Back to square one

[creedon]

When I posted my "Serious question for Win advocates", I was hoping to start a dialogue about the morality of using, and thereby sanctioning, Microsoft products.
Well, even with all the donder und blitzen we had, I STILL haven't had anyone who presents to me a non-technical argument that defends the Microsoft business method.
I have a MORAL objection to the use of Microsoft products; I DON'T want to hear about ease of use, superiority in web applications, or whatever type of smoke someone wants to blow up my ass to divert my attention from the morality (or LACK of morality!!) that Microsoft has in its business practices.
Now, I've laid down some specifics; any takers?
NOTE: I will completely ignore anything other than a non-technical debate; I don't have the facilities to debate about code.  Just present to me a logical, coherent argument defending MS's commercial activities.

[www.unixsucks.com]

Why would you ask this question in anti-Microsoft site?
Can you imagine one day where all computers are running Linuxes. They never crash, they easy to administer, they have tons of free programs. Since everything is free and it does not requires support, the whole IT budget would be shrinked to having single person managing the whole network. What an utopia!
So what exactly is amoral in Microsoft which you would not find in other huge corporations?

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: http://www.unixsucks.com ]

[creedon]

I find the fact that MS tries continually to control the use of something that I own (MY computer); they use FUD to dissuade people from using alternatives to MS products; it's an established fact that MS has unfairly targeted companies that don't want to go along with their vision of how computing should be done.  There's enough rumor and innuendo about the beginnings of Microsoft to make one wonder if the ever did actually produce anything, or if they just stole it and called it their own.
As far as amoral behavior in other companies goes, the U.S. is a prime example of Capitalist excesses, that doesn't justify the behavior of Microsoft; they just followed the historical example of companies like Standard Oil, Ford Motor Company, General Motors et al.  BUT JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE DOES IT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.  (sorry about the capitals, but that's a real sore point with me).
My personal belief is that the computer is as fundimental a tool as fire, and we haven't even scratched the surface of it's capabilities; I have a moral objection to using something so fundimental as a cash-cow to benefit a single company.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by www.unixsucks.com:
Why would you ask this question in anti-Microsoft site?
Can you imagine one day where all computers are running Linuxes. They never crash, they easy to administer, they have tons of free programs. Since everything is free and it does not requires support, the whole IT budget would be shrinked to having single person managing the whole network. What an utopia!
So what exactly is amoral in Microsoft which you would not find in other huge corporations?

Bravo! That was one of the best pro-Linux posts I have ever seen!  That's the whole point. It save's brick & mortar companies a boatload of money. They don't *need* a Microsoft based money sucking IT empire. Maybe more companies can stay in business with an argument like that. Why is it that IT departments think they need 50% of the corporate budget of which a large chunk goes to Microsoft?

If I were CEO I would be interested in shrinking that IT budget down, trimming the fat on licensing, and on people. Fewer IT people are needed, fewer purchasing people are needed, software costs go to zero, and I get my big fat bonus check while you are flippin' bugers at your favorite 3 star fast food joint.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: VoidMain ]

[flap]

quote:So what exactly is amoral in Microsoft which you would not find in other huge corporations?

Surprise. The lame answer every fanboy gives when asked to morally justify MS' disgusting behaviour. Mmm, that's not so much a justification as an excuse. Like saying "Sure, Ted Bundy killed a few people but don't *all* serial killers?" It's a shame people are so used to being fucked over by pigopolists like Microshaft that they actually think it's morally acceptable.

Last time you were asked this you said the same thing, and asked what's the difference between MS and Oracle, or Sun? Where did creedon give his support for these companies in this, or any other, post? He doesn't even use a commercial GNU/Linux distro. I think you'll find that any poster here who embraces the idea of Free Software will have some moral objection to *any* proprietary software vendor. However, the point is that MS' corporate psycopathy transcends anything that their competitors have done. But who knows? Maybe Oracle/Apple/Sun would be doing exactly the same if they had the chance. I don't trust them, and I don't trust General Motors/Ford etc.

You might ask "what about RedHat/Mandrake, or other commercial free software vendors?" The difference here is that these companies don't control what they distribute to us. This is why the GPL is so empowering. If we don't like what they're doing we can take it and change it to how we want it. Or another company can spring up and take their software and distribute it how society actually wants it. This is how capitalism is supposed to work; businesses should be making money because they're providing something useful that the public wants; not because they've got us all crack addicted on their cheap shoddy shit.

 

quote:There's enough rumor and innuendo about the beginnings of Microsoft to make one wonder if the ever did actually produce anything, or if they just stole it and called it their own.

Oh they came up with at least a couple of things. See here for the ongoing search for *anything* that MS has invented. So far they have Mr Clippy and the BOB interface.

[www.unixsucks.com]

So if Microsoft is so evil in using it's monopolistic practicies, please explain to me how fair is decision of some countries to force their agencies to use open source software?
Is not it unfair as well? Is not it a monopolistic approach as well?

[KernelPanic]

I see your point but  the governmets were not forced to do that. Linux hasnt got to the stage where it can tell governments what to do!    
(Most) of these governments will have made these decicions democratically and had an independant review of the situation.

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]

[www.unixsucks.com]

No, I don't beleive it was like that.
I beleive there is some Microsoft hater among IT staff which with open source propaganda influenced the decision becouse I can not see how locking down choices is a democratic decision.

[KernelPanic]

I really can't see that happening....

[KernelPanic]

Also a country can force it's agenies to do wqhat it likes. The agencies and the government are essentially the same thing except that the agencies answer to the government. Governments usually have the funal word on how taxpayes money is (or isnt) spent. I wish the government in my country would tell our agencies what to do because lots of taxpayers money has been wasted in blunders of rolling out (Microsoft based) systems. (Yes I know this is not MS's fault)

[www.unixsucks.com]

But I can.
Looking at the amount of hate to Windows in this message board I can see that single open source fanatic would be able to produce huge amount of propaganda and bearing in mind that there are no many Windows lovers out there - the result is obvious.

[KernelPanic]

Don't be silly, that cannot happen on a governmental level, maybe in some crappy country but not in most. Also if a countries agencies cold do what they wanted, what on earth would be the point in having a centralised government at all. Countries would fall apart.

[voidmain]

quote:Originally posted by www.unixsucks.com:
So if Microsoft is so evil in using it's monopolistic practicies, please explain to me how fair is decision of some countries to force their agencies to use open source software?
Is not it unfair as well? Is not it a monopolistic approach as well?

I think it is very fair. Since I am a tax payer I believe it is the right thing to do because it saves money and it garantees no funny business is going on under the covers. I would like to see my country adopt similar policies.  Use open source where possible, but use proprietary if there is no open source alternative. In fact if M$ is willing to provide my government with the source code to every application my government buys (and there is no alternative) then I have no beef.

[www.unixsucks.com]

Don't you understand that the mandated to use open source.
They have not said - "please explore different alternatives and choose the right one based on your needs/money etc", they said "you must use open source regardless what" which is not the same thing.

[KernelPanic]

That's the nitty gritty of the way a country is run. Once the big fish make their decision then that's it. Everything you think you know is wrong. The system is all powerful  

[ August 26, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]