[ale] OT Microsoft now favors fair competition

[Geoffrey]

Joe Bayes wrote:
> Geoffrey typeth:
> 
>>Joe Bayes wrote:
>>
>>>Geoffrey typeth:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>You may find it humorous, I do not.  Your comments such as these belie 
>>>>that I see you as a M$ sympathizer.  Hardly, but anyone who has anything 
>>>>good to say about M$ is poorly informed, or worse, too much like M$. 
>>>
>>>
>>>Now, that's not fair. I loathe Microsoft's business tactics and buggy
>>>software as much as the next guy, but saying that there's *nothing*
>>>good about them is misleading and wrong. Counterexamples: Last I
>>>checked, Microsoft made pretty good mice and keyboards.
>>
>>I've had one M$ mouse, it crapped out after 6 months.  Whatever.  That 
>>is not a reflection of their 'good.'  
> 
> 
> One counterexample is not sufficient to disprove my statement. I'm
> sorry you got a bad one, though. 

Regardless, it's a non-issue as it doesn't address the original thread.

> 
> 
>>And how many of those devices are designed to leverage their
>>operating system?  Oh, now we see why they make hardware...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant, except that it serves to point out my initial point. The
> fact that they may have sinister motives for making good mice, doesn't
> change the fact that they make good mice. 

Again, non-issue, not related, other then the fact someone provide it as 
an example of something M$ does good.  That's not the issue.

> 
> 
> 
>>>MS has been
>>>known to give money to various worthy causes.
>>
>>Do your research further.  Why?  They donate to libraries and schools to 
>>get their products in the door.
> 
> 
> I don't need to do more research; the fact that they donate is
> sufficient to prove my point. The fact that they have ulterior
> motives, or that the money was attained using less than scrupulous
> means, is irrelevant to the fact that they donate. 

The issue at hand is how they do business, so it's terribly relevant. 
If you don't care where the funds come from they or their purpose behind 
the donations, then you ought not be replying to the thread, as that's 
the issue here.

> 
> 
>>The ONLY reason M$ does ANYTHING is to extend their market.
> 
> 
> Duh. I already told you I'm no fan of their "corporate morality"; why
> lecture me on it? 

Because you missed the point of the whole thread.

> 
> 
>>>The awful things that they have done may *outweigh* the good things
>>>that they have done, but those bad things don't erase the existence of
>>>the good things.
>>
>>Again, I challenge you to do the research.  Provide information where 
>>Microsoft has done ANYTHING simple because it's either the right thing 
>>to do and I assure you if you dig deep enough, you'll find the truth.
> 
> 
> Their reasons are irrelevant (and I charge $50/hour for irrelevant
> research ;). If their sole reason for making good mice was as part of a
> sinister plan to destroy the world, they'd still be making good mice.

It's not relevant to the original thread.  I threw out my only 
experience with such hardware in response to the original reference to 
it.  My bad, as it's not the issue here.

If you'd like to respond to the original issue, by all means do so, but 
forget the bloody mouse, I'll give you that, they make a good mouse, 
which I'm taking solely on your experiences, and ignoring mine.

Speak to what they do that is morally correct, with the right intentions 
and we can discuss this further...

> 
> --joe
> --
> Joe Bayes -- jbayes at spoo.mminternet.com
> 
> 


-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific company to listen
to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet (anymore...)?


---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.