Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[Roel Schroeven]

John Bokma wrote:
> Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> 
>>John Bokma wrote:
>>
>>>Roel Schroeven <rschroev_nospam_ml at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>>But that's not the point; the point is that they have the choice. 
>>>>If MS had it its way, they wouldn't have that choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>I doubt that. But even if you're right, do you really think that MS
>>>is the only evil company on earth working like this? Do you really
>>>think that companies like Disney, Sony, Intel, AMD, Apple, etc work
>>>any different?
>>
>>No, I do not think that MS is the only company that uses shady
>>tactics. Also I didn't use the word 'evil', since I think it is too
>>strong for what even MS does. But the fact is that MS is convicted for
>>abusing its monopoly position.
> 
> 
> If just one got convicted it means that some got away with it, and still
> am. 

I'm not going to answer this one anymore. Other companies use shady
tactics too, I already said that, but we're talking about MS now.

>>>>Thousands and thousands of website work perfectly in all of the
>>>>aforementioned websites right now.
>>>
>>>Maybe you define perfectly different then me, but have a look at the 
>>>Acid tests for example. Even between minor versions of for example 
>>>Firefox, or Opera there are differences in rendering. I won't call
>>>that perfectly, but maybe because I am a programmer.
>>
>>Differences in rendering are perfectly acceptable on the World Wide
>>Web. 
> 
> 
> Not the differences I am talking about. There is ambiguity in for
> example the CSS working drafts (or recommendations, too lazy to check
> their current state). Maybe check out what the acid test is (actually
> there are two IIRC). Also, wonder why if the differences I am talking
> about are "perfectly acceptable" why some are fixed between different
> versions (e.g. Opera). 

I know what the ACID test is. I also know that we're talking about the
browser wars and that those date from long before the ACID tests were
created.

>>>Others just pick Intel, because it's Intel. The same is happening for
>>>MS. People just buy MS, they don't care that it's cheaper (or maybe 
>>>"cheaper") to install Linux + OpenOffice (for example). MS, so it's 
>>>good.
>>
>>Popularity is not the same as quality.
> 
> 
> Did I state such a thing?

That's what I gathered from "People just buy MS, ... . MS, so it's
good." Maybe I misunderstood, in which case I apologize. Still, doesn't
matter since it also is completely besides the point.

> Moreover, quality doesn't (in general) sell in
> this world. If you think so, wake up.

I'm very well aware of that.

> Or do you really consider the Linux desktop (any of them) quality? 

Actually yes. Are they better than MS's desktop? Depends on one's needs.
If I didn't need MS for my job, there's a very big chance I would only
use Linux. Or MacOS X.

>>I still fail to see your point. The original issue was the browser
>>wars. Tim Roberts wondered why Microsoft went through the efforst of
>>dominating the browser market, even if they don't make any money on
>>IE. David Schwartz gave the answer: MS did it to prevent the OS from
>>becoming a commodity, since that would allow users to freely choose
>>their own OS.
> 
> 
> *the* answer? LOL. I doubt it, since David's *the answer* isn't
> happening. As I asked in another reply: can you name several companies
> MS acquired to justify their fears of a major paradigm shift towards
> notworking computing? 

I read that other reply of yours, and David's reply to it. He replied
much better than I could have done, but I agree with what he said so
I'll just refer to his reply.

-- 
If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood
on the shoulders of giants.  -- Isaac Newton

Roel Schroeven