Why everyone hates microsoft

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-12-21 03:38pm

Just because Microsoft isn't as bad as some of those other companies does not absolve them of the very real issues at hand and is a red herring.

Fashionable Nerfherder · Post by **Fashionable Nerfherder** » 2006-12-21 11:02pm

I'm not trying to absolve Microsoft of any misdeeds. I'm simply pointing out that not everybody hates Microsoft - in fact, many people actually look quite favorably on the company and their products. I'm also trying to point out that corporate high tech is a ruthless business all around, sorry.

Microsoft should be called to task for breaking the law and delivering at times substandard products, but that's about it. While you can say that "Microsoft bribing Novell," "paying off the Indian govt" or "suing the Linux Community" is unethical (and on a purely philosophical level I would agree), almost every big tech company does similar underhanded things. Other tech companies also have de facto customer lock-in with all Fortune 500 companies, from Oracle at the database level to Cisco at the server level. Yet only Microsoft gets the heat for customer lock-in.

As for open-source software being the shining excalibur that will save humanity, the Linux movement is quickly being co-opted by the likes of IBM. I also don't trust that Google will remain a "honest and benevolent company" if their plans for a "virtual desktop" OS become super-successful. But that's a discussion for another thread.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-12-23 07:55am

Dell has gotten flak for being a very bad enviromnental player

Dell was actually rated no. 1 among computer hardware manufacturers earlier this year in terms of environmental friendliness, by Greenpeace. Apple and Lenovo came out last.

IBM is working overtime to co-opt the open source movement for its own business goals.

There is nothing even remotely "evil" about that. From day one, the open source movement has welcomed business involvement, and companies like IBM and Red Hat have been "co-opting" the "movement" for their own "business goals" since the 1990s, and in the process have contributed a massive amount of functionality to FOSS, and at the same time have ensured that FOSS gets the respect and attention that it deserves in the large enterprise. I would argue that IBM's involvement in Linux in its formative years was one of the key levers that resulted in Linux being such a success in the server market.

3. While we're at it, the corporate misdeeds of Microsoft pale in comparison to real corporate evils - Halliburton mercs making music videos of themselves blindly shooting civilians in Iraq; Monsanto driving millions of peasant farmers around the world to starvation; the sweatshop conditions perpetuated by almost every major clothing label; the wholescale ecological devestation wrought by the major energy companies.

Yes folks, when trying to save face for a company, compare it to those icons of corporate evil, the dreaded scheming energy companies, the evil chemical conglomerates, and of course, Halliburton, the nefarious undead Satan of the corporate world. I'm shocked that you didn't mention Enron in the above.

Yet only Microsoft gets the heat for customer lock-in.

No, it doesn't. Since Microsoft has largely removed its head from its posterior on several of the key lock-in related disputes, and considering that a great deal of FOSS software is increasingly interoperable with Microsoft products anyway, from my observations, I see the attention rapidly shifting to Apple with their iPod-iTunes lock in, and in the enterprise, to Autodesk, which in addition to having the some of the most unrealistic licensing fees imaginable ($65,000+ for Alias StudioTools, for instance), is also known for being one of the most interoperability-hostile software companies out there, with its zealous guarding of the .dwg format.

As for open-source software being the shining excalibur that will save humanity,

Only the most hardcore fanboys believe that about Linux. Heck, as far as I can tell, not even Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman view free software as being -that- important. Free software is merely a useful way for companies and individuals to achieve more flexibility in their network infrastructure, and for developers to create ecosystems around their code. When you look at how difficult and costly it can be to produce software in a traditional, closed-source corporate environment, free software offers a more efficient alternative in which different businesses and individuals can essentially share the burden of developing the software.

In a sense also, your two posts exemplify what I personally dislike about Microsoft:

1. Dismissal of the FOSS "movement" as being some sort of socially-oriented, communistic endeavour to save the world.

2. Distortion of reality to make Microsoft and Microsoft products look superior to everything else, when in fact they are at best equal, if not worse, in all key areas.

3. Tireless, moronic rampaging against IBM and how evil/stupid it is. For me, this is one of the most annoying aspects of Microsoft in general, and you and Steve Ballmer in particular. In my opinion, of all the technology companies out there, IBM is least deserving of criticism, since it basically created the computer industry, the computer software industry, and the personal computer industry, and has been a tireless champion of innovation and free software, and additionally (and this is important to me as the manager of a design firm) has, since the 1950s, been one of the strongest advocates of design in the corporate world.

I am, admittedly, an IBM fanboy (I'm writing this post from my beloved ThinkPad, and at my office use IBM/Lenovo monitors and peripherals even on non-IBM computers), but from my perspective, IBM is simply the ultimate company. They're an ancient, well-established enterprise that has created tens, if not hundreds of millions of jobs and sparked major cultural revolutions over the past century, produces some of the finest hardware and software products in the IT industry, is a champion of design, has a reasonably good ethical track record, and is a consistent innovator. Compare that to Microsoft, which has historically treated design as an afterthought, which has usually preferred to buy or copy rather than innovate, which has terrible ethical standards, and which has probably caused more geniune agony and frustration with its products than any other software company outside of the malware industry.

EDIT: I also find it interesting that IBM, with some level of class, refrains from really vigorous Microsoft-bashing in spite of the fact that Microsoft essentially fucked them with OS/2. Also, Sam Palmisiano, to my knowledge, has never thrown a chair at anyone, unlike his Redmond-based counterpart.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-12-23 08:39am

I would argue that IBM's involvement in Linux in its formative years was one of the key levers that resulted in Linux being such a success in the server market.

Indeed. And not just IBM. Other companies.

1. Dismissal of the FOSS "movement" as being some sort of socially-oriented, communistic endeavour to save the world.

Yeah. I remember how Gates ridiculed Open Source as new age communism which seeks to kill "business" when in fact companies in the Open SOurce business have been working with this "Great Communism" and cashing in pretty well. And the customers seem well off with Open Source too.

This is just a childish attack at a successful competitor.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2006-12-23 09:44am

Well, Big Blue has plenty of its own skeletons in the closet. I like them too, but once upon a time they leveraged their monopoly in the computer world in a way not dissimilar to Microsoft. They've changed now, yes, but they're not #1 anymore, either.

RThurmont · Post by **RThurmont** » 2006-12-23 10:46am

Well I think that the important fact about IBM's one time use of proprietary lock-in is the fact that IBM did that, decided it wasn't getting them anywhere, and instead decided to embrace openness and innovation. An amusing aspect though of the earlier years of IBM was an implementation of what I call "Analog Rights Management"-IBM would lease (not sell) two versions of the same tabulating machine, the more expensive of which would run twice as fast as the other option. How did they achieve this? By taking the identical machine and disabling parts of it to make it run slower for economy-rate customers. The crippled machines would apparently make a loud chunka-chunk noise.

Also, Gates's ridicule of open source is indeed idiotic. Red Hat is a $500 million company, IBM has poured about a billion into Linux since the 1990s, and Novell is a $900 million company (yes, a good chunk of that is Netware, but Novell is actively trying to get Netware users to migrate to their SLED/SLES enterprise stack ). There have been allegations that FOSS is not viable as a -profitable- business model, but the recent profitability of Red Hat, combined with the fact that the Linux business of Mandriva has been profitable from day one (it was diversification that forced them into bankruptcy a few years ago, not Linux), in my opinion, disproves this.

To some extent, I actually find regrettable the involvement of non-profit organizations like the FSF and Mozilla in developing free software, in that as long as they dominate large chunks of the FOSS community, it will foster a perception that free software is hobbyist material, that is unfit for business use and cannot be profitably exploted by a business, when, of course, nothing is further from the truth, and a huge ecosystem of profitable businesses exists around free software.

One thing that remains unproven, of course, is whether or not BSD-licensed software development can be a profitable model. As far as I am aware, no one has even tried to do anything really commercial with BSD-licensed code, with most commercial implementations of BSD simply being BSD derivatives relicensed under a restrictive commercial license (see OS X) or with BSD being bundled with server hardware (see PC-BSD, which I use, by the way). Though the name would suggest otherwise, it appears that the one path to open source profitability is a copyleft license like the GPL.

Post by **K. A. Pital** » 2006-12-23 11:42am

I actually find regrettable the involvement of non-profit organizations like the FSF and Mozilla in developing free software, in that as long as they dominate large chunks of the FOSS community, it will foster a perception that free software is hobbyist material, that is unfit for business use and cannot be profitably exploted by a business, when, of course, nothing is further from the truth, and a huge ecosystem of profitable businesses exists around free software.

I view those organizations as essential to support of open standards. It's called "open" for a good reason. Also, the fact that Open Source is a different model of development, not simply a "different software product" requires NCO players and strong communities that attract FLOSS freelancers and BDFLs that control powerful FLOSS projects.

The mere fact that they easily coexist with profitable business is a nail in the coffin of the "Open Source is business-hostile" A-grade bullshit.

One thing that remains unproven, of course, is whether or not BSD-licensed software development can be a profitable model.

My suggestion is that it's a matter of time before someone suits the license for a business. Even if not, the ability to choose between open standards is a strength that proprietary software can't enjoy. It's the freedom of the developer

There have been allegations that FOSS is not viable as a -profitable- business model

Frankly, this has bitten dust a long time ago. I think some proprietary big guns aren't exactly happy about the perspective of strong competition with Open Source and thus fuel criticism through their information channels.

After all, this is only rational for them, as one of the methods of keeping monopolistic power is trashing your competitor in front of the client.