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]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

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.
Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal. I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics, it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.
(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.

So you are saying Microsoft wouldn't sell Windows wholesale to business
A if totally independent business B wouldn't pay them a per-system-sold
royalty? That makes no sense.

The comparison is perfect. Microsoft made Windows available wholesale
for resale only as part of a franchise-style agreement. This is a completely
typical thing to do. (Though I don't think it's typical for operating
systems, I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been done with an operating
system before. Sun seems to have similar restrictions now, in fact.)

DS

[David Schwartz]

Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen wrote:

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 ?
No, it's dead on.
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".
The reason this is a much worse comparison is that the fries don't
determine the nature, to the consumer, of the meal. On the other hand, there
is a sense in which all PCs running, say Windows 98, are alike to the
consumer. That is, what Microsoft provided is what put the product in its
class to the consumer, and to the typical consumer, the meal is a unit.
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.

I'm talking about Burger King corporate, the wholesale distributor and
franchise licensor. They control what any entity that wants to sell their
branded products can do, and do so very strictly.

The term "independen t outlet" is hiding the entire point. Microsoft has
no more obligation to sell Windows through independent outlets than Burger
Kind corporate has an obligation to sell Whoppers through indepedent
outlets, which is none at all. Microsoft elected only to allow Windows to be
purchased wholesale through a franchisee like arrangement, so you were no
longer a fully independent outlet.

I think the history shows that Microsoft opted for a franchisee-type
arrangement for much the same reason Burger King does. They want their
company name to have value and bring in customers. To do this, they have to
prevent their company name from being associated with products that don't
provide the experience they want associated with their name and they have to
prevent companies that draw based on the popularity of Windows but then
switch people to other products.

Because Burger King corporate doesn't want a person to see the golden
arches, walk in, and get a crappy burger or be told that a competing burger
is cheaper and better, they only allow their branded products to be sold at
any business that can draw using their name and products. Microsoft, for
much the same reasons, resticted people's ability to modify Windows or sell
both Windows and competing products.

DS

[David Schwartz]

Paul Rubin wrote:

"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.
How would it have been contradictory to the facts at hand to find that
OSX competes with Windows?
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.
That's not what happened. With OSX, for example, the court decided that
OSX didn't compete with Windows and therefore the market share of OSX was
not even relevent. OSX could have sold twice as many units as Windows and
under the court's reasoning, Microsoft would still have been a monopoly.
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?
That's basically slander.
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.

Suppose hypothetically an issue of fact in a case is razor thin, as
close as it can possibly be. The trial court judge says, "This is as close
as something can possibly be. A decision of X is basically just as well
supported as Y. Nevertheless, I will find X". (Assume the court must find X
or Y and they are contradictory.) The appeals court says that either X or Y
would be a reasonable finding for the trial court to make since they were
essentially equally supported, so the decision is upheld. Does this make X
an "establishe d legal fact" in your mind?

The trial court had several possible decisions about what the scope of
the market was to be for purposes of determining what share of the market
Microsoft had. Obviously, "software" was too large a scope and would result
in the conclusion that Microsoft has some miniscule percentage of the
market. "Operating systems that can run WIN32 software natively" was too
small a scope, and would result in the conclusion that Microsoft had
basically 100% of the market. However, the choice of the place in-between
was critical.

In fact, by the court's definition of the market, Apple is a monopolist
with OSX. And what are Apple's rules for obtaining OSX wholesale?

DS

[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.

I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil.

I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1

I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers.

MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.

To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.

The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.

It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.
--
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:

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

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.

Actually, there are washing machines that are only available in
particular stores. I believe Kenmore washing machines, for example, are only
available wholesale as part of a franchise deal.
Good for them - I guess nobody else would want them (I certainly
wouldn't want something which hadn't been subjected to the test of a
competetive market)!

In case you hadn't noticed, there are also JAMs and TINNED CUCUMBERs
which are only available in certain stores! It's called an "own brand",
and they are normally cheaper than branded equivalents, not having paid
for the advertising or in some cases actually using cheaper and generic
products.

That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation). The store
doesn't have to tell its supplier to make its product also availabel to
other stores (but it probably will, under a differnt label - all these
things come from the same canneries). It's not forced on them sellerby
the manufacturer. And attempts by manufacturers (notably sports shoe
brands) to dictate which shops may sell their brands (in order that they
may control the pricing) have been rebuffed by the courts as well.
I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics,
Because "it is".
it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.

No it isn't.

I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.


Peter

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

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.

Getting information from you is like pulling teeth. This threat was to
do what they wanted or else .. WHAT?

DS

[David Schwartz]

Roedy Green wrote:

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.

I am going to summarise this then drop out. My blood pressure is at a
boil. I was a computer retailer. We built custom computers. I had 8 people
working for me. This was in the time prior to Win95 when IBM had a
clearly technically superior solution with OS/2 to MS's Windows 3.1 I had no contract of any kind with MS. I never bought anything from
them directly. I was far too small a fish. I bought the components
including software through dozens of wholesale suppliers. MS threatened to put any retailer out of business who would not
co-operate with them in extorting money from people who had no use for
MS Windows who explicitly for various reasons did not want to buy MS
windows.
No, MS decided only to sell Windows to essentially Windows-only shops.
To me that is no different from a popsicle manufacturer demanding I
sell $200 popsicles with every machine I sold. The machines needed MS
Windows no more than they needed a popsicle.
You could have complied with their requests by selling computers only
with Windows installed. That is, by only selling Windows PCs. All Microsoft
was saying was "sell only our products or don't sell our products". This is
a perfectly, normal typical franchise arrangement.

You can't sell Whoppers and also sell any competing burgers that aren't
Burger King branded.
The particular way MS threatened to put me out of business was by
threatening to arm twist all wholesalers to refuse to sell MS product
to me, which any retailer needed to survive in those days.
Right, I get that. You owed your entire business to Microsoft. Without
their products, you would have had nothing, by your own admission. The way
you repay them is by trying to screw them -- attract people who come in only
because you offer Windows and then say "here's an OS that's better and
cheaper".
It was obviously quasi legal or the threats would have had paper to
back them up so I could go to court now to sue the fuckers.

It's perfectly legal and normal (for non-monopoly products). What do you
have to agree to in order to purchase OSX wholesale? What do you have to
agree to in order to purchase Solaris wholesale?

Honestly, I don't understand why you're so worked up and ballistic about
a perfectly typical franchisee/authorized reseller agreement.

Microsoft could have refused to sell you Windows wholesale completely.
That would have meant no business for you at all. In exchange for making
your business possible, all they ask is you don't steer the customers you
have only because of them to their competitors.

DS

[Iain King]

David Schwartz wrote:

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

Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work? It would only be fitting
if Microsoft OWNED the outlet. Places which sell Whoppers are Burger
King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell Big Mac's. PC
hardware stores do not belong to microsoft. There just isn't any
correlation.

Iain

[David Schwartz]

Peter T. Breuer wrote:

That's UP TO THE FRIGGING STORE (in contrast to the MS situation).
No, it's not up to the store. In all the cases I mentioned, it's the
manufacturer of the product that imposes the restrictions and the
manufacturer of the product is not the store owner.

I don't know why you think
that's an attempt to subvert market economics, Because "it is".
Then every franchise on the planet and every company that sells
wholesale only to "authorized resellers" and has non-compete in their
authorization terms, is subverting the market.
it's actually just a normal
part of the way the market works.

No it isn't.

Yes, it is.
I think I'll just plonk you. Absurd and outlandish statements like
that put you beyond the pale. The law has spoken on the matter - the
courts have judged, and "that is illegal" and "that is a monopoly"
and "that is an illegal trade practice" are its judgments.

I defy you to find any court that has ruled this practice illegal for a
company that does not have a monopoly. Because if they did, I'm going after
Doctor's Associates and Kenmore.

What do you have to agree to in order to get OSX wholesale for resale?
What about Solaris?

DS

[David Schwartz]

Iain King wrote:

Don't you see how your metaphor doesn't work?
No.
It would only be
fitting if Microsoft OWNED the outlet.
Huh?
Places which sell Whoppers
are Burger King franchises, so of course they aren't going to sell
Big Mac's.
Right. The Burger King corporate franchising agent only sells Whoppers
wholesale to franchisees, and to be a franchisee you must agree not to sell
competing products.
PC hardware stores do not belong to microsoft.
91% of Burger King restaurants are independently owned and operated.
Burger King doesn't own the stores either.
There
just isn't any correlation.

Huh?

DS