MS Exec Testifies In Favor of OS Manipulation

Niscenus writes: "The NYTimes, where free registration is required, reports that a Microsoft VP, Christopher Jones, explains that Microsoft must be allowed to prevent competitors' programmes from being installed for the consumer's best interest. Most interesting quote: 'In his written testimony, Mr. Jones said the states' proposals would confuse consumers, enabling competitors to cover up icons like the "Start" button on the Windows desktop screen that consumers use to navigate and even allowing a competing operating system like Linux to start up instead of Windows.' Any dualboot LiLo user who learned they can't defrag the hard way can understand this ..."

Comments

Re:Well. That throws me off the fence.

[zangdesign]

Oh, so Microsoft is not allowed to make decisions on behalf of the users, but the open source community is?

Give me a break.

This is a common practice on all operating systems and in all software, whether you like it or not.

Re:The Soviet Union was Good

[doorbot.com]

Come to papa Gates, he'll take care of you, just like papa Stalin did before.

That's a bit overboard, don't you think?

Stalin killed millions of his own people. Gates sells software.

I know that you want to paint Microsoft et al in a negative light, but at least have some taste.

Re:socialist, eurotrash, fucktards

[B.J. Blazkowicz]

Fuck you American imperialists, capitalism is evil!

C'est la lutte finale
Groupons-nous et demain
L'Internationale
Sera le genre humain

Let's All Bash MS Because It's "Cool"

[TrancePhreak]

Did any of you think for a moment that maybe they're trying to protect us from something horrible with the comment about the Start Button? What if your start button/menu was replaced with an ad. That'd get old fast, but it's all completely possible. I know companies like Gateway would love it. Okay, now let's take it a step further and say that all your windows now have built in ads. That gets old even faster, but it's still within the realm of possibility.

As far as the other OS's being installed, I agree that they should not be able to say that Windows is the only thing that can be installed, but I do think that they should not have to support a computer that has something else installed that they do not make. You expect MS to walk computer illiterates through a Linux problem? You must be joking. You have to think about it from a technical standpoint, it's just not good.

At least MS is better than Apple, they allow you to choose your hardware. Apple seems to have been more monopolistic as to what they allow on/in their hardware/software. They even ignored developers for a long while. Look where this has lead them, into the slumps. They no longer develop an OS, but an OS theme. They sue people for things that look too similar to theirs.

Phreak Out