The problem isn't Windows; It's Microsoft

[spiderbaby1958]

Last night I read a think piece entitled: "Why Linux Isn't For You: A Linux User's Lengthy Rebuttal"

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=3297

I found some of it to be original, some of it to be stuff I had seen many tmes before, some it I agreed with, and much of it missing the point... but for me, it was a good read. It clarified my own thoughts, and brought to me a new articulation of what I already knew, i.e.:

The problem isn't Windows; the problem is Microsoft. This may be obvious to anyone reading this, but to me it was something of a revelation.

That is to say... I like Windows (i.e. Win98), have had a great time exploring what windows has made available... and while I have discovered much to love about Linux, it's also been a hell of a lot of work. I am not a computer geek by nature; I am trying to become one by necessity. Learning Linux, while certainly rewarding, has been far more inconvenient and time consuming than the occasional hang-up or forced reboot. Well, it's been a little more than occasional... but even so, I think I would have been happy to continue using Windows forever... except for Microsoft.

You know what I mean: ridiculous prices that pretty much force low income computer-users into piracy. EULAs that have evolved from merely restrictive to Orwellian. Frightening schemes like Palladium, TCPA, Bill's Happy-Lucky-Friendly Hardware platform, or whatever the hell they're calling it this week. The persistent lobbying for any possible advantage. A record of dishonesty (lies told at the antitrust trial, in advertising, in the software itself) that I consider extensive enough that I can pretty much assume that Bill Gates is lying whenever he moves his lips. Most of all, the machiavellan manipulations-- and the cutthroat attitude that has infected the whole IT world... including the Linux community, including myself. How many times have I posted here or elsewhere, expressing the wish/religious belief that Linux will destroy Microsoft?

I think that the SCO case is just another manifestation of this last-man-standing-kill-or-be-killed business model that Redmond has forced upon us all. In the end, it may destroy Linux, but it really seems to be destroying SCO. It's unhealthy for all concerned, including Microsoft. I believe that the rapid rise of Linux took place because Microsoft made it necessary. Bill is creating his own problems.

The model is not only unnecessary; it's unrealistic. Linux is here to stay, and so is Microsoft. And why not? It's a big world, and most of it is still without computers. You couldn't pay me to put
Palladium on my computer-- at least until there's some kind of consensus about what the hell Palladium is-- but I'm sure it has some applications in business, government, or organized crime (not to be redundant). I'm sure there are rich bastards in the world who will enjoy having these big household networks that Bill Gates is envisioning-- and of course, there will always be people who don't know a lot about computers, who rate ease of use above all other virtues... I used to be one of these people, a born Windows user.

Now I am using Linux (at least some of the time, and more every day), but I am turning over a new leaf. No longer am I meditating on the destruction of Microsoft... however, I remain commited to the destruction of the Microsoft monopoly, the day when Bill Gates can no longer announce, as he recently did about TCPA "It will be standard equipment on every PC."

Every time Bill Gates starts spinning elaborate visions of the future, and tells us what's going to be running on every PC in the world, a few more Windows users start studying Unix line commands. It's seriously scary stuff.

Why not just keep selling an operating system that puts the power of computers within reach of those of us who are less than technically gifted? It's a valuble service-- and it is valuble service, not ruthless grabs for power-- that the marketplace rewards. Bill, you're the richest man in the world... relax!

[proffy]

Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
[B]You know what I mean: ridiculous prices that pretty much force low income computer-users into piracy.
All software is expensive. Photoshop, Acrobat, Apple software, etc... Don't focus in on Microsoft here, it makes you look like a M$ bigot.

EULAs that have evolved from merely restrictive to Orwellian.
huh? Proof?
Frightening schemes like Palladium, TCPA, Bill's Happy-Lucky-Friendly Hardware platform, or whatever the hell they're calling it this week.
Umm, you say you don't like Palladium and then say:
at least until there's some kind of consensus about what the hell Palladium is
How can you be so against something when you don't know what it is.

I'm sorry, but this post looks more like a bunch of "M$ is teh Eval" FUD than anything else. If you don't like Microsoft, don't use their software and keep your mouth shut instead of spreading lies. Linux is about choice eh? How can people choose when you spread FUD about the competition?

Proffy

[watchitman]

I read no lies or FUD here, it all seems reasonable to me.

[shadowrider]

actually, in my personal opinion, bill gates is one of the powerful people i've known.
back in the old days, he was not known at all. but the fact that he became to what he is today, it's an achievement. if people don't like him or microsoft, then simply find an alternative. there's no need bashing him all the time.

[YorkshireYank]

he simple fact about Bill Gates is that he's a genius in the business arena, how else can one man/company control 90% of the home desktops in the world.. it's not just by chance..

that being said, i go out of my way to avoid MS products, especially after reading a few of the more recent EULA's, specifically the EULA for XP Service Pack 1 and windows media player 9 - but that's just me not being comfortable giving MS permission to access my system and install DRM software without me even knowing about it...

Spiderbaby is right, the problem isn't windows, i know that i'd be comfortable using it if it wasn't for the megalomaniacs running the show - that's only proven by the fact that Steve Ballmer was flown out to Munich ASAP after redmond heard about the plans to switch the city over from Windows to SuSe linux - they can't stand to give up even a little ground....

[spiderbaby1958]

proffy:

MS says palladium is one thing; critics say it's another. The MS code is a secret, and MS's track record for being forthcoming does not inspire confidence. What I said was that until it's proven one way or another, it ain't goin in my machine. I stand by that.

Obviously not all software is expensive-- but of the examples you cite, none of them are operating systems, which makes them optional. I don't have to use them, and, as a matter of fact, use none of them. So I don't know how much they cost, and have no opinion on the matter. But, regardless, I think that my complaint about MS price would qualify me as a "bigot" if it was my only complaint.

Proof that the MS EULA is Orwellian? Two words: Read it.

I thought it was common knowledge (at least in this forum) that the XP EULA gives Microsoft the right to hack into your hard drive and change your software without notice.

I am not making this up. Do a google search for "XP End User Licensing Agreement", and I feel reasonably confident you'll see for yourself.

Indeed, Microsoft has accomplished something important and valuble, performed a service and deserves its success... but the problem is that it's just not satisfied with that. They want to dominate ethe market, dictate the terms, and they're not really very secretive about that. Recently, MS management has explicitly said that they regard Linux as a threat... Looking into MS's current position vis-a-vis Linux, how is this remotely plausible unless what they seek is dominance?

Have you ever seen Bill Gates' homepage? The man has a vision for the industry. He's got big plans for us. This would be fine if he was willing to introduce his vision in the marketplace, and sell it for whatever price the market will bear... but he's trying to impose it unnaturally. I could spend pages documenting this. If you're paying attention, it's pretty self-evident.

Don't use Windows? It seems to me that I spent a lot of time here saying that I would like to use Windows. It's reasonably good software from a company I just can't trust. Or at least, it used to be. Windows98 is where I get off this bus, so I couldn't tell you about anything beyond that.

[proffy]

Originally posted by spiderbaby1958
[B]The MS code is a secret
Ummm, yeah, so is Apple's code, Adobe's code, and every other piece of software that's is sold. It's called CLOSED SOURCE. Can you say capitalism?

Proof that the MS Eula is Orwellian? I thought it was common knowledge (at least in this forum) that the XP EULA gives Microsoft the right to hack into your hard drive and change your OS without notice.
I love hearing people spout off about it, only to have nothing to back it up. Microsoft can hack into your computer, eh? Has this happened to anyone yet? No, Hmmmmmmm.

I've read all the articles online about the EULA. And no, the Register is not a reliable source. There is a part in the EULA that will allow automatic updates to automatically download updates to your computer. This can be turned off simply by turning off automatic updates.

Indeed, Microsoft has accomplished something important and valuble, performed a service and deserves its success... but the problem is that it's just not satisfied with that. They want to dominate ethe market, dictate the terms, and they're not really very secretive about that. Recently, MS management has explicitly said that they regard Linux as a threat... Looking into MS's current position vis-a-vis Linux, how is this remotely plausible unless what they seek is dominance?

OMG! M$ wants to dominate the market? You mean, like every other company in america? Jeesh, looks to me like someone went to business school.

The man has a vision for the industry. He's got big plans for us. This would be fine if he was willing to introduce his vision in the marketplace, and sell it for whatever price the market will bear... but he's trying to impose it unnaturally.

Please provide proof where you have been forced against your will to use windows.

[garskoci]

For me it is Windows. The actual OS. Billy is just in line with most companies. Business is cut-throat. Eat or be eaten. I work for a large company. Lie, cheat or steal. It's not reserved to M$. As for Windows.... I could go on and on why I think that it's a brain-damaged OS. But, no need. I just don't think that Microsoft is doing thing all that much differently than other companies.

[spiderbaby1958]

proffy

Clearly, you're not worth arguing with. You're obviously a big fan of MIcrosoft, and, I have no doubt, "The O'Reilly Factor"

Let me say this much. Capitalism does not require a closed source. If I write a book, that book is not going to be published in secret code, yet that book is intellectual property protected by law.

I must take another look at the EULA

The aggresive behavior manifested by Microsoft is well-documented, as is a pattern of untruthfulness. Some of my interpretations of that behavior cannot be proven, but the evidence is certainly there. There's a big difference between having "proof" and having "nothing to back it up". That's just nonsense. Your post is replete with unsubstantiatied claims (No one has ever been hacked by Microsoft, the Register is not a reliable source) that I could ask you to substatiate-- if I gave a rat's *** what you think.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[rameyd]

Originally posted by proffy

I love hearing people spout off about it, only to have nothing to back it up. Microsoft can hack into your computer, eh? Has this happened to anyone yet? No, Hmmmmmmm.

I've read all the articles online about the EULA. And no, the Register is not a reliable source. There is a part in the EULA that will allow automatic updates to automatically download updates to your computer. This can be turned off simply by turning off automatic updates.


Not to fan the flames here, but if you're running Windows almost anyone can hack your box. This seems to be demonstrated almost weekly:D

[spiderbaby1958]

You know, my original point was that I was resolved not to badmouth Windows software anymore, and that I had given up my vain dreams of driving Microsoft into the dust. Instead, I am comitted to making sure there is a strong viable alternative.

It's only when I perceive myself to be under attack that my statements start to overreach. Okay, I have only my own opinion to guide me of what MS's long-term plan is. It seems a reasonable interpretation, but regardless of what can be proven or not proven, MS's history makes it unworthy of the trust that is required for me to load its secret code on my hard drive and sign on to its EULA. This is a personal decision that I don't have to defend.

It's true that I'm not forced to use Microsoft, but I think it's obvious that I have Linus Torvalds and not Bill Gates to thank for that choice.

You know, I'm not really too concerned about anyone hacking my box. I don't like giving someone the legal right to hack my box. Now, I read that you can't turn it off, but I must confess I think I did read that in the Register. Why am I supposed to believe MS and not the Register? Dunno. Maybe if The Register was trying to get me to sign onto the EULA and Microsoft was warning me not to, my reaction would be the same.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by garskoci
Business is cut-throat. Eat or be eaten. I work for a large company. Lie, cheat or steal. It's not reserved to M$. As for Windows.... I could go on and on why I think that it's a brain-damaged OS. But, no need. I just don't think that Microsoft is doing thing all that much differently than other companies.

Well, there are some significant differences, I think. For one thing, MS is the industry leader; it's setting the pace. In fact, until recently, it pretty much WAS the industry.
It bears a special responsibility for this.

I don't know if we've ever really seen anything like the MS antitrust case for sheer bald-faced dishonesty, and defiance of the law. How many companies have the power to simply wait out a huge government fine? Now, I could be getting this wrong, but didn't Bill tell a court of law, under oath, that Internet Explorer could not be removed from Windows without the whole thing unravelling? And didn't Microsoft later back down on that claim? I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's called perjury. Unless I've got the facts mixed up (a possibility) Bill should probably be getting out on parole about now. Again, this doesn't mean Windows is a bad OS... it just means not another version is going on my harddrive.

If anybody has a more complete version of the facts of the case... could you please fill me in?

If I do have at least some of the facts straight, think of what this implies in light of TCPA and DRM. Here we have an outlaw company that is, in essence, setting itself up as law enforcement. If I'm wrong about this, please straighten me out-- cause I sincerely hope I am.

[chatins]

Remember some of the things Gates told us.

1) He said Microsoft was not a software company but a marketing company. This meaning that the product takes a back seat to marketing. As IBM, and a long list of others found out.

Didn't these market makers and breakers recently buy a linux antivirus company just to shut it down.?

2) Gates also said we are only 20 years into a 100 year computer phenom.

He can be sure he won't be around at the end, but almost as sure his company will not. Open source will win in the end. Market dynamics almost gaurantee it.

[spiderbaby1958]

Originally posted by chatins
Open source will win in the end. Market dynamics almost gaurantee it.

It doesn't have to be that way, and if it comes to that, it isn't just going to be market forces that bring it about. It's also going to be Microsoft's insistence on defining IT as a fight to the death for all the booty. In my opinion, Microsoft stands an excellent chance to be here a hundred years from now if it has the wisdom to take its rightful place as an industry leader, instead of trying to be the entire industry. Those days are over.

It's going to be a lot easir to replace a Linux anti-virus application than it's going to be for Microsoft to replace the good will that it destroys when it pulls that kind of crappy stunt. When I read about something like that, it makes me think: better a Linux Virus on my computer than a Windows operating system.

[3eyes]

The reactivation thing on Windows XP is the problem. I don't know how many times I've read on the internet that MS refused to reactivate a perfectly legal (i.e., the buyer could actually proove they paid for it) copy of Windows XP. And in a way all the piracy of XP is their own fault - if they'd produced a quality, finished OS instead of selling unfinished betas like Win 98 and (especially) ME, millions of people who already had Windows wouldn't bother to pirate the latest version. Believe me, I understand their viewpoint, my computer came with ME; I had to pirate my friend's copy of Windows 2000 just to make my computer work *at all.* After all, I paid for a copy of Windows and it didn't work - it would crash on start up or freeze as soon as I opened an application - so why should I pay for another copy?

What's funny to me is that all the stuff about XP being so great is
hype. Better graphics? Use the same games on the same computer with 98 or 2K. Doesn't look any different. Stability? No more than Win 2K. Program compatibilty wizard for Windows 98 apps and games? In 2 years I've only tried one game out of about 200 that didn't work on Win 2K and again, I don't know how many times I've read that such-and-such doesn't work on XP but the same thing works fine on my Win 2K machine.

But definitely, the worst thing is MS is trying very hard to keep a stranglehold on "their" PCs (that is, any that can run Windows). They don't seem to have a problem with others though, like Macs because they use hardware that's incompatible with Windows.
And they're doing this to keep from losing any advantage to Linux so that they don't have to work on Windows to bring it up to par with Linux. "Get rid of the good stuff so the people won't have any choice but to buy ours" sums up MS's strategy exactly.

Well, sorry for the rant. Good night, people.

[shadowrider]

Originally posted by 3eyes
The reactivation thing on Windows XP is the problem. I don't know how many times I've read on the internet that MS refused to reactivate a perfectly legal (i.e., the buyer could actually proove they paid for it) copy of Windows XP. And in a way all the piracy of XP is their own fault - if they'd produced a quality, finished OS instead of selling unfinished betas like Win 98 and (especially) ME, millions of people who already had Windows wouldn't bother to pirate the latest version. Believe me, I understand their viewpoint, my computer came with ME; I had to pirate my friend's copy of Windows 2000 just to make my computer work *at all.* After all, I paid for a copy of Windows and it didn't work - it would crash on start up or freeze as soon as I opened an application - so why should I pay for another copy?


i personally think if they'd decrease the cost for their software, people would start buying their products legally. well, they would still use it since not many people (for regular home users) know too much how to install other os to their computers....eventhough it crashes or for whatever reasons.


What's funny to me is that all the stuff about XP being so great is
hype. Better graphics? Use the same games on the same computer with 98 or 2K. Doesn't look any different. Stability? No more than Win 2K. Program compatibilty wizard for Windows 98 apps and games? In 2 years I've only tried one game out of about 200 that didn't work on Win 2K and again, I don't know how many times I've read that such-and-such doesn't work on XP but the same thing works fine on my Win 2K machine.

i'm not sure about xp being better than other windows versions because of the graphics. it should depend on the drivers. but one thing for sure, xp wasn't built for gaming. it really depends on one's hardware configurations and compatibality. like win 2k didn't like my system, and turned out that xp was the best choice for mine. it was more stable than other versions i've run so far. again, no os is perfect.

[glussier]

I don't know how many times I've read on the internet that MS refused to reactivate a perfectly legal (i.e., the buyer could actually proove they paid for it) copy of Windows XP. And in a way all the piracy of XP is their own fault


If these guys did what you did with win2k and bootlegged their copy of winxp to some of their friends, no wonder why Microsoft doesn't want to reactivate winxp.

[DMR]

OK folks,

Instead of focussing on real technological issues, this thread has turned into yet another pointless MS/MS vs. [insert your OS of choice here] discussion. We've been there; we've done that (countless times before).