Microsoft Hatred FAQ

robic0 at yahoo.com robic0 at yahoo.com
Thu Oct 20 12:22:34 CEST 2005


On 14 Oct 2005 19:01:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <xah at xahlee.org> wrote:
I think this guy should run for President. Anybody says M$oft 
is trying to screw the little guy is "alright" in my book.
>Microsoft Hatred, FAQ
>
>Xah Lee, 20020518
>
>    Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are
>not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true.
>
>Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by
>heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth.
>Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be
>right.
>
>Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it
>is better to put some effort into it.
>
>How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the
>issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of
>Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can
>go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and
>rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you
>are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different
>because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you
>put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then
>obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out
>that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you
>are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your
>interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air.
>
>When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my
>wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error
>or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable
>things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones.
>
>    Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's
>not monopoly, i don't know what is.
>
>A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have
>the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors
>looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as
>decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers
>and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the
>perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra
>time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well.
>
>    Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are
>forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use
>Mac/Linux/UNIX?
>
>A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have
>decisions that you liked.
>
>    Q: What about MS buying out all competitors?
>
>A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them.
>They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe.
>Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them.
>It's nothing like under gunpoint.
>
>    Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's
>applications or OSes.
>
>A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to
>the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT
>or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and
>network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the
>opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all
>OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft!
>
>    Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free,
>using their “monopoly” power to put Netscape out of business.
>
>A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to
>give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating
>Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun
>Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to
>bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free.
>
>Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every
>version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually
>bought out by AOL and still shit.
>
>• Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01,
>industry shock
>http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html
>
>• Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ.
>http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html
>
>• AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion.
>http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet
>
>• Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04
>http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html
>
>• suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery
>http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/200004,greg_knauss_netscape.zip
>
>• Xah Lee, Netscape Crap
>http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt
>
>    Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in
>their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS
>while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace &
>Extend to lock out competitors.
>
>A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits
>over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment).
>Now, lots of “standard” protocols in the industry is a result of
>popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from
>being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the
>truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve
>these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the
>incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would
>adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a
>commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my
>improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or
>SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same,
>not that they haven't.
>
>Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot
>see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid
>protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple
>fanatics are simply chronically fanatic.
>
>    Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security.
>
>A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is
>measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes
>suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers
>will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This
>can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well:
>
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g.
>ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd,
>login, rsh, rlogin.)
>
>• on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001.
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/buffer_overflow.html
>
>• Fast Food The UNIX Way:
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_fastfood_dir/fastfood.html
>
>• Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/
>
>• The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at
>http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html
>
>and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how
>fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just
>technically slacking in the “security” department, but the unix
>ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic
>to discuss.
>
>The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire
>system and “philosophy” created an entire generation of incompetent
>programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a
>few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in
>history combined. See also:
>
>• Responsible Software License:
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html
>
>    Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality.
>
>A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority
>of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then
>competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices
>(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game
>titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their
>technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications
>(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s).
>
>e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony
>Playstation 2. (2002-02):
>http://www4.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q1/020204/index.html
>
>the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser &
>MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s.
>
>    Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and
>basically at the end fucked Be up.
>
>A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java,
>No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical
>purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes.
>Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime
>technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by
>refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis
>Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom?
>
>    Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart.
>
>A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot
>find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what
>you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free
>to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not
>rape the morning after.
>
>    Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research
>over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an
>OpenSource advocate, i demand free things.
>
>A: •
>http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm
>(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism)
>
>http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html (The
>Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03)
>local copy
>
>    Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What
>do you suggest to begin with?
>
>A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell:
>http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/jdini/basic_economics.html
>
>    Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for
>what you say?
>
>A: No. But I put my reputation in.
>-------
>This post is archived at:
>http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/mshatredfaq.html
>
> Xah
> xah at xahlee.org
>? http://xahlee.org/




More information about the Python-list mailing list