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/

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

The tactic Univac/Burroughs/Prime used, at least for big sales, was
for example invite the potential customer to view some installation to
talk to a satisfied client about how they were using their gear. There
might be a convenient client in say ... Las Vegas.
Yep, that's a classic. Notice that no force, fraud, or threats are
involved.
The game then became to get the client to get drunk and laid and do
crazy things to help very uptight people cut loose.

On one of these trips, we ran through fields chasing fireflies.

That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
make their purchasing decisions.

On the other hand, it's a far cry from force, fraud, blacklisting,
threats of false accusations, and so on.

DS

[David Schwartz]

Sibylle Koczian wrote:

David Schwartz schrieb:

When you are not in the majority, you are going to face
inconveniences. You'd face the same inconvenience if you wanted to
buy a new car without seats. Most people wants cars with seats, so
that's the way they're packaged.

What a stupid comparison! A computer without Windows is a computer
with another operating system. It isn't even comparable to a car with
specially expensive non standard seats.

It is comparable in the only sense in which I used a comparison. More
people want a computer with Windows preinstalled than want it any other way.
Similarly, more people want a car with standard seats preinstalled than want
it any other way.

Who said anything about 'specially expensive'? Are you pretending I said
that just so you can refute it?

It kind of reminds me of a scene from Futurama, which went roughly like
this:

Leela: We need to get some money.

Fry: Well how are we going to do that? A daring daylight robbery of Fort
Knox on elephant back? That's the dumbest idea I ever heard!

DS

[Peter T. Breuer]

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

However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a
finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been
within the trial court's discretion.
Well, of course, and they said YES (as a finding of fact).
They could just as easily have found
that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and other operating systems competed with Windows.
It would have been irrelevant.
To call it an "establishe d legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.

Uh, it's an established legal fact. So I think your logic is off there.

Peter

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

On Sun, 16 Oct 2005 16:31:41 GMT, Roedy Green
<my************ *************** ***@munged.inva lid> wrote, quoted or
indirectly quoted someone who said :

I used to be a retailer of custom computers. MS used a dirty trick
to compete with IBM's OS/2. They said to me as a retailer. You must
buy a copy of our OS for EVERY machine you sell. The alternative is
to pay full retail for the OSes.

Through intimidation, MS managed to control the entire retail computer
market in Vancouver BC to the extent you could not buy even the most
stripped down computer without having to buy a copy of Windows with
it, whether you wanted it or not.

You might not want it because you bought OS/2.

You might not want it because you already owned Windows from your
older machine you were upgrading.

You might not want it because somebody stole your machine and they did
not steal all your software masters.

Tell me, can you buy a new car without seats? Guess what, you have to
buy those seats whether you want them or not.

Try to start a business selling competing seats for a new car. Your
seats may be cheaper, better, but how can you possibly compete when people
have to pay for factory car seats whether they want them or not?

The real reason PCs were not available without Windows was because not
enough people wanted them that way to justify setting up a business to
provide them that way, and Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

DS

[Peter T. Breuer]

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

Microsoft was not going to let a business
parasitically use Windows to build a business that touted the advantages of
competing products.
Well, it should have, because that's what manufacturers of operating
systems, washing machines, and so on, are supposed to do. And so says
the legal system. Attempting to subvert market economics like that is
illegal.

(Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

They're not obliged to. There is no comparison. Not even the same kind
of business in the abstract. Try :- Cow Meat Inc. will see that no
supplier will ever sell you cow meat again if you also sell vegetables
in your totally independent restaurant.

Peter

[Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen]

David Schwartz wrote:

Roedy Green wrote: <snip> competing products. (Just as Burger King corporate will not you sell Big
Macs in the same store in which you sell Whoppers.)

Rather odd comparison don't you think ?

A better comparison would be if Burger King purchases the fries from a
factory that says that Burger King has to give out a pack of fries with
all meals, regardless of the type of meal, or they are going to raise
the price. In other words, you'll be forced to take a pack of fries with
your ice cream, salad or what not. Considering that McDonalds have been
selling meals with "potato-boats" (don't know the correct english term
for it, carved potato pieces fried), they'd have to give you a pack of
fries with your meal regardless, even if you want to replace the fries
with "potato-boats".

Also, in this case Burger King "won't sell you" is not the same as
"can't sell you", which seems to be the case with this whole Microsoft
discussion. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to easily buy a
computer from Microsoft with OS/2 installed or vice versa either and I'm
not sure they would be obliged to do so either. However, controlling
what an independant outlet is doing, that's different.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vk arlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2

[Paul Rubin]

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

The appeals courts upheld that the trial court did not abuse its
discretion. However, both a finding of "yes, Microsoft had a monopoly" and a
finding of "no, Microsoft did not have a monopoly" would both have been
within the trial court's discretion.
No, that finding would have been contradictory to the facts at hand.
They could just as easily have found that Linux, OSX, FreeBSD, and
other operating systems competed with Windows.
Nice try, but those other OS's did not have enough market share to
prevent the finding of monopoly under the law.
To call it an "establishe d legal fact" is to grossly distort the
circumstances under which it was determined and upheld.

Who is paying you to post such nonsense? If the trial court
determines a fact and it's upheld on appeal, it's an established legal
fact regardless of whether you or Microsoft likes it.

[Roedy Green]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:07:50 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmast er.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

That is a bit questionable, I admit. It is questionable because the
intent is pretty obviously to get the individuals more interested in being
nice to you than looking out for the interests of their employers when they
make their purchasing decisions.

I don't think this was as reprehensible as what MS did. For a start,
everyone could refuse the trip if they wanted without dire
consequences. They could also refuse to go out partying each night
with the salesmen. They could refrain from alcohol (as I did).

Even though I don't think in most cases the salesmen went so far as to
purchase hookers or lap dancers, they did after the evening's revelry
know something about the client that potentially could be very
embarrasing if it were revealed to a spouse, without the tiniest hint
of a threat to do so.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Roedy Green]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmast er.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

Right, they send gun-wielding thugs to use force against people. That's
a lot like refusing to do business with people who won't uphold their
contractual obligations.

You stupid fuck! How many times do I have to tell you.

There was NO contract. Just a THREAT to make me do what they wanted,
to go along with their extortion racket.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.

[Roedy Green]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 04:06:16 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmast er.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

Well shit, how surprising that they wouldn't want to do business with
you if you broke your agreements with them.

You could have a more productive debate with a talking coke machine
than you.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.