was wrong because it was
specifically Microsoft that did it and the specific circumstances they were
in with respect to their market. I've addressed that in other parts of this
thread.

DS

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:53:07 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmast er.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

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.

It makes a big difference that MS has a monopoly.
See my other response to this specific argument.
If I open an washing machine store and Maytag says, "we only sell
wholesale to you if you agree to sell our brand exclusively."

What Microsoft did is different for three reasons:

1. the Maytag agreement made up front, not imposed to shut down a
business who has never signed a prior exclusivity contract.
The Microsoft agreement is also up front. It's not "imposed" in any
sense except that it's one of the conditions for buying Windows wholesale.
2. The appliance store has lots of other brands to sell. In my case,
failing to comply with MS's illegal and immoral demand would put me
out of busness. They were forcing me into commit criminal acts or lose
my business.
In other words, what Microsoft had to offer you was of such value that
you'd have no customers without it. To put it another way, those are
Microsoft's customers because it's your ability to sell Microsoft products
that makes your business.
3. Maytag makes the machines. In the computer instance, we at CMP
custom build the computers. Microsoft have no business telling me what
to do when they supplied only one component. I could not even sell a
BARE computer.

The "one component" is what makes the product you're selling. It's
"Windows PCs" that people are buying and it's the look and feel of a
"Windows PC" that makes it what it is.

There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other with
minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete with
Windows PCs.

DS

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

On 26 Oct 2005 18:05:45 +0200, Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
<ja********@hot mail.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone
who said :

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.

Back in the early days, IBM was just as bad as MS. Competition and
some smackdown by the DOJ, have made them much better behaved.

And opened the door for Microsoft.

DS

[David Schwartz]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

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

. 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.

No - you claim that allowing somebody (by contract?) to do Z at a
penalty is "lesser" than disallowing them from doing Z. Sorry - both
are equal in market economics (where the financial imperatve rules).
Umm, no it's lesser in a strictly logical sense.
Indeed, no contract can "disallow" somebody from doing Z - you are
always at liberty to break a contract! (See the RH Enterprise licence
as an example of a contract that you are at liberty to break by
copying RHE to more machines at the penalty of losing RH maintenance
support- I recently had this argument with Rick Moen). The penalty
for doing so is what is at issue.

So your definitions are anyway without semantic content, and hence the
argument cannot proceed.
My argument proceeds exactly the same if they're equal as if they're
lesser. It is totally not dependent upon how much lesser it is.
And even if the argument were too proceed, your use of "lesser" would
fail, because it appears to mean "is a (proper) subset of the ways
that" without having established what different (i.e. same) means, and
I'd submit that there is no diffence between the elements you exhibit
in the setting of market regulation law.

My argument proceeds the same if they're equivalent. (Did you read it?!)

DS

[Mike Schilling]

"David Schwartz" <da****@webmast er.com> wrote in message
news:dj******** **@nntp.webmast er.com...

There is no different to Microsoft beween a bare computer and one
preloaded with Linux or FreeBSD. One can quickly be converted to other
with minimal cost of effort. In the market, bare PCs really do compete
with Windows PCs.

There's a huge difference to the non-techy consumer. One of the buggest
reasons Linux has had a reputation of being harder to use than Windows was
the fact that Linux had to be installed, while Windows just booted up.