Why I Hate Microsoft [A Formal look at the MS/Linux Wars]

From the title of this paper you may have guessed that I am less than pleased with the guys in Redmond. One might even say that my dislike for Microsoft is a pet hate gone out of control in an almost quixotic fashion. Why is this?

Of course I have been accused of personal antipathy, of being jealous of Bill Gates and his billions, and of being prejudiced against all things Microsoft without any reason whatsoever. But none of this is true. I have nothing personal against Bill Gates. Why should I? I don't know the man, I've never met him. I agree with those who say he might be the most succesful salesman in history. And I've always thought that even one billion in almost any currency is more than I could reasonably spend.

No. It's rather his business practices, and that of his company, that I am opposed to, for a large and still growing number of reasons, most of which are plain, verifiable facts. Let me explain.

ABSTRACT

Microsoft controls the current software market and has a de facto monopoly on the desktop. This monopoly has not been achieved and is not being maintained by offering the user community better products than Microsoft's competitors can offer. On the contrary, Microsoft has earned a reputation for selling unreliable software.

Windows is a technically inferior operating system with a seriously flawed architecture, weak security model and sloppy code, while other Microsoft applications are equally kludgey. New Microsoft products offer no essential improvements over previous or competing products, and their Return On Investment is between small and zero, in spite of Microsoft's boasts about being innovative and customer-driven.

Instead of making better software, Microsoft has focused on using brilliant but doubtful marketing tactics to force their products upon the user community in order to establish and maintain their monopoly. These methods include a tight integration of applications into the operating system, the bundling of applications with Windows to force competing application vendors out of the market, the mandatory bundling of Windows with new computer equipment, deliberate limitations in the compatibility of their own software with competing products, contracts that prohibit third parties to do business with anyone but Microsoft, and retaliatory practices against non-cooperating vendors. In addition to this, third-party developers are induced, through cheap or free development kits and the sabotaging of alternatives, to develop applications that contain proprietary system calls, are virtually non-portable, and are therefore bound to the MS-Windows platform. These methods only serve to further inflate Microsoft's already obscene profit margins, at the price of the interests of the user community, the IT market and the field of computer technology as a whole.

There is nothing semantical here. A monopoly and full fledge property are two totally separate things. People are precluded from using each others' ideas because Congress is empowered to establish monopolies to advance the sciences and the arts. You who claim to champion the idea that the Constitution isn't up for interpretation and means exactly what it is says, are a hypocrite. If the founders intended to call it property, they would have, but they didn't. Live with it.

Since you're hung up on the words "property rights", let's simply call them "foobar rights". Nowhere in the document does it say that your "foobar" rights are subordinate to any other rights.

Oh, right, you're incapable of rational thought. Okay, fine. I get paid to analyze possibilities and to plan for them. It's a simple concept known as "better safe than sorry".

I don't doubt that you aim to be "better safe than sorry". What I question is why you always feel compelled to focus on Microsoft, when there are literally tens of thousands of other companies and organizations involved in data security. Your credit card company and mortgage lender know more about your habits, purchases, and behaviors than anyone ever could. They routinely sell this data to other companies without your permission and without your knowledge. You ignore this issue. And you wonder why many people around here tend to ignore such nonsense. Exercise your rights: Don't use the software. Or use a firewall. But all of this hand-wringing and wailing about threats is just crap.

What I question is why you always feel compelled to focus on Microsoft, when there are literally tens of thousands of other companies and organizations involved in data security.

Top Ten Reasons I'm Picking On Microsoft In This Thread

10. Amazon execs don't threaten to cut off Barnes & Noble's air supply.

9. My Visa card has worked flawlessly for decades without an upgrade or a Service Pack.

8. My bank's online system works with IE, Mozilla, Konqueror AND Netscape; and it actually HAS a privacy policy I can agree with.

7. I can buy a car without a radio and install my own.

6. Kodak cameras are compatible with Fuju film.

5. DMV renewals don't require you to sign up for a Passport.

4. RealMedia and Adobe have full-featured Linux clients.

3. A video recorded with a Sony can be played back on a Phillips because they both follow the same standard.

2. BellSouth doesn't pester you to open a new account when you install a new phone.

And the number one reason I'm picking on Microsoft in this thread....

1. My mortgage company is NOT a convicted monopolist.

10. Amazon execs don't threaten to cut off Barnes & Noble's air supply.

I wouldn't invest in any company that didn't try to destroy its competition.

9. My Visa card has worked flawlessly for decades without an upgrade or a Service Pack.

What a great analogy: Comparing an operating system to a piece of plastic. /NOT

8. My bank's online system works with IE, Mozilla, Konqueror AND Netscape;

You can't browse MSN with IE, Mozilla, Netscape, and Konqueror? IE doesn't run on both Windows and the Mac?

...and it actually HAS a privacy policy I can agree with.

How does it feel to have your personal credit card charge information sold to third-parties without your knowledge? Agree with that? Sure you do. As long as it isn't Microsoft, you're fine with it. Even though MS doesn't even collect personally-identifiable data.

7. I can buy a car without a radio and install my own.

You can't buy a PC without an operating system? You need to find another profession, then. You and I have already had this discussion. I gave you a list of suppliers of PCs in your area and you blew them off. If that didn't work, there's always links on www.pricewatch.com to vendors who will supply PCs without operating systems.

6. Kodak cameras are compatible with Fuju film.You're talking hardware. Apples and oranges. Customers aren't asking for Windows to run on Mac hardware. But Office does.

5. DMV renewals don't require you to sign up for a Passport.

Ah, but DMV requires you to provide verified information. Passport doesn't care whether the information for your Passport is correct or verifiable. You can supply it with an alias. And a bogus address. And a bogus phone number. And an email account which you don't care about or use. What a prissy little fop you are to suggest that that's a privacy threat.

4. RealMedia and Adobe have full-featured Linux clients.

So what? I have a TRS-80 sitting in my basement. I don't expect MS to port MediaPlayer to it. And how does that stop you from using RealMedia and Adobe? Are you prevented?

3. A video recorded with a Sony can be played back on a Phillips because they both follow the same standard.

Irrelevant. MS supports video standards. If you're referring to APIs, any vendor is free to add support to Windows. Sun, for example, provides a platform for doing exactly that. And it runs under ... guess ... Windows. Who'da thunk it?

2. BellSouth doesn't pester you to open a new account when you install a new phone.

Huh?!? I get calls from my phone company all the time to install call waiting and other features. I'm sure everyone else does, too.

And the number one reason I'm picking on Microsoft in this thread.... 1. My mortgage company is NOT a convicted monopolist.

Here's a tissue. Have a good cry. And then look at the settlement terms for this so-called "convicted monopolist". Microsoft can't strongarm OEMs. Microsoft needs to disclose APIs and middleware hooks. Microsoft needs to provide uniform pricing. Honestly, you have little to complain about now. But I doubt that will stop your crowd from whining. Whining about MS has gotten to be a cottage industry for effete wimps that can't compete.

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.