Slashdot Mirror
Cringely On Microsoft Settlement
sandalwood writes: "Robert X Cringley has a new article about the proposed settlement in the Microsoft antitrust case. He includes information on where to write to make your views known (the 'proposed Final Judgement' accepts comments from the public for a period of 60 days after it's been published)."
why not rms? he would be "tough but fair" in enforcing msft's deal, right?
Are you joking, 'foobar'? How is it that at this point in time, you are still saying 'Please leave off with the talk of how the government must stop Microsoft. That's ridiculous.' when the real question is, can EVEN the government stop Microsoft?
I'm not sure how old you are, but when you argue Microsoft (collectively) is not 'evil' in the 'Hitler-Darth Vader-Satan' sense, you're talking like a high school kid who's just discovered Ayn Rand. Is Union Carbide evil, after Bhopal? What makes you class the leader of the Nazi Party with a fictional character and an archetype? It may have escaped your memory but one of those guys was REAL- and after power, just like Microsoft- and didn't think in terms of playing nice with others, just like Microsoft- where do you get off drawing a line in the sand and saying 'OK, this is evil and this is not'?
The rules of the open market ARE at fault here- at least in practice, because as practiced by Microsoft they are cancerous. In completely denying the concept of 'benefit of society' or 'commons' and operating only on the value of maximized local profit they are suboptimal to the point that, taken far enough, they can _ruin_ society, reduce it to a state that resembles totalitarian states. Instead of a government mandating only one overpriced, defective solution for everything, you get no government control- and the same pitiable failure of the market, but this time because any smaller entrant is so easily crushed that there is no sense in underwriting such an effort.
Don't believe me? Write a better word processor than Word, and get someone to underwrite your IPO.
You can't beat a cheater. This would seem obvious, but clearly it's not obvious to you. Your definition of 'business right' strongly resembles racketeering and organized crime- using ALL the possible 'incentives' to seize total control. You seem to be supporting this because it clearly returns the most profit of any business method. However, it's a scorched-earth policy: it destroys the very market you claim to revere! And THAT is why we need government to set rules: in this context rules are like bricks, used to make buildings instead of tents. You can say they're in the way, inflexible, limiting- but you can't build up multiple stories, keep out the cold, resist hurricanes etc. without 'em.
I guess I am just wondering- WHY do you hate rules so? You are over two years old, I trust? Is your sense of morals and ethics also over two?