Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: The Curious Case of Boycott Novell [Updated]

Verily I say unto thee, that chrisv spake thusly:
> Homer wrote:
>>> a) You still don't understand/believe Microsoft's moral 
>>> depravity, which is why you sympathise with them (ignorance), or 
>>> b) You fully understand how reprehensible Microsoft is, but you 
>>> hold a sympathetic position anyway (malice)
> Brutal, Homer.   8)

Here's the punchline (as yet unpublished):

Verily I say unto thee, that Homer spake thusly:
> Verily I say unto thee, that Jonathan Wong spake thusly

>> I can perfectly well distinguish between who I am and the company
>> that I work for. And please don't deny your attack on my character
>> when you implied that I am either an ignorant fool or a maligned
>> criminal with no morale for taking a job as an evangelist for
>> Microsoft.
> My "attack" was on Microsoft. Questions of your character were just
> that, questions. Your reply has provided the answers.
>> Again, black or white.
> Chanting that meme isn't going to somehow rewrite Microsoft's corrupt
> history, nor justify your indifference to it.
>> I have a passion...
> Yes, I get it. You're enamoured by these corporate gangsters and
> their portfolio of assimilated junk.
>> It ain't no conundrum to be in at all.
> Yes, you've clearly made your choice.
>> Does that sound preposterous to you, Slated?
> Not at all. I understand completely.
>> Don't patronize me with that "technical evangelist handbook"
>> garbage. You know *nothing* about what I do in my job besides just
>> the misinformed and outdated drivel you read on Boycott Novell.
> I wouldn't dream of patronising you, Jon. After all, you certainly
> seem to know what you're doing, so you probably don't need the
> handbook anyway. And my source for "Evangelism is WAR!" (and much of
> the other evidence against Microsoft) was /not/ Boycott Novell, but
> the Iowa District Court for Polk County:
> http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
> Archived here:
> http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/3000/PX03096.pdf
> You do remember the Iowa antitrust case, don't you? How about the US
> DOJ antitrust case, and the EU antitrust case (and possibly another
> pending)?
> Were the judges and prosecutors in those cases /also/ just "spewing
> drivel", or is it only those who advertise these facts, such as
> myself and Roy, who you try to marginalise with this stigma (i.e.
> shut us up)?
> Do you deny any wrongdoing on Microsoft's part?
> Do you deny the severity of Microsoft's wrongdoing?
> In short, are you completely brainwashed?
>> James Plamondon hasn't been with Microsoft for years ... If you
>> want to continue to live in the 90's
> Yes, yes - I know. It's "all in the past", right?
> [quote] If you have been having trouble finding Linux on a netbook,
> you can stop wondering why. I suspected it was being
> monopoly-crushed. Here's the smoking gun, at last, thanks to Dana
> Blankenhorn of ZDNet, who attended a press conference at Computex and
> asked the right question:
> ...
> "In our association we operate as a consortium, like the open source
> consortium. They want to promote open source and Linux. But if you
> begin from the PC you are afraid of Microsoft. They try to go to the
> smart phone or PDA to start again."
> ...
> On Monday, Qualcomm showed an Asus Eee PC using its new ARM
> Snapdragon chips to run Google's Android Linux. From all reports, the
> skinny, little Android-powered netbook looked great.
> So, this was a good day for Asus right? A new ARM-powered Asus
> netbook with Android, the Linux everyone has been talking about, and
> at a price-point that will given Intel's Moblin 2.0 some real
> competition. Wrong.
> The very next day, Asus' chairman, Jonney Shih, after sharing a news
> conference stage with Microsoft corporate VP, OEM Division, Steven
> Guggenheimer, apologized for the Android Eee PC being shown.
> Shih said, "Frankly speaking ... I would like to apologize that, if
> you look at Asus booth, we've decided not to display this product. I
> think you may have seen the devices on Qualcomm's booth but actually,
> I think this is a company decision so far we would not like to show
> this device. That's what I can tell you so far. I would like to
> apologize for that." [/quote]
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20090619161307529
> Those particular "distant past" events occurred just /two months
> ago/.
> Microsoft is still the same old bunch of corporate thugs they've
> always been.
>> You don't think Microsoft believes in interoperability? Fine, don't
>> take Microsoft's word for it, but take Google's (scroll a few pages
>> of results and see).
> Yes, pages and pages of Microsoft promoting their toxic .NET
> technology and protection rackets (a.k.a. "cross-licensing deals").
> Oh, and a few links to OOXML for good measure, Microsoft's not-really
> open "standard" that they had to bribe ISO delegates to vote for.
>> BTW, did you miss it when Microsoft was invited to give a keynote
>> speech at JavaOne this year?
> That doesn't surprise me. Microsoft have taken to gatecrashing
> everyone else's parties these days, to spread their propaganda. Just
> like you did on Boycott Novell. They turned up jeering in a boat at
> the launch of Sony's PS3 too. Should I be impressed or disgusted?
>> It seems like you are one of the only few remaining vestiges left
>> who doesn't believe a company today is willing to embrace
>> interoperability and play nice with each other and doesn't have to
>> give up their business objectives.
> But we're not talking about "a company". We're talking about
> Microsoft. What I "believe" about /other/ companies is quite
> different, and wholly irrelevant.
>> Because companies with limited resources choose to support the most
>> popular desktop operating system on the planet, that is Microsoft's
>> fault. Right. If you believe in economic theory...
> The principle that Microsoft's monopoly is based on "popularity" is
> quite simply a lie, and the documented history of Microsoft's
> corruption proves it.
> You talk about "living in the 90's" as though that history had no
> bearing on current events (quite apart from the fact that this type
> of behaviour is /still/ evident).
> Here's just one of the key moments in the history of Microsoft's
> software becoming "popular":
> [quote] One of the claims by Caldera that Microsoft wanted dismissed
> concerned intentional incompatibilities between Windows and DR-DOS.
> David Cole and Phil Barrett exchanged emails on 30 September 1991:
> "It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top
> of MS DOS or an OEM version of it," and "The approach we will take is
> to detect dr 6 and refuse to load. The error message should be
> something like 'Invalid device driver interface.'"
> Microsoft had several methods of detecting and sabotaging the use of
> DR-DOS with Windows, one incorporated into "Bambi", the code name
> that Microsoft used for its disk cache utility (SMARTDRV) that
> detected DR-DOS and refused to load it for Windows 3.1.
> The AARD code trickery is well-known, but Caldera is now pursuing
> four other deliberate incompatibilities. One of them was a version
> check in XMS in the Windows 3.1 setup program which produced the
> message: "The XMS driver you have installed is not compatible with
> Windows. You must remove it before setup can successfully install
> Windows." Of course there was no reason for this. [/quote]
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/
> Ah, but "it's all in the past", I hear you cry. Then from the other
> side of your mouth you make ingenious claims of "supply and demand".
> The fact is that /these historical events/ are the reason for
> Windows' /current/ ubiquity, and what established Microsoft's
> software as the de facto "standard" was a litany of such events
> throughout the last three decades, designed to first establish, then
> enforce, Microsoft's monopoly. The end result is consumers who are
> mostly ignorant of any alternatives, and those few who /are/ aware of
> alternatives are mostly powerless against Microsoft's racket.
>> I don't understand how someone can claim OLPC was sabotaged by
>> Microsoft.
> Here's the bits you omitted:
> [quote] 
> Why Microsoft Must Control One Laptop Per Child
> Bruce Perens 
> It's a threat Microsoft can't let stand: the entire third world
> learning Linux as children, and growing up to use it. And Microsoft
> is going to get its way.
> It comes after a sudden wave of SCO-like problems for the OLPC
> project. A specious patent lawsuit over keyboards. Board-member Intel
> thrown out of the project for attempting to convince national
> governments to drop OLPC purchases and go with its own (Windows)
> product. First, OLPC is shown what its problems will be if it doesn't
> cooperate with Microsoft. Then, Microsoft approaches with money and
> technical help - you just have to run Windows to get it. [/quote]
> http://technocrat.net/d/2008/1/10/33518/
> [/quote] According to Walter Bender, president of Software and
> Content at OLPC, there is no agreement in place between OLPC and
> Microsoft to offer XO laptops with any version of Windows. Bender
> also indicated that Microsoft has not contacted OLPC regarding its $3
> software bundling program, nor have any governments requested that
> the XO be outfitted with Windows. In short, there is no existing
> collaboration between Microsoft and OLPC aimed at outfitting the XO
> laptop with Windows.
> "We are a free and open-source shop. We have no one from OLPC working
> with Microsoft on developing a Windows platform for the XO.  MS
> doesn't get any special treatment from OLPC," Bender told Ars. 
> [/quote]
> http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2007/05/olpc-project-clarifies-no-plans-for-windows-support.ars
> Microsoft's response:
> [quote] Microsoft announced today that the company is embarking on
> an ambitious program to sell its products to students in developing
> nations. The program, an expansion of the "Microsoft Unlimited
> Potential" effort, will involve selling a bundle of software that
> includes Windows XP Starter Edition, Microsoft Office Home and
> Student 2007, Microsoft Math 3.0, Learning Essentials 2.0 for
> Microsoft Office, and Windows Live Mail desktop, for an average cost
> of $3. The offer will only be extended to qualifying governments that
> purchase and supply PCs directly to students.
> "All human beings deserve a chance to achieve their full potential,"
> said Bill Gates [/quote]
> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2007/04/microsoft-hopes-to-extend-its-reach-with-3-software-bundle.ars
> Translation: Microsoft resorted to dumping in order to inhibit Linux
> adoption, even though this adoption was merely a side-effect of a
> charitable effort. IOW Microsoft sabotaged a charity, for mindshare.
> That's the only "potential" Microsoft aspires to - total domination
> by the annihilation of all others.
> After Microsoft's goons leaned on Negroponte, and Windows suddenly
> became so "vital" to the project, even though no "governments
> requested that the XO be outfitted with Windows", is it any wonder
> that Bender walked out? I would have done likewise.
>> [quote]"It's about getting it into kids' hands," he continued.
>> "Anything that is contrary to that objective, and limits that
>> objective, is against what the program stands for."[/quote]
>> From reading this, I cannot possibly see how the OLPC project was
>> sabotaged by Microsoft.
> That's because you're blindly accepting things at face value, rather
> than asking the all-important question - "why?".
> What "limits that objective"?
> No one was demanding XP on the XO, as we've clearly seen.
> The "limitation" was aggressive competition from Intel (Classmate)
> and Microsoft (Unlimited Potential Programme - a.k.a. The $3 Linux
> Killer).
> What kind of monster *competes with a charity*?
>> I don't care
> That much is painfully obvious.
>> One sensational headline on a Softpedia op-ed piece does not the
>> truth make.
> Softpedia? The primary source of evidence comes from Microsoft
> themselves, as they suddenly became overcome with compassion for the
> poor in the Third World, for the bargain price of only $3 a head ...
> but only /after/ the Linux-powered OLPC made headlines.
>> Of course, everyone will have have to judge for themselves who are
>> the ones gospel-ling the truth, and who are the ones spewing the
>> drivel.
> Said the paid Microsoft propagandist on behalf of a convicted
> monopolist.
> Hmm, that's a tough one.
> Oh well, never let it be said I didn't at least give you the
> opportunity to concede Microsoft's wrongdoing, and thus concede my
> (and others') justification for speaking out against them.
> You are, in fact, a Microsoft bigot.
> But you can take comfort from the fact that you're a reasonably
> /competent/ Microsoft bigot, which is undoubtedly why they hired you
> to act in that official capacity.
> Is that an "ad hominem attack", or a simple statement of fact?
> Here's a parting word of advice, and by all accounts the only one
> you're likely to heed, since you're intractably committed to
> supporting Microsoft: Just make sure you make that clear, right up
> front, in future, as I'm sure Microsoft wouldn't want their new pet
> attack-dog caged for breaking astroturfing laws.


| "The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which
| the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf
| denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty.
| Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of
| the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today
| among human creatures." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Fedora release 8 (Werewolf) on sky, running kernel
 02:46:39 up 57 days,  6:44,  4 users,  load average: 0.00, 0.02, 0.00

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index