Verily I say unto thee, that The Ghost In The Machine spake thusly:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, cc <scatnubbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote on Thu,
> 29 May 2008 14:40:46 -0700 (PDT)
> <d5e50345-3775-450c-809c-54d1d23aa4c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On May 29, 1:44 pm, chrisv <chr...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> Should one be so extreme that one refuses to work with Micro$oft
>>> products, even if it limits one's job opportunities? IMO, no.
>>>
>>> OTOH, with many decisions, Micro$oft's lack of ethics may, and
>>> sometimes should, be a significant factor.
>>
>> So Microsoft's ethics should only come into play if it doesn't
>> affect your bottom line? That's hypocrisy. It's like the people who
>> use selectively use parts of the Bible while ignoring other parts.
[...]
> Since we don't have access to Windows source code and therefore can't
> use all of the Windows "Bible", does that mean no one outside of
> Microsoft has the right to complain about Microsoft hypocrisy at all?
Good catch.
It's ironic that Ballmer should mouth-off about "undisclosed balance
sheet liabilities" when Microsoft have failed to disclose so many of
their own, especially when it comes to issues of privacy and security.
Now /that's/ hypocrisy.
Holding customers to ransom with secrets and clandestine deals, is not
quite the same thing as a moral obligation to cooperate with the vendor,
in much the same way as having a gun to one's head is not exactly a
moral obligation to capitulate with the attacker's demands.
As a vendor of commercial; closed-sourced products, it is Microsoft that
has an obligation to their /customers/, not the other way round.
And those unlucky enough to find themselves working somewhere that is a
Microsoft closed-shop, are merely victims of circumstances (the specific
circumstance being Microsoft's monopoly, that ensures the ubiquity of
Microsoft's products spreads everywhere, like a disease), /not/
necessarily willing participants.
People receive money in exchange for the /work/ they do ... /not/ for
the "privilege" of using a specific /tool/ to accomplish that work. An
employee's obligations begin and end with that work. He owes the tool
maker nothing beyond the retail price of that product, which he (or his
employer) has presumably already paid. That concludes the full extent of
his obligations to the vendor.
I have to laugh at those who are deluded into thinking that we all
somehow "owe" Microsoft some unpaid debt. As a company that has done
nothing but threaten; pillage and blackmail the IT world since its
inception, it is Microsoft that owes everyone /else/.
--
K.
http://slated.org
.----
| 'When it comes to knowledge, "ownership" just doesn't make sense'
| ~ Cory Doctorow, The Guardian. http://tinyurl.com/22bgx8
`----
Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel 2.6.23.8-63.fc8
09:10:29 up 161 days, 5:46, 6 users, load average: 0.27, 0.33, 0.36
|
|
