-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
____/ High Plains Thumper on Saturday 25 Jun 2011 20:28 : \____
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> SomeBloke on Friday:
>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>> Sinister Midget on Friday:
>>>>
>>>>> Everybody at MICROS~1 is a salesman, not a technical person. They
>>>>> want to talk about feeeeeeeeeeeeechures of the new or up and coming,
>>>>> not what's wrong with what you're already trying to use.
>>>>>
>>>>> They got rid of all of their technical people. No money to be made.
>>>>
>>>> Many Azure execs jumped the ship. Now it's time for it to sink along
>>>> with other products belonging to this division which loses billions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Here's a link to a website you may know.
>>>
>>> A very interesting read none the less.
>>>
>>> http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS.html
>>
>> Yes, he used to post here. Top man.
>
> I found this summary statement rather apt:
>
> [quote]
> Bottom line: things are bad
>
> In spite of what Microsoft's sales droids would have us believe, the facts
> speak for themselves: developments at Microsoft are solely driven by
> business targets and not by quality targets. [...]
> [/quote]
>
> Here is a very damning and concise statement on Microsoft products:
>
> [quote]
> Microsoft products are immature and of inferior quality. They waste
> resources, do not offer proper options for administration and maintenance,
> and are fragile and easily damaged. Worse, new versions of these products
> provide no structural remedy, but are in fact point releases with
> bugfixes, minor updates and little else but cosmetic improvement. Recent
> versions of Microsoft products are only marginally more secure than those
> that were released years ago. In fact, if it weren't for additional
> security products such as hardware-based or Unix-based filters and
> firewalls, it would be impossible to run an even remotely secure
> environment with Windows.
> [/quote]
>
> and the coupe de grace:
>
> [quote]
> MS products are bloated with an almost baroque excess of features, but
> that's not the point. The point is that they are to be considered harmful,
> lacking robustness and security as a direct result of basic design flaws
> that are in many cases over a decade old. They promise to do a lot, but in
> practice they don't do any of it very well. If you need something robust,
> designed for mission-critical applications, you might want to look
> elsewhere. Microsoft's need for compatibility with previous mistakes makes
> structural improvements impossible. The day Microsoft makes something that
> doesn't suck, they'll be making vacuum-cleaners.
>
> Besides, 63,000 known defects in Windows should be enough for anyone.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.vanwensveen.nl/rants/microsoft/IhateMS_2.html
>
> The only thing that has kept people from the truth is their propaganda
> machine, Microsoft Evangelism.
That machine has been weakening.
> [quote]
> There is a section on evangelism steps to take to build support, which he
> calls guerilla marketing, or "The Slog" and and that's the section that
> includes using supposedly "independent" analysts and consultants:
>
> Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto
> standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the
> scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and
> damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the
> Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your
> technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them).
> "Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give
> conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our
> behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology,
> available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should
> be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent"
> courseware providers should start profiting from their early
> involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage
> should be sought and turned to our advantage.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
>
> Further quotes from Microsoft Evangelism Document, note "lurking on
> newsgroups". It makes you wonder why the likes of flatfish, socks and
> henchmen stalked Roy Culley, Roy Schestowitz and even me throughout our
> haunts in cyberspace, making note of all our activities, the stalkers.
>
> [quote]
> Gathering intelligence on enemy activities is critical to the success of
> the Slog. We need to know who their allies are and what differences exist
> between them and their allies (there are always sources of tension between
> allies), so that we can find ways to split 'em apart. Reading the trade
> press, lurking on newsgroups, attending conferences, and (above all)
> talking to ISVs is essential to gathering this intelligence.
> [/quote]
>
> and here to, "Just keep rubbing it in, via the [...] newsgroups, whatever."
Yes, but they are losing this battle.
> [quote]
> In the Mopping Up phase, Evangelism's goal is to put the final nail into
> the competing technology's coffin, and bury it in the burning depths of
> the earth. Ideally, use of the competing technology becomes associated
> with mental deficiency, as in, "he believes in Santa Claus, the Easter
> Bunny, and OS/2." Just keep rubbing it in, via the press, analysts,
> newsgroups, whatever. Make the complete failure of the competition's
> technology part of the mythology of the computer industry.
> [/quote]
>
> Here's the bottom line for damage control:
>
> [quote]
> We want to place selection pressure on those companies and individuals
> that show a genetic weakness for competitors' technologies, to make the
> industry increasingly resistant to such unhealthy strains, over time.
> [/quote]
>
> It also explains why the soiling of reputations, the libellous language,
> the hope of seeding search engines in attempt to destroy "the enemy".
>
> If I am reading this correctly, this appears to be another Microsoft
> Evangelism tactic when it came to their ODF translator in Microsoft Office:
>
> [quote]
> But did Microsoft really follow the standard to the letter? Rob Weir
> points out this, and since I've provided the link to ODF v1.1, you can
> check his words:
>
> Excel 2007 SP2 does not write out document[s] that conform to the ODF
> 1.1 standard. The ODF 1.1 standard requires cell and cell range
> references to be in a particular notation. Excel does not adhere to
> the required notation. See any document written out by Excel 2007 SP2
> and compare to the ODF standard, sections 8.1.3 and 8.3.1.
>
> Jomar Silva, who attended the BRM for Brazil and is with ODF Alliance,
> read Weir's article and here is his description of what Weir found:
>
> The technical details are all on Robâs blog, but in summary, when
> opening an ODF spreadsheet (.ods file) using Office 2007, it simply
> removes all existing formulas without telling anything to the user,
> leaving only the values in cells (results of formulas evaluation,
> previously stored in the document). If a user wants to test the ODF
> support in Office, and without giving due attention, save an existing
> spreadsheet, will overwrite the document removing all the formulas (as
> if you were writing a table). I saw absurdities in life, but nothing
> compared to this.
> [/quote]
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2009050712493241
>
> OpenOffice, derivatives and ODF standard needed stamping out as "an
> unhealthy strain", because it competed with Microsoft Office technologies.
> Microsoft does not want any other product used except for theirs. As
> anti-competitive as it is, their methodologies for cyber domination really
> stink.
People move to Web-based replacements, too.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Dr. Roy S. Schestowitz (Ph.D. Medical Biophysics), Imaging Researcher
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU/Linux administration | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Editor @ http://techrights.org & Broadcaster @ http://bytesmedia.co.uk/
GPL-licensed 3-D Othello @ http://othellomaster.com
Non-profit search engine proposal @ http://iuron.com
Contact E-mail address (direct): s at schestowitz dot com
Contact Internet phone (SIP): schestowitz@xxxxxxxxx (24/7)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk4G9W4ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5gxgCgj9D3Eu/uMOfqiwrFGgJdfYN/
CNkAnRyJ8oXNPUYo1XLs/6O4yC5mAfBX
=Fwf/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
