Posted on 05/17/2004 6:51:16 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Microsoft has a history of FUD and underhanded tactics against competitors. For example, remember the MSN/Opera thing? Microsoft tailored the MSN site to make it look like the Opera browser couldn't render the site correctly, making Opera users think maybe their browser was broken (reason to switch to IE). But then it was found that MSN detected the Opera browser and sent broken code to it by design. When Opera was configured to spoof the IE header (making MSN think that an IE browser was requesting a page), pages rendered perfectly.
Remember the Halloween document? Remember the memo from Bill Gates asking if they could make Windows 3.1 not work properly with DR. DOS and Microsoft did it? Microsoft is known for using underhanded tactics to make its competitors look bad, so between the options, Microsoft funding FUD reports is more likely than it just being innocent donations.
I'm not interested in your conjecture. Like I said, when you can provide data that supports your contention that MS provides significant support to this guy, then we'll talk. Until then, you're spewing your own brand of worthless FUD.
You know you won't see that because AdTI won't release it. The only comment you get from them is "no comment." What you can do is go through their site and see they've been pimping for Microsoft for years. Combine that with a Microsoft rep admitting that they've giving undisclosed amounts of money to the institute. Quit kidding yourself of your thinking that Microsoft would ever bother with a $10 donation. They're not that small-time.
And the only reason you say that is because you know AdTI will not release that information, keeping you safe in the way you've tried to frame the argument. Face it, Microsoft admitted they support this guy's employer, and Microsoft doesn't deal with small change. We don't know the amount, but you'd have to be an idiot to think it was minor.
I still find it silly that you defend direct donations by Microsoft, while decrying very indirect donations in the Groklaw case.
I have never once seen you actually provide data, even with your "CDE does not run on linux* claim..
Hey, how about MS providing actual data on how much it contributed so we get the whole story? Why won't Microsoft come clean on this?
What is MS trying to hide?
Both organizations are trying to hide their association. WHY? If it's a simple donation, there's nothing to be afraid of. Neither wants to talk about it. Why not?
What are they trying to hide?
Seems pretty clear to me. All one has to do is read.
A Microsoft spokesman confirmed that Microsoft provides funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution.
"We support a diverse array of public policy organizations with which we share a common interest or public policy agenda such as the de Tocqueville Institution," the spokesman wrote in an e-mail.
Microsoft did not respond to requests for comment on whether the company directly sponsored the debate paper. De Tocqueville Institute president Ken Brown and chairman Gregory Fossedal refused to comment on whether Microsoft sponsored the report.
The stench of conspiracy....
So, since you lack any knowledge of Microsoft's history and business tactics, we'll have to chalk up your comments to ignorance and a blind allegiance to Microsoft.
M$ NT, W2k, XPs & 2003 are derivatives of Multics. Since M$ only trusts the Chicoms to view the source, we don't know how many millions of lines of Multics were pirated (perhaps in a non-literal fashion).
Bush2k is engaging in creating Elmore FUD about the M$ FUD. Think about it: FUD^2, FUD**2, FUD within FUD, nested FUD, DO LOOP(y) FUD, FUD one times removed. Ingenious really.
Not to prolong the thread, but I don't see how you could glean that NT and its descendents are derivatives of Multics. Unix (and therefore Linux) is much more directly based on Multics. Sound out the two for the play on words - Mul-tics (tix), Un-ix (ics). The Unix guys at Bell Labs did this on purpose.
First, Multics was a proprietary operating system written in the 60's and was owned by GE, until they sold it to Honeywell (which ws then bought by Bull, who still owns the IP rights to Multics). Except for a few minor pieces, it's source is still not available as far as I know. Second, Multics was written mostly in PL/I, a basically dead language by the time NT was even in the planning stages. So it's nearly impossible for MS to have "pirated" code from Multics.
NT may have taken some concepts from Multics, but so did Unix/Linux in a much larger sense because Unix was written by people who actually previously worked on Multics. NT also has concepts from VMS, because some of the people who designed NT previously worked on VMS. (And DEC let those people go, so MS didn't raid DEC of the talent to copy their OS.)
While it may be fun to bash MS, you have to be honest about it.
Multics influenced many operating systems. See this section of the Multics FAQ. But I don't see how it is a bad thing for operating systems to be built on concepts of predecessors or even competitors.
Like your claim CDE does not run on linux??
Woodman is pretending to be some yokel from the forest who wants to know why the good citizens won't at least entertain the possibility that the Alexis Hoohah Foundation is one of the many fine, totally-objective think tanks in Washington.
The what?
Objective think tanks in Washington ? Just stop it, OK? You and the woodman there. You can't peddle something that ridiculous on a political forum. People here know too much. The DU'ers wouldn't even fall for it.
You tell Redmond that you and Woody need a new line for the political forums, because the Freepers etc. know about how the Brookings Institution isn't really a non-partisan think tank, and they're not falling for this crap about objective Washington think tanks.
Peter Coors has one; George Soros has one; why shouldn't Bill Gates have one? There's nothing wrong with capitalism that purchasing some pet Ph.D's to write legislation and policy papers for you can't cure. Shovel that crap over to Capitol Hill and hope enough of it sticks that you get your money's worth.
Have these guys written their extensive study on Digital Rights Management yet? Surely that's an area where The Billster would like to get some legislation written. If they haven't already, I'm sure the august Alexis Hoohah Foundation will weigh in on that. And when they do, they'll sound just like Steve Ballmer. And the Brass Buzzard. And you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.