Bashing IT Monopolies
Pupster
Found this interesting article by the Free Software Foundation.
http://en.windows7sins.org/
Even if half of the article was incorrect, misinformed or blatent
scaremongering then there are still areas of concern that reinforces
my worries about the intentions of Microsoft.
Anyone with counter-claims or who wants to defend M$/Windoze may post
here.
Well I am happy to say that our household is Mcrosoft free - oh!
except for a couple of Rescue Disks gathering dust.
Cheers
Martin
PS: A concerning trend is that Google appears to becoming a one-man
Internet Band - is this the next IT Monopoly
Sam Moffatt
through things and some of it sounds quirky. Blaming Microsoft for
introducing the macro virus? I mean, seriously? Or that "proprietary
software is inherently less-secure than free software" is really a
lie. I've seen plenty of open source code that is horribly insecure,
being open source or closed source doesn't change this perhaps the
understanding of the coders does. If we want to step back and talk
about security, Windows NT was certified as C2 compliant where as
Linux which hasn't been classified as being compliant to any
particular level - Windows actually in the strictest sense grants a
level of security that until recently wasn't readily available in
Linux (tools like SELinux have fixed this but this was done by the
NSA). Poor coding can be done by anyone.
Microsoft as a company has clear intentions. It's there to make money.
It does so at times by making unethical and illegal choices which is
to be expected by anyone in power. Tiger Woods is an example recently
of someone in power who did something that was unethical (albeit I
don't think illegal technically). This is why we have laws and
regulations to prevent people from using their power to the greater
detriment of society. Some times it works and in some cases it
doesn't.
But Microsoft represents something much more important to the world,
they represent a group that people can get behind disagreeing about.
Microsoft's existence is a great advantage to the Linux community
because it reminds them how not to act, how not to behave and what
they don't want to be. If Microsoft didn't exist, the FSF would be
doing this against Apple, IBM, HP or any number of other operating
systems vendors who are closed source.
As a curious note, here is a quick list of certified secure operating
systems and their particular level. Microsoft technically has two with
entries for Windows NT and XENIX
(http://www.dynamoo.com/orange/summary.htm).
Many of the claims levelled at Microsoft could be levelled at almost
any other organisation and perhaps even some open source groups are
guilty, particularly of the standards one. One needs to recall where
the OpenDocument format came from - a proprietary competing office
application that got bought out by Sun who then promoted
OpenOffice.org because of their corporate ethos (one that has caused
them to run out of money and basically end up bought by Oracle).
MIcrosoft aren't good and have certainly done some evil things but one
needs to be careful of propaganda on both sides of the fence. But
Microsoft's intentions are clear: to make money.
Sam Moffatt
http://pasamio.id.au
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ToowoombaLinux" group.
> To post to this group, send email to toowoom...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to toowoombalinu...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/toowoombalinux?hl=en.
>
>
Pupster
One thing I have avoided (sometimes not very well), is making direct
criticism of Redmond. However, balance does need to addressed (at
times) as the Marketing machine for Microsoft is highly influential -
and people have a tendency to be "cognitive misers" - Why? Simply we
don't have the inclination or the time to dig deeper. A case in point
is that the majority of doctors were found to be more influenced by
advertising than by pharmacological studies - "Ray Moynihan, Alan
Cassels: Selling sickness: How the world's biggest pharmaceutical
companies are turning us all into patients. Nation Books, New York
2005".
It is to highlight; that asking deeper questions is necessary and not
to take the status quo (and trust) as "Word". Case in point with
Google and Buzz - http://www.news.com.au/technology/google-faces-class-action-lawsuit-over-buzz/story-e6frfro0-1225832075680
What I am NOT saying is that we should live with a case of paranoia -
but that we should be intelligent human beings and ask questions.
BTW. I agree with you that some of the claims appear to be of dubious
nature - but so is Microsoft Marketing.
Cheers
Martin
> Sam Moffatthttp://pasamio.id.au
Pupster
Now I'm happy to have a go at Microsoft - http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/69410.html
-
Again we now see Microsoft consolidating and strengthening it's
position in a new market at the expense of Open Source. It seems
nothing in the IT area is safe from Microsoft.
But from the article it's difficult to ascertain why Amazon has to pay
Microsoft. There's some info that's missing.
mmm - the world's turning into Google's Internet and Microsoft's
Software!
Cheers
Martin
PS. Maybe someone could look into viable alternatives to Google and
bring it to the next meeting.
Pupster
It's always fun to dig up a little dirt on our beloved Microsoft.
take a look at this article -
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/69782.html?wlc=1271658628
Unfortunately I don't think this is an isolated incident involving a
monopolic multinational. I wonder if Microsift will soften this nasty
news with a Marketing campaign showing that they're a caring company.
Cheers
Martin
toady
I think that where the discussion is heading is that while MicroSoft
could be celebrated for some 'things' (in non-geek), it generally is a
testimont to the ecological principle (drawing a long bow here, I
know) that a monoculture - like a monopoly - is a Bad Thing for the
growth and health of the system in which it functions or operates.
MicroSoft saw an early opportunity, got in hardest (if not first) and
what competitors couldn't be weeded out were engulfed, like some giant
amoeba that had forgotten all else but conquest in order to sustain
its critical mass. We could rave about the rise and fall of products
within the jungle that is today's market culture - like BetaMax vs
VHS, Blu-Ray vs whatever - but MicroSoft was given a chance to break
the Empire-cycle mould when it was almost forced to divide into 2
separate companies (think what positive benefits that might have had
for its Quality Assurance process). It refused to yield, and the rest
is history (remember Vista?). You get to that giant amoeba stage then
the only remaining direction is stagnation.
What if the Linux, and even Mac scene now provides MicroSoft with a
viable 'gene pool' with which it just takes all the best ideas? If I
could be bothered looking a Win7 or Internet ExplorerWhatever I
probably would see the cream of Leopard or FireFox shamelessly
appropriated. Not to mention how it now does things under the hood.
(But then I'm wearing really really cheap, rose-coloured spectacles.)
Maybe MicroSoft realizes now that it needs to suffer the natural
challenges of a bit of healthy competition and even parasitism -
perhaps computer viruses and security leaks serve a complicit or even
obligiatory role in the MicroSoft Schema as it learns to "love your
disease, it's keeping you healthy" adage.
The MSFN has loads of threads from community-minded users on how to
update or upgrade Win95 into XP - with hand-carved drivers from
everything including USB2.0 (see here http://www.msfn.org/board/windows-959898seme-f8.html)
- to enable the 'latest' software and hardware to run satisfactorily
on older machines. There's even a quest to have MicroSoft release the
Win98 sourcecode and that I think can only be a Good Thing. From
behind my tinted glasses, MSFN looks like a thriving grassroots
community with parallels to the Linux movement.
I don't think that MicroSoft-bashing has much real use - I think that
is more worthwhile to encourage the fall of the Empire from a positive
frame of mind - supporting the complexities of freedom of choice for
which it can't control the money strings.
Then again, Orwells '1984' didn't end happily, either.
My 2+2=5 pesos,
Toady
Pupster
I agree with the authors in this post. I started this thread as a
contrast to push discussions. One cannot argue the merits of change
without bringing in contrasts, or else you argue in a vacuum. And
that's what it's about - Change.
People will not change unless they have to, or without change they
support something that violates their beliefs, or it'll save money.
Why do you think we put energy saving bulbs in?
To highlight and emphasize a point that meets a criteria that could
result in "some" people accepting change is a good thing. Yes, it
does embrace the negative - but while passive defense worked against
the British Empire in India, I think Marketers have learnt from past
mistakes and could easily jump all over passive defense.
Now let's make this clear - I only highlight this to make a
contrasting case. I have, and always will, primarily emphasized the
positive benefits of Linux and Open Source. But to turn a blind eye
to their carry-on and antipathy toward Linux is to invite disaster -
remember Chamberlain. Also, is not this forum here to educate and
inform people of the happenings of some of the IT giants? They do
turn the IT world whether we like it or not.
It must also be considered that people need make an informed choice.
Look at Microsoft's page-wide advertisements or shop-front size
banners when Windows 7 was released - is this going to be people's
only source of information to make an informed decision? Perhaps, we
occasionally need to shout above the cocophony? Too often have I seen
people accept the status-quo and end up a passive participator to
someone elses decisions. We have become a mesmorize mass ready to
accept pre-packaged truths without questioning or second thought. And
when the 100 monkeys accept that as truth, it then becomes social
norms and a self-fulfilling inevitability - look at the what McDs sell
in mass quantities (many items can't even be classified as food!).
So, to break the paradigm of our IT times - Let's take a big stick and
give the beastie a mighty big whack!
Cheers
Martin
166291
are trying to bring down GNU/Linux.
http://techrights.org/?stories
http://techrights.org/ for the wiki.
Formerly Boycott Novell, also has daily links and whatnot, so it's
kind of a news site nowadays.
Warren Izzard
I note here that their burger buns contain so much sugar they are classified as confectionary....yeeech!! I also read the nutritional/serving info on a bigmac wrapper...if I remember...one serving contains 125% of the suggested daily intake of fat.
Install Macca's and you get Obesety cholestrol diabetes
Install Microsoft and you get Bloat viruses trojans
Linux...."health food" for your computer....,
Warren