469,326 Members | 1,548 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,326 developers. It's quick & easy.

Microsoft Hatred FAQ

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/

Oct 15 '05
476 16108
David Schwartz wrote:
"Eike Preuss" <us****@eikepreuss.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


Yes, as I said: It is much more complicated than your beautiful argument
'well, then, taking a huge portion of 5% would be much more preferable
anyway' suggests.
Oct 28 '05 #451
David Schwartz wrote:
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen wrote:

David Schwartz wrote:


Burger King won't let you sell Whoppers or buy their burger
patties wholesale no matter what you want to call your store unless
you take the whole franchise deal. It's an all-or-nothing package.
With very few limits, companies do get to choose how their products
are branded, marketed, and sold.


Yes, and that's not what Microsoft has ever done. There have always
been lots of shops selling Microsoft merchandise without being a
Microsoft franchise in the sense Burger King shops are.

Right, Microsoft imposed a lesser restriction. They allowed you to sell
competing products, but charged you a fee.

That's why I still say your comparison is a bad one.

It shows that Microsoft's purportedly draconian restrictions are much
less than restrictions that people don't even bat an eye at.

DS


Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just
leave this thread altogether.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you
manage to draw from that is in my eyes invalid. It doesn't matter, in my
opinion, if you managed to conclude that Microsoft was the saints
themselves because, in my opinion, your reasoning is not valid. I'm not
saying one way or the other, I'm just picking at your reasoning.

To me it sounds like concluding that the prices of RAM will drop because
the swallows are flying high this fall.

But enough, I'll just leave it.

--
Lasse Vgsther Karlsen
http://usinglvkblog.blogspot.com/
mailto:la***@vkarlsen.no
PGP KeyID: 0x2A42A1C2
Oct 28 '05 #452
> Part of their behavior really escape me. The whole thing about
browser wars confuses me. Web browsers represent a zero billion
dollar a year market. Why would you risk anything to own it?


Wonder why MSN.com is one of the most visited sites, I speculate that
it is largely because it is the default home page of IE browser.

And now Firefox makes Google.com its default home page.

That is one area where they can make lots of money off billion's eye
balls years.

David
=====================================
http://KickJava.com - Java Examples, Source Codes, Free Online Books,
News and Articles

Oct 28 '05 #454
In <m3************@invalid.address>, on 10/25/2005
at 09:56 AM, jo*@invalid.address said:
Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,


Actually, it is a crime and they've been convicted.

--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to sp******@library.lspace.org

Oct 28 '05 #455
Okay, I admit I'm wasting time answering this stupid thread, but
what the hey, what's usenet without a flame war now and then. ;-)

Into the fray ...

On Thursday 27 October 2005 05:17 pm, David Schwartz wrote:
No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or
indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's
perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly
does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of
what someone calls a market. I am not the only person with this view.


Yeah, and if you thought the world was flat or only 6000 years
old, you wouldn't be the only person with that view either. You'd
still be wrong. ;-)

This is an example of an established legal principle. Consider:

If someone gets into a fight and someone gets injured, the court's
determination will be entirely different depending on whether the
person is untrained or has a blackbelt or other martial arts training.

In the same vein, the exact same behavior will get very different
treatment depending on whether there was "no harm done" or if
one of the participants in the brawl died.

The *effect* of a monopolist's anti-competitive actions ARE a consideration
under law. We permit behavior from people who do not have effective control
of a marketplace that we do NOT permit from those who do.

We are not a "winner take all society".

You are perfectly free to dislike this fact about the American economy,
and you are welcome to move to some other country where they love
monopolism, anarchism, and corporate hegemony. Except I think
America is the closest you're going to get to that, actually.
Tough luck there.

Meanwhile, the majority of people in this country are of
the opinion that this is a reasonable degree of economic
moderation. So, get used to it.

Besides, no one ever argued that anti-competitive behavior
was ethically or morally acceptable even when it *is* legal.
You are the only one I've seen make that claim. We only
assert however, that such behavior is *illegal* when the
perpetrator has monopoly power over the marketplace. This
is reasonable, because we may rely on market forces to
remove non-monopolists who try these tactics. The anti-trust
laws are there to protect us from a *failure* of the market
economy, which is what a monopoly is. Whether it is legal or
illegal is irrelevant -- capitalism has *failed* when a single
competitor beats all other competition and controls the marketplace,
because the market is then no longer free. We can respond either
through anti-trust laws, in an attempt to restore a capitalist
free market; or we can nationalize the company and put it under
taxpayer control (the latter solution is more popular in Europe,
but as a proponent of capitalism myself, I prefer the anti-trust
solution). Its nonsensical to talk about free market rules in
a monopoly situation, because in that situation there IS NO
free market -- only a market controlled by the monopolist. Just
because the monopolist isn't a government doesn't make it any
better than a communist centrally controlled economy. Except
of course, that at *least* a government monopoly has a basis
*in principle* for serving the needs of society, which you
quite rightly argue that a corporation needn't have.

It might be nice to live in a fantasy dreamworld where
capitalism never fails, but the reality is that without
controlled boundary conditions, market failure is pretty
much inevitable. That's why governments set boundary
conditions on the marketplace through legal regulation.

Too much regulation chokes the economy and makes massive
inefficiencies, but too little is just as bad.

Capitalist free markets *work* because it is an (interesting
and non-intuitive) fact that *many selfish people* are
collectively more efficient and fair that *one representative
power*. But *one selfish power* is far worse than either --
and that's what we call a "monopoly".

You are *somewhat* justified to question the choice of
market segmentation that makes Microsoft a monopoly, except
that 1) it IS a natural division in terms of customers, outlets,
advertising channels, and distribution, 2) it IS the way Microsoft
itself divides its services, 3) judged by people affected instead
of dollars exchanged, it would still be a monopoly overall even
if you included servers and other types of computers, and
4) hairsplitting or not it was that courts job to determine that
division, and they have ruled (end of story). You may feel that
that was a discretionary decision, but it remains a fact that it
WAS at their discretion, not yours.

I don't really expect you to absorb this information, because
you are so obviously opposed to facing this reality, but
I also think it's dangerous to let extremists go unchallenged,
lest they be believed to lack opposition.

Cheers,
Terry

--
Terry Hancock ( hancock at anansispaceworks.com )
Anansi Spaceworks http://www.anansispaceworks.com

Oct 28 '05 #456

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force".
I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
compares MS's actions to actual use of force.
It compares MS to people who are willing to use force to
get their ends. But there is no "actual use of force."


This is a gross distortion. What makes the Mafia the Mafia, and the only
reason to invoke them, is because they actually do use and threaten force.
They're not just willing to use force, they directly threaten it and use it
to get their ends, and it's the only thing they do.

The type of threatening force that the Mafia uses it the type that is
itself force. When you say to someone "give me all your money or I'll shoot
you", it's force whether or not you actually have to shoot them.

DS
Oct 28 '05 #457

"Lasse Vgsther Karlsen" <la***@vkarlsen.no> wrote in message
news:dj*********@sadr.dfn.de...
Ok, let me just make my opinion very clear on this and then I'll just
leave this thread altogether.

I think you are comparing apples and oranges so whatever conclusion you
manage to draw from that is in my eyes invalid. It doesn't matter, in my
opinion, if you managed to conclude that Microsoft was the saints
themselves because, in my opinion, your reasoning is not valid. I'm not
saying one way or the other, I'm just picking at your reasoning.

To me it sounds like concluding that the prices of RAM will drop because
the swallows are flying high this fall.

But enough, I'll just leave it.


There is no value whatsoever in simply saying "I don't agree with you"
and including no argument or reasoning. Were you afraid someone might
erroneously think you did agree with me and that this would harm your
reputation? If you want to participate in discussion, you have to make
claims and defend them.

MS imposed a restriction that was logically lesser than saying "if you
want to buy Windows wholesale, you cannot sell products that compete with
PCs with Windows pre-loaded on them". (Logically lesser because they allowed
you sell them but charged a fee. You could avoid the fee by simply not
selling them.) This is a perfectly ordinary type of franchise sales
arrangement engaged in by companies of all kinds. For someone who does not
already have a monopoly, it is even perfectly legal.

DS
Oct 28 '05 #458
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
Is it your position that Micorosoft's monopoly was illegal when they
first acquired it?
It's utterly irrelevant whether it was illegal when they acquired it.
The law is against acquiring OR MAINTAINING a monopoly by
anticompetitive means. That's what MS was convicted of.
No. I have never received a dime from Microsoft, either directly or
indirectly. I am one of those people who believes that conduct that's
perfectly legal, moral and ethical before you can be said to have a monopoly
does not suddenly become immoral or unethical the day you acquire 51% of
what someone calls a market.
The Sherman Act has nothing to do with acquiring 51% of a market.
I am not the only person with this view.
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...99623?v=glance
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
http://www.independent.org/publicati....asp?bookID=31
http://www.ntu.org/main/press.php?Pr...&org_name=NTUF


I could care less what the self-serving libertarian lunatic fringe thinks.
Oct 28 '05 #459
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force".

I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
compares MS's actions to actual use of force.


Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
pattern of behavior.

If MS had been found guilty of abuse of monopoly power in one
instance, few people would care. People do make mistakes. That they
have been found guilty of such abuse repeatedly, on multiple
continents, and were recently caught doing it yet again - that's what
makes them criminals. It's the pattern of behavior that matters, not
the single instances.

I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 28 '05 #460

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
The quote about the mafia doesn't compare MS's actions to "actual use
of force".
I'm sorry, that's just absurd. I won't speculate on what motivates
you
to engage in such crazy distortion. Of course the quote about the Mafia
compares MS's actions to actual use of force.

Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
pattern of behavior.
That is not true. I make a serious distinction between crimes that
involve the use of force and crimes that don't. Microsoft was convicted of
crimes that do *not* involve use of force. I am trying very hard to make
sure that distinction is preserved.
If MS had been found guilty of abuse of monopoly power in one
instance, few people would care. People do make mistakes. That they
have been found guilty of such abuse repeatedly, on multiple
continents, and were recently caught doing it yet again - that's what
makes them criminals. It's the pattern of behavior that matters, not
the single instances.
Except that none of this behavior involves any use of force or fraud.
Actions involving force or fraud are fundamentally different in type from
actions that don't. And it's this distinction that I'm trying to preserve.
I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.


The pattern of my behavior is that it is vital to me to preserve the
distinction between force and non-force. Guns and arguments represent two
fundamentally different categories of human behavior. And I reject the moral
claim that it is okay to respond to arguments with guns. Microsoft's
behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not involve force, the threat
of force, fraud, or the threat of fraud. This is perhaps the most vital
distinction that there is.

DS
Oct 29 '05 #461
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org... Maybe true, maybe not - but it doesn't matter. The point is that you
respond to *every* comparison of MS with other criminals as a
comparison to "criminals with guns", and then refuse to discuss the
issue, with utter disregard as to what the other person said. That you
might be right in one case is irrelevant - we're talking about a
pattern of behavior.

That is not true. I make a serious distinction between crimes that
involve the use of force and crimes that don't. Microsoft was convicted of
crimes that do *not* involve use of force. I am trying very hard to make
sure that distinction is preserved.


Except you treat *every* mention of any crime other than abuse of
monopoly power as a crime that involves the use of force - whether it
does or not. In the example I quoted, you did it with "theft" -
without reference to how the theft happened. There are lots of forms
of theft that don't involve use of force - abuse of monopoly power is
one of them, but so is embezzlement. Yet you accused me of equating
arguments with guns.
I'm still waiting for you to come up with an explanation for the
pattern of your behavior other than that you're taking orders from
MS. But I expect yout to deny that it exists.

The pattern of my behavior is that it is vital to me to preserve the
distinction between force and non-force.


If it that vital, then you need to make the distinction yourself, and
quit treating *any* crime not committed by MS as if it involved the
use of force.
Guns and arguments represent two
fundamentally different categories of human behavior. And I reject the moral
claim that it is okay to respond to arguments with guns.
Oh, we know you reject it. You never miss an opportunity to say so -
even if it's not at all relevant.

As predicted, you denied the truth of what I said, then provided an
excuse for a behavior that you don't follow. So we're still waiting
for an explanation for your actual behavior other than your being a
shill for MS.
Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.


Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force. This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 29 '05 #462
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
Paul Rubin wrote:
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:

To call it an "established 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.


Slander is spoken. When it's written down like this, it's libel.
Slander/spoken start with S, libel/literature start with L.

Normally, I would never post such a trivial correction, but I thought it
was quite appropriate to throw yet another completely useless fact into
this completely useless thread, which was started by a completely useless
troll.
--
- Tim Roberts, ti**@probo.com
Providenza & Boekelheide, Inc.
Oct 29 '05 #463

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.
Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force.
Right, you would say that, because you don't see the difference between
guns and arguments.
This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.


No, it is completely relevant. You are trying to say the means don't
matter if the same end is achieved. But if you're going to say that, you
might as well say there's no difference between shooting someone and letting
them die of natural causes.

But you are completely and utterly wrong. Civilized interactions between
men consist of prohibiting certain *means*, not prohibiting certain ends.

DS
Oct 31 '05 #464
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Microsoft's behavior consisted of arguments, that is, did not
involve force, the threat of force, fraud, or the threat of
fraud. This is perhaps the most vital distinction that there is.

Wrong. Either your definition of force is to narrow, or you're wrong
that it's the distinction is even vaguely vital. If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force.

Right, you would say that, because you don't see the difference between
guns and arguments.


Except I'm willing to allow your definition. All it takes is reading
the next paragraph for you to see that.

Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
following MS's orders.
This is the kind of force that MS wields
illegally. I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force. But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.

No, it is completely relevant. You are trying to say the means don't
matter if the same end is achieved. But if you're going to say that, you
might as well say there's no difference between shooting someone and letting
them die of natural causes.


Another straw man argument. I'm not trying to say anything of the
sort.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 31 '05 #465

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
following MS's orders.
Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with
force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without
using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that
forceful theft was intended.

There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental
inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong.
People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that
distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.

The *only* motive I have ever seen to obliterate that distinction is to
justify responding to arguments with bullets. And that is precisely what you
advocate. Quoting you:
If I convince
everyone who might make food available to you not to do so - for
example, by paying them more than their interaction with you is worth
to them, I can starve you to death. I'd say I've used force against
you - an economic force.
Your convincing and paying is an argument. It's in no way analogous to,
for example, hiring someone to kill me (wherein force is actually used).
Certainly if I did starve you by force, you would be justified in responding
with force, that is, with bullets if needed, to defend your life.

What possible motive is there for making an argument like this other
than to justify the use of guns in response to arguments? That's why you
need to equate metaphorical "market force" with *real* force. But there is
no more important distinction in the world.

Again, I utterly reject your argument. The use of actual force is
justified only in response to force, fraud, or things that *really* are
force.
I'm willing to admit this isn't a usual definition of
force, and won't argue if you want to say that it isn't force.


The point is not whether you call it force or not. The point is whether
you believe it justifies the use of force in retaliation. There is no
difference between someone who says "while arguments aren't force, it's okay
to respond to them with force" and someone who says "arguments are force so
it's okay to respond to them with force".

The premise I utterly and totally reject is that good arguments, shrewd
negotiations, and anything else that is not actual force, not fraud, not
inducing others to use force, or anything like that are somehow the same as
real force. You have an obligation not to use actual force against other
people, you have an obligation in a negotiation not to misrepresent your
product to induce a payment, and failing in these obligations are serious
wrongs. But they are in no way comparable to trying to get what something is
worth. They are in no way comparable to persuasive negotiations.

This point transcends the issue of Microsoft. I would make this same
argument regardless of whose non-force were claimed to justify a forceful
retaliation. (And have done so consistently.)

DS
Oct 31 '05 #466
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Of course, you've dropped the real point, which is your own inabillity
to distinguish between, as you put it, "guns and arguments." You
always act as if every mention of a crime committed by someone other
than microsoft involved guns, even when most of them don't. You have
as yet to offer any explanation for that other than that you're
following MS's orders. Your sole evidence for this claim is that I once equated "theft" with
force. Yes, you are correct that it's possible to steal something without
using force. Even in this case, from context, it was quite clear that
forceful theft was intended.


No, my evidence for this claim, as I've repeatedly pointed out, is
that *every* time someone compares MS with any other criminal
activity, you whine about "guns" and refuse to deal with the
issue. You've gone from claiming that you don't do this, to claiming
you only do this when people refer to guns, to ducking the issue.
There is a fundamental category difference between the fundamental
inter-personal wrongs of force and fraud and every other invented wrong.
People are making a concerted attempt in this thread to obliterate that
distinction, and I include you in those making that attempt.


Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference, I'm
trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS. You respond by falsely claiming that you aren't doing
so, or by ducking the issue.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 31 '05 #467

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
Another straw man. I'm not trying to oblitarate that difference
No matter how many times I quote to you where you specifically do
exactly this, you insist you aren't. Yes, you are. You equate metaphorical
force with actual physical force. You say the difference doesn't matter
because the end result can be the same. Why point out that what's important
is that the end result is the same if you're not trying to obliterate the
difference?

Here's a quote from you:
But in
that case, the fact that I didn't use "force" against you is
irrelevant to you - you're just as dead.


Why point out that the difference is irrelevant if not to obliterate the
difference? What possible other purpose could you have in that comment?
I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS.


To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS. But if you do a little research, you'll
find I'm completely consistent and have said similar things about numerour
other entities.

I consistently and always distinguish between the severe inter-personal
wrongs (actual force, the threat of force, and fraud) and activities that do
not fall into this category. I always complain loudly when people (such as
you) seek to blur this distinction. Even the term "economic force" (used the
way you use) it is an attempt to blur this distinction, because you equate
the metaphorical use of market force with the actual use of coercive
physical force.

DS
Oct 31 '05 #468
It's good to see that tilting at windmills hasn't gone out of style
since Cervantes' time. [[hehehehehe...]]
Oct 31 '05 #469
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS. To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS.


You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
already disproved that.
But if you do a little research, you'll find I'm completely
consistent and have said similar things about numerour other
entities.


Not in this thread, you haven't. The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes. I'm still waiting for you to quit trying to lie (or, as you
would say, "argue") your way out of it, and come up with a reason for
this behavior other than doing so at MS's orders.

<mike

--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 31 '05 #470

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS. To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS. You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
already disproved that.
You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.

You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.
But if you do a little research, you'll find I'm completely
consistent and have said similar things about numerour other
entities.

Not in this thread, you haven't.
Well duh, this thread is about Microsoft.
The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes.
That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.
I'm still waiting for you to quit trying to lie (or, as you
would say, "argue") your way out of it, and come up with a reason for
this behavior other than doing so at MS's orders.


The reason is that there is a huge difference between crimes that
involve force or fraud and crimes that don't involve any force or fraud.
Theft, threats of force, and the like are in a totally different category
from purely consensual crimes such as the ones Microsoft was accused of.

There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
actions that I do consider force or fraud. And had Microsoft been convicted
for *those* actions (rather than metaphorical use of "market force"), then I
would not be defending them. I don't defend them of those charges, which
would have been (and is) equally wrong for a monopolist or a non-monopolist.

DS
Oct 31 '05 #471
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
I'm trying to find out why you regularly ignore that difference for
everyone but MS.
To substantiate that claim, you'd have to point to some cases where I
talk about something other than MS. You do that *every time* someone compares MS with other criminals -
you immediately refer to "criminals with guns" and refuse to discuss
the issue further. And yes, you've already claimed that you only do
that when the other reference is to "actual use of force", and I've
already disproved that.

You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force.


Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
thread.
You are correct that it is possible to steal something without actually
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent.
And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
to "using force or fraud."
The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes.

That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.


Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
to discuss them.
There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
actions that I do consider force or fraud.


That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
"criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
in this case.

Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 31 '05 #472

"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org...
"David Schwartz" <da****@webmaster.com> writes:
You have not disproved that. The closest you've come to a disproof is
one case where the word "theft" was used (while earlier in the thread,
actual physical force had been used, but not in that specific spot) where
the context strongly suggested that it meant theft by force. Now you're simply lieing. I never discussed force earlier in the
thread.
I didn't say that *you* discussed force. I said it "was used". At that
time, I was responding to a lot of different people about similar issues,
and it is true that things said to me by other people will color my
responses to you. I agree that that isn't always fair.
You are correct that it is possible to steal something without
actually
using physical force. But that's not an important difference. The hugely
important difference, and the one that you and others *are* seeking to
obliterate, is the difference between inherently unjust actions such as
force and fraud and actions that are neither forceful nor fraudulent. And now you change your story again. You've gone from referring to all
other criminal acts as "criminals with guns" to "actual use of force"
to "using force or fraud."
It is an interesting debate tactic that rather addressing my claims, you
simply note that they're different to the previous ones. Why does it matter
whether they're the same or different exactly?
The only consistency here has been
trying to treat MS's crimes as somehow different from other peoples
crimes.

That's because the only crimes that have come up in this thread are
Microsoft's crimes (that don't involve force or fraud) and other crimes
(such as theft, threats of force, and the like) which do. Duh.

Actually, they don't necessarily, but that's relevant. You simply
label *all* crime other than MS's as "criminals with guns" and refuse
to discuss them.
No, not at all. If a crime came up that wasn't force or fraud (say,
possesion of "illegal" drugs), I would just as much insist that the
difference between this type of crime and a crime involving force or fraud
be kept in mind. It makes no difference to me who the actor is and all the
difference in the world what the action is.
There were a few narrow cases where Microsoft was actually accused of
actions that I do consider force or fraud.

That's true. They committed a fraud - by lieing to federal officials
in court - and *you* responded by calling those federal officials
"criminals with guns", and using that to *excuse* MS's criminal acts
in this case.
Actually, I wasn't aware of any cases where they actually committed
perjury. I was more thinking of cases where they claimed they had no
interest in developing a competing product to get advance information when
they actually were developing a competing product or cases where they
threatened a lawsuit that they knew had no merit. (These are, IMO,
fundamentally equivalent to guns, though perhaps lesser in degree.)

Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in
a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the
right, but it's clear the court won't believe you in the face of the lying
and faked evidence. In this case, is lying in court fraud? Or is it
justified in defense against an attacker willing to use fraud against you?
So this isn't quite in the same category as force or fraud, because the
court has the ability to balance credibility and control damage. No such
balancing is available against a bullet in flight.

The Federal officials do wield force. The purpose of a trial is
precisely to determine how force will be used.
Which is more of the same old song and dance from you: treating MS's
criminal acts as somehow different from any other criminals acts.


Yes, different from the ones they are different from and the same as the
ones they are the same as.

There is a huge difference between crimes that involve the use of force,
fraud, the threat of force, and the like and crimes that don't. There is a
huge difference between crimes that creat real victims and crimes that we
have to pretend create notional victims.

DS
Nov 1 '05 #473

David Schwartz wrote:
"Mike Meyer" <mw*@mired.org> wrote in message
news:86************@bhuda.mired.org... Morally, lying in court is a tough one. For example, suppose you are in
a court case with someone who is definitely lying in court. You are in the
right, but it's clear the court won't believe you in the face of the lying
and faked evidence. In this case, is lying in court fraud? Or is it
justified in defense against an attacker willing to use fraud against you?
So this isn't quite in the same category as force or fraud, because the
court has the ability to balance credibility and control damage. No such
balancing is available against a bullet in flight.


Lying in court isn't fraud. It is perjury. There are laws against it
with pretty stiff penalties, because it subverts the court system.
Committing perjury to defend yourself against fraud will often cause
any conviction and punishment relating to the fraud to be erased. So,
I'd say no, it isn't justified. Instead, you try to prove that the
other person is lying. Lawyers do this all the time; it's part of
their job and it's called discrediting the witness.

BTW, if you want an excellent example of officers of Microsoft
falsifying evidence in a trial, you need look no further that here:
http://wired-vig.wired.com/news/poli...,17689,00.html
and here:
http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,17938,00.html

Nov 1 '05 #474
entropy wrote:
st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au wrote...
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:54:13 +0000, John Wingate wrote:

Steven D'Aprano <st***@removethiscyber.com.au> wrote:

That would be a good guess, except that Microsoft's predatory and illegal
behaviour began long before OS/2 was even planned. It began in the mid
1970s, with MS DOS.

Nitpick: MS-DOS first appeared in 1981.
[slaps head]

Of course it did.

The first thing I ever bought of Microsoft's, in 1982 or so, was a
CP/M board for my Apple IIe.

CP/M, whose programmers to this day defend sticking with 8-bit CPUs
because 'they can't find a 4-bit chip they like'. Yeah, there's some
desktop innovation for you.

OS/2 1.0 was released in 1987, but the "selling" of it started in
1985 or so by IBM and Microsoft. It was a 286 OS.


Only to the extent that IBM promised a protected-mode operating system
in 1984, when the PC-AT came out.
IBM seems to have had a history of squeezing out competition in the
same way Microsoft has, if I recall correctly.


IBM was genuinely innovative, and did their best to provide value for
money. Microsoft hasn't been able to produce anything but me-too
products since the 80's. (Multiplan, Word for DOS, the QBASIC engine,
early sponsorship of mouses, and the gutsy decision to morph MS-DOS 1.0,
a CP/M quasi-clone, into DOS 2.0, a Unix quasi-clone, are about all I
can give them credit for.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
Nov 3 '05 #475
John W. Kennedy wrote:
IBM was genuinely innovative, and did their best to provide value for
money. Microsoft hasn't been able to produce anything but me-too
products since the 80's. (Multiplan, Word for DOS, the QBASIC engine,
early sponsorship of mouses, and the gutsy decision to morph MS-DOS
1.0,
a CP/M quasi-clone, into DOS 2.0, a Unix quasi-clone, are about all I
can give them credit for.)


You're suggesting MS stands for 'Mimick or Steal', right?

Nov 3 '05 #476
David Schwartz wrote:
"Aragorn" <st*****@telenet.invalid> wrote in message
news:Rg********************@phobos.telenet-ops.be...

>>Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.
If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


A psychopath is someone who lacks ethics and/or the ability to respect
his fellow human being. They are quite often narcissistic and perverse
individuals. They make good dictators and successful businessmen.

You have provided an excellent refutation. A psychopath would say that
Microsoft's executives only obligations are to themselves. A psychopath
would not consider obligations to fellow human beings important. Believe it
or not, from the point of view of a Microsoft executive, shareholders are
fellow human beings.

DS

In my humble, poorly informed opinion,

Microsoft SUCKS ASS!!! Their business practices are, in my opinion, a
clinic in power mania. They refuse to rewrite their kluged, swiss cheese
OS, for fear of a temporary hit to their bottom line. So the world is
polluted with this insecure, bomb prone OS. Could anyone not suicidal
imagine trying to run the ISS, or a manned Lunar Base on MS Windows? Of
course not.

Humbly,

John
Dec 18 '05 #477

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.