On Mar 3, 2010, at 3:14 PM, xe22 wrote:
Microsoft can be considered "evil" because most users buy off-the-shelf systems.
MS uses its bloated mass to force its software onto these units.
Is it bloated mass when the OS in question has like a 90+% market demand? That sounds
like "giving the customers what they're asking for".
You're in the minority, of people who don't want Windows on their desktop. (So
am I). But at the end of the day, the OEMs are doing what 90+% of their
customers want. And, I'm sorry, but I can't fault any business for trying to
please 9/10 of their customers.
Then it uses
the numbers to force "partners" to write for Windows only. If you think not then
why does MS even prevent software from the previous version of Windows from
running.
I've never found that to be the case, in fact, quite the opposite. Hell, I wish they would do that
more often. This whole concept of "massive backward compatibility" is what has made
Windows such a nightmare to code and support. Tons of people with their "Oh, my Windows 95
code needs to still work on Windows 7 because the company that made it went out of business during
the Clinton era" mindset force all sorts of exceptions and workarounds in more modern
operating systems to have to try and kludge together something so antique code like that will still
work.
Things like the inefficient .Net to circumvent Java is an example.
If that's not enough they are continuous in their efforts to patent or buy
anything
that might be a threat to them so no one else can use it because they can't
stand
up to honest competition.
You mean, heavens forbid, they're a capitalist organization who attempted to
preserve their profits?!
TO THE GALLOWS WITH THEM!
They take ideas like the 3D desktop Linux was way ahead
on and through a large ad budget open source doesn't have make it look to the
masses that they invented it.
So your argument is that they used open source code in a way that was compliant with its
license, and you are unhappy with that? They distributed it, they threw the copies of the
license in where appropriate, I suspect if I dig around in the dungeons of MSFT's web
site I could even find "where to download the source code" (if they didn't just
include it on the DVD somewhere).
Perhaps the Linux folks should have used a more restrictive license? One that
gave them some control of the effort they'd put into that 3D Desktop work? :-)
Not that people should not be able to use MS if they want-but the methods MS
uses
to make sure they do I consider at the very least evil.
Me? I consider them a business like any other business. Not a business putting out a product I've
got a lot of desire to use, but that doesn't qualify them for "evil" status. It takes a
lot of work to really be "evil".
Or-I just don't like them.
Well, that at least would be truth in advertising. :-)
Cheers,
D
_______________________________________________
Mid-Hudson Valley Linux Users Group http://mhvlug.org
http://mhvlug.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mhvlug
Upcoming Meetings (6pm - 8pm) MHVLS Auditorium
Mar 3 - Sahana and 7 Years of MHVLUG Celebration
Apr 7 - Nagios
May 5 - Android
