469,326 Members | 1,537 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

"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish vicious
brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others. Or rather,
to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring about the harm done
by your corporate machinery is not a crime. Actually doing that harm is,
or at least should be, although sadly when we allow the psychopaths to
make the rules, they tend to make rules that allow themselves to prosper
at our expense.


You are making the assumption that Microsoft shareholders want Microsoft
to do harm. *If* they did, you would be correct. I don't think that they do.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #201
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 01:24, Steven D'Aprano stood up and spoke
the following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

DS

When you are repeating a fact with as much psychological research
supporting it as that one, it isn't necessary to justify it, any more
than it would be necessary to justify a statement like "parents love
their children". It isn't John Kennedy's fault that you aren't up to
date.

Both statements are generalisations, it is true, and both are probably
true about the same percentage of time.

Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths, a much higher percentage of
"go-getters" like company CEOs, generals, politicians, executives,
etc. Very few of them chop people up into small pieces and bury them
in the wall cavities of their house.

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish
vicious brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others.
Or rather, to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring
about the harm done by your corporate machinery is not a crime.
Actually doing that harm is, or at least should be, although sadly
when we allow the psychopaths to make the rules, they tend to make
rules that allow themselves to prosper at our expense.


You are correct, Sir. The "psychopaths" who hack people up into small
pieces and use their remains for insulation, food or raincoat fabric
are in fact not psychopaths; they are sociopaths. ;-)

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.

Their prevalence really isn't one out of five people - more like one out
of fifty - but I'm sure you knew that. ;-)

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
Oct 19 '05 #202
On Wednesday 19 October 2005 01:41, John Bokma stood up and spoke the
following words to the masses in /comp.os.linux.misc...:/
Steven D'Aprano <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote:
Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths,


psychopaths according to DSM IV, or just some silly test from a
magazine?


If I read him correctly, then he is referring to DSM IV, yes.
With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish


Yup, like everybody can become an olympic swimmer, or get a degree.
Just work, and you'll make it.
Actually doing that harm is, or at least should be, although sadly
when we allow the psychopaths to make the rules, they tend to make
rules that allow themselves to prosper at our expense.


Hmmmm... and probably one in three is paranoid?


Paranoia is a typically schizophrenic tendency. Schizophrenia occurs
with one in every thousand people. It's a genetically caused disorder,
resulting from a combination of multiple genes. It's also progressive
in that it affects more of the brain over time if not treated properly.

--
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(Registered Gnu/Linux user #223157)
Oct 19 '05 #203

"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
Oct 19 '05 #204
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


If you genuinely believe that, you are delusional.

<mike
-
Mike Meyer <mw*@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
Oct 19 '05 #205
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> spake unto us, saying:
In comp.os.linux.misc Richard Steiner <rs******@visi.com> wrote:
Here in comp.os.linux.misc,
John Wingate <jo****@worldpath.net> spake unto us, saying:

Peter T. Breuer <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote: It seems to me that I was using 3.x. Maybe it was 3.1? I seem to
remember an earlier major ... was there a 2.8 or 2.9?

Dunno. The first version I used was 3.4, in 1987.

MS-DOS 3.3 was the most popular DOS release back in 1987/1988. I don't
recall there ever being a 3.4 release, though.


We were talking sunOS. At least I was!


Heh heh... :-) That's what I get from reading part of a thread. :-)

I never saw SunOS until Solaris 2.5 myself. Not all that long ago...

--
-Rich Steiner >>>---> http://www.visi.com/~rsteiner >>>---> Mableton, GA USA
OS/2 + eCS + Linux + Win95 + DOS + PC/GEOS + Executor = PC Hobbyist Heaven!
WARNING: I've seen FIELDATA FORTRAN V and I know how to use it!
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Oct 19 '05 #206
On 18 Oct 2005 18:02:53 GMT, John Bokma <jo**@castleamber.com> wrote
or quoted :
If you think you can direct the development of human behaviour by not
buying a Microsoft product, be my guest.


Refusing to take any action against them is also immoral. I think you
are morally obligated to take some reasonable action to counter
Microsoft, effective in and of itself or not.

Your counsel is similar to those who tell people it is futile to vote.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing.
~ Edmund Burke

I had an experience that changed my completely on that sort of issue.
I started gay lib in my part of the world purely as a "futile moral
gesture". Within 2 years to my utter amazement, we had the gay rights
legislation.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #207
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".


Taken literally, you think MS has no obligation to obey the law, to
its customers, to its employees.

I don't think you will find many CEOs espousing those sentiments,
though you will in alt.politics.bush from those who have just read
their first book outside of school reading and picked an Ayn Rand
novel.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #208
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.


If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".


If your only obligation is to a group of person, that makes you a sort
of slave. What about obligations to family, community, yourself?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #209
On 18 Oct 2005 12:34:18 -0500, jo*@invalid.address wrote or quoted :

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the
initiative in creating the Internet."


He did just that. Think about it. Without Gore, the Internet would
never have been delayed perhaps indefinitely. Without any of he
technical people, someone else would have done the same work. Even the
guys who did the low level protocols credit Gore.

Your forget how much abuse folk like you heaped on Gore when he was
pushing the "information super highway" as it was known back then.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #210
On 18 Oct 2005 13:21:19 -0500, jo*@invalid.address wrote or quoted :
existed then.

Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a
false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false
impression, there would not have been any jokes about him. If all he
said was what he actually did, this would never have been an issue.


It is standard procedure to twist another politician's words and tease
him like a gang of 4 year olds.

Think of poor Mr. Bush. People quote him all the time. :-)

See http://mindprod.com/politics/bushisms.html

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #211

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:4v********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.


That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

Taken literally, you think MS has no obligation to obey the law, to
its customers, to its employees.
No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders?
I don't think you will find many CEOs espousing those sentiments,
though you will in alt.politics.bush from those who have just read
their first book outside of school reading and picked an Ayn Rand
novel.


The validity of an idea does not depend upon who it comes from. This is
a sad attempt at guilt by association.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #212

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:u3********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:53:29 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders. If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.
That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

If your only obligation is to a group of person, that makes you a sort
of slave.
If you voluntarily take on a job that includes obligations, and have the
right to leave any time you want, you are not any sort of a slave.
What about obligations to family, community, yourself?


Microsoft has no family, and doesn't have a self in this sense.
Microsoft executives have obligations to family, but this should not affect
their performance as executives, in which capacity their obligations are to
their shareholders.

As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An
executive who devoted his company to his community against his shareholders'
wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the
desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it.

That does not mean that acting to support the community can't be the
shareholder's wishes or can't be in the bests interests of the shareholders,
of course. But qua corporation, it's purely a vehicle to execute the
shareholders' wishes.

Corporate executives also have an obligation to obey the law, of course.
If, hypothetically, you had a company that had a majority of shareholders
who wanted to break the law, an ethical executive would pretty much have to
quit.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #213

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:ld********************************@4ax.com...
On 18 Oct 2005 13:21:19 -0500, jo*@invalid.address wrote or quoted :
Yes, he deserves credit for what he did. He nevertheless created a
false impression in what he said. If he hadn't created that false
impression, there would not have been any jokes about him. If all he
said was what he actually did, this would never have been an issue.

It is standard procedure to twist another politician's words and tease
him like a gang of 4 year olds.


I agree. Gore made an very unfortunate choice of words that left him
open to pot shot type ridicule and abuse. There's really no reason to think
he was actually trying to take credit for the creation of the Internet
itself.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #214
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders?


You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the
shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct.

If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #215

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An
executive who devoted his company to his community against his shareholders'
wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the
desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it.


Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family,
law, species, community, country, religion ... ?
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #216

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:35********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders?

You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the
shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct.
No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders.
If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.


I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding
going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #217

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:48********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:34:55 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
As for obligations to community, no, there is no such obligation. An
executive who devoted his company to his community against his
shareholders'
wishes should be fired. The company exists as a vehicle to execute the
desires of the shareholders. That's why they get to vote on who runs it.

Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family,
law, species, community, country, religion ... ?


Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I was
talking about obligations *to* individuals.

Your criticism would be very appropriate if I said that individuals only
owe loyalty to companies. But what I said is that Microsoft (a company) owes
an obligation to its shareholders (people). That is, that companies exist
purely to benefit people.

It is funny that your accusation is based on assuming I said exactly the
opposite of what I actually said.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #218
David Schwartz wrote:
"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:35********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:30:42 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :

No, taken stupidly. Hint: would or would not MS executives disobeying
the law constitute a betrayal of their obligation to their shareholders?
You stated it literally as if making maximum profit for the
shareholders were the only consideration in determining conduct.


No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders.


As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna...

I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations.
Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation
to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any
individual or entity which might be harmed by their actions.

A classic case in point would be Philip Morris, who did everything they
could to protect their shareholders, but who shirked their duty of care
to their customers and the the public at large. They have since paid
heavily for that failure.
If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.


I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding
going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side.


All that means to me is that your misunderstanding is not deliberate. <g>

Luke
Oct 19 '05 #219
On comp.os.linux.misc, in <l9************@news.heiming.de>, "Michael Heiming" wrote:
<body not downloaded>

This is your 7th post on this thread, Michael.

You spend a lot of time griping about trolls. Maybe you should
consider not feeding them, you stupid hypocrite.

To all the shit-for-brains trolls that are polluting these groups
with this crap, which I haven't even bothered to read:

I've killfiled every one of your aliases here, and I'm sure that
they aren't the first of your aliases I've killfiled and that
they won't be the last.

I don't hate M$, I LOVE Linux.

As for what YOU punks think about it, I couldn't care less.

Aren't your Mommys coming home soon? You know what will happen
if she finds you playing with her computer again.....

AC
--
Homepage: http://home.earthlink.net/~alanconnor/
Fanclub: http://www.pearlgates.net/nanae/kooks/alanconnor.shtml
Oct 19 '05 #220
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:16:32 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
No, I did not. I said that their obligation is to their shareholders.
If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.


I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding
going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side.


You have a problem because there are many other people saying similar
things to you who mean something much more extreme. If you don't
intend that, you need to be more precise in your language.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #221
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I was
talking about obligations *to* individuals.


To me that makes no sense. Microsoft is an abstraction. It can't do
anything. It can't make decisions. Only the individuals to work for it
or on the board can, though they may do it in Microsoft's name. If
you want to talk about moral action, obligation etc. you can't divorce
that from the people who do the actions.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #222
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:10:55 GMT, Alan Connor <i3*****@j9n35c.invalid>
wrote or quoted :
To all the shit-for-brains trolls that are polluting these groups
with this crap, which I haven't even bothered to read:


A single thread does not pollute a group. It is trivially easy to
ignore a thread. If your newsreader does not support that feature,
try an different newsreader. See
http://mindprod.com/jgloss/newsgroups.html

It is a big thread. Obviously people are interested in it even if you
are not.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #223

"Luke Webber" <lu**@webber.com.au> wrote in message
news:43**********@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna... I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations.
Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation
to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any individual
or entity which might be harmed by their actions.
They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders. First and formost,
companies exist to do the will of their shareholders.
A classic case in point would be Philip Morris, who did everything they
could to protect their shareholders, but who shirked their duty of care to
their customers and the the public at large. They have since paid heavily
for that failure.
You mean their shareholders paid heavily. ;)
If that is not what you mean, I think you need to hedge more.
I was perfectly clear. This is a lot of deliberate misunderstanding
going on in this thread and very little of it is from my side.

All that means to me is that your misunderstanding is not deliberate. <g>


No misunderstanding. Corporations exist specifically to do the will of
their shareholders. There are other theoritcal models of corporations (for
example, wherein the shareholders only provide the capital to execute the
will of the directors), but Microsoft is certainly not a corporation of this
type.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #224

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:io********************************@4ax.com...
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 23:18:31 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Perhaps you aren't following the thread, but I was talking about the
obligations a company has, not the obligations any individual has. And I
was
talking about obligations *to* individuals.

To me that makes no sense. Microsoft is an abstraction. It can't do
anything. It can't make decisions. Only the individuals to work for it
or on the board can, though they may do it in Microsoft's name. If
you want to talk about moral action, obligation etc. you can't divorce
that from the people who do the actions.
If anything that makes the objection even less meaningful. The objection
was:
Why should loyalty to company trump all other loyalties -- family,
law, species, community, country, religion ... ?


And the answer is that I'm not talking about "loyalty to company" but
loyalty to shareholders, which are people. Of course, a person is never
required to do anything that actually conflicts with their conscience,
although in some cases this may require you to quit.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #225
Roedy Green wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:10:55 GMT, Alan Connor <i3*****@j9n35c.invalid>
wrote or quoted :

To all the shit-for-brains trolls that are polluting these groups
with this crap, which I haven't even bothered to read:

A single thread does not pollute a group. It is trivially easy to
ignore a thread. If your newsreader does not support that feature,
try an different newsreader.


The pollution *is* there, despite the possibility of individual screening.
The subject and the contents violates some basic nsgroup principles, such as
topicality. One to ten irrelevant postings do no harm. More than hundred -
become annoying. Cross-posting to 5 groups is bad. Please go away.

Claiming that this is an interesting, "great" thread is utterly silly in this
context. Shall Python newsgroup discuss the trial of Saddam Hussein as well?

Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Oct 19 '05 #226
Jerzy Karczmarczuk <ka*****@info.unicaen.fr> wrote:

[ this thread ]
The pollution *is* there, despite the possibility of individual
screening. The subject and the contents violates some basic nsgroup
principles, such as topicality. One to ten irrelevant postings do no
harm. More than hundred - become annoying. Cross-posting to 5 groups
is bad. Please go away.
The problem is that adding "please stop, please go away" postings to this
thread have 0 effect. Or worse, people posting such messages, and tweaking
the FollowUp-To: header resulting in more and more pollution.

It doesn't work, sad but true. Best is to kill the entire thread, hope the
long discussion stays in it, and dies out, and doesn't spark similar
discussions.

Also refraining from posting to any thread started by Xah Lee (I guess it
was "our" troll again), no matter how tempting, might help (I am going to
try, again).
Claiming that this is an interesting, "great" thread is utterly silly
in this context. Shall Python newsgroup discuss the trial of Saddam
Hussein as well?


And should it be crossposted to: comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.unix.programmer,
comp.lang.java.programmer, and comp.os.linux.misc?
--
John Small Perl scripts: http://johnbokma.com/perl/
Perl programmer available: http://castleamber.com/
I ploink googlegroups.com :-)

Oct 19 '05 #227
Op 2005-10-19, David Schwartz schreef <da****@webmaster.com>:

"Luke Webber" <lu**@webber.com.au> wrote in message
news:43**********@news.melbourne.pipenetworks.com. ..
As much as I hate to jump in on this thread, well I'm gonna...

I think you'll find that companies have all manner of legal obligations.
Certainly to their shareholders, but beyond that they have an obligation
to their clients, who pay them for their services, and to any individual
or entity which might be harmed by their actions.


They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders. First and formost,
companies exist to do the will of their shareholders.


Do I understand correctly.

Lets take the following situation:

A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.

--
Antoon Pardon
Oct 19 '05 #228
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders.


That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some
might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law
would be more profitable, you still don't do it.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #229
On 19 Oct 2005 09:41:09 GMT, Antoon Pardon <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be>
wrote or quoted :
As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.


This is what they do. However, I find it odd people seriously
suggesting that is the way society SHOULD run.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 19 '05 #230

"Roedy Green" <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote in
message news:vm********************************@4ax.com...
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 01:54:14 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
They have obligations to their clients because (and only because)
failure to provide the services they contract to provide will result in
lawsuits and harm to the shareholders. All other obligations come from the
harm these failures will do to the shareholders.

That's the view of Republican, but it is not the only view. Some
might say the law trumps that. It does not matter if breaking the law
would be more profitable, you still don't do it.


Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.

I am only continuing this off-topic thread on newsgroups that probably
don't want it because it is a basic principle of fairness that a false or
distorted comment deserves an rebuttal anywhere that false or distorted
comment appears. However, it doesn't deserve a full debate anywhere except
where it's on-topic.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #231

"Antoon Pardon" <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.


It is impossible to respond to this with anything shorter than many
pages. Google for "prudent predator" if you want all sides to this question.
The short answer is "maybe".

To the people who think that you obviously shouldn't, ask them the
following hypothetical: You have a million pounds of grain. Destroying it
will probably cost at least ten lives due to starvation. The grain, however,
is contaminated, and selling it will likely make ten people sick, of which
three will probably die. Should you destroy the grain?

You do have an obligation to the shareholders not to commit fraud in
their name.

DS
Oct 19 '05 #232
Op 2005-10-19, David Schwartz schreef <da****@webmaster.com>:

"Antoon Pardon" <ap*****@forel.vub.ac.be> wrote in message
news:sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be...
A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.

As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.
It is impossible to respond to this with anything shorter than many
pages. Google for "prudent predator" if you want all sides to this question.
The short answer is "maybe".

To the people who think that you obviously shouldn't, ask them the
following hypothetical: You have a million pounds of grain. Destroying it
will probably cost at least ten lives due to starvation. The grain, however,
is contaminated, and selling it will likely make ten people sick, of which
three will probably die. Should you destroy the grain?


You could sell it, making it clear to those you sell it to that it is
contaminated grain and explaining what the risk are in consuming this grain.
You do have an obligation to the shareholders not to commit fraud in
their name.


Well then you can't ship the model unless you also make the problem
public. Because shipping the model while you know it has problems
is IMO fraud. Free trade IMO involves correct information about what
is traded.

--
Antoon Pardon
Oct 19 '05 #233
In article <sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be>, Antoon Pardon wrote:
A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.
What you are desribing is the Ford Pinto. (As you may recall, Ford
determined that it would cost less to settle the lawsuits of charbroiled
customers and their families than to fix the poor engineering of the
gas tank on that car.)
As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.


That is what Ford did for years with the Pinto.

They failed to take into account that beyond the short-term profit
numbers, there is an effect on the company's reputation and profitibility
when shipping faulty products in a competitive marketplace. Today's
U.S. automakers are still suffering from poor reputations they earned
decades ago.

--
Roger Blake
(Subtract 10 for email.)
Oct 19 '05 #234
Op 2005-10-19, Roger Blake schreef <ro********@iname10.com>:
In article <sl********************@rcpc42.vub.ac.be>, Antoon Pardon wrote:
A company figures out something is wrong with one of their new models.
They have two options. They can repair the problem or they can leave
it as is and brace the laswsuits that will likely follow. An analysis
shows that the first option is likely to cost more than the second.
What you are desribing is the Ford Pinto. (As you may recall, Ford
determined that it would cost less to settle the lawsuits of charbroiled
customers and their families than to fix the poor engineering of the
gas tank on that car.)
As far as I understand you, the company should ship the faulty model.


That is what Ford did for years with the Pinto.


And as far as I understand David Schwartz that was the right decision
of Ford.
They failed to take into account that beyond the short-term profit
numbers, there is an effect on the company's reputation and profitibility
when shipping faulty products in a competitive marketplace. Today's
U.S. automakers are still suffering from poor reputations they earned
decades ago.


But that is aftersight. If is always possible that you overlooked
something in your analisis or that some information is unavailable.
So you are forced to take a decision based on the information then
available. Whether or not the problem involves ethics in trading
doesn't change that.

--
Antoon Pardon
Oct 19 '05 #235

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:b1************@news.it.uc3m.es...
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
I guess I wasn't explicit enough. Most people who want cars also want
an
engine. Some don't. Dealers could sell cars and engines separately. They
just (generally) don't. There is nothing illegal or immoral about this.

There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car
manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were
charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in
there or not.

You want to cease this line of apologism.


I'm sorry, that's just crazy. An engine manufacturer could refuse to
provide car manufacturers with ANY engines at all if they wanted to. It's
their engines. They can use any mutually agreeable method to determine the
number of engines provided and the price.

This is not apologism. Microsoft has nothing to apologize for here.
Microsoft has no ability to make anyone pay a penny more for their software,
or the right to distribute it, than it is worth to them.

DS
Oct 20 '05 #236
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message news:b1************@news.it.uc3m.es...
There would be if an engine manufacturer refused to provide car
manufacturers with ANY engines for any model, unless all buyers were
charged for THEIR engine in every model, whether their engine was in
there or not.

You want to cease this line of apologism.
I'm sorry, that's just crazy.
No it's not.
An engine manufacturer could refuse to
provide car manufacturers with ANY engines at all if they wanted to.
Fine - the car manufacturer would get engines somewhere else. Engine
manufacturers do not appear to hold monopoly positions, so the car
manufacturer is not over a barrel over it. And gearboxes and clutches
work with any engine, not just that particular manufacturer's engines,
and customers will be used to driving with any engine at all, not just
that one. Maps and other driver aids also work no matter what engine is
in the car, so there is no industry pressure to use that engine and no
other engine.
It's
their engines. They can use any mutually agreeable method to determine the
number of engines provided and the price.
Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

This is not apologism. Microsoft has nothing to apologize for here.


Then it is apologism. You implode. Thanks and bye.

Peter
Oct 20 '05 #237
On 14 Oct 2005 19:01:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:
Xah Lee, I went through some of your web site, because of time
couldn't examine (but a few) code guides. Read all you philosophy
pages though, even about languages I didn't know. I took a
course in my Mechanical Engineering study days, an elective,
based on assembly lang with a hex input keypad, no saves
had to be right the first time. Before that, I did several
fortran programs and an array of HP (Hewlet Packard,
reverse polish) scientific programs. This was my senior
year and I failed that class. The instructor was obnoxious
and that class (credits) prevented me from getting my
degree (by 3 credits). Now acording to Pavlofs dog theory
I should not have wanted to persue any of these assembly
codes in the future. As it turns out, I threatend the
dean with a suit, no extended symester, got out with
a 3.4 gpa, got a z80a machine, wrote a dissasembler
within 6 months, wrote a commercial program in assembly
6 months later, wrote a spreadsheet program 6 months
later. From there I wrote a program called Action Memo,
a few years later (1985) that is something called "Act" now,
licensed by Lotus and Microsoft. Stolen from me in an
Ashton Tate/PC World contest which I only placed 2nd.
I won a software bundle, imagin that. But concept and
sourse was all they needed. Now I'm scratchin out a living
having worked for Quaterdeck, Microsft, McAfee, Symantec.
I applied Perl just over a year ago, the latest, after
drivers, large scale apps, gui, com, java. I've written
over 14 million lines of code in 20 years and when I
write in performance mode I rember back to the days
when I wrote TSR's because I don't think in terms of
macro or Perl. I know what the assembly is and man..
that never changes. I'm very afraid of how "hype"
affects new, young programmers. Larry Wall didn't do
so much with Perl, I could have done it in my sleep.
I may do something better, you never know man!!
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 20 '05 #238
On 14 Oct 2005 19:01:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <xa*@xahlee.org> wrote:
I think this guy should run for President. Anybody says M$oft
is trying to screw the little guy is "alright" in my book.
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 20 '05 #239

"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:33************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.


In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it.
It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does it.

And what is it they have a monopoly in again? Operating systems? What
about OSX? x86 operating systems? What about Linux? Oh yeah, they have a
monopoly in "desktop operating systems for x86-based computers".

Can you cite any rational reason whatsoever for defining the market so
ridiculously narrowly? Of course not.

There is no rational way Microsoft could have expected the irrational
and nonsensical basis for this argument.

DS
Oct 20 '05 #240
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:15:03 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.


You are literally saying people work for a company have an obligation
to the shareholders. That is too obvious to be bothered with
announcing. The employees take the shareholder's money, so obviously
they have an obligation to produce something in return. When I read
your words, I think you really mean this is the prime or sole
obligation of an employee. I disagree with that. There are many
loyalties that compete.

Personally, the loyalty to the preservation of my planet is far above
loyalty to any company. For example, I would feel a moral obligation
to be a whistleblower of actions of a company that was destroying the
environment.

--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Again taking new Java programming contracts.
Oct 20 '05 #241
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:33************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

In other words, what they did was wrong because it was them who did it.
No, do not twist words. What they did was wrong, no matter what their
name was. If somebody else had done that it would alsobe wrong.
It is fine if anyone else does, just not fine if Microsoft does it.
Nope.
And what is it they have a monopoly in again? Operating systems?
O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.
Can you cite any rational reason whatsoever for defining the market so
ridiculously narrowly? Of course not.


I define whatever you are talking about the way it is, unlike you, who
seem to define whatever it is the way you like. So go 'way 'n be
happy. The world has spoken.

Peter
Oct 20 '05 #242
In comp.lang.perl.misc Roedy Green <my******************************@munged.invalid > wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 03:15:03 -0700, "David Schwartz"
<da****@webmaster.com> wrote or quoted :
Did I say their obligation was to secure their shareholders as much
profit as possible? I said their obligation was to their shareholders.

You are literally saying people work for a company have an obligation
to the shareholders. That is too obvious to be bothered with
announcing. The employees take the shareholder's money, so obviously
they have an obligation to produce something in return. When I read
your words, I think you really mean this is the prime or sole
obligation of an employee. I disagree with that. There are many
loyalties that compete.


Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.

It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.

Axel

Oct 20 '05 #243
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:17:14 +0000, axel wrote:
Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.

It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.


The board of directors are also employees of the company. That's why the
company can fire them.
--
Steven.

Oct 20 '05 #244
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
news:33************@news.it.uc3m.es...
Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
started.

[snip] O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.

So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM. Which is what made them a
monopoly. MS didn't have a monopoly before IBM, so what kind of draw
did they have to make IBM sign the paper, except that they were
offering something that IBM wanted, and IBM was willing to pay that
much for it? Nobody made IBM sign that deal, IBM thought that it
worked out OK for both parties. As for later deals with OEM
manufacturers, if it's OK for MS to make that deal with IBM, then why
does it suddenly become an "abuse of their power" if they're using the
same business model?

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure MS has done plenty of shady stuff, and I'm
sure most every other sucessful company has. Just because we got a
lawsuit to watch for MS doesn't mean other companies like Sony or IBM
haven't done similar stuff we've never heard of. I'm just trying to
figure out how offering their contract changed from OK to not OK, based
purely on how well they were doing...

--T Beck

Oct 20 '05 #245
In comp.os.linux.misc T Beck <Tr********@infineon.com> wrote:
Peter T. Breuer wrote:
In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.com> wrote:
> "Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote in message
> news:33************@news.it.uc3m.es...
>> Not if they abuse a monopoly position in doing so, which is where we
>> started.

[snip]
O/ses on PC platforms, as determined by the courts. Thanks to their
initial agreement with IBM, and subsequent nasty tactics.


So what I'm getting here is, that they abused their monopoly power to
secure their initial deal with IBM.


No - they got the deal with IBM when they were a garage startup.

Later they burned off competing dos's for the IBM PC via nasty tactics
(like making their programs fail to run on drdos). When they got the
monopoly position via those tactics, then they got PC makers to pay
them for windows, whether windows went on the box or not, r else they
charged them impossible prices for the o/s.

Your argument is "anybody would have done that". Other companies have
tried that sort of trick, and it's been illegal too. Google for it -
don't take the word of us non-legal non-business people.

Peter
Oct 20 '05 #246
"Peter T. Breuer" <pt*@oboe.it.uc3m.es> wrote:
No - they got the deal with IBM when they were a garage startup.


Not quite a garage startup. They had initial success in Albuquerque,
NM, writing a Basic interpreter for the MITS Altair machine. By the
time IBM came to them, they had moved to Seattle and were having more
success writing compilers for several languages for microcomputers. So
no longer a garage startup, but still very small, and definitely not a
monopoly.

--
Tim Slattery
Sl********@bls.gov
Oct 20 '05 #247
On comp.os.linux.misc, in <0m********************************@4ax.com>, "Tim Slattery" wrote:
<body not downloaded>

Three OS's from corporate kings in their towers of glass,
Seven from valley lords where orchards used to grow,
Nine from dotcoms doomed to die,
One from the Dark Lord Gates on his dark throne
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.

One OS to rule them all,
one OS to find them,
One OS to bring them all
and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Redmond where the Shadows lie.


Oct 20 '05 #248

"Steven D'Aprano" <st***@REMOVETHIScyber.com.au> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@REMOVETHIScybe r.com.au...
On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:17:14 +0000, axel wrote:
Employees have *no* obligations towards the shareholders of a company.
They are not employed or paid by the shareholders, they are employed
by the company itself which is a separate legal entity.

It is a different matter for the board of directors of a company.


The board of directors are also employees of the company. That's why the
company can fire them.


The relationships are a bit more complex than that:

The shareholders elect a Board of Directors to represent their interests.
The board then hires a management staff, which reports to them. The
management staff hires other employees, who report (directly or indirectly)
to management.

An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of
the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse
would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the attention of
either the board or a large block of shareholders (much harder). If
management is actually breaking the law (say by Enron-like looting) rather
than simply making decisions he considers suboptimal, he can also go to the
authorities, but he does this in his capacity as private citizen; his status
as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in this
respect.

As Axel says, a regular employee has no direct obligations towards the
shareholders.
Oct 20 '05 #249

"Mike Schilling" <ms*************@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xy*****************@newssvr27.news.prodigy.ne t...
An employee who refuses to act as directed, claiming that he's thinking of
the shareholders' interests, can be fired for cause. His only recourse
would be to become a shareholder (not hard), and then get the attention of
either the board or a large block of shareholders (much harder). If
management is actually breaking the law (say by Enron-like looting) rather
than simply making decisions he considers suboptimal, he can also go to
the authorities, but he does this in his capacity as private citizen; his
status as employee gives him no additional rights or responsibilities in
this respect.


A shareholder (whether employee or not) who feels that management is not
acting in the interests of all shareholders can file a derivative action (a
form of lawsuit). This is supposed to prevent management for acting in the
interests of the larger shareholders at the expense of the smaller ones.
(Which is really easy if more than half the stock is owned by a single
entity.)

DS
Oct 21 '05 #250

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

9 posts views Thread by Xah Lee | last post: by
24 posts views Thread by Ministry Of Jute | last post: by
1 post views Thread by CARIGAR | last post: by
reply views Thread by zhoujie | last post: by
reply views Thread by mdpf | last post: by
reply views Thread by harlem98 | last post: by
reply views Thread by listenups61195 | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.