"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1648880.EMlDDnVPHD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
__/ [ Oliver Wong ] on Thursday 24 August 2006 20:50 \__
Trust me, there's not much one ought to do to
prove that Microsoft is unethical. It is, after all, an
already-convicted
monopolist.
Microsoft is interested in maintaining public image, at the very
least.
I doubt it. Microsoft has the customer locked in. And its actions suggest
that unethical behaviour is only stopped when the legal threat makes it an
investment that is no longer worthwhile.
Sometimes Microsoft will change its behaviour due to negative publicity:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.linux.advocacy/msg/a3ad728aaafb444c
<quote>
I'd have to retract the OP because, as of a few hours ago, Microsoft Watch
claims that APC's claims were false. However, judging by Jo Foley's tone, I
suspect the claims were true at the time, but the damage (public disclosure
through Digg and other sites) changed the plan. It may not be the first time
plans are alterred due to negative publicity.
</quote>
I think you have the perception that everyone just accepts that Microsoft
is unethical due to the crowd you hang out with just like the way I had
the
perception that everyone just accepts Linux is difficult to use due to
the
crowd I hung out with. I think if you raise a stink, Microsoft may react.
I'm just not sure yet what its reaction will be. Anyway, it was just a
thought.
I suggest you have anoher look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc4MzqBFxZE
I don't see the relevancy.
I checked a few minutes ago and 12tenets.com is available if anyone
wishes to purchase it.
Wow! Microsoft bought a domain for a fiver. That must mean that the Tenets
will be taken seriously. *rolls eyes*
I'm saying that domain *IS* available. As in, Microsoft has not
purchased it. As in, *WE* can purchase it and use it as an advocacy platform
for pointing out when and where Microsoft has failed to follow its own
tenets.
For what it's worth, the tenets have
already been broken multiple times since.
Right, and I'm saying we should document these cases. Assuming Microsoft
is malicious (an assumption I'm sure most of you will grant me), one of the
reasons Microsoft may be breaking these tenets so readily is that it
believes no one (important) is watching them. Well, let's start watching
them, and documenting what we see, so that the public at large will know how
meaningless these tenets are. Again, I claim that some people still believe
that Microsoft is adhering to its tenets. Let's show them the truth.
[...]
PS - Groklaw retains many such lists, which include backing in the form
of
links and documents.
To be honest, Groklaw looks too dry to be used as a decent vehicule
for... I don't know what to call it... Anti-Monopolistic Behaviour
Advocacy
for the Masses?
Groklaw presents "the search for truth". And if for one moment you think
that
SCO's claims are /not/ made up, then I label you a Microsoft and SCO
apologist. Groklaw takes pride in a sophisticated crowd and community.
I was not commenting on the truthfullness of Groklaw. I'm just saying
Groklaw is *boring*. Meaning it's not effective for advocating to the
masses. Consider the Spread FireFox campaign. What do you think will attract
more converts from IE:
(A) FireFox is standards compliance. IE is not. Standars compliance is
important because [bla bla bla]
(B) Never be bothered by pop-ups again.
While I fully agree with (A), I simply think it's not an effective
message for FireFox advocacy. (B) is good because it's a concern many people
have, and it's short, sweet and to the point.
Similarly, while I fully agree with Groklaw that (grossly simplified)
SCO is evil, I really believe that too much background information will need
to be given to get the average consumer to give a damn. Meanwhile, if we
just copy Microsoft's 12 tenets, and list every violations of them, that's
much easier to digest than, say, transcripts of court readings followed by
legal analysis.
- Oliver
|
|
