General Discussions

**cbwm** · 02-27-2008, 10:10 AM

It seems the EU agrees that Microsoft has, and continues to use unfair practices to pimp it's inferior software.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...q.o&refer=home

You have to love the idea of a 1.35 Billion dollar fine.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-27-2008, 08:50 PM

Whether you like them or hate them, it's beyond debate to say Microsoft is the greatest success in the history of capitalism.

**serandfae** · 02-27-2008, 09:04 PM

They, like Wal-Mart, can afford to pay the fines. That makes them no less criminal.

**cbwm** · 02-27-2008, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Whether you like them or hate them, it's beyond debate to say Microsoft is the greatest success in the history of capitalism.

There are very few things beyond debate

. That said, I won't debate you on the subject, but not necessarily because I believe what you said is true. America is a country full of stories of wealth made from illegal gains (/cough the Kennedys).

I think it is arguable that what Joe Kennedy did, running alcohol during prohibition, was beneficial to the American consumer and economy vs what Microsoft did, which was damaging to both.

**ForrestCroce** · 02-27-2008, 11:11 PM

Unlike prohibition, which cost a lot of people their lives, I don't think anybody has ever died of Windows. They've stifled innovation in some areas, and do what they can to squash competition ... but the stakes are a little less than stray bullets from a machine gun. The Kennedy family's bootlegging was criminally illegal; some of Microsoft's business practices have violated civil law.

Honestly, even Windows 3.1 had more benefit to society than alcohol does. Both get a person 'messed up,' but only one can lead to poison, organ failure over time, beating one's kids, or living on the sidewalk.

I sound like a Windows zealot ... which I'm not. But things are getting a little carried away here. Having an imperfect standard to build a technology infrastructure on is a lot more helpful than harmful, to the economy, the consumer, or any other measure. A perfect operating system will never get out of the design stage ... if nobody ever implemented anything that wasn't perfect, we wouldn't have computers.

**JeremyMiller** · 02-28-2008, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

The Kennedy family's bootlegging was criminally illegal; some of Microsoft's business practices have violated civil law.

In a business class I took in college, one of the definitions proferred to define something as "unethical" was that it was illegal. I threw the class into chaos by simply pointing out that some laws are unethical. When that abominable amendment was passed, it seems that the religious right forgot something:

Quote:

"that they are endowed ... with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" -- US Declaration of Independence (bolding added)

Yep, to secure rights governments are instituted, not to remove them.

Now, I'll never be a defender of MicroSoft, but one has to recognize that by staying in America, they have been some great financiers of our unilateral empire (not their fault that we're a unilateral, conquering dictatorship -- that's The 43rd's doing with the American religious right's blessing in their semi-declared holy war).

Getting off of the slightly-indirect politics of the issue, MicroSoft, like many companies, doesn't want competition. The fact that they've done so well at dominating their competition only makes them fodder for those who want to more heavily tax MS without having to call it a tax, so they throw up the facade of penalizing them for monopolistic behavior. If I were MS, I'd simply introduce a silent trigger into all of the OS's in the areas represented by the financing agency and then shut them all down on the day the payment is due. If the EU wants to wage war, who's in a better position than MS to win? You don't, after all, buy the software, but a license to use it -- is there anything which says that they can't revoke that? They could also claim the higher ground by simply declaring, "Well, EU, you said we were dominating your market, so now we've removed ourselves from it. We have granted you your wish. Enjoy your freedom from our domination." (Yes, for the educated out there, I am a student of Ayn Rand.)

OK. I'm off to do other things on my non-MicroSoft browser (Firefox, of course) and my non-MicroSoft email program (Thunderbird) and my non-Microsoft office suite (Open Office) and continue to look forward to the day I work on my non-Microsoft OS (haven't actually gotten away from that yet, but the possibility does exist and how could that be true if they were a true monopoly?)

**fastreplies** · 02-28-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ForrestCroce

Unlike prohibition, which cost a lot of people their lives, I don't think anybody has ever died of Windows.

What about people who used them to jump

fastreplies

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-28-2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

I think it is arguable that what Joe Kennedy did, running alcohol during prohibition, was beneficial to the American consumer and economy vs what Microsoft did, which was damaging to both.

Grow up with a family of alcoholics (as I have) and you'll realize how incredibly stupid this statement is, and more of the deeply flawed take on reality that you've subjected us to since you got here.

But forget the alcohol for a minute. You claim to be right-wing, and you support a cokehead President who was unemployed for 8 years; yet you want governments to enforce laws on companies such as Microsoft who happen to gain more than the average user. That's about as facsist a proposition as we'll ever come across; a government controlling the capitalistic actions of a corporation, and for someone who should hate government controls as much as you do, this is a really messed-up stance for you to take.

All the EU has managed to do is to reinforce the fact that there isn't a serious competitor to the Microsoft empire. The technical neophyte can lock up Mac OS/X completely in 3 seconds (that's not an exaggeration, either...that's something I saw three weeks). Linux/Unix doesn't have anything that the average consumer is ready for and will accept. And if there's anything else kicking around that's any good, it sure isn't being marketed well.

I think this is the key part of the whole pseudo-article:

Quote:

Brent Williams, a New York-based analyst with Benchmark Co. who recommends investors buy Microsoft shares and doesn't own any himself, said the fine isn't large enough to hurt Microsoft.
"It's not about the financial impact,'' he said. "If Microsoft has $1.3 billion of cash disappearing suddenly off the balance sheet, it doesn't affect their ability to invest in growth at all.''

In other words, if people think that the fine is going to somehow keep MS from doing what it's going to do, they're hitting the bong pipe way too hard as you'd like to put it. You can sit there and throw the MS is evil temper tantrum that most other geeks throw, but it is what it is. Are their products perfect? Hell no. But are there serious competitors with far superior products such that the average consumer would agree? Hell no.

Forrest had the best take on it; anything that is manufactured, programmed, or created by man (or woman, before the ladies get up in my grill) will have flaws. That goes for computers, that goes for their operating systems, that goes for pretty much everything. The only perfect systems out there are the ones that haven't had those flaws exposed yet...but as they grow in size and attract a larger segment of the market share, the flaws end up inevitably coming out to play.

I'm going to say the exact same thing to you that I said the first time I saw you spout off, cbwm...this is the same tired argument that geeks have been trotting out for at least the past 15 years. MS is evil. MS is the big bad butterfly. Everyone use something better.

Reality Check: nothing's changed, and it's not going to if geeks continue to travel the road they're on. The relative lack of acceptance of non-MS products in markets that MS tries to dominate in the mainstream has taught us that. People hate MS because it's big and because it's successful and use whatever flaws it has as a convenient excuse; that's all that it is. We're starting to see the same thing with Google too. Geeks don't like things that grow to be big.

**JeremyMiller** · 02-28-2008, 02:59 AM

I think it's appropriate to share a conversation I had with a client today. As the client hasn't given me permission to share their name, I have edited that out:

Quote:

Jeremy Miller wrote:
> http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/thunderbird/ . It's free and open source. The calendar application is separately managed but can be installed by installing https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/addon/2313 after installing Thunderbird.
>
>
>
> XXXXXX's Original Text:
>>
>> What desktop program do you use for email? My ****ing outlook refuses to send anything to my junk folder – started about 5 days ago.
>>
>>
>>
>>
You should be shot, beaten, whipped and stabbed... for not telling me about this a long time ago... the real test will be when I get up in the morning and check my junk folder.

XXXXXX

Yep, one less user for a MS product. It all happens one at a time! And, I didn't fine MS a penny. Just stole a customer away from them.

**cbwm** · 02-28-2008, 02:46 PM

Adam, you are absolutely right. Lets do away with campaign finance laws and two term limits so that I can have another blessed 4 years of Bush. It is what you propose Microsoft be allowed, and worse yet, you claim it is because they're product is somehow superior. That is where my analogy departs. Unlike Bush, nothing could be farther from the truth.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-28-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

There are very few things beyond debate

.

Maybe, but this is one of them. Unless you're going to tell us that Microsoft didn't amass the largest personal and institutional fortune in the history of capitalism at their peak. Maybe all those billions of dollars were just a lie on the liberal media. Maybe you're telling us Bill Gates doesn't really exist, and Windows is some kind of collective hallucination. There's no telling, you seem really fond of that bong of yours.

And I don't know what your obsession with ancient history in the Kennedy family is. You want to talk about illegal, but Microsoft (the subject of this thread) and the K family pale in significance next to the Bush family's highly questionable dealings with the bin Laden family. Why, after the worst crime in our history, the Bushes flew the bin Ladens out of the country when no American citizen was allowed to fly, out of reach of investigators into that crime scene - this is the type of shame Bush will be remembered for long after he's dead. He didn't do that because of some conspiracy where he caused 9/11. He did it because Bush is more loyal to Saudi Arabia than to America.

Now, back to the thread you're hijacking with your JKF is evil because he was a success, GWB is wonderful because he's a failure message. The goal of Capitalism is ROI. You want to make more profit with less work. Microsoft has undebatable accomplished that, on a scale never before seen in Capitalism. You and Bill O'Reilly can spin that all day long, begging for Big Government to come in and regulate an industry because you don't like the internal workings of some product, but the truth remains.

**CSS4Life** · 02-28-2008, 07:09 PM

cbwm, you seem to contradict yourself slightly on this issue.

The general right wing consensus these days is that we should get rid of big government - let the markets have more control over everything including themselves and deregulate - "the markets know best" et al. Bush agrees with this and as a right wing guy, I'm sure you basically do.

Why is it then that you think Microsoft is beyond all that? That Microsoft should be a special case and be fined for what it's anti-competitive behaviour, by the same "big government" that you and Bush despise so much?

Your beliefs on this topic seems flawed to me

**Learning Newbie** · 02-28-2008, 08:18 PM

I agree with Whym. Conservatives were falling all over themselves to congratulate each other for deregulating the energy market, letting Enron play the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else game, and giving California the finger while emptying everybody in the state's bank account. Why Microsoft should be regulated out of business is anyone's guess, but the notion shows how important consistency isn't.

I'm a big fan of Microsoft. Everything I've seen, heard, and read tell me Vista sucks like a vacuum cleaner. But most of their enterprise level software is spectacular, and a lot of it has no equal. SQL Server is wonderful but in many ways eclipsed by Oracle. The .NET Framework is unparalleled. A seasoned developer can't sit down for 20 minutes and write some PHP code to cache data across all user sessions in a HashTable for quick lookup, or spawn threads to make the user interface more responsive. (Yes, even on the web, that's necessary. You really want to make the client wait for a page to render just because you want to log things about the request?)

But I'm also a big fan of truth, logic, and fairness. Truth = alcohol is more harmful to society than Microsoft is, even now when alcohol is legal. Logic = mediocrity is allowed, and people are allowed to not buy something they don't like. Fairness = nobody wants Big Government to regulate Chevy just because their cars have lousy designs.

**JeremyMiller** · 02-28-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

But I'm also a big fan of truth, logic, and fairness. Truth = alcohol is more harmful to society than Microsoft is, even now when alcohol is legal. Logic = mediocrity is allowed, and people are allowed to not buy something they don't like. Fairness = nobody wants Big Government to regulate Chevy just because their cars have lousy designs.

Forgive me for being a bit pedantic, but those aren't really inequalities. I think you meant that the right is an example of the left, not equal to it. Again, being pedantic, but you are talking about truth and logic, so it's only fair

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-28-2008, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

Adam, you are absolutely right. Lets do away with campaign finance laws and two term limits so that I can have another blessed 4 years of Bush. It is what you propose Microsoft be allowed, and worse yet, you claim it is because they're product is somehow superior. That is where my analogy departs. Unlike Bush, nothing could be farther from the truth.

Bush is superior? What are we comparing him to? He orchestrated one of the largest mass murders in recent memory, so unless there's a dictator out there somewhere with more than 5,000 kills in one day to his/her name, there's no superiority there.

As far as two-term limits, I've never agreed with that either. If someone is believed to be, and voted to be, capable of a job longer than 8 years, I say let him (or her) stay. That wouldn't happen in this case, though; America as a whole is too intelligent for that, and you guys have the advantage of third-party observation of a three-term miserable failure named Jean Chrétien to your immediate north. But that's what "we" voted for (I was ineligible to vote the first time, and I haven't yet voted for the leader in a federal election with any of the four ballots I've cast...so I use "we" loosely).

**cbwm** · 02-29-2008, 08:59 AM

My Lord. Say one nice thing about Bush and watch you guys pile on!

Look, its simple. Regulation!=Socialism and Regulation!=Communism. I'm not a Libertarian, begging for unregulated markets. Even If I were, I wouldn't be a fan of monopolies, which are inherently bad for the economy and the consumers. I can't say for sure, but I imagine most Republican fiscal conservatives are in agreement.

Of course Microsoft now has some quality products (I've pointed out the office suite numerous times). They used the consumers as their beta testers, while the competition was not allowed to compete fairly on a Microsoft operating system. For a fairly long time, Netscape was a superior product to I.E. but I.E. took over for this very reason. The E.U. case I believe is about Microsoft trying to do the same thing with their Media Player product (which I despise). By the way, $1.35 billion brings their total E.U. fine to more than $2.5 billion. Fun Fun Fun.

Learning Newbie, regardless of the wealth created by Microsoft, I'd say the statement remains debatable, and I still won't debate it with you. My time is better spent pushing the right wing agenda

.

That said, here are some fine words in defense of Joe Kennedy. Joe Kennedy saw a market need and filled it. Drug dealers do much of the same these days. So long as that market need doesn't require impinging on the freedoms of others, I think it should be accommodated, and those who fill those needs are fueling an economy. Alcohol, Drugs, and Pornography, thats right. I suppose you could relate the argument to views on government in that Socialists think the government should be the only game in town filling those needs(or failing to do so). I believe there should be healthy competition to fill all these needs which, interestingly enough, increases social mobility.

Let me wrap up by saying, Bush AkBar("Bush is Great"). It is what they say in many parts of Africa.

**Learning Newbie** · 02-29-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbwm

Regulation!=Socialism and Regulation!=Communism.

As long as we're basing our opinions on irrelevant facts, here are a few more.

Sunday != Compaq. Iced cream != oxen. Smiley face != monarchy. FTP != Ethiopia.

**ADAM Web Design** · 02-29-2008, 01:23 PM

Leave it to Beaver != IBM. Death != remote controls.

Wow, look at my facts!

**cbwm** · 02-29-2008, 01:46 PM

Haha! You guys got me. You've made your point. Monopolies are good and Republicans are for them, as well as unfair business practices. I give.

**Cheshire_cat** · 02-29-2008, 01:47 PM

I believe this is the first time cbwm that I will have to disagree with you, and agree with the majority.

I completely agree with what John said

Quote:

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Whether you like them or hate them, it's beyond debate to say Microsoft is the greatest success in the history of capitalism.

I am a fan of Microsoft; I think Bill Gates took advantage of what we call “The American Dream”. They saw an opportunity that no one else saw and that is why Microsoft is the biggest success in computers and not IBM. I don’t know of anything that MS has done wrong, I put the blame (If you think that Microsoft’s’ success is a bad thing) not on how “MS crushed the competition” but rather the arrogance, short-sighted, or poor business skills, of the other companies.

Here is my question why is an American based bossiness paying a fine to EU, if I was Microsoft I would say no thinks I don’t want to pay it, I mean what are they going to do?