Re: Boycott Microsoft

"Mark A. Peters" <Mark.A.Peters@cdc.com>, on Thu, 14 May 1998 13:21:41 -0700, > >I guess I don't qualify as a "self-serving hypocrite" since I don't work for >Microsoft, don't program for Windows, and would rather use a Mac instead of >this PC I have to use at work. Damn, another dream destroyed! > >Allegations about "fraud and corruption" by Microsoft are complete BS - >there is not one shred of evidence to back up these claims, and the same >goes for claims that Microsoft stole ideas and/or software. Furthermore, >the current attacks on Microsoft aren't based on any such accusations, >despite the fact that you can bet your bottom dollar they would be if the >government thought there was any merit to them. The attacks on Microsoft >are simply an example of what happens when envy-ridden mediocrities feel >safe in letting their envy show because productive ability and success are >so widely hated in our society. This entire paragraph is a complete fabrication with no basis in fact. There is ample proof and evidence of Microsoft constant anti-competitive actions; per processor licensing, Windows bundling, Win98 integration, the Stack lawsuit for intellectual property theft, as well as countless examples of pre-announcements used to prevent competition, and long quasi-vapor "next version" development at customer's expense. NT is still relying on the _next_ version to make it acceptable and we've been waiting for each revision for years; same with Exchange. Both have failed to generate much enthusiasm (though plenty of sales, alas) in terms of actual processing capabilities; most Unix boxes will easily tromp an NT server with any load characteristics. The only thing preventing Unix from completely eradicating NT is the marketing promises of the next version and the fact that Microsoft actively prevents competitive access to their installed base. Oppressive NDA agreements have been addressed in court. Java licensing agreements to ensure compatibility are ignored. Consent decrees are circumscribed, and still we can't actually _do_ anything with MS software that we couldn't do if equal investment had been made in Unix software, though that will be different in the next version. "Productive ability and success are widely hated in our society"? What are you, an idiot? Oh, you must be a Republican. Sorry. For that matter, a libertarian could say something equally as stupid, and feel equally as justified. It is the belief that productive ability and success is measured only by how much money you make that is widely hated in our society, sir. > >I'm not surprised to see the "good of the many" mantra and the case of >Socrates offered up to justify vilification of Microsoft. Both of these are >actually examples of _totalitarian_ approaches to government. No, they are not "examples of _totalitarian_ approaches to government", though I think you may mean that they are examples of justifications used to support totalitarianism. Then again, so is "serving the demand", "progress", "eminent domain", "I propose that we reach the moon in the next decade", and "party unity". For that matter, it occurs to me that _any_ mantra or phrase can be used to justify totalitarianism. And yet, oddly enough, by constantly harping on how the government is "regulating choice" or "stifling innovation" and how Microsoft is "serving customer demand" and "providing software for the masses", they are using the exact same "statist" [though here I guess it would be 'corporatist'] mantra. > Socrates was >not accused of a crime, he was simply accused of espousing unpopular ideas. >The question of whether Socrates should be allowed to live or be killed was >put to a vote of the general population. That is an example of _unlimited_ >majority rule, i.e., tyranny by the majority. As with all forms of tyranny, >the mantra of the "good of the many" is always invoked to justify it. I assume that means you are implying that its use therefore proves a desire for tyranny. I feel compelled to point out that this is a logical fallacy. And once again it occurs to me that somehow the masses _are_ supposed to control what software Microsoft provides by spending money, but they _aren't_ allowed to do so by casting votes. Talk about tyranny of the masses; you aren't even going to leave a _pretense_ of rational consideration, are you? You insist that mindless marketing makes for smarter consumers than open discussion. Seems inconsistent. -- T. Max Devlin Hi-TECH Connections/Eltrax Systems ***************************************************** - Opinions expressed are my own. Anyone else may use them only in accordance with licensing agreements. -