RE: M$ Getting Better?

["Eric Paynter" <eric () arcticbears com>]

On Mon, June 21, 2004 1:49 pm, joe said:
> You realize of course this is silly? You start off with saying that the
> majority needs to realize that they shouldn't be using MS because they are
> bad and that they hold majority because they are criminals and do bad
> things and that people should go buy something that isn't MS. Then you go
> on about how ANYONE who holds majority is a bad thing.

How about both are true? I don't do business with criminals and I believe
we need more divesity in our computing environments. Why is it silly to
hold both beliefs?

I trust MS about as much as I trust the drug dealer on the street corner.
Both make their living by breaking the law. With that, I can conclude they
will do anything to make a buck, which leads me to wonder what happens to
my goods when I'm not looking. So I play it safe and do business with the
people who are completely transparent. I can inspect the goods at any
point in the production line and I feel confident in the quality.

As far as diversity, I thought it was fairly common knowledge that it
leads to strength. It's like the gene pool. If everthing is too similar,
one virus wipes out an entire species. With sufficient diversity, a
population is barely affected.


> Will you just continually run around complaining about whomever is on top?

I will continually suggest we need more diversity if there is one player
with 90%+ market share. Even if it were my OS of choice, I would still be
very concerned.


> What is it that you really want, diversity of choices, no one to get
> too far ahead of anyone else

Yes, that's part of it. You're getting it now.


> or you don't want MS to be in the market at all?

Yes, that too. I know I'm dreaming here, but I'd like to live in a world
where success doesn't always come on the coat-heels of deceit.
Unfortunately, it seems to be the way of things in the modern world.


> The middle is very difficult given normal markets unless there is
complete > and total and easy interaction between the competitors with
no clearly
> better product in any category including price, security, and
> functionality.

Ah, yes. Like the Unix systems. Each has it's strength, but overall, they
are very similar. I use several of them in my daily life - primarily Linux
and FreeBSD. But sometimes others. I think we would have a nice even
distribution of them all if MS wasn't busy stamping things out wherever it
can.


> if it got very bad and MS was as evil as you say they are

I don't think I said "evil". But anyhow, are you suggesting they haven't
been fined hundreds of millions of dollars for breaking the law?


> they could simply buy Red Hat and SUSE set the developers up writing Mine
> Sweeper 2.

The problem with open source software, though, is that there are always
more people willing to fill in the gaps. Even the mighty MS can't affort
to hire that many people. Oh, and they would still code their open source
software in their free time. MS can't win the battle that way, they know
better than to try. Instead, they fill the market with myths about the
problems of open source software and they try to have laws made that will
prohibit or discourage people from making it. They certainly know where to
spend their money, because it's working quite well.

-Eric

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html