Microsoft Hatred FAQ

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:13:00

java-programmer, Microsoft Hatred FAQ email***@***.com wrote...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>
> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>
> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:13:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ email***@***.com wrote...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>
> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>
> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
crippled, don't you?

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:25:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ Not Bill Gates wrote:
> email***@***.com wrote...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>>
>>> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
>> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
>
> You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
> crippled, don't you?
>

How about their "java" implementation between 1998 and 2004?
Sure killed the _easier_ write once run everywhere mantra, of course
they where not alone in the killing, SUN helped a great deal.

--
mph

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:44:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

>> Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a
>> seller
>> to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may
>> not

> No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
> not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.

Businesses have the right to be discriminatory and anti-competitive in
this way. McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties. This is
both discriminatory and anti-competitive, but also perfectly legal, moral,
and proper.

You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is a
monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:47:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
<email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> I'm hesitant to get into this, but I keep wondering why, if there is
> no other competing OS, or not one worth worrying about, the MS
> business agreements are so draconian? Why would a company come up with
> such heavy handed agreements if it wasn't worried about competition?
>
> Yes, I know, they can do whatever they want, it's not a crime,
> etc. However when they use their market position to disallow
> competition, it sounds to me like they're worried about something, and
> trying to squelch it.

If they have a choice, should their competitors have 1% of the market or
0%, they'll choose zero. Who wouldn't? What they're worried about is a
customer going to a store because they advertise that they have Windows and
being switched to another OS.

In fact, they weren't draconian. A draconian agreement would have been
one that prohibited you from selling any other OS if you want to sell
Microsoft OSes. Instead, what they did was much less restrictive in that it
only affected discount levels rather than right to resell and only increased
the cost of selling other operating systems rather than prohibiting them.
Many other companies totally prohibit you from selling competing products if
you want to get the wholesale price on their products.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:48:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"John-Paul Stewart" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> David Schwartz wrote:

>> If nobody wants these operating systems, then it doesn't hurt him not to
>> be able to sell them. If people want them, then he could have shown
>> Microsoft the door.
>
> If only 5% want another operating system, the vendor has to choose between
> selling to those 5% -or- to the 95% who want Microsoft. Had it not been
> for the underhanded tactics, he could have sold to *both* groups.
>
> From a purely economic standpoint, the sensible thing is to accept that
> 95% and let the 5% go elsewhere.
>
> But if *every* vendor has to make that same choice, there is no place for
> that other 5% to go to buy another operating system. So the other
> operating system(s) die off. And those 5% become customers of Microsoft
> since there's no other choice left. And *that* is where the legal
> problems start: they gained market share by preventing consumers from
> finding competing products.

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.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:51:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
hungry after 10.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 2:55:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Martin P. Hellwig" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:435e786f$0$11061$email***@***.com...

> Not Bill Gates wrote:

>> email***@***.com wrote...
>>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>>>
>>>> Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>>> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
>>> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?

>> You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been crippled,
>> don't you?

> How about their "java" implementation between 1998 and 2004?
> Sure killed the _easier_ write once run everywhere mantra, of course they
> where not alone in the killing, SUN helped a great deal.

It's easy to point to things you think are mistakes and claim that if
you had been in charge of the world, those mistakes would not have been
made. If you are trying to balance completely different possible paths the
universe might have taken, you need to make sure to include everything on
both sides, and that's really really hard to do.

Perhaps the desktop software is good enough that how much better it
would have been wouldn't make much difference. And perhaps the lack of
competition steered the innovators into other fields where their innovations
made huge differences. Perhaps not -- perhaps the desktop software we would
have had in a more competitive market would have made other people's lives
majorly better. Who knows?

I don't think it's possible or sensible to try to have a reckoning of
this type. There are so many variables and unpredictable possibilities.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 3:50:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ David Schwartz wrote:

>
> Do you think it would be immoral if Microsoft said, "we will only sell
> Windows wholesale to dealers who don't sell other operating systems?"

That's the crux of the problem, isn't it? When you are a virtual
monopoly, it is at least unlawful. The Sherman Anti-trust act as well
as the various follow-on anti-trust laws essentially say that what is
okay when you have 49% of a market is illegal when you have 51%. You
have maintained that Microsoft is not a monopoly, but they clearly
are by U.S. Anti-trust law. Congress has set the definition, and
the courts have upheld it, explicitly in Microsoft's case. The courts
have declared Microsoft a monopoly in the desktop OS market, and that
decision stands.

You have said that it was unreasonable to expect Microsoft to define
the market in the manner required to make them into a monopoly, but
it was their primary market. Again, court records show that they not
only had a monopoly, they knew they had a monopoly and took steps
to preserve their monopoly. Some of those steps were illegal by U.S.
law.

Also, you have said that it was unreasonable to expect Microsoft to
know that they were in violation of the law. In addition to the fact
that the laws have been in place since the late 1800's, the consent
decree explicitly and in no uncertain terms informed them of their
violations, and they continued to violate the law even afterward.

I have read some interesting things written by some of the principles
involved that the culture in Microsoft explicitly resisted against
checking the legality of these matters, not because they wanted to
do illegal things, but because Bill Gates viewed the legal vetting
process that he saw IBM use as being the primary cause of the
inability of IBM to react to the changing market. He didn't want
his company to have the same legal baggage. Microsoft resisted
having any kind of "working within the law" type of employee
training until long after most other large companies had them.

--
blu

Remember when SOX compliant meant they were both the same color?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Utterback - OP/N1 RPE, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Ph:877-259-7345, Em:brian.utterback-at-ess-you-enn-dot-kom

Posted: 2005-10-26 3:52:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ David Schwartz wrote:
<cut>
> It's easy to point to things you think are mistakes and claim that if
> you had been in charge of the world, those mistakes would not have been
> made. If you are trying to balance completely different possible paths the
> universe might have taken, you need to make sure to include everything on
> both sides, and that's really really hard to do.
>
> Perhaps the desktop software is good enough that how much better it
> would have been wouldn't make much difference. And perhaps the lack of
> competition steered the innovators into other fields where their innovations
> made huge differences. Perhaps not -- perhaps the desktop software we would
> have had in a more competitive market would have made other people's lives
> majorly better. Who knows?
>
> I don't think it's possible or sensible to try to have a reckoning of
> this type. There are so many variables and unpredictable possibilities.
>
> DS
>
>

I agree that it is hard, nearly impossible, to make the _one_ best
decision in a situation.
However it is quit possible to not make the very obvious wrong decision.

Just that it is very hard to hit a specific tree with a small handgun
from a 2 mile distant, that is nearly impossible.
However, just avoiding your feet should be doable.

BTW, I think you are management material...

--
mph

Posted: 2005-10-26 4:26:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ Not Bill Gates <email***@***.com> writes:
> email***@***.com wrote...
>> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
>> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
> You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
> crippled, don't you?

MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?

While MS was "innovating" by giving us directories, others who had
learned the lessons from mainframe and minicomputer systems were
offering us desktop systems with all those features - and an office
suite that ran in the windowing systems - for a fraction of the price
of anything that was capable of running MS-DOS.

MS managed to kill off or drive into niche markets the companies who
were actually doing innovative work on desktop systems, and it's taken
the desktop software industry two decades to recover from that. I'll
accept that as crippling until a better definition comes along.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <email***@***.com> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Posted: 2005-10-26 4:34:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ In <email***@***.com> Brian Utterback:

[Snip...]

> that the laws have been in place since the late 1800's, the consent
> decree explicitly and in no uncertain terms informed them of their
> violations, and they continued to violate the law even afterward.

It's M$ corporate DNA; they literally couldn't change and survive:

Howard University law professor Andrew Gavil said he wonders whether
Microsoft's early demands -- which would have compelled manufacturers
to distribute to consumers only Microsoft's Windows Media Player
software -- were a genuine mistake or a signal the company intends to
revert to its hardball tactics.

"It's somewhat amazing it even happened," said Gavil, who has closely
followed the Microsoft case. "It's troubling that anyone inside
Microsoft was still thinking this was a legitimate business strategy."

Well, duh. All they got was a useless wrist-slap from the dickless US DOJ
in 2002, so this is not at all surprising--just bidness as usual for M$.

More:

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/051020/microsoft_antitrust.html?.v=6

And any M$ apologists are just as much liars and thieves as M$ itself.

--
Regards, Weird (Harold Stevens) * IMPORTANT EMAIL INFO FOLLOWS *
Pardon any bogus email addresses (wookie) in place for spambots.
Really, it's (wyrd) at airmail, dotted with net. DO NOT SPAM IT.
Kids jumping ship? Looking to hire an old-school type? Email me.

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:01:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <email***@***.com> wrote:

> "Peter T. Breuer" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...

>>> Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a
>>> seller
>>> to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may
>>> not

>> No it is not their "right"! That would be a discriminatory practice,
>> not to mention an anti-competitive practice. Totally.

> Businesses have the right to be discriminatory and anti-competitive in
> this way.

No they don't. I'm simply open-jawed at such a statement.

> McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties.

McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger
patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of
discourse. Coming back to the current universe of discourse, I assure
you that a McDonald's director can go into a Burger King and buy a
burger like anyone else, so no discrimination. Mind you - I'm not sure
if they'd let Ronald in. He's obviously dangerously nutty.

> his is
> both discriminatory and anti-competitive,

It's neither. It's simply not part of their business.

> but also perfectly legal, moral,
> and proper.

Dalse assumptions, hence invalid conclusions.

> You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is a
> monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.

If MacDonalds were wholesale suppliers of hamburgers to the
distribution trade, then they couldn't discriminate among their
customers for the purposes of altering the competitive nature of the
market in hamburger sales to you and me across the counter. Companies
have been sued for trying that - sports shoe manufacturers, I seem to
recall. They've tried to make sure their shoes are sold only by
specified outlets at specified prices, in order to artificially manage
the market. That's illegal. Sued they got (or perhaps "suede").

Peter

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:01:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ email***@***.com wrote...
> Not Bill Gates <email***@***.com> writes:
> > email***@***.com wrote...
> >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
> >> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
> >> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
> >> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
> > You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
> > crippled, don't you?
>
> MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
> offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
> been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
> line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
> windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
> multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?

<shrug> Being pissed off about how things could have been done
better is a losing proposition. Even so, I'm a LOT more pissed off
that we're still driving around in 25 mpg polluting gas-burners than
I am about not having Windows XP available in 1985.

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:06:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <email***@***.com> wrote:

> "Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...

>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
> hungry after 10.

They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory,
nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do
things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that
supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a
possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have
to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive,
though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does
not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef,
so they don't have the leverage.

Peter

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:13:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ Not Bill Gates <email***@***.com> writes:

> email***@***.com wrote...
>> Not Bill Gates <email***@***.com> writes:
>> > email***@***.com wrote...
>> >> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:35:47 +0000, Not Bill Gates wrote:
>> >> > Heck, I dunno. Like you, I don't even really care all that much.
>> >> You don't care that innovation in desktop software has been crippled by
>> >> the actions of the monopoly player Microsoft?
>> > You need to first prove innovation in desktop software has been
>> > crippled, don't you?
>>
>> MS took desktop software through pretty much the same sequence of
>> offerings that the mainframe and minicomputer software industry had
>> been throgh: flat file systems and single-tasking OS's in a command
>> line environment, adding nested file systems, adding TSRs, adding a
>> windowing environment, adding true multitasking and finally
>> multiprocessor systems. This took them what - 20+ years?
>
> <shrug> Being pissed off about how things could have been done
> better is a losing proposition.

I'm not pissed off about it - I've got better things to do. You asked
for prove that desktop software development was crippled by MS. I
provided it.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <email***@***.com> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:36:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

>> McDonald's won't sell a Burger King their burger patties.

> McDonald's are not in the business of wholesale distribution of burger
> patties so your statement is simply sited in the wrong universe of
> discourse.

I don't know what drugs you're on, but the McDonald's corporation most
certainly is in the business of the wholesale distribution of burger
patties. One key reason to become a franchisee is to access their wholesale
distribution network.

> Coming back to the current universe of discourse, I assure
> you that a McDonald's director can go into a Burger King and buy a
> burger like anyone else, so no discrimination. Mind you - I'm not sure
> if they'd let Ronald in. He's obviously dangerously nutty.

That's not even remotely analogous. Microsoft didn't say that customers
who bought OS2 couldn't buy Windows. They said (in acutality something less
than that) people who buy Windows wholesale can't also resell other
operating systems. This is perfectly analogous to McDonald's saying that
retailers who buy their burger patties wholesale can't also sell Whoppers.

>> You only run into a problem under United States law if the company is
>> a
>> monopoly. And I've already addressed that issue in this thread.

> If MacDonalds were wholesale suppliers of hamburgers to the
> distribution trade,

They are wholesale suppliers to those people who agree to their
distribution terms. This requires, among other things, that you prepare them
in a precise way and only sell approved items.

> then they couldn't discriminate among their
> customers for the purposes of altering the competitive nature of the
> market in hamburger sales to you and me across the counter.

I'm afraid I don't understand what "altering the competitive nature of
the market in hamburger sales" actually means. What is it that you are
claiming they can't do?

> Companies
> have been sued for trying that - sports shoe manufacturers, I seem to
> recall. They've tried to make sure their shoes are sold only by
> specified outlets at specified prices, in order to artificially manage
> the market. That's illegal. Sued they got (or perhaps "suede").

What, precisely, is illegal?

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 6:39:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ
"Peter T. Breuer" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...

> In comp.os.linux.misc David Schwartz <email***@***.com> wrote:

>> "Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>> news:email***@***.com...

>>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
>>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
>>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.

>> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.

>> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
>> hungry after 10.

> They can close when they like because the policy is not discriminatory,
> nor is part of an attempt to manage the market. If they were to do
> things that harmed the market - such as telling meat suppliers that
> supplied them that they couldn't supply anyone else, that would be a
> possible candidate for anti-competitive behaviour suits. It would have
> to be shown that the arrangement WAS materially anti-competitive,
> though, and that's difficult to conceive of because MacDonalds does
> not constitute a major portion of the market demand for corned beef,
> so they don't have the leverage.

In other words, who or what it harms is not the issue. Which was
precisely my point. Private individuals and corporations are allowed to harm
other people, so long as they don't violate the rights of those people when
they do so, for example by using force or fraud.

If a McDonald's opens across the street from my little burger joint
family business, that hurts me. However, it isn't force, it isn't fraud, it
doesn't violate rights, it's just part of life.

Not even the amount of harm is at issue. Burger King firing someone for
cause might result in their family going hungry.

The issue is whether the action is within the scope of the actor's
authority.

DS

Posted: 2005-10-26 7:09:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:51:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:

>
> "Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
> news:email***@***.com...
>
>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.
>
> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.
>
> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
> hungry after 10.

Burger King doesn't take actions to prevent you from going to another
vendor who will stay open after 10PM, as you very well know.

Nor is Burger King a monopoly -- if they refuse to open after 10 in the
face of great demand, they only harm themselves. As I said a few days ago,
it is not the place for either us or the government to care about the
success or failure of any specific vendor, but only about the health of
the entire market. As there is no shortage of competition in the fast food
market, the harm done to you by Burger King's refusal to open after 10PM
is not sufficient for anyone to care. If there is significant demand, then
Burger King will merely harm themselves by refusing to open because they
will lose customers to those vendors who do open, and if there is
insignificant demand, then why should anyone care?

--
Steven.

Posted: 2005-10-26 7:47:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ "Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
news:email***@***.com...
> On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:51:02 -0700, David Schwartz wrote:
>
>>
>> "Steven D'Aprano" <email***@***.com> wrote in message
>> news:email***@***.com...
>>
>>> The first two points are factually wrong, and the third is an opinion
>>> based on the concept, as far as I can see, that Microsoft should be
>>> allowed to do anything they like, even if those actions harm others.
>>
>> Of course this alleged "harm" is simply a lack of a benefit.
>>
>> Why is Burger King allowed to close at 10PM? That harms me when I'm
>> hungry after 10.
>
> Burger King doesn't take actions to prevent you from going to another
> vendor who will stay open after 10PM, as you very well know.
>
> Nor is Burger King a monopoly -- if they refuse to open after 10 in the
> face of great demand, they only harm themselves. As I said a few days ago,
> it is not the place for either us or the government to care about the
> success or failure of any specific vendor, but only about the health of
> the entire market. As there is no shortage of competition in the fast food
> market, the harm done to you by Burger King's refusal to open after 10PM
> is not sufficient for anyone to care. If there is significant demand, then
> Burger King will merely harm themselves by refusing to open because they
> will lose customers to those vendors who do open, and if there is
> insignificant demand, then why should anyone care?

NO! There ~is~ a conspiracy by Egg farmers to not make burgers available
before 10 am.

Burger King used to be one of the last great vestiges of the 24 hour burger,
and now it's gone.

They know no one would buy the shitty egg McMuffins/equivalent if they had
delicious burgers available, so there is something underhanded going on
behind the scenes.

Same thing with pizza. Don't try to tell me that there are not hungry
partiers at 3 am - but are any of the delivery places open? NO!

Why is it this way? Who knows! But when in doubt, blame the right wing
extremist politicians.

Posted: 2005-10-26 8:15:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:36:37 +0200, "Peter T. Breuer"
<email***@***.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted someone who
said :

>> Yes, it certainly is. However, it is also Microsoft's right as a seller
>> to refuse discounts to those who also sell competing products. You may not

It was not a discount. I was being denied the right to buy from any
wholesaler. The "deal" MS offered was that I as an independent
retailer had to by ALL my MS OS products retail if I wanted to sell
even one machines without Windows.

That would have been easily enough to put any retailer out of business
if he did not comply.

Even in retrospect, when I kick myself for abandoning my principles,
It would still be a tough decision.

1. I had eight people working for me who would have become unemployed.

2. The city would have lost one of its most ethical retailers.

3. Microsoft would STILL have won.

4. I would have had to put up taunts from people calling me crazy for
destroying my business in what they would see as a vainglorious
attempt to stop the Microsoft juggernaut.

What MS did was put me in a position where felt I had little choice
but to violate my OWN moral code of conduct. That is what has me so
pissed.

It is bad enough to be extorted from. It even worse to be forced into
a racket to extort others.

If any one here considers what MS did acceptable I am glad by their
public stance they have warned others off ever having business
dealings with them because their low standards of conduct.

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

Posted: 2005-10-26 8:18:00

java-programmer >> Microsoft Hatred FAQ On Wed, 26 Oct 2005 02:03:36 +1000, Steven D'Aprano
<email***@***.com> wrote, quoted or indirectly quoted
someone who said :

>You don't care that because of Microsoft's neglect, there are millions of
>zombie PCs running their sub-standard OS across the world, sending
>hundreds of millions of spam emails?

Of course he cares. He is a shill. He licks that hand that feeds him.
--
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.