[ale] OT: submit your own anti-trust complaint against Microsoft (trollicious)

[synco gibraldter]

On 12 Sep 2003 at 6:27, Geoffrey wrote:

> Troll??

i suppose so.

> So you don't mind buying a computer with a pre-installed OS that you
> won't use?  You don't mind that fact that their lack of security in
> their systems has permitted worms and viri to take over the internet?

you're right -- i hate that.  i couldn't get ANY laptop vendor to send me a laptop 
without preinstalling software on it.  but i don't blame MS for making dell do that... i 
blame dell for putting windows on there and jacking the price up by $700 or whatever 
they do.  though i'm sure MS loves these kinds of deals, i think the bottom line is that 
dell does it because 1) the markup is outrageous for their volume on windows 
software and 2) most people wouldn't know what to do if they had to install an OS on 
their new machine.  yes i hate it, but blaming ms for it is like a person who refuses to 
wear a seatbelt getting mad at a seatbelt manufacturer for allowing the car 
manufacturer to put it in there by default.  i know this analogy is far from parallel, but 
you can see the absurdity.


> It's okay if they buy their way into university systems and public
> school, poisoning children's views of what a stable, useful computer
> environment should look like?

i think the university systems bought their way into MS -- you think the universities 
are making money from buying ms software?  i don't think so.  i think the university's 
though process was more like: "what OS is used and known by most people?  which 
OS has most of the software used in business [ms office junks, etc.]?"  of course 
they would love to use all linux and pay for nothing, but would all the students happily 
switch over to learn/use linux?  probably not man.  i've tried showing people what 
linux is and how to use it and they have been disinterested.  MS is made for 
monkeys and, unfortunately, we live on a planet of monkeys.

> You have to look at the history of things.  Where would computing be
> now if Microsoft did not have total control of this business?  How
> much more advanced would it be?

this is actually (no offense) your first truly relevant point -- that ms is the 'default' and 
is accepted BECAUSE of their past activities.  but at the same time, linux has caught 
up very quickly and is continuing to catch up.  in the not-so-distant future, we're going 
to see an average, everday, end-user-only person being able to operate linux and do 
all the needed tasks for their job (or at home, even).  but you have to admit that right 
now, there is absolutely no chance that an average person would even know what 
they're looking at working with linux  -- the learning curve is much more steep and 
the GUI is not standard or easily integrated yet.  MS had a huge head start in the OS 
department... linux has caught up VERY quickly and is still gaining ground.  when 
linux surpasses win in usability (and like i said: i don't expect it to be more than a few 
short years), we'll see the shift.  until then, that, in my opinion, is the reason why the 
world is still in windows.

> Companies can not compete with an embedded monopoly.  You're kidding
> yourself if you think Microsoft has the corner on innovation.  There
> operating systems suck. Don't tell me how great XP and 2000 are.  How
> long has it taken them to get that far?  And they still crash, lock
> up, and puke.  Are you looking forward to DMCA controlled Microsoft
> documents?  That's next folks.  You won't be able to open a Microsoft
> document with a non-microsoft product without breaking the law.  You
> think I'm kidding, do the research for your self.

back to the original question -- what do you mean by embedded?  and i don't think 
you can say their OSs suck... yes, they're buggy.  yes they have a million holes -- and 
yet i've had windows 2000 on a machine for years and never had a serious crash or 
malfunction, never gotten a virus/worm.... i mean.... i haven't on my linux machines 
either, but when my friends come over and want to check their email, they head for 
the windows box because linux requires too much overhead knowledge.  with 
windows, it's like everything is designed in a way such that you can be really stupid 
and still do what you're trying to do.

and no, i'm not looking forward to the mess you're talking about there... i'm looking 
forward to linux taking over.  and i know it will.  but i stand by my statement that 
microsoft has made some (conceptually) fantastic software and has brought the pc 
into the home and office.  it's MY contention that without microsoft, pc's would be as 
affluent as macs (not very, though i'm not saying anything bad about mac -- just that 
they're not very widely used).

> As I noted earlier.  It is still quite difficult, not impossible, but
> quite difficult to purchase a computer that does not have Microsoft
> OS. 
>   Laptops are even worse.

damn skippy man... and i won't act like i don't hate that.


> EULAs that permit them to access your computer at there will?  The
> recent windows media player update that gave them permission to remove
> files THEY determined were pirated (RIAA).

> The problem is that they've been doing it so long, people just think
> it's okay.  If you were to put Microsoft into any other business,
> there practices would be completely unacceptable.

i would say that if you put ms in MOST other businesses, serious competition would 
have popped up by now and swatted away their huge market share.  this we clearly 
agree on... but back to our differences:  i think other companies have been unable to 
create competitive software because ms meets user expectations in such a 
complete way.  putting their flaws aside, ms knows their customer, what the 
customer wants, and knows that the monkey-style user is willing to pay money for 
pictures and clicky things.  to compete, someone truly has to do what ms does and 
do it better, which despite my ill feelings for their software standards, i have to admit, 
would be very hard to do.

believe me that i understand your point of view on most of these issues... but i still 
think that ms is successful in what they've set out to do [which is entirely different 
than what linux set out to do].  i look forward to the day when linux can do everything 
that windows can do [and i know that windows will never be able to do all that linux 
can do], but the bottom line is that for user friendliness, ease of learning, and 
software assortment, windows is still ahead.



--    synco gibraldter
--    atlanta, ga
--    synco at xodarap.net
--    key id: 0xC5117E0A