Microsoft Tops Corporate-Reputation Survey

Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "Microsoft beat out Johnson & Johnson for the top spot in the annual Wall Street Journal survey of the reputations of U.S. companies. Bill Gates's personal philanthropy boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft, helping to end J&J's seven-year run at No. 1. From the article: 'Mr. Gates demonstrates how much the reputation of a corporate leader can rub off on his company. Formerly chief executive officer and now chairman of Microsoft, he contributed to a marked improvement in the company's emotional appeal. Jeanie Cummins, a survey respondent and homemaker in Olive Hill, Ky., says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft. "He showed he cared more for people than all the money he made building Microsoft from the ground up," she says. "I wish all the other big shots could do something like this." To be sure, some respondents still complain that Microsoft bullies its competitors and unfairly monopolizes the software business. But such criticism is less biting and less pervasive than it was just a few years ago.'"

Comments

About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's about time this company was recognized for all the good they bring to our world.

Re:About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. Microsoft is helping to end world hunger. Since the B&M Gates Foundation started giving away a few full priced drugs here and there, many clinics and health centres in Africa that would normally receive aid and assistance from many charities are being left with almost nothing.

Bill Gate's personal quest for sainthood is costing the lives of thousands of innocent people.

Re:About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Care to elaborate?

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

Not to mention that they hold refugee children hostage

It would have been nice if the parent poster had included an example (maybe with a link) of a clinic 'left with almost nothing' just the same.

Re:About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft"

D'OH!

"It's about time this company was recognized for all the good they bring to our world."

Double D'OH!

I love how the zombies out there never do any research. Gates' philanthropy started immediately after the big cout snafu. The video of Gates acting like an ego-centric a-hole while under oath was incredibly telling about Gates and Microsoft. It has taken years of PR and philanthopic hype to get past this! There is still more to this story, but I will leave that as an exercise.

Re:About Time!

[atanas]

Irony doesn't convey well online. I almost took your comment seriously.

Re:About Time!

[Walt Dismal]

Jeanie Cummins... says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft. "He showed he cared more for people than all the money he made building Microsoft from the ground up," she says."

Sad how many people don't realize that a lot of the Gates charity money is going from one pocket to the other. Some of his charity is actually a shell game. Though the foundation gives money for vaccines, because Gates has substantial ownership in some of the vaccine manufacturers the corporate profits go back to him. But he gets plenty of good PR out of it. Just plain nasty, the whole business. Millennia from now, space travellers to Earth will look over the ruins and say "Boy, were these creatures stoopid." Well, okay, they won't say THAT, they'll actually say "Zxaknow prddd ksssik f'tooey! Billgates fskng genius!" But it amounts to the same thing.

Re:About Time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! good things like stealing ideas from OSS and filing a patent for it (multiple desktops is one example). Or how about selling a super duper unstable OS for $600. Good things... bah!

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

Wow, that link should read 'charity attempts to extort money from Microsoft', instead. From your link:

Microsoft will only donate money towards refugee children only if Internet users use their search engine, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced today. Under the scheme, funds that go towards promoting educational and sports activities for millions of refugee children around the world under the ninemillion.org campaign will be tied to the number Internet searches performed at the software giant's click4thecause.live.com using Microsoft's Live Search facility will result in a financial donation to ninemillion.org. "This is sick," one UNHCR official told Press Esc on the condition of anonymity. "These guys have billions of dollars to spare, but they are still trying to drive website traffic by holding these unfortunate people to ransom."

So, Microsoft ran a promotion and gave a share of the proceeds to charity, and they're the bad guys here because they didn't give enough to satisfy some unnamed UNHCR official? Wow. I can see the UNHCR folks being passionate about their cause and I'm sure their cause is worthwhile, but this is amateur hour: in order for anybody to give, a) they must first show a profit to have something to give, and b) there's got to be something in it for the donor. For the press to run a headline saying "Microsoft holds refugee children to ransom" is equally misleading.

I wonder if some of the good press ratings MS got in this poll have anything to do with the credibility (or want thereof) of detractors like these.

Re:About Time!

[blazematrix]

Money talks anything else walks.

Yeah, M$ made me rich and everyone else I know rich too. It's called 401k!

BM

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

in order for anybody to give, a) they must first show a profit to have something to give, and b) there's got to be something in it for the donor.

No, in order for somebody to give, a) they must want to help their fellow human beings

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

No, in order for somebody to give, a) they must want to help their fellow human beings

So how else would one explain the way they match employee giving (and match employee time with money), the fact that as a company Microsoft is recognized for giving, (repeatedly) and that they've given > $2.5B so far to charity?

By any rational measure, Microsoft goes well beyond the norm with respect to charity. Let's put this in some real-world context: No for-profit entity is ever obligated to give anything to anybody, except to the extent that it is in their interest to do it. Yet they give, a lot, even absent a profit motive.

It's one thing to bash them for the quality or design of their products, or for their business practices; many rational arguments can be made to support doing so. Their charitable giving, however, is not something they deserve flack for.

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

Their charitable giving, however, is not something they deserve flack for

If you're going to give, just give and don't make a game out of it. All the truly good charity they engage in is great, but to hold criticism back for something that deserves it doesn't really make sense.

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

If you're going to give, just give and don't make a game out of it.

That might be how you would do it, and that would be a valid way to do it, but that's my point: you're not the one giving- they are. They have the right to give away their money in the manner in which they see fit, don't they? How is it anyone's business but theirs? ...and if in the end they are among the most philanthropic of organizations in the world, how is there any value to be had in criticizing the way in which they do their charitable giving?

It's easy to look at this very wealthy company and decide that you would spend that money differently, but don't forget that that's what you're doing: you're deciding that you know better how to spend someone else's money than they do, and you're making them wrong for not spending their money in accord with your opinion. This never accomplishes what you want it to accomplish.

All the truly good charity they engage in is great, but to hold criticism back for something that deserves it doesn't really make sense.

Out of curiousity, how does this deserve a single shred of criticism?

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

"This is sick," one UNHCR official told Press Esc on the condition of anonymity. "These guys have billions of dollars to spare, but they are still trying to drive website traffic by holding these unfortunate people to ransom."

Making money from the suffering of others means that they have a vested interest and benefit from the suffering of others. If perpetuating human suffering is the goal, then that's fine. If relieving human suffering is the goal, then its both counter productive and hypocritical.

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

"This is sick," one UNHCR official told Press Esc on the condition of anonymity. "These guys have billions of dollars to spare, but they are still trying to drive website traffic by holding these unfortunate people to ransom."

Making money from the suffering of others means that they have a vested interest and benefit from the suffering of others. If perpetuating human suffering is the goal, then that's fine. If relieving human suffering is the goal, then its both counter productive and hypocritical.

OK, first of all, it's time for a reality check: nobody is holding anybody for ransom here.
Second, nobody, save possibly for the charity in question, is making money from the suffering of others.
Third, to attempt to make the charitable donor responsible for the suffering of the poor is plain backwards.

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

OK, first of all, it's time for a reality check: nobody is holding anybody for ransom here.

Quite true - its a very sensationalistic headline, clearly intended to draw attention to the issue. Arguable, that worked.

Second, nobody, save possibly for the charity in question, is making money from the suffering of others.

Yes MS actually is trying to make money on the situation, and th charity is a non-profit IIRC. The issue is that by using the suffering of others as an opportunity to cash in, you have a vested interest in said human suffering.

Third, to attempt to make the charitable donor responsible for the suffering of the poor is plain backwards.

Again, not the issue and an obvious straw man. I didn't say anything about holding MS or the charity responsible for the suffering. The issue in question is that they (MS) are cashing in on it. They are responsible for their own actions and all the straw men in the wold won't change that.

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

The issue is that by using the suffering of others as an opportunity to cash in, you have a vested interest in said human suffering.

Ridiculous, on two counts:
1) What MS is cashing in on in this case is their search ad system, not on the suffering of anybody. They can cash in on this product regardless of whether or not they donate part of the proceeds to charity.
2) No vested interest in "the perpetuation of human suffering" applies- what MS has a vested interest in is potential customers knowing about their product and considering paying MS for its use. They could hire people to walk around with sandwich boards on street intersections to get the word out, they could buy newsprint ads, they could do a number of similar things to acccomplish this end. This doesn't mean they have a vested interest in having people carry sandwich boards around, or in the continued readership of newspapers- it means they're buying visibility in whatever way made sense to their marketing wonks. In this case, they gave to a charity. To try to twist that into "profiting from human suffering" not only defies logic, it is bizarre.

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

Ridiculous, on two counts: 1) What MS is cashing in on in this case is their search ad system, not on the suffering of anybody. They can cash in on this product regardless of whether or not they donate part of the proceeds to charity.

Read the article. They are driving site hits with human suffering. The goal is profit. That's the actual problem. And, yes, its worth criticizing.

2) No vested interest in "the perpetuation of human suffering" applies- what MS has a vested interest in is potential customers knowing about their product and considering paying MS for its use.

They are agreeing to help children in suffering only on the condition that people use their live search. They are using the suffering of children as a way to promote their business. That's the vested interest. Unless, of course, you would argue that they have no interest, financial or otherwise, in their live search product.

They could hire people to walk around with sandwich boards on street intersections to get the word out, they could buy newsprint ads, they could do a number of similar things to acccomplish this end. This doesn't mean they have a vested interest in having people carry sandwich boards around, or in the continued readership of newspapers- it means they're buying visibility in whatever way made sense to their marketing wonks. In this case, they gave to a charity. To try to twist that into "profiting from human suffering" not only defies logic, it is bizarre.

Using conventional advertising methods is one thing. Using children suffering is another. By using conventional advertising methods, they would create demand for those methods, and those methods are more in line with with the goal of profiting from livesearch, and make a certain amount of sense in that context. Saying "we'll help kids only if you'll help us" ties helping kids with benefiting them. Its not necessarily wrong on the face of it. But, it worth calling it out for what it is. Exploitation.

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

Read the article.

I read the article you cited. It is misleading and crap.
It generally proceeds from its premise (that MS is ransoming the welfare of the children for its own profit), omits facts (like that MS is guaranteeing $100k minimum donation) that don't support this premise, and spews outright misinformation. For example, it says that "The website will try to automatically install a downloadable 'gadget' on each visitor's computer.", which is false but might deter you from visiting the site and learning more about the story.
I did discover this:

The company will guarantee a minimum donation of US$100,000 to UNHCR based on the number of queries that are generated from the search site. The rate for each query will be US$0.01. The maximum donation payable by Microsoft will be US$250,000, which would be equivalent to 25 million search queries. "Driving awareness is critical to finding lasting solutions for the millions of refugees and displaced people worldwide," said Nick Van Praag, director of UNHCR's Division of External Relations. "Through Microsoft, utilising the MSN network on behalf of ninemillion.org, we are able to generate consumer awareness that we hope will result in donations to support this important cause, giving hope to refugee youth and children."

So there you have it: the UNHCR gets a guaranteed $100k, no "ransom" required. They stand to receive as much as $250k in direct giving, and in the package they get something even more valuable: broad exposure and visibility, plus a public endorsement from one of the most philanthropic organizations in the history of the world.

They are driving site hits with human suffering.

Who, these hacks? They (and you) are the only ones banging the drum and imploring people to think about the poor suffering children here.
If you visit the promotion site you're talking about, you'll note a conspicuous absence of such ham-handed exploitation: rather, there's a direct appeal to your desire to spend a little of MS's money for a worthy cause while hopefully getting something useful for yourself in the deal. From the site, here's the pitch: "Searching for a way to help? You've found it.". This creates a win:win:win scenario- you get your search result, UNHCR gets cash and visibility, MS gets hits and visibility. This is hardly sinister; it's sustainable, smart philanthropy that accomplishes more good than just the money it delivers.

The goal is profit. That's the actual problem. And, yes, its worth criticizing.

Is it? Profit may be made via any number of methods, yet MS chose to partner with a charity and give some part of the proceeds (anybody know how much MS earns per search? Is MS taking a loss for the duration of the promotion? Does anybody know?) to the charity. Does this put the charity ahead of where it would be in net terms if Microsoft had elected to market its search product in some different way? Yes, absolutely. They're getting direct cash and broad exposure they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So what's the problem?

You've said that no profit should ever be made by using a charity, because of some notion of conflict of interest- that if it's profitable to give to charity, MS will have an interest in creating or perpetuating the conditions that make the charity necessary- but that's put-on-your-tinfoil-hat illogical. If it's profitable to work with charities, MS will continue to do so- and there's an inexhaustible supply of worthy causes to give to- meaning that your theory (that MS will be profit-motivated to cause more children to suffer) is implausible at best. Even if 9Million.org's mission is fulfilled, there will be no want of other worthy charities to p

Re:About Time!

[MECC]

Who, these hacks? They (and you) are the only ones banging the drum and imploring people to think about the poor suffering children here.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but ad hominems will only soil and taint all the good points and information you bring out. And, I believe you meant to just insult pressesc.com, not claim I accused them to driving site hits with suffering. And yes, sadly, it does look as though they and I are the only ones trying to get people to think of those suffering.

Does this put the charity ahead of where it would be in net terms if Microsoft had elected to market its search product in some different way? Yes, absolutely. They're getting direct cash and broad exposure they wouldn't have gotten otherwise. So what's the problem?

The ends don't justify the means.

You've said that no profit should ever be made by using a charity, because of some notion of conflict of interest- that if it's profitable to give to charity, MS will have an interest in creating or perpetuating the conditions that make the charity necessary- but that's put-on-your-tinfoil-hat illogical.

Hacks and tinfoil. Very persuading. And no, I didn't mention a specific conflict of interest, as if MS was directly causing the suffering being addressed by the charity. I said that tying what they give somehow to the success of a search engine wasn't as helpful as just giving period. And it isn't.

If it's profitable to work with charities, MS will continue to do so- and there's an inexhaustible supply of worthy causes to give to- meaning that your theory (that MS will be profit-motivated to cause more children to suffer) is implausible at best. Even if 9Million.org's mission is fulfilled, there will be no want of other worthy charities to partner with.

Not really my theory, just a pointless straw man you've set up to conveniently knock down.

You assume that the profit motive will subvert the intention of working with the charity itself<br><br>

Again something I didn't really say, or assume.

If you have a problem with that, you might consider asking yourself why you're more interested in MS showing no profit than you are in the UNHCR receiving what it otherwise would not- not only money, but visibility with which to raise even more.
Perhaps you just think that MS should give all of their profits to the charity. You're welcome to think that, but your argument that they're somehow morally obliged to do so (or else they're exploiting the children!) is weak.

At least I made some arguments - most of what you did was trot out ad hominems and straw men (a straw man is when you isolate part of what I say to create an impression I said something unreasonable I didn't really say, which is easily argued against - like implying I hate all profit or that I think that MS should give all their profits to charity.).

The 'something is better than nothing' argument, while practical, still relegates help to the domain of "fine, I'll help but what's in it for me?". The ends don't actually justify the means. If they really wanted to help, they just would. By tying the additional money to the success of their live search engine, one could just as easily point out that while they could have chosen to give much much more, they capreciously decided not to because they're not happy with the success of some product unrelated to helping those in need. Every penny less than $250,000 could just have easily been characterized as something that could have been given, but was held back for reasons that had nothing to do with any given charity.

Perhaps someone could explain to those in suffering, "yes we could have doubled our help, but our search engine didn't do too well". That's sure to assuage their hunger and pain. They'll understand completely.

Re:About Time!

[h2_plus_O]

And, I believe you meant to just insult pressesc.com, not claim I accused them to driving site hits with suffering. And yes, sadly, it does look as though they and I are the only ones trying to get people to think of those suffering.

You're right on that. The article is biased, inaccurate, and misleading, but to the best of my knowledge you have not been. If I've mischaracterized your views, I apologize, I know how annoying that can be. It seems pretty clear we've been talking past each other. That said, I've honestly been trying to both understand and respond to your points.

There's room to reasonably disagree on this. My view is that something is indeed better than nothing, and that as a general rule, trying to "get people to think of the suffering children" is a stratagem that makes no difference- my experience says that more often than not, it stops people giving, stops them from even listening. If people can't give on their terms, if they don't get what they're looking for out of the bargain, they won't. As someone who's worked with charities, I'll tell you- donors aren't interested in the suffering kids, they're interested in the opportunity to make a difference. Give them an opportunity to make a difference and they will, every single time. People hunger for this opportunity.
By the same token, if you try to jerk on their heartstrings and sell them a sob story about the poor, suffering children, they'll shut down, close their checkbooks, and walk away- nobody likes being manipulated, especially when their heart was already in the right place to begin with.

You've said repeatedly that "the ends don't justify the means", but my serious question is this: why do the means need to be justified if there's no harm being done and the net result is beneficial to everyone? Who are you and I to get sanctimonious about how someone else gives their money? And if the ends don't justify the means, then how can we condone the publishing of misleading stories designed to shame donors into being more generous, or designed to make them give differently? I can see the good intentions, but isn't that hypocrisy too?

Microsoftie

[orbitalia]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

Re:Microsoftie

[kevin_conaway]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so....

So why are they ranked the top company in a reputation survey? Seems a little silly since although Gates made his money from Microsoft, his spending is not related to the company.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

Disclosure: yes, I work here. Duh.

I'm always confused by the way people claim Microsoft is an evil company. The leadership of Microsoft has never been evil. To the contrary, they do tremendous good for all sorts of charitable causes. It doesn't really seem that any "evil" layer exists as you travel down the chain. I can trace the org chart all the way from myself up to the top layers, and I can honestly say nobody I find anywhere in that chain is evil.

Where exactly does the evil come from? How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil? Why is it that we can recognise everyone's intentions as being good and honest and pure outside of Microsoft, but then they come to work here and they're producing evil plots to rule the world?

I'm just fascinated by this whole thing. It reminds me of Klansmen; when a Klansman claims to hate "niggers", but then grudgingly admits he doesn't hate actual black people - claiming instead that they aren't *really* "niggers" - this is evidence that his worldview is fundamentally flawed, and the "nigger" he hates doesn't even really exist. It's a fictional creation serving only as a target for hatred. Is the anti-Microsoft opinion in the world similar? When does it go away? Will it take other anti-corporate sentiment with it?

Re:Microsoftie

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

The most cynical certainly can argue against it, and I've seen many do just that. I've heard comments ranging from claims that it is part of a deal to bolster intellectual property law by keeping those issues from boiling over in the third world where patents make medicine too expensive for people; to simple comments that Melinda Gates is the driving force behind the philanthropic use of that relatively small portion of Gate's wealth. More recently, there has been a lot of very valid criticism about the practices of the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation's investing practices, including companies that use child slave labor, health care provider cut and run operations, and predatory lending firms that scam the elderly and poor out of their family homes.

Now I'm not saying that Bill Gates does not intend to do "good" but it is not a matter that is uncontroversial or which does not have another side to it.

Re:Microsoftie

[ktappe]

Go watch the movie "The Corporation" and your question will be answered. And no, it's not a propaganda film--it's a very even-handed documentary that analyzes the concept of a corporation. It examines just what you said--that the people in a company are often kind folks outside of work, but how the attitude of the group can change when they gather towards a common goal of making money. On the flip side, it also examines how the public often mis-perceives corporations as evil when the corporation is really simply just doing what it was designed to do--make a profit. Highly recommended viewing. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

Legal, Sales and Marketing... That's the source of evil in any company.

Re:Microsoftie

[rssrss]

OK count me as the most cynical. He is using his money in an apparently successful PR campaign. If it were all about virtue, the only information you could find about it would be the IRS forms.

Re:Microsoftie

[x2A]

dunno... if I wanted to change the world, do the most good for the people at the bottom, i'd probably try and accumulate huge amounts of wealth first, then use it and the power it brings to change things. If I spent the money as I made it, I wouldn't be making such big changes, the total amount of 'change' I could make would be less. You can't make the difference in the world that the richest man in the world can make, without first becoming the richest man in the world.

Not saying this was his reasons or reasoning... just saying either way, it has put him in the best position to make improvements to peoples lives.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

Oh, and accounting.

Why? Each of these groups is about getting money and minimising financial cost at all cost, so to speak. Typically everyone else is usually interested simply in making a good product, and trying not to be hindered by these 3 or 4.

Re:Microsoftie

[aadvancedGIR]

"Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place."

Or, he wants to become the first world dictator and is clever enough to have a good PR.

Re:Microsoftie

[Thansal]

Because Gates IS MS in most people's minds. Also most people are not familiar with why MS is 'evil' they just know that it is 'cool' to say so. However people are familiar with Warren Buffett's donation to the B&MG foundation, what that they have been doing in the past few years.

How J&J has been at the top for the past 7 years confounds me in all honesty, unless the scorrign is bassed on something that looks like: (PeopleThatKnowTheName + 2*GoodDeedsDone) - 2*BadDeedsDone = Rating.

J&J is a non-entitie on my radar (aside from a friend who works for a company that does contract work for them).

Re:Microsoftie

[drinkypoo]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

I'm nowhere near the most cynical, or the most paranoid, even on slashdot. And I believe that the Gates foundation is not about philanthropy, but about power.

How can anyone actually doubt this in the face of the evidence? It was revealed that Microsoft is investing in companies that are making people sick in the very places in which they are claiming to help people with their vaccines. Who cares if they are vaccinated if they are dying of a respiratory illness? Which, by the way, hits children the hardest, and is affecting nearly everyone in the town? It could have been a simple mistake, and it seemed to be, as the Gates foundation promised to review their patent portfolio. A day later, they decided that the foundation would not review its investments because it would be too difficult.

I feel that this last datum is the truly damning one. Who ever said saving the world would be easy? Frankly, even if they are helping more people than their investments are harming (which is quite frankly nonsense - we're talking about a refinery that is flaring off all their toxics because it's cheaper than keeping them from being broadcast throughout the atmosphere that we all live in and breathe) it's still no justification. Investing in this company is the opposite of helping the people in this community. I think it would not be out of line to draw a parallel between at once giving vaccines and respiratory illness and the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets to Native Americans.

Claiming to be altruistic and then not doing your basic diligence to make sure that you're not killing people is hypocrisy, plain and simple. It is proof that the goal is not to help people, or else instead of investing in this company, they would be fighting their presence there and their disregard for the health of the inhabitants of the town. It's really just that simple.

All those of you who are willing to excuse this behavior are enablers. The foundation works based on public opinion. They are enabled to do what they do not only by money (although that is the major force involved) but also by the fact that people will line up to praise them and help them do it.

Of course, you could argue that the Gates foundation is simply pursuing their goal of finally wiping out certain communicable diseases. If the people most likely to have or get these diseases are dead, then they are unlikely to contribute to its spread. It's the ultimate final solution to communicable disease...

Re:Microsoftie

[Alien Being]

Wow, and I thought Johnny Cockring could twist the facts. Your whole argument is based on your preconception that they are not "evil".

I'll grant you that they're not Adolf Hitler, but they are guilty of misdeeds which have not and cannot be corrected. Millions of people are victims of the Gates juggernaut. Some lost $50 by being forced to buy Dos or Windows. Others lost their livelihoods by daring to compete on a rigged playing field.

Gates' philanthropy shouldn't even be considered partial penance because all he's doing is handing out ill-gotten booty.

Re:Microsoftie

[thousandinone]

Companies, nations, religious groups, and any form of organization for that matter, are often judged based off of their most prominent members, which in most cases are leaders, but in other cases are just simply those who stand out. Examples of this can be seen everywhere; Many people view citizens of the United States in a rather unflattering light, but that view is based largely off of impressions given off by our leadership and those people who stand out more, who really are not representative of everyone who lives here. Many people view certain religious groups rather poorly as well, but that judgment is based largely off of observations of the extremists in that group. Why then is it strange that many people would judge Microsoft based off of Bill Gates' actions? It doesn't necessarily make a viewpoint correct, but its just the way most people work.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

Being FORCED? Then what the fuck is OSX? All the various distros of Linux? Homebrewed OS's? BSD? OS/2? Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

There are MANY MANY MANY options out there other than windows. People are just too fucking stupid to realize that. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE forces ANYONE to use windows. There are hundreds of thousands of millions of people in the world (and companies, for that matter) that get by without using a single solitary piece of microsoft software.

If they can do it, why can't others?

Re:Microsoftie

[LuYu]

I suppose you do not remember India and those Gates Foundation brib... *cough* ... donations that were given to ensure MS software was used instead of FOSS. They also paid the NYTimes to play the whole thing up in a series of sycophantic articles, if I recall correctly.

I really do not understand how MS can be viewed in a good light. They have bribed public officials (how else could their monopoly trial have evaporated), bribed governments (India cannot be an isolated case), misrepresented advertising expenditures as donations (this is technically stealing tax money), supported bad laws (software patents anybody?), robbed schools (audits in Washington state and Licensing 6), and many other objectionable things which are much better documented elsewhere.

That is more or less the proverbial tip of the iceberg. The fact that these people voted MS as the corporation having the best reputation demonstrates one of two things: a) The corporations are right. People are a bunch or stupid sheep and the corporations can lie, cheat, and steal, and then use advertising to repair their image in the mind of the public. b) The survey is carried out on people who have no idea what is going on.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

So why don't people simply accept that legal will make stupid patent applications, and sales will lie about the product, and marketing will lie about the competition, and accounting will "spin" the financials? Why don't we simply accept these evils as necessary for doing business on a large scale, and not blame the company for them? If these are reliably the sources of evil in a company, why does it reflect badly on a company when those departments do evil things?

Doesn't it seem like when Apple produces a bad commercial, we should say "evil marketers!" instead of "evil company!"? It just seems unfair to blame the company unless they can somehow acquire a non-evil version of these departments.

Re:Microsoftie

[thousandinone]

How was the playing field rigged exactly? I will concede that today most of the market is locked into Microsoft products. But it hasn't always been that way. Microsoft had a small start as well, and through a combination of business deals and good marketing, managed to acquire and lock in the majority of the market over time. Microsoft dominates the market now, but it only got that far because companies and individuals bought their products to begin with. It's capitalism and free enterprise. Microsoft didn't have the financial power to illegitimately dominate the market until it ALREADY dominated the market. As far as I'm concerned, they got where they are legitimately, and the only 'evil' comes in the way they hang onto that position.

Re:Microsoftie

[tehcyder]

So why are they ranked the top company in a reputation survey? Seems a little silly since although Gates made his money from Microsoft, his spending is not related to the company.

Reputation is not a tangible or scientifically measurable quality in the first place; and in the second, I imagine most non-geeks still associate Bill Gates intimately with Microsoft.

Re:Microsoftie

[Narcissus]

He said forced to buy, not forced to use.

Remember that whole thing with MS making computer sellers pay them per computer sold, not per copy of the OS installed? Therefore the sellers were required to pay MS whether or not their OS was installed, therefore the customers were required to pay whether or not they bought it with their OS installed...

Re:Microsoftie

[xtracto]

I'm always confused by the way people claim Microsoft is an evil company. The leadership of Microsoft has never been evil. To the contrary, they do tremendous good for all sorts of charitable causes.

Well, I always thought the same about MS... I do not dislike its products although I dislike its MONOPOLY PRACTICES. Aside of that, as everyone else said we could argue that Microsoft and Bill Gate's foundation are completely separate thing... ... at least I thought so, unfortunately it happens that Mr. Gates wisely used his "unevil" foundation to /push/ my country into using Microsoft's solutions instead of Open Source ones... now *THAT* is bad...

You can read about it on this article . You might recognize the name of Miguel de Icaza who was one of the principals on the e-Mexico initative.

an interesting snippet:
"I thought I was going to be the only person for Linux," de Icaza said. "But HP surprised me, IBM surprised me and Sun surprised me."

Despite general agreement that open-source technologies would be more flexible and cost efficient, Mexico's Linux revolution was quashed after Fox met with Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, according to de Icaza.

"Bill Gates flew down to Mexico, and they announced a donation of $30 million dollars ... and Linux was dropped," de Icaza said.

And here is where he used his nice foundation:
The software maker has also allotted $10 million to train workers in small and mid-size businesses, along with an additional grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation to the country's Vamos México program to be used to move the country's libraries online. .

Note that this "Vamos Mexico" foundation is being investigaed for fraud and corruption in Mexico.

So yeah, I used to defend Bill Gate's foundation with the premise that, even though the Corporation "Microsoft" was bad, that did not mean the foundation was bad... but the e-Mexico issue made me change my views.

As for your question:
Where exactly does the evil come from? How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

My thought has always been that a Corporation is evil by definition, because the objective of any corporation is to profit, no matter what they do. You should see The Corporation film. They explain it very well. Basically, a corporation has all the properties and rights a human been has... except that it does NOT have a "soul" or "conscience" or whatever you want to call it. That is why it has no "minimal ethics" and you see corporations going to the end of the third world where slaving is allowed in order to maximize their profits which is what they do (Nike, Starbucks, Apple, etc, etc etc...).

Re:Microsoftie

[MightyMartian]

Rich men who have gained their wealth by trodding on others often appease their consciences by acts of generousity. I see no reason to forgive Gates or Microsoft for their anti-competitive activities just because Gates has caught some sort of a donation bug.

Re:Microsoftie

[miskatonic alumnus]

On the flip side, it also examines how the public often mis-perceives corporations as evil

It also demonstrated that corporations behave like and have all the characteristics of psychopaths. Are psychopaths evil?

Re:Microsoftie

[Qwavel]

I studied MS extensively for a political science thesis. My conclusion is that MS is evil. Obviously I don't really mean evil, but I think the people on this site will know what I mean.

I also think that you are a little evil because, when you went looking for a job, you didn't care that MS was considered evil. Not as bad as working for a cigarette company, but it does suggest you'll get your money any way you can.

I also think that I'm a bit evil, because Windows is my primary OS. But I do my best to rationalize this away - us humans are good at that.

Bill cranked up this philanthropy thing around the time of the trials, where he was made to look both stupid and evil. So, I believe that this wasn't really about generosity - it was about ego and image. Just my opinion.

On the other hand, when you tell a company that they have a reputation for being evil and stupid, 99% of companies will start an advertising campaign to tell people that they are not, rather then actually doing something non-evil. Bill responded by doing something massively non-evil. So, he has won back my respect. And, against my will, I am starting to see MS in a more positive light.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

actually, I use "evil" in respect to apple all the time. The problem is, they had been so evil for so long, it /did/ hurt them, so nobody cares about them anymore. They are finally breaking out of irrelevance. You should see more "apple is evil" soon.

The other thing is, some companies can keep better control of these sources of evil, so the companies themselves are considered less evil, though the larger a company is, typically the harder this task is.

Re:Microsoftie

[MightyMartian]

Let's consider that every group that designs a word processor is forced to reverse engineer Microsoft's document standard, and that Microsoft is going out of its way to sabotage an open document standard in favor of one which can only be 100% reliably opened under its software.

In a very real sense, the monopolistic practices of Microsoft over the last two decades has lead to a stranglehold on the marketplace. Each time it releases a free-bee, like a browser or a media player, where a competitor exists, it is attempting to wipe out the competition.

And yet, apparently, because Gates gives to poor Africans, the fact that a large portion of his fortune, and the vast fortunes of his company have been made in precisely the fashion outlined becomes okay. Good for Gates saving Africans. Maybe he can use some of his money to save the competition he and the company which is a convicted monopolist so gleefully destroyed.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

It reminds me of Klansmen; when a Klansman claims to hate "niggers", but then grudgingly admits he doesn't hate actual black people - claiming instead that they aren't *really* "niggers"

I didn't realize Chris Rock was a klansman.

Re:Microsoftie

[Daishiman]

The devil always lies in two things: the details, and apathy. See, what most of us as IT staff see as evil, they see as "business as usual", and what they might see as philantropy, we see as "a rationalization for shoddy business".

Everyone will be taking actions throughout their lives which will be morally problematic for someone else. Eating meat, consuming resources, not being polite, having vices, tolerating certain things about other people, not taking a stand on issues, etc. It is inevitable and a part of our highly subjective morality and sense of ethics. If you work for an oil company as a programmer are you supporting their political practices? What if you do sales? What if you're a decision maker but not in contact with that area of that company?

Microsoft managers may not actually care about this. They might not even be doing anything to actually promote such behavior; it is quite possible that all those practices are spontaneous and natural to them. Think about it: if you're in a position of a near-monopoly (or any corporation for that matter), are you really going to consider giving your competition an extra inch? Not unless you're suicidal.

Given that, however, their moral stance on what they do is irrelevant on what I think about them . Sure, they aren't DeBeers, they don't go around killing people, and some might say that their monopoly can't really be considered exactly harmful. But their way of business affects me as a professional in ways which are far more detrimental than what they might be to the average end user. Hence why I feel there are no excuses for their behavior. The only difference between harming a million and harming one person is the number of people that complain. If the intent is the same, it is no better or worse.

Re:Microsoftie

[Capt James McCarthy]

"We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place."

Correct. His heart is with his money and control of said wealth. Soon he'll have control of Buffett's billions as well. I mean the Gates foundation has/will have huge influance everywhere
that cash lands. He/Gates Foundation looks good in the papers while he uses that influance to push folks/companies in whatever direction he wants. I'd be curious to see the agreements that the foundation requires when money is given. Based upon the MS format of agreements, I'd be suspect.

They also use the Foundation to do other interesting things:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/0 9/1455200

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

Again, being fucking stupid.

Go out and buy a white-box PC or laptop. Or even better, go out and buy the individual components and put it together. Or get it done for you if you don't have the know-how from a place like MEI or Intellect (local shops where I live)

No force of windows involved. Many online shops also cost you NOTHING to have no OS come preinstalled with your system, yet you do have to pay if it is installed.

Nownownow, you are going to start the whole "wlel people don't have the knowledge to do that!"

So buy a mac if you don't like it. Or again, go somehwere and have them build a PC for you and install linux, or what have you.

No one FORCES a consumer to buy a computer with windows or from a big-name manufacturer. Should a company (in this case microsoft) be penalized because consumers didn't take the time to educate themselves before making a purchase?

This goes back to the whole cars debate. Should car manufacturers be held liable because they are used for a bad purpose? Should a car manufacturer be sued because I drove on the sidewalk and therefore used their product to kill someone? Should they be sued because I can use their vehicle to commit a robbery? Should they be sued if your brakes fail because you never had them inspected for 60,000 miles (unless they claim that their brakes last that long)? No. Of course not.

If you are computer-illiterate enough to buy a big-name computer, you aren't going to get it without Windows unless it's a Mac; if you ARE computer literate enough to build your own, you will put whatever OS you want to put on it. Again, people are not FORCED. They do have a choice. And again, the chances that someone who buys a big-name computer has enough skills to install their own OS is HIGHLY unlikely. Those that do have enough skill to do so and don't want windows will buy a mac (or one of the others that offer Linux, such as dell)

Your point is completely moot. Big-name computers with windows are NOT the only option a consumer has.

Re:Microsoftie

[jaweekes]

I find it confusing that they are at the top of the reputation table, now that Bill Gates is stepping down, because of Bill Gates philanthropy.

Re:Microsoftie

[MysteriousPreacher]

I'm sure that most people there are normal, some are very good and some are total shits - just like any group of people.

Comparing anti-MS feeling to racial hatred is a bit of stretch but I see where you're coming from. The irrational reason to hate Microsoft is "coz m$ r evil big company taking money from ppl". This is pretty silly, just like the rednecks who'd dress up as ghosts and go hurt people for no good reason.

The rational reason to dislike Microsoft would have to be their business practices. On one hand the company claims that it wants interoperability but then it specifically tries to ensure this all happens on Microsofts terms. They are asked to disclose API information to allow others to compete, which they do, but they include licence terms that seem designed to stop open source projects from competing.

Microsoft have been dragged in to court more than once regarding abuse of their monopoly position, they never seem to learn from this. That's the repeated message that we see. After years of screwing consumers and it's competitors, they then have to cheek to complain when they enter markets where others have a defacto monopoly.

Bill Gates is doing a lot of good with his donations but that doesn't change the fact that many see the money as being 'dirty'. Ultimately he will succeed, most people will overlook the shady business practices.

It reminds me of gangsters. As long as they spread their money around the neighbourhood, people don't ask where the money is coming from, they just love the gangsters.

Re:Microsoftie

[hutchike]

Re: (PeopleThatKnowTheName + 2*GoodDeedsDone) - 2*BadDeedsDone = Rating.

You don't need those brackets. You could factor out the 2 like this:

PeopleThatKnowTheName + 2*(GoodDeedsDone - BadDeedsDone) = Rating

Damn I must be bored today!

Re:Microsoftie

[Alien Being]

Stop shouting, re-read my post, and do some basic research on the topic. I never said that anyone was forced to use Dos/Windows, just that they were forced to buy it.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

And why don't those companies just give a big fuck you to microsoft's format? The lock in with ANYTHING from Microsoft is SUPPORTED by the very consumers that BUY from microsoft.

If you don't buy from them, you don't have to use their standards. If you do buy from them, then you obviously don't care that you have to use their standards and it ends up not mattering anyway. Last time I checked, there aren't goons from microsoft going around putting guns to people's heads telling them that they HAVE to buy a computer with windows/microsoft software on it. Again, as I have stated HUNDREDS of times...many MANY epople in the world use not a single solitary thing from microsoft.

There is nothing stopping them from being microsoft-free, just as there is nothing stopping someone else from being microsoft-free.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Were any of Hitler's neurons evil?

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

Stop backing up an empty argument, read MY post, and see that you are wrong. PC's with windows are NOT the only computers you can buy, just like microsoft is NOT the only software company out there.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Jeanie Cummins, a survey respondent and homemaker in Olive Hill, Ky., says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft. "He showed he cared more for people than all the money he made building Microsoft from the ground up," she says. "I wish all the other big shots could do something like this."

Wow, what PR won't get you! Here are two points for you:

1. He had to be persuaded by his lawyer father to donate anything to anybody.

2. What Gates contributed is, in comparison to his personal fortune, like me putting a five dollar bill in a Salvation Army kettle.

He has in excess of forty billion dollars. He could give 39 of them away and still have more money than anyone could ever hope to spend in a lifetime.

Only in America could pre-ghost Scrooge be called a philanthropist!

Re:Microsoftie

[Yvanhoe]

Computer scientists are that : scientists. They like openess, the ability to know exactly how the tools they are using work. They like software that can be used by the computer-scientific community to build better softwares. That is why Microsoft has such a bad reputation, and their business practices are loathed mainly for this reason : computer-science wise, they are a braking force. They have been like that in the past and they still are like this today.

I am not sure that Mr. Gates commitment to humanitarian causes should be related to Microsoft corporation. This is an individual decision. I must agree that I had to review my opinion about Bill Gates these last years. Microsoft, however, is still the biggest software-patent maker out there.

Re:Microsoftie

[BillyBlaze]

I enjoyed The Corporation, and it does make some good points. But if you can call it "even-handed" with a straight face, you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

Re:Microsoftie

[Alien Being]

Set your wayback machine to 1981 when IBM legitimized the concept of a PC and handed Microsoft a contract which would change the world. That was the singular event that gave MS the power to manipulate the entire industry. If you want details the tactics MS used, just look at any of the anti-trust cases they have failed to defend themselves against.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> they are guilty of misdeeds which have not
> and cannot be corrected

If they cannot be corrected, then why does it matter if they have not been? Indeed, why does it matter at all? Guilt only has relevance when there's something that can be done to correct it. Once it's beyond that point, it's just history.

> Some lost $50 by being forced to buy Dos or
> Windows.

Oh, please. How many times have I been forced to buy features I didn't want or need on my motherboard? I have a SCSI RAID box and don't need IDE on my machine, but that's too bad. I never use floppies and don't need a floppy drive, but that's too bad. I'm building a server and don't need graphics or sound, but that's too bad. I buy things I don't need on my machines all the time, because if you put it on everything, it gets cheaper for everybody. Why should the software have been handled differently?

> Others lost their livelihoods by daring to
> compete on a rigged playing field.

The field is always rigged. If you can't handle the competition, don't play.

Re:Microsoftie

[Thansal]

100% correct, however it looks ugly nomatter how you put it up. I was considering ussing other variables and making a key or something, but descided enough peopel would get it this way and jsut left it (And I am lazy)

Re:Microsoftie

[Alien Being]

If it were an empty argument, the DOJ wouldn't have been able to get their case off the ground. Your ignorance of this subject is outweighed only by your arrogance.

Re:Microsoftie

[Narcissus]

OK, but that's now. In the past it wasn't like that! In the past, if you bought a PC (from Dell, HP, or the guy on the corner that puts the boxes together) you paid for Windows because if you wanted to resell Windows at all, no matter who you were, there was only one way to do it, and that was by paying a fee per computer distributed.

Re:Microsoftie

[Silver Sloth]

Given that

GoodDeedsDone + BadDeedsDone = AllDoneDeedsThis can be simplified further to

PeopleThatKnowTheName + 2 * AllDoneDeeds = Rating

The brackets are not required because multiplication takes precidence over addition. However, they might be added to aid readability and remove possible ambiguity.

Bored and khama to burn!

Re:Microsoftie

[nasch]

And why don't those companies just give a big fuck you to microsoft's format? The lock in with ANYTHING from Microsoft is SUPPORTED by the very consumers that BUY from microsoft.

You just answered your question. Saying FU to MS compatibility means saying FU to their customers. Companies that do that tend to go out of business.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

I never once said that I agree with what microsoft has done. Not once. Look through all my posts and you find me where I said that Microsoft has done nothing wrong or illegal.

What I said was that people have options OTHER than microsoft products; they just don't care enough or aren't educated enough to do so.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

True, but then that implies that those customers want windows. Whether it be because they don't realize there are better options out there, or because they simply don't care doesn't matter.

Your argument implies people want windows and want microsoft software. That means they are willing to put up with the bullshit that microsoft pulls. And you know what?

A large portion of people don't even realize it's going on. Those that finally do catch on do the smart thing and move away from microsoft.

Re:Microsoftie

[Skrynesaver]

Not evil, just not very nice to know ;)
The corporation is indeed an interesting film, the basic thesis is that we have gone from ocasionally allowing corporations to come together to raise large sums of capital for the public good but now any greedy fecker can form a corporation with the sole aim of making money.

While money is all well and good it isn't actually the sole motivator of sane people (note to Ayn Rand) and when it becomes so the behaviour of the individual in question becomes psychopathic.

Microsoft's desire to dominate the industry in which it's earning its money and complete intolerance of competition make it a classic psycho.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

No. They're selfish. There's a difference.

Re:Microsoftie

[soft_guy]

We all find it easy to bash Microsoft, their products, and their practices, and quite rightly so, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place. I think you underestimate how cynical people can be.

Re:Microsoftie

[Alien Being]

"Why should the software have been handled differently?"

Two reasons.

Software is fundamentally different than hardware. There is a real benefit to one-size-fits-all. With software, it's trivial leave the disk blank. Going back to the early days, it was just a matter of not putting the OS floppies in the box.

The other major reason is that MS started out with a monopoly in the PC market. Every PC was made by IBM and sold with PC-DOS (IBM's name for MS-DOS). When the clones started appearing, MS made illegal contracts stating that manufacturers could only sell DOS if they sold it on every machine.

"The field is always rigged. If you can't handle the competition, don't play."

Brilliant.

Re:Microsoftie

[nasch]

Your argument implies people want windows and want microsoft software. That means they are willing to put up with the bullshit that microsoft pulls.

Yes, but I'm not sure what your point is. It's OK for MS to be a monopolistic bully as long as their customers put up with it? The competition that they put out of business doesn't really have anything to complain about, because people are still willing to write checks to MS? Or something else?

Re:Microsoftie

[lastberserker]

So why are they ranked the top company in a reputation survey? Seems a little silly since although Gates made his money from Microsoft, his spending is not related to the company.

Oh, I don't know... does it have anything to do with Microsofties being more generous than the rest of the corporate world in general?

Re:Microsoftie

[soft_guy]

Let me clue you in: the multi-year disinformation campaign against OpenGL didn't help Microsoft's reputation. Neither did stealing the code for QuickTime for Windows via Canyon software and then adding it to Video for Windows. Neither did going around saying "DOS isn't done until Lotus 1-2-3 won't run."

Re:Microsoftie

[banana fiend]

do we?

If I find the methods used to obtain those riches questionable, why should I be pleased that he no uses it in a charitable way?

Why should I HAVE to admit that his heart is in the right place, what of the businesses (and their employees) that have suffered at the hands of the monopolies. Why do we now have to admire him?

Of course, if you think he did not much (or nothing less than should be encouraged) wrong, go ahead... don't force your view on me.

Re:Microsoftie

[soft_guy]

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE forces ANYONE to use windows. My daughter is forced to use Windows at school even though she has offered to bring her Mac laptop in and use it instead. I suppose you could make the argument that I could put her into another school, but without my consent SHE doesn't have that option.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Rubbish. The "Gates Foundation" requires people to support the evils of copyright and patent monopolies in return for the "aid". They're no more charitable than microsoft themselves. In fact they're worse, because they're masquerading as do-gooders while propagating intellectual slavery laws into the developing world.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> desire to dominate the industry

Isn't this normal?

> complete intolerance of competition

I don't believe this is true. Consider RealNetworks. When they led the pack in streaming audio with the RealAudio format, they made a deal to put that technology in Windows Media Player. They were going to make a lot of money from that deal. Microsoft, in turn, were going to get a great popular format supported in Media Player.

Hearsay follows. I have no proof or inside information on this; I was just living in the Seattle area when it happened, and everyone was talking about it. Some or all of it may be apocryphal.

When the time came to integrate the RA support into MP, Real supposedly delivered a crippled version of the technology that only worked at low bit rates and advertised Real's own Media Player replacement when higher bit rates were encountered. Microsoft rejected the submission, demanding that they provide a version that played all bit rates and didn't advertise the Media Player replacement. Real complied, sort of - they linked their logo to the web site for their Media Player replacement instead of their home page, and fixed the player to downsample high bit rates instead of refusing to play them. You still couldn't get the higher bit rates without paying Real and replacing Windows Media Player.

When Microsoft went back and complained, Real smugly observed that they were the 800-pound gorilla in the streaming audio space, and Microsoft should already know how that works. So Microsoft told them where to shove their technology, and built their own WMA format. Now Real is an also-ran, doing most of their business in the mobile market.

Is this because Microsoft is intolerant of competition, or because they are intolerant of being cheated? More to the point, wasn't Real trying to cheat *us*, too? Didn't Microsoft also make the choice that was best for us, siding with the consumer instead of with their business partner?

I've not always been on Microsoft's side in this argument, but I've seen a pattern: Microsoft, since the DOJ debacle, *appear* to be making an honest effort to do the Right Thing. They also appear to be getting pretty good at figuring out what the Right Thing is. I'm wondering why the rest of the world doesn't see this.

Re:Microsoftie

[Alinabi]

Actually, I find it disheartening that the Microsoft criticism on Slashdot often turns into vicious personal attacks on Bill Gates. The man is clearly not the monster he's made out to be around here. However, the main purpose of his foundation seems to be to serve as a carrot to entice governments in developing countries to be more friendly towards Microsoft and maybe forget about all that "open source nonsense".

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this was a WSJ survey, not a consumer or programmer survey. Any experienced or well-informed stock investor would have J&J on their radar.

From the perspective of people who are familiar with the business side of Microsoft (investors, partners, clients, etc.) and the business world in general, MS has apparently been doing a really great job.

I suspect MS makes more of their money selling to and working with corporate customers than consumers, even though the average Joe doesn't think about what coporations want and what Microsoft is doing to help. The perspective of an open-source slashdot-hippie is obviously going to be different.

Re:Microsoftie

[AusIV]

Big-name computers with windows are NOT the only option a consumer has.

True, but is there any legitimate reason that big name computer companies should have to pay Microsoft for every computer they sell, rather than every Windows license they sell? If anybody is being manhandled, it's the OEMs, who were told for quite some time that if they want to sell Windows, they don't get to sell computers without Windows. They were forced to choose between selling Windows exclusively, or not selling it all, and there's enough demand for Windows it was a pretty clear choice.

If all the big OEMs chose to support Windows exclusively, then I wouldn't fault Microsoft for it, but Microsoft's OEM licensing contracts were extremely anti-competitive. There have been some improvements since they've started facing anti-trust suits, and there are more OS-free and free-OS computers coming from the big manufacturers, but it's still hard to find a solid laptop without paying for Windows. I'm sure you're going to claim otherwise, and I'd appreciate links. I may go laptop shopping in the near future, and right now the only reliable Linux laptops I'm aware of come from System76.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

Not quite. My point is that the average consumers general stupidity (or lack of desire to look to other companies) it what has allowed microsoft to reach the status that it has. Consumers have only themselves to blame for allowing them to get away with it for so long, basically.

Is it right? No. Do I agree with it? Hell no. Is it the truth? Unfortunately.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> I also think that you are a little evil
> because, when you went looking for a job,
> you didn't care that MS was considered evil

I wouldn't say I didn't CARE, I'd say I didn't AGREE. Five years ago I had a different perspective.

> And, against my will, I am starting to see
> MS in a more positive light.

Our open source lab is hiring for the Linux interoperability project with Novell.

You know, just in case you're looking. ;)

Re:Microsoftie

[ErroneousBee]

So a corporation (Real) acted evil. Kind of proves the point.

Although I've no doubt the if Real had played it straight on this, they would soon have been embraced, extended, and extinguished. After all, why would a user install realplayer if the Windows bundled Media Player played real just fine.

Looks like Real got out alive on this one. Ironic that it was their dodgy underhanded tactics that saved them.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

So be pissed at the school for doing so.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be NetDoneDeeds not AllDoneDeeds. AllDoneDeeds is a sum of scalars, whereas NetDoneDeeds is a sum of vectors.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

No, there is no legitimate reason. Like I have said, I do not SUPPORT what microsoft has done, nor do I agree with it. However, consumers demand windows. Thus, the manufacturers have to supply windows.

If you want to delve into me being over analytical, one could argue that it is the CONSUMERS fault that microsoft has reached the point that it has. If there wasn't such a high demand for it, companies could get by selling something other than windows while having good income levels.

While microsoft is the one that has implemented all this horrendous requirements, consumers are the ones that have let them get away with it. They show their support by buying the product. If that 90% truly cared, they wouldn't be purchasing it (which is a trend that is starting to happen...people are finally realizing windows is NOT their only option, and are expressing their opinion with their wallet)

Re:Microsoftie

[Brad_sk]

>So yeah, I used to defend Bill Gate's foundation with the premise that, even though the Corporation "Microsoft" was bad, that did not mean the foundation was bad... but the e-Mexico issue made me change my views.

So one issues changed your views...Hmmm, you need to open your eyes. In developing countries theres so much of corruption that its impossible to find out a good organization with no complaints. Lot of times even the investigation will be carried on by a corrupt official because the organization refused to pay bribe!

Re:Microsoftie

[Salsaman]

So how many Free Software projects has Bill's charity funded ?

How much have they donated to the OLPC project ?

Re:Microsoftie

[nasch]

Consumers have only themselves to blame for allowing them to get away with it for so long, basically.

Nah, gotta disagree with you there. I think Microsoft is very much to blame for abusing their monopoly.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Please keep in mind it is not Bill Gates that is spending the money on charities; it is Melinda Gates who is driving the foundation.

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

They are to blame for ABUSING their monopoly, but who gave them the income and market penetration to vault them to monopoly status in the first place? The consumers who bought their products.

Re:Microsoftie

[solstice680]

Dude, what I can't understand is how any technically oriented person can NOT hate Microsoft. If MS simply produced mediocre software that happened to be installed by default on most computers, I wouldn't care. People who aren't in the know might simply be making a scapegoat out of MS, but for the rest of us, the company completely deserves its reputation. It boggles my mind that you think otherwise.

How about this for some easy reading?

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Three items that come to mind right off the bat:

1. Product activation. Why should I have to ask Microsoft's permission to use software that I have bought and paid for? and why should I have to re-register if I decide to install new hardware?

2. Fine print giving Microsoft the power to rummage around on my computer and disable anything they don't happen to like. What is on my computer is none of their damned business.

3. DRM. I will watch movies that I have bought and paid for on any display I want, whether Microsoft likes it or not. Having Vista intentionally degrade the quality of said movies is a huge incentive to stay away from Vista.

These are all examples of how Microsoft acts like a megalomaniac and displays contempt for its customers.

Re:Microsoftie

[wgrobinson]

His money?

No, it's OUR money he's giving away. It's money we paid Microsoft for things we never quite got.

Re:Microsoftie

[CommandNotFound]

They are to blame for ABUSING their monopoly, but who gave them the income and market penetration to vault them to monopoly status in the first place? The consumers who bought their products.

No, they entered exclusivity agreements with the hardware manufacturers, and used that power to later enforce exclusivity agreements with business, and also with colleges and schools. This was done to build the monopoly that is now being fully exercised. Odds are your local school system is locked into a 'Campus Agreement' that forces the school to pay Microsoft around $35-50 per year for every computer in their system, even if the computer doesn't run Microsoft software. It takes a combination of power and evil to have agreements like that stand year after year without reprisal, and this one has been around for more than five years.

On the other hand, I've begun to take much that same cynical stance as you: let them squeeze money out of individuals, companies, and governments. I am a Linux expert, so as cheap foreign influences begin to erode the US software/hardware industry much as it did the auto industry, I will be able to speak the language of the new overlords, so to speak, and can flourish while the drag'n'drop MCSE's have to find new occupations.

Re:Microsoftie

[fr175]

NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE forces ANYONE to use windows.
My boss forces me to use Windows. My school forces me to use Windows. I work for a company that sells IT to Federal and State governments, with a focus on the military, and 99% of my customers are forced to use Windows. NO ONE is a lot less than pretty much every employee of the state and federal government, employee at a Windows-using corporation or small business, and student who is required to use Windows for their schoolwork.

Maybe at home you're correct - unless you take your work home with you or need to access IE only websites or use Windows only programs for school. Or you could argue that people voluntarily work for or go to schools that require Windows, and they can always leave... but that's not entirely practical now, is it?

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Your statements have convinced me that you have the mental maturation of a 10 year old. No wonder your leaders take such efficient advantage of you.

Re:Microsoftie

[Cokeisbomb]

Hundreds of Thousands of Millions = Hundreds of Billions. If thats the size of the open source market, then I'm definitely jumping on that MySQL IPO.

Re:Microsoftie

[MightyMartian]

Is attempting to sabotage an open document standard doing the Right Thing?

Re:Microsoftie

[jvkjvk]

Actually, you don't have to be that cynical at all.

If you look around, the Foundation has been closely tied with deals in Mexico and India to stop the adoption of OSS solutions. It seems to act in some cases as an extra-legal arm of the Corporation. That is, the Foundation's $$ is used to *ahem* incentivize countries to locking out OSS.

You can argue about the other good it's doing but I see these cases as unarguably wrong. For a Charity Foundation this is more than a red flag - it's a sign of conflicting interests inside the Foundation. Some of those interests do not seem charitable, at all.

One question to ask is if the Foundation is doing more good than harm. But better questions are: Why the fuck is a charity doing stuff that harms the very people they purport to help, and Why does Microsoft tend to benefit from most of the harms the Foundation is causing?

Hmm. Yeah, one really has to be cynical to feel that Bill might have multiple motives.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

People are just too fucking stupid to realize that. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE forces ANYONE to use windows.

Well, actually, Steve Ballmer threatened to throw chairs at me if I didn't use Windows! He then said "We'll f*cking KILL Linux! Developers! Developers! Developers!" I must admit it was VERY intimidating.

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

He could start by stoping making my computer belong to others. Fortunately, I solved that problem by not running Windows. And by all accounts of Vista, I'm glad I don't.

It's one thing to donate your money to charity, it's another to donate money you earn through shady business and inferior product lockins.

Tom

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Software is fundamentally different than hardware.
> There is a real benefit to one-size-fits-all.

Putting DOS on the machine doesn't make it not fit other things. It just makes it not NEED other things. I still wiped a lot of machines to install Coherent.

> The other major reason is that MS started
> out with a monopoly in the PC market.

Okay, so the second reason we should have handled the software differently was because we didn't. Pardon me if I don't find that logic compelling.

Re:Microsoftie

[Chyeld]

There are very, very, few people on this Earth who prefer to think of themselves or their actions as 'evil'. And thus, most 'evil' is done under the belief that the action is either justified, or right.

Anyone with even a basic introduction will have bumped into the idea of "cognitive dissonance", or that our subconscious will manipulate our view of the world, ourselves, and our actions in order to reduce or minimize any internal conflict over them. It is fairly simple to understand therefore, that most 'evil' actions are committed by people who themselves believe they are doing 'good'.

I don't think there is any question that many of the actions Microsoft has taken in the past have been questionable to people on the outside. However those on the inside of the company guided those same actions to come to pass because they believed the actions were justified, necessary, and right.

This is the largest, and most scary, problem with corporations, or any other large organization, in general. The ability of people to 'group think' themselves into what seem to be horribly misguided lines of thought. And the tendency to continue down that slope till something outside of the group forces them to stop and re-evaluate the situation.

The reason people hate Microsoft is because even when these actions are rubbed it's face, when governments themselves come up and say "This is not acceptable, do not do this.", Microsoft seems completely unphased. Microsoft has become a company that, to those who follow it's actions, seems no longer to be simply 'blundering' into misconduct but actively looking for it.

Re:Microsoftie

[init100]

Microsoft, since the DOJ debacle, *appear* to be making an honest effort to do the Right Thing.

Yeah, sure, filing for ridiculous patents, pushing software patents in Europe, pushing for harsher copyright legislation, DRM, funding SCO, threats against Linux, pushing their own patent-encumbered platform-dependent standards instead of the already existing open cross-platform ones, etc, etc. I agree, that's surely the Right Thing.</sarcasm>

I'm wondering why the rest of the world doesn't see this.

May it be that you look upon Microsoft in a way that is more positive than they actually earn? Probably because you work there?

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

People think msft is evil because they rarely do things in the customers best interest.

1. Not porting Office to other preferred OSes
2. Not porting Visual Studio [or embracing GCC at all]
3. Supporting DRM wholeheartedly
4. Slow adoption of an IP stack
5. Lack of POSIX.1 compliance
6. Lack of OpenGL and other open standard support
7. re-invention of mp3 in the form of WMA and mpeg in the form WMV
8. WGA
9. the list goes on...

MSFT just assumes everything it does is a brilliant smashing great idea even if there is an open solution that would give the customer more freedom to migrate their work/data to and from tools as THEY see fit.

Combine collusion with PC vendors [e.g. Dell and the like] and the general smugness that the execs seem to have and you have an "evil corporation"

Tom

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Dang, so emotional! Here's a tip: your 'logical' opinion would be read with much more reception if you can do so without emotion.

Re:Microsoftie

[the_womble]

They do not know about the options.

They think that if they buy a Mac they will not be able to read Word documents - most people are not capable of distinguishing between hardware, OS and applications.

They have never HEARD of Linux.

They want something that they can buy in a big chain they are faimilar with. There might be a Mac, there will certainly be no pre-installed Linux.

There is no point having choices if you do not know it.

In addition, they have no way of assessing the alternatives.

Re:Microsoftie

[init100]

If you want to delve into me being over analytical, one could argue that it is the CONSUMERS fault that microsoft has reached the point that it has. If there wasn't such a high demand for it, companies could get by selling something other than windows while having good income levels.

If everyone demanded Windows anyway, I cannot see the reason to put those extremely anti-competitive clauses in the contracts with the OEM's. They did though, and it is now a part of the image of Microsoft in the eyes of those in the trade.

Re:Microsoftie

[Darth_Vito]

I found the parent post to be enlightening, and I suspect that if there are any investigative reporters that frequent Slashdot they may be inclined to do some digging. When Microsoft was generally accepted to be evil a story on this topic would not have much zing. Now that Microsoft has supplanted Johnson & Johnson at the top of the list for best corporate reputation there is more incentive for a major story that exposes them as evil. If Bill Gates is in fact using the Gates foundation to bribe officials it could be the beginning of the end for him and Microsoft.

Re:Microsoftie

[Plaid Phantom]

Ah, but BadDeedsDone should be subtracted from GoodDeedsDone in the original equation.

Re:Microsoftie

[HiThere]

I'll agree that the consumers are not blameless. That doesn't make MS any less evil.

If you examine the tactics and history of MS, it's full of evil deeds and illegal practices. (Sometimes these are the same, but not always.)

I consider any person who trust MS to be a fool, whether he is a CEO or a noob (or, of course, both). MS has grown large and powerful, in part, by cynically taking advantage of such fools. This is one part of their evil. It doesn't mean the fools were less foolish. And appearantly it doesn't cause them to be less foolish in the future.

I suppose that one could use a different analogy, and say the MS is no more evil than is a lion who stalks a sleeping gazelle with a broken leg. It is the gazelle's fate to be eaten, and the lion is merely doing what it was designed to do. But you can do this only at the price of stripping BOTH MS and the customer of their personhood. If they are persons, then MS is evil.

Now I can accept a position that declares that corporations are not persons, but only if you simultaneously support changing the laws (including case law) that depend their personhood. The same for companies that are predated upon by MS. Individuals are a different matter. Perhaps, then, we should fall back to the old greek notion of a "fool killer". As I recall the fool-killer was not considered an evil thing, but rather something that anyone wise would avoid. Not quite the same concept. But if the purpose of society is to make people safe from, among other things, fool-killers, then society should also act to make us safe from MS. The easiest way that occurs to me is to revoke their corporate charter (with no damages to the stockholders) for being a social liability rather than a social benefit. If a corporation is not a person, then it doesn't get the rights of protection that a person gets. Lousianna used to have this as a standard part of their legal system, and may yet, but I haven't heard of it being used in recent times.

N.B.: Just to be clear, if a corporation's charter is revoked, then it has no right to do business AS A CORPORATION in the jurisdictions where the revokation is effective. It would need to hire agents who would be independently responsible persons. (And independantly indictable.)

Re:Microsoftie

[Curunir_wolf]

Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

Bzzzt. Wrong. I may be pretty cynical, but there are certainly bigger cynics than me, and even *I* can see that the B&MG Foundation is *still* doing more harm to world society than they are doing good. Here is a little informative reading for you.

Since the original article is registration-only, I will give you the gist of that one. B&MG Foundation funds are invested to the tune of about 85-90%. So the vast majority of funds are simply investments. Those investments are very often in companies that are causing gross harm to poor areas and polluting third-world environments. And don't think that the investments don't draw dividends for Microsoft. If B&MG are investing in your school, what kind of software and programming do you think you'll be teaching?

This is akin to driving 35,000 a year in your 5 MPG SUV, then claim you are an environmentalist because you gave $5 to Greenpeace last Christmas.

Re:Microsoftie

[tbone1]

, but you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches

Yes I can. The primary, if not sole, purpose of philanthropy is to whitewash someone's reputation so that people will think "Gosh, what a nice person that wealthy Mr. X is. He surely didn't lie/cheat/steal his way to wealth." This has been true for a century at least (read Twain, Bierce, and Mencken's comments about dealing with this as magazine/newspaper editors), and was probably old then. Notice the example given below:

Jeanie Cummins, a survey respondent and homemaker in Olive Hill, Ky., says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft.

Now, if the primary purpose of philanthropy were to solve the problems they claim to solve, would the money that the philanthropic organization spends on trumpeting its own horn to the masses be better spent on solving the problem instead of buying tv and print time by disguising it as a news story?

Re:Microsoftie

[scottsk]

Do you mean the Gates whose foundation promotes worldwide population control? Heart in the right place?

Re:Microsoftie

[wellingj]

http://www.shoprcubed.com/

Re:Microsoftie

[Pojut]

Good point, sir.

Re:Microsoftie

[Ancil]

Most people are not familiar with why MS is 'evil' they just know that it is 'cool' to say so.

We call these people "slashdot".

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

"Computer-science"-wise, Microsoft funds as much research and contributes as much to further our understanding of computer science as any major research institution. You're not going to find many actual CS researchers out there who feel that MS is somehow inhibitting CS. The word you're looking for is not "computer scientist", it's "computer hobbyist." There's no rational reason for MS to slow down and help out the hobbyist crowd. When a public company wastes investor funds on features for people who don't spend money, they're being irresponsible.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

That should be NetDoneDeeds not AllDoneDeeds. AllDoneDeeds is a sum of scalars, whereas NetDoneDeeds is a sum of vectors.

Fucking nerds.

Re:Microsoftie

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

No one FORCES a consumer to buy a computer with windows or from a big-name manufacturer.

You seem to have completely mistaken MS's market and the people parties who are directly harmed by MS. MS does not sell their OS to individuals, at least not in quantities that are meaningful in comparison to the number they sell to OEMs and corporations. It is Dell and Gateway and Bloomberg that are directly harmed BY MS's actions. The end results trickle down to everyone.

Suppose you were made the CEO of Dell tomorrow. Now, you're building computer systems for the desktop and OS's are one vital component if you want to get any sales. How many options do you have that won't get you fired by the end of the week? That would be Microsoft and Vista. Apple won't sell OS X to you (for good reason). Linux has not been optimized for home users and is a poor fit and very little mainstream software runs on it. If you choose it you're gambling the entire company on the slight chance that you can convince developers to target that platform and that people would rather switch and abandon their old software then go to a different vendor. That is an unacceptable risk by any objective comparison, and possibly criminal.

So buy a mac if you don't like it.

I can buy a Mac because Apple built an entire chain of supply separate from MS. What can Gateway buy?

Should a company (in this case microsoft) be penalized because consumers didn't take the time to educate themselves before making a purchase?

No, a company should be punished because they knowingly broke the law by leveraging their monopoly to take over other markets by foisting inferior products on customers. MS isn't guilty because it is impossible to buy a Mac or put together a Linux machine. Having a monopoly is perfectly legal. The problem is that they abused that monopoly. MS is guilty because if I buy a Windows system including the Vista OS (monopoly), that choice provides me with unfair incentive to use IE, Windows Media Player, PlaysForSure DRM, DirectX, XPS format, MS Office, and Windows server among other products.

This goes back to the whole cars debate. Should car manufacturers be held liable because they are used for a bad purpose? Should a car manufacturer be sued because I drove on the sidewalk and therefore used their product to kill someone?

This has absolutely nothing to do with MS's illegal acts. In your analogy, what exactly is MS, Windows Vista and the Exchange protocol? You don't seem to have a clue as to what MS did that was illegal or why it is illegal.

Again, people are not FORCED. They do have a choice.

This is a common misconception. Antitrust law has little to do with forcing people to do something and has everything to do with breaking capitalism. Assume you go to the store and there are two products that will serve your purpose. One costs three times as much as the other. Are you forced to buy the cheaper one? No, you're not. With a monopoly in one market, I can (illegally) leverage that monopoly to make the correct choice for consumers acting in their own best interest to choose the inferior product, by introducing artificial problems with the other product. For example, assume I have a monopoly on electrical distribution. Now assume I go into the cheese business. With every month of electrical service I send along a free month's supply of cheese and I raise the price of electricity to cover the cost and give me a profit. I don't force anyone to use my electricity, they can always get a generator or something. I don't force them to eat my cheese, they can throw it out and buy it from the store. Does that make this legal? No. Despite the fact that no one is being forced to do anything, I'm leveraging a monopoly to take over a new market. Cheese sellers and producers would go out of business not because I made better cheese or cheaper cheese, but because I bundled that cheese with a monopoly. And once they all go out of business except for a few premiu

Re:Microsoftie

[soft_guy]

So be pissed at the school for doing so. I don't care - SHE does. That's the whole point.

Re:Microsoftie

[wellingj]

Our open source lab is hiring for the Linux interoperability project with Novell.

Embrace, Extend......and what's the word I'm looking for?

Re:Microsoftie

[I'm Don Giovanni]

LOLOLOL
How old are you, twelve?

Oh, and stop using the term "evil" for anything you have a beef with. You guys overuse that word so much that it has almost no meaning around here.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

Ooh! Ooh! Is it something daleks say? ;)

Re:Microsoftie

[killjoe]

"I've not always been on Microsoft's side in this argument, but I've seen a pattern: Microsoft, since the DOJ debacle, *appear* to be making an honest effort to do the Right Thing. They also appear to be getting pretty good at figuring out what the Right Thing is. I'm wondering why the rest of the world doesn't see this."

Because other people don't see the same pattern. We see the same old MS doing the same old things while hyping their "we are the new good guys" image. It's all talk and no action.

For evidence I will point at the Novell deal and the promise by Ballmer to sue linus USERS unless they used Suse. Does that seem like a company doing the right thing to you?

Re:Microsoftie

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't know the previous poster, but your comments make me very sad.

LOLOLOL How old are you, twelve?

This is an ad hominem attack, wholly illogical and worthless.

Oh, and stop using the term "evil" for anything you have a beef with. You guys overuse that word so much that it has almost no meaning around here.

Evil is, by definition, a moral judgement. The meaning is particular to an individual in any setting.

You managed to add nothing to the conversation, needlessly attacked people, and lowered the standard on the whole forum. Why don't you go post on Digg?

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Kind of proves the point.

It's *insightful* to say that when someone else is evil, that proves Microsoft's evil nature, because surely Microsoft was going to be evil anyway?

You people are on crack.

Re:Microsoftie

[BalkanBoy]

I believe it is YouTube's 1.6B acquisiton by Google that really put the final nail in Real's coffin...

Real was a great company. I know someone who used to work there. I'm willing to bet that executives at Real shit a brick when they heard of GOOG's YouTube purchase.... Real could've been the next YouTube...

Sort of tangential to your message, but definitely worth mentioning :).

Re:Microsoftie

[jahudabudy]

You people are on crack.

Most insightful thing I've seen on /. all day.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

I actually understand that Real is doing okay with the mobile thing. They certainly have a strong presence there, and they don't seem to be on the way to bankruptcy anytime soon.

I liked RealAudio. I was sort of sad when I had to go over my website converting all the large sound files to MP3. I've often been the last holdout of an obsolete technology when everyone else has switched.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> People think msft is evil because they rarely
> do things in the customers best interest.

You're confusing the consumer with the customer. The customer is someone who already buys and uses our product. The consumer is anyone who MIGHT buy and use our product.

Porting applications to another O/S is not for our customers. Our customers don't use another O/S exclusively. They have ours available; they'll run the applications there. No problem. The person who wants them ported is a consumer, who might become a customer if we port the applications. That would increase our market share.

But consumers who are well-served by open standards and commodity applications are unlikely to become our customers. If they have an alternate operating system and a suite of tools there that they want to stay compatible with their documents, they're probably not going to buy our application anyway. They probably have some alternate application already.

I don't like the standards process, myself. It's too long and convoluted and produces design-by-committee guidelines. If you want some radical new feature, you have to either break the standard, or wait forever while the committee thinks about it. It's just so much faster to shove it in a product and see what people think; if they like it, THEN we can move it to the standards track. This is what agile methodology and open source development are all about; scratch the itch, iterate rapidly, and gather user feedback.

I'm seeing a lot of apparent confusion where people's mindset seems to be "selfish = evil". That's enlightening. It also feeds right back into the charitable contribution thing where "unselfish = good". I wonder how much of this is a cultural perception that the Self is evil while the Other is good? Do for yourself, evil; do for others, good. Hm. Worth considering.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> May it be that you look upon Microsoft in
> a way that is more positive than they
> actually earn?

I doubt it. I was pretty viciously anti-Microsoft for years before I started noticing the changes, and remained skeptical for a few more years before coming to work here. I still question pretty much everything we do.

I do give Microsoft credit for things the outsider doesn't see. When I first got here, I got in an argument with somebody over standards support in IE7. I went to see if the IE team had any documentation on the issue at hand, and I found a massive archive of email discussion among the team about standards.

While I can't talk about the specifics, due to confidentiality and all that, I got to see what was important to the team and why they made the decisions they did. So while I might not agree with a particular decision about a particular part of the standard, I'm a lot more accepting of it because I can see why that decision was made and that my concerns were taken into account.

I think a lot of people, being unable to see that, will bring up some issue and think Microsoft simply never thought about it. Within the company, we can see that the issue was hotly debated for an extended period of time, but we can't explain precisely what was debated or why we made the final decision - so we're stuck saying "no, really, we thought about that... we just didn't end up doing it". And that's not very convincing. ;)

Re:Microsoftie

[BalkanBoy]

Well, coming from Slashdot I didn't really expect anything more... Try this on for size - if it weren't for legal, sales or marketing - you can take your superior technical ideas and shove them where the sun don't shine....

Please don't treat or mod one liners as Insightful... It insults the intelligence of many, many people. I understand the medium of conversation is biased toward geeks, but in all fairness there should be some objective/fact based discussion rather than just opinions....

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

Your line of thinking is WHY people find MSFT so evil.

Oh, you use Windows, great, then we can totally ignore all open standards and lock you into our platform/tools. Great, you have legacy data awesome!

Put aside the anti-competitive argument for a minute. The reason I'm [and many OSS advocates] are not MSFT customers is simply because while individual tools from MSFT may be "the best" the package is not. That's part of what the FLOSS world likes so much. Hate Gnome? Use KDE, but guess what, Mozilla will still work in it! Like Linux but not the x86 platform? Great, here's a kernel for PPC and a C and C++ compiler for it [etc].

With FLOSS you get to pick the combination of tools [within reason] that suit YOUR needs, not the sales and marketing needs of some overlord corporation.

For example, I love the IDE from Visual Studio. But I hate the Windows OS and the CL compiler. I'd love to pair VS with GCC and run it in Linux with glibc. Why is the IDE so desperately tied to the platform and compiler? [from a technical point of view]. Similarly, some people may like Word [why?], why can't Word work in Linux? Or BSD?

Answer: MSFT does only what's best in interests AT THE EXPENSE of what is actually good for the end users.

It's all nice that you work for MSFT, but dude, get some perspective. I hope you don't remain a corporate shill your entire life. Grow a backbone someday.

As to your comment on the standard process. Yes, some standards are ridiculously complicated. But it isn't like MSFT internal standards are any easier. They're just easier since you guys pick and choose what you want to implement as oppose to what industry seems to actually need. For development, for example, I'd rather have a POSIX.1 [unix srv4] platform any day compared to whatever Windows is called [w32api?]. I know that my apps written for Linux will work elsewhere WITHOUT modification, or vary few.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> The reason people hate Microsoft is because
> [...] Microsoft seems completely unphased.

I'm somewhat surprised at this.

We threw our cash-cow codebase out the window and started from scratch. We rebuilt our entire design, code, test, and review structure. We constructed an entire operating system on the fundamental pillars of security, networking, and usability.

And we seem unphased?

What, exactly, isn't good enough about throwing everything out and starting from scratch? That's exactly what I was saying needed to be done ten years ago. The biggest motivator for me to reconsider Microsoft's place in the world was when I saw them actually... well, let's be honest, agreeing with me. They were doing what I thought they should do. I liked that. It's one of the reasons I came to work here, which I would never have done five years ago.

But I'm honestly curious. What was the Right Thing in *your* opinion? How should Microsoft have responded to the court decisions? What should we have done?

Re:Microsoftie

[Shotgun]

You wouldn't be so confused if you had been working for Digital Research as they saw there contracts dry up due to Microsoft enforcing per-processor liscensing.
You'd probably know what we're talking about if you'd ever had to actually pay your money to upgrade perfectly good software because Microsoft was foisting another incompatible memory dump file format on the world.
You'd most likely understand if you had to pay for a copy of software that you'd never use due to the restrictive liscensing schemes the Microsoft forces on the market.
You'd probably had a clue if you had worked at BeOS and saw every avenue for introducing your software cut off by Microsoft.

You can't see the the evil because you have your head up your managers butt. Every read many reports that the environment up there is insular an breeds that particular condition. Microsoft has a monopoly and foist crap on the public at extortionist rates. That makes the whole lot corrupt...which is to say, evil.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Why is the IDE so desperately tied to the
> platform and compiler?

Because tight coupling reduces surface area, and reduced surface area increases security, reliability, and performance.

That's a valid design decision. You might not like it - I certainly don't - but it's a valid decision.

> MSFT does only what's best in interests AT
> THE EXPENSE of what is actually good for the
> end users.

How exactly are you *worse* off now that Microsoft has released Visual Studio? Nothing was removed from the market. You were not forced to change compilers, or platforms, or IDEs. You remain just as well-off as you already were.

What has changed is your understanding of what you COULD have. You look at Visual Studio, and you say "I want that for Linux and GCC", and there is a massive open source community whose job it is to give you that. When they don't do it, it isn't Microsoft's fault.

It takes a truly twisted mind to claim that when Microsoft makes things better for one class of users, they're really making things worse for another one. Why not just forbid Microsoft to do anything?

> it isn't like MSFT internal standards are any
> easier. They're just easier

Oh, I see. They're not easier - just easier.

Wait, no, I don't see at all.

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

Where exactly does the evil come from? How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

because the people are evil. they are also vain, so they like to act evil and not consider themselves evil.

folks, for all the ridicule the bible gets, this is its FOUNDATIONAL message - selfishness is EVIL and all the things people think they want (peace, happiness, joy, etc.) is IMPOSSIBLE for the community as a whole as long people are selfish. PERIOD.

this is a LAW every bit as much as gravity.

the *only* way to true goodness for the world is to care about others EQUAL to oneself.

anything less is, by definition of the author of the bible, evil.

yeah, that makes me and all people evil... but it does explain why evil things happen, selfish, self centered people do them b/c they don't care about others EQUAL to themselves... so, if others are hurt... who cares, right? after all, *i gots mine, baby!*

the irony is that *mine* is *never* enough. more, more, more...

then you die having left so much opportunity for goodness to rot next to the road of one's life.

oh, and charity means giving with no expectation of getting back. business is giving with plans of getting. sounds to me like some of bill's "charity" is actually a well thought out advertising plan which has worked quite well given the nature of this thread.

Re:Microsoftie

[CommandNotFound]

But I'm honestly curious. What was the Right Thing in *your* opinion? How should Microsoft have responded to the court decisions? What should we have done?

All the points you made were technical improvements. Yes, Microsoft software tends to be marginal, but it's the fact that it is *forced* on many of us is the real problem. Even if the software is perfect, many companies have now given their whole computing future to a single company. The OS? Microsoft. The office suite? Microsoft. The development tools? Microsoft. The database server? Microsoft. Various methods were used to get to this position, and improved engineering had little to do with it in the mid-1990s when this monopoly was carefully being built.

What should you have done? Lots of things, but for starters, someone should have been jailed for the so-called School Agreement that says (quoted from your website):

Count the number of eligible PCs you have. (See below for a definition of an eligible PC.) Then choose the application, system, and Client Access License (CAL) products you want to be licensed to use.
[...]
Eligible computers include: 100 percent of academic institution owned or leased Pentium II, iMac G3, or equivalent or better computers.


To paraphrase, if I donated 100 Linux / OpenOffice PCs to my local school, Microsoft would still get an annual fee for each of those PCs, even though Microsoft did nothing to earn that money. That, my friend, is taxation. And Microsoft's lobby would prevent any public officials from having this lock-in overturned.

Oh, well, I'm not worried... the farther Microsoft goes, the farther it will fall. It happened to IBM. If the timing is right, Gates' historical reputation will be as tarnished as Rockefeller's still is, regardless of how much money his heirs gave away.

Re:Microsoftie

[jaseparlo]

That may seem to be the case on the surface, but the B&MG foundation is a massive corporate entity which currently has about $35 billion in investments, and endowed only around 1.5 billion in 2005. The other $30 odd billion remained invested in many companies which are contributing to global health and social problems in the first place. He intends to double the investment over time. Long LA Times article here. For example, while contributing hundreds of millions to fund AIDS treatment in poor countries, in 2005, the foundation held nearly $1.5 billion worth of stock in drug companies whose practices have been widely criticized as restricting the flow of key medicines to poor people in developing nations.

What really would be a contribution to actually changing the world, rather than simply boosting your public profile with meaningless gestures like this, would be for the Gates foundation to only invest in companies with certified environmentally sustainable and socially just practices. Sure, the net profit of the foundation would be cut significantly by this, but imagine the overall philanthropic effect of some of the world's biggest polluters and exploiters falling over themselves to clean up their act and get a part of one of the world's biggest investment funds

If the allegedly saintly Bill really wanted to change to world, that's in his power, but currently the foundation does more harm than good

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

No. Visual Studio is tied to windows to prop window sales, just like Office and the rest of the apps. If Windows followed ANY open standards w.r.t. operating system calls, gui libraries, etc, porting from Windows to Linux or BSD wouldn't be an impossible task.

As for doing things at the EXPENSE of the customers. How about things like ... using proprietary undocumented file formats, exploiting internal API functions, purposefully messing existing apps (back in the day w.r.t lotus), not supporting industry standards, etc.

For example, getting users hooked on Office back in the day, and then vigorously seeking to modify the file format to make it harder to work with.

Similarly, with IE. Why doesn't IE follow the W3C standards? Why must people design for IE and then "the rest of the world". IE came bundled with Windows, got people hooked and then msft used it to depart from the standards, further locking in users.

etc..

As for internal specs being easier ... yeah for MSFT, not others. MSFT can develop applications for .doc [for instance] because the format is known internally, it was also designed internally. I'm holding my breath until Office can open StarOffice documents...

Tom

Re:Microsoftie

[spectecjr]

OK count me as the most cynical. He is using his money in an apparently successful PR campaign. If it were all about virtue, the only information you could find about it would be the IRS forms.

And then, you'd be complaining that he has all this money and he's not doing anything with it, of course...

Re:Microsoftie

[Anonymous Coward]

And how many do you think have even heard of Steve Ballmer?

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

Millions of people are victims of the Gates juggernaut. Some lost $50 by being forced to buy Dos or Windows.

No-one, anywhere, ever, has been "forced" to spend a cent on Microsoft software, for any meaningfully useful definition of the word "forced".

Others lost their livelihoods by daring to compete on a rigged playing field.

Claims like this might get close to passing the laugh test, but for numerous others who have become multi-millionaires (if not billionaires) competing in that exact same "rigged playing field".

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

Suppose you were made the CEO of Dell tomorrow. Now, you're building computer systems for the desktop and OS's are one vital component if you want to get any sales. How many options do you have that won't get you fired by the end of the week? That would be Microsoft and Vista. Apple won't sell OS X to you (for good reason). Linux has not been optimized for home users and is a poor fit and very little mainstream software runs on it. If you choose it you're gambling the entire company on the slight chance that you can convince developers to target that platform and that people would rather switch and abandon their old software then go to a different vendor. That is an unacceptable risk by any objective comparison, and possibly criminal.

Translation: Dell are "forced" to buy Windows because the potential alternatives are either a) unavailable or b) t3h suck.

By your logic, I was forced to buy my Triumph Sprint ST, because it is the best motorbike in its market segment. Do you think the courts will let me sue my dealer ?

No, a company should be punished because they knowingly broke the law by leveraging their monopoly to take over other markets by foisting inferior products on customers.

"Inferior" is meaningless. Every product is an "inferior product" by some measure.

MS is guilty because if I buy a Windows system including the Vista OS (monopoly), that choice provides me with unfair incentive to use IE, Windows Media Player, PlaysForSure DRM, DirectX, XPS format, MS Office, and Windows server among other products.

Fantastic logic. Microsoft aren't allowed to make their products actually do anything useful, because they are a monopoly.

You sure do hate Microsoft's customers, don't you ? Why is that ?

With a monopoly in one market, I can (illegally) leverage that monopoly to make the correct choice for consumers acting in their own best interest to choose the inferior product, by introducing artificial problems with the other product. For example, assume I have a monopoly on electrical distribution. Now assume I go into the cheese business. With every month of electrical service I send along a free month's supply of cheese and I raise the price of electricity to cover the cost and give me a profit.

Where in this example are you "introducing artificial problems" into the "other product" (which can only be another electrical supply, for the analogy to be valid) ?

What MS has done that is both unethical and illegal is not force people to buy Windows, but to tie the purchase of Windows to numerous other products, halting innovation and competition in those markets.

False. Microsoft have improved their products in line with a) competitors' products and b) customer demands.

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

If it were an empty argument, the DOJ wouldn't have been able to get their case off the ground.

Since when was the legal process bothered by facts ?

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

I studied MS extensively for a political science thesis. My conclusion is that MS is evil.

So if you call Microsoft "evil", what do you call, say, Tobacco corporations ? You know, to communicate a bit of scale ? Reallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyreallyre allyreallyreallyEvil ?

Re:Microsoftie

[Viceroy Potatohead]

Nice emotive language, bringing up the KKK. I think you will find most people who poopoo MS have slightly different reasoning than the Klan.

To mention a couple of those reasons:
1. Microsoft has broken the law, and a fairly major one, and avoided punishment. In other words, they have been willing to act against laws designed to support businesses and consumers from unethical activities. (You personally are reaping the benefits of that lack of legal and legitimate punishment, so I can understand your defense of the corp.)

2. Microsoft has leveraged their immense wealth, and corporate/social impact, in trying to avoid laws in Europe, designed to protect businesses and consumers.

3. Microsoft has a history of dealing in bad faith, and using destructive and vindictive business practices. Although not illegal, perhaps, they are certainly a valid reason for a negative view of the corporation.

4. Microsoft has a history of offering unready, ill conceived software to the market, and avoiding market backlash due to their monopolistic position. Certainly, they come up with some really good software, but, as often as not, they rush out poorly designed and/or poorly tested solutions. This gives the impression that they are more interested in cashing in on their monopoly status, at the expense of value to their paying customers.

And many more...

You may be happy where you work, and you may be happy with your corporation, but please don't spew such irrational nonsense when there are plenty of legitimate reasons to consider your company bad news. It may be quite rosy working where you work, but that is quite irrelevant. Bill Gates may be a really decent guy, and a wonderful philanthropist, but that is also irrelevant. Your corporation is behaving against the interests of many of us who don't work there. Evil, no. I don't buy the concept. Worthy of rebuke, certainly. Bad, certainly.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

Isn't this normal?

No. Pushing the "coproration as a person" analogy a bit further, it is not normal for people to desire domination over other people.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

The point was that corporations tend to act evil in general, Microsoft being just one of the more prominent examples.

Re:Microsoftie

[Yvanhoe]

Except every MS publication has a counter-part : many patent claims and unpublished results. You are right that computer hobbyists are those who are most angry at Microsoft : they would like to toy with MS technologies because they are widespread. CS researchers, however, generally use a different OS.

Re:Microsoftie

[jimstapleton]

I never said they didn't perform a valid and important purpose, however they often go too far...

Marketing:
Good: Sell a good product to those who need/want it
Evil: trying to get money from anyone regardless of need/want, trying to encourage methods of forcing people to pay extra money for minimal return, trying sell something useless and then get people to buy the functional parts as extras, etc.

Legal:
Good: Protecting a company from predatory practices of others
Evil: enacting such predatory practices against anyone they can

Accounting:
Good: Making product production cost efficient whithout degrading quality
Evil: Forcing corner-cutting to the point where a quality product can no longer be produced.

Because these areas are typically "about the money" with little other concern, they often go towards the "evil" options, since they are appear more lucrative (and typically are in short to medium term).

Re:Microsoftie

[ladoga]

There have been some improvements since they've started facing anti-trust suits, and there are more OS-free and free-OS computers coming from the big manufacturers, but it's still hard to find a solid laptop without paying for Windows. I'm sure you're going to claim otherwise, and I'd appreciate links. I may go laptop shopping in the near future, and right now the only reliable Linux laptops I'm aware of come from System76.

Good luck.

AFAIK all laptops that are sold by big manufactureres with linux or without OS are still going to profit MS as the OEMs are billed per machine sold. So whenever you buy a laptop from companies like IBM (Lenovo), HP, Dell, etc. (windows or not) you end up paying to MS. Also it's very likely that OEM will charge you extra for removing windows or installing linux on it.

I had to pay for Windows XP that came with my Thinkpad X41, even if I had no intention to use it. They simply told me that it's not possible to get refund of it as it's integral part of the product. When I got the machine I plugged it to a temporary DHCP server and netbooted the Debian installer PXE. (X41 doesn't have optical/floppy drives)

Re:Microsoftie

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Translation: Dell are "forced" to buy Windows because the potential alternatives are either a) unavailable or b) t3h suck.

No, they are "forced" to buy Windows because there are no realistic alternatives. It doesn't even have to be that there are no alternative, only that those alternatives do not significantly influence the market, s with Linux.

By your logic, I was forced to buy my Triumph Sprint ST, because it is the best motorbike in its market segment. Do you think the courts will let me sue my dealer ?

If there was only one motorcycle you could buy that would get you where you needed to go and you run a business selling something other than motorcycles (like helmets) that the only motorcycle dealer has tied to the purchase of motorcycles, then you should be able to sue them. Please stay on topic and compare apples to apples here.

"Inferior" is meaningless. Every product is an "inferior product" by some measure.

In general the product that wins a given sale is the one that best meets the customer's needs. By leveraging a monopoly I can create artificial problems with my competitor's products in that market. For example, I might give away a "free" helmet with every bike. In a market where neither helmets nor motorcycles are monopolized, this is perfectly fine. In a market where motorcycles are monopolized this means everyone was just forced to buy a helmet, even if it not the color, or style, or does not meet the safety requirements. Some will use it anyway. They bought an inferior product for them, because the monopolist artificially influenced the market, effectively doubling the price of competitor's helmets.

Fantastic logic. Microsoft aren't allowed to make their products actually do anything useful, because they are a monopoly.

MS are allowed to make products better, they just aren't allowed to tie them to Windows. For example, they can invent a new protocol (exchange) and have it talk to their server, but they can't keep that protocol secret so other server manufacturers can't use that feature of their monopolized desktop. They can make the best media player on the planet, they just can't bundle it with Windows insuring it will be everywhere, when they refuse to bundle competitor's media players as well.

Currently the most popular media jukebox software has a pretty crappy interface, does not work with the most popular portable player, and by default rips all CDs with DRM added, DRM that does not even work with most player causing many people to have to re-rip all their CDs. Does that sound like the "best" product is winning the market to you?

Where in this example are you "introducing artificial problems" into the "other product" (which can only be another electrical supply, for the analogy to be valid) ?

Once again you misunderstand. It isn't illegal to have a monopoly. It is illegal to leverage a monopoly into another market. In the case of cheese and electricity the artificial problem is introduced into the competitor's cheese, and it is price. If the go with electric company cheese they pay once, if not a good price. If they go with someone else they pay for the electric company cheese and for disposing of it and for the new cheese. In other forms of tying (aside from bundling) the deficiency introduced can be something else. In the case of Windows desktop and server, the problem with competitor's servers is they can't talk the native protocols Windows desktop does. That is a problem that only exists because of what MS did to their desktop. They took the existing protocol, changed it a bit to behave in ways hard to understand (but not inherently beneficial) and then patented those changes. This is an artificial problem with Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, etc. servers, created using their monopolized product. If some other company had monopolized the desktop OS market, MS would be unable to do this because just changing the protocols on their server does nothing. Hence, leveraging a monopoly.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> You wouldn't be so confused if you had been working
> for Digital Research

Digital Research faced a massive threat. They refused to acknowledge, accept, or handle that threat. They died. It's a damn shame - I liked DR, I consider them the originators of DOS as we knew it, and DR-DOS 6 was IMO far superior to the MS product - but that's how the market works.

> if you'd ever had to actually pay your money to
> upgrade perfectly good software because Microsoft
> was foisting another incompatible memory dump file
> format on the world.

Could you tell me more about this? I don't really have enough information to respond intelligently.

I *might* have a good answer for you: Borland once demanded that I pay $120 plus shipping to upgrade to Borland C++ 3.1 when I lost my 3.0 install disk, and when I explained that I needed 3.0 disks so I could produce 16-bit binaries - they told me I couldn't have them unless I first upgraded to 3.1 and then paid for a support ticket. That seems like a similar situation. However, rather than pay their extortionary fees, I simply switched to Watcom, which is the beauty of competition.

But sometimes there is no competition, in which case this little anecdote is meaningless.

> if you had to pay for a copy of software that you'd
> never use

I do that pretty much every time I set up a Linux box. I think I have two white-box Linux machines, and all the rest of them (about two dozen) have the little MS license key attached to them. None of them are running Windows, and the Windows license these keys represent is only good on that hardware, so it's useless to me elsewhere.

However, when I compare the price of this commodity hardware on a shelf at Best Buy to the price of white-box components plus shipping plus waiting two weeks for delivery, I find that I actually save money. Roughly $200, last time I did the math.

I am not willing to spend $200 over the principle that I should actually be saving $340. I agree that there is a principle there; but I caution you that the actual savings of not getting that OEM license are nowhere near the retail price. So it's not even really about $340. It's more like $220, for the big box retailers who buy lots of licenses.

> You'd probably had a clue if you had worked at BeOS

I was one of the early registered BeOS developers. Do you actually want my analysis of what went wrong there, or are you just betting I don't know about it?

> You can't see the the evil because you have your
> head up your managers butt

I'd expect that in an evil company, that's where the evil would be most visible.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> it's the fact that it is *forced* on many of
> us is the real problem

What is the alternative?

A company must standardise on a platform so its IT department can specialise. That platform should be something that people are comfortable using, that is interoperable with other companies, and for which support staff are readily available.

What else qualifies? The Linux and Mac communities are just too small. Not enough rank and file office workers can use them. Not enough other companies are standardised on them. Not enough available IT staff can support them. The choice of Windows has effectively become a tautology: people choose Windows because people choose Windows.

> improved engineering had little to do with it
> in the mid-1990s when this monopoly was
> carefully being built.

How careful did we need to be in a market where there was no serious competitor? UNIX in its official form was up to a hundred times the cost. FreeBSD engineers were in short supply and quite rightly demanded massive salaries. Linux was still effectively a toy. DOS was dead. OS/2 was dying. BeOS was barely trying.

And as I recall, Windows 95 was a quantum leap in quality over Windows 3.1, where we were still being criticised for requiring DOS underneath it. Of course, once we welded DOS and Windows tightly together, we were criticised for not really getting rid of DOS - the new system still inherited many of its limitations - and for not allowing people to choose DOS alone without Windows.

Because we can't win. Every advance closes a door through which someone thinks we should have gone.

> someone should have been jailed for the
> so-called School Agreement

Licensing! My specialty. *cracks knuckles* Probably the wrong rhetorical move.

The School Agreement is one of THREE licensing options available to K-12 institutions. (The Campus Agreement is applicable to higher education, but is grouped with the same two other options.) The other two are Academic Open and Academic Select. If you're looking at the School/Campus Agreement (which requires at least 300 machines), you probably want to compare with Academic Select (which requires at least 250 machines). Academic Open has no minimum, but the price break isn't as big.

> To paraphrase, if I donated 100 Linux /
> OpenOffice PCs to my local school, Microsoft
> would still get an annual fee for each of
> those PCs, even though Microsoft did nothing
> to earn that money.

Wrong.

1. Your school owes NOTHING for those 100 PCs unless and until they renew the School Agreement, which may have a term of one or three years.

2. Your school receives licenses for those 100 PCs at no additional cost under the terms of this agreement.

3. At the conclusion of the agreement, if you do not want to pay for licenses on those 100 PCs, you may at your option switch to the Academic Select program - which does not require you to license every eligible PC.

This is precisely why you SHOULD NOT (RFC 2119) try to make licensing decisions without the advice and guidance of someone properly educated in the appropriate licensing options.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> No. Visual Studio is tied to windows to prop window sales

Who the hell buys Windows to run Visual Studio?

> getting users hooked on Office back in the day, and then
> vigorously seeking to modify the file format to make it
> harder to work with.

We don't score any points for recently releasing that format to a standards body, huh? So we lose for what we did ten years ago, but what we did last year doesn't count. Real fair and balanced, there.

> using proprietary undocumented file formats,

(like everyone else)

> exploiting internal API functions,

(like everyone else)

> purposefully messing existing apps

(like everyone else)

> not supporting industry standards

If your standards weren't so implicitly predicated on a 32-bit operating environment with a flat memory model, we might have been able to implement them on a 16-bit processor with a segmented memory model. But they were, so we really couldn't.

> Why doesn't IE follow the W3C standards?

It does. There are only a few minor incompatibilities. Firefox has some, too.

> I'm holding my breath until Office can open
> StarOffice documents.

That will probably happen sometime after someone sends me a StarOffice document I need to open. Which will be, hmm, roughly... never.

Nobody uses StarOffice. That's why it sucks, and has always sucked, and will always suck. It's a dancing bear - it isn't that it dances well, but it's just amazing that it dances at all. Every time I've ever opened StarOffice to try and do something, I've generally realised that I could do it faster and better in vi, which would also be a lot less likely to crash.

Re:Microsoftie

[BalkanBoy]

> I never said they didn't perform a valid and important purpose, however they often go too far...

and I was somehow supposed to be able to deduce this based on your one liner.... Glad you clarified it now.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

You don't want to make more money than your neighbor?

You don't want a bigger TV set? A nicer car? A prettier girlfriend? MORE girlfriends?

If not, how much of that is because you actually don't want it, and how much is because you simply don't think you can get it, or would rather have something else?

I mean, my neighbor has a BMW. I don't. It's not that I wouldn't like having a BMW, but it's largely that there are other things I would like more. I'll happily drive my Oldsmobile, which is hardly a piece of garbage, and use my money to buy guitars and computers instead. My neighbor with the BMW doesn't have a guitar. My other neighbor does; in fact, he has a really nice one. But mine is nicer, and I like that.

What's wrong with that?

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> I think you will find most people who poopoo
> MS have slightly different reasoning than the
> Klan.

Yes, but their logic is still often contradictory.

> 1. Microsoft has broken the law, and a fairly
> major one, and avoided punishment.

Weren't we handed a whole stack of injunctions and requirements? That's not avoiding punishment.

> 2. Microsoft has leveraged their immense wealth,
> and corporate/social impact, in trying to avoid
> laws in Europe

Isn't that business as usual in Europe? You bribe this official, and bribe that official, and hire this official's nephew, and donate to that official's fundraiser - or else they enforce a completely ludicrous requirement that locals don't have to follow? That's the way I remember it.

> 3. Microsoft has a history of dealing in bad
> faith, and using destructive and vindictive
> business practices.

Isn't that business as usual in America? "Do unto others before they do unto you"? It's not like much larger and richer companies weren't laughing at us and calling us stupid when we were starting out, then using the very same destructive and vindictive techniques against us when we actually started to succeed.

> 4. Microsoft has a history of offering unready,
> ill conceived software to the market

Isn't that at the heart of the open source model? Release early, release often?

From the right perspective, your argument looks self-contradictory. Just like the Klan; when they claim black men are lazy welfare jockeys *and* take white people's jobs, you sort of have to scratch your head.

However, I'll accept that you consider the company worthy of rebuke and bad. I understand that. It's the "evil" part I don't get.

Re:Microsoftie

[tomstdenis]

No, you don't score points for changing your file format after years of abuse. Also for totally avoiding something like the Open Office format which already exists. Really smooth there.

> using proprietary undocumented file formats,
(like everyone else)

Um say what? OpenOffice format is a bunch of XML in zip file. Oh you mean like WordPerfect, Lotus Notes, etc? Except, WordPerfect wasn't tied to one OS, wasn't developed by a platform developer to tie in to the OS. You didn't have to buy CorelLinux [for instance] to run WordPerfect.

As for the POSIX compatibility... why was Windows forever tied to the previous OSes? You're supporting an OS which is in one way or another compatible with a non-standard OS from 1983. It's high time some of the legacy cruft was cut to make way for POSIX compliance. And frankly, why couldn't the win32api libraries be developed over top of a POSIX layer in future OSes? That way there is some backwards compatibility but also some future path to standardization.

You may hate the idea of people not locking their applications/data to a particular OS, but that's what a lot of us users find handy. Which is why we call you guys evil. You abuse your position of market dominance to flail inferior technology upon us and call it an upgrade [re: vista]. You bow to the DRM masters of the studios, interfere with OUR use of the computer all in the name of progress...

As for never wanting to open a Staroffice document ... you realize it's pretty much the same format as OpenOffice right? So you're basically saying you don't care what anyone says if it doesn't come in a format that recognizes your ignorance? Well I'm writing this with Firefox, in Gentoo Linux. How about that!!!!

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> WordPerfect wasn't tied to one OS, wasn't developed
> by a platform developer to tie in to the OS

Word was available for the Mac before Windows was even released.

> why was Windows forever tied to the previous OSes?

Because Microsoft was tied to previous customers who were often tied to thousands of dollars in existing software written for a previous O/S.

> why couldn't the win32api libraries be developed over
> top of a POSIX layer

What's wrong with "Services For Unix"? Granted, it's exactly the opposite - a POSIX layer over top of the Win32 API - but seriously, what's wrong with it?

> You may hate the idea of people not locking their
> applications/data to a particular OS, but that's what
> a lot of us users find handy.

That's inaccurate. I happen to NOT HATE the idea of people LOCKING applications/data to a particular O/S. I agree it's not the greatest thing they could do. I agree it would be better if the applications/data weren't locked. But I do not think failure to do the best possible thing is evil or hateful or even undesirable.

> you don't care what anyone says if it doesn't come in
> a format that recognizes your ignorance?

This is how communication works. You have something to send, and you want me to receive it. So you choose a protocol that both sides understand.

When someone sends me a StarOffice document, he has chosen the wrong protocol. He has done this, not because he doesn't speak Microsoft Office, but because he wants me to speak StarOffice. StarOffice can, after all, produce documents in several formats that Microsoft Office can open - so his choice of a format it CANNOT open is deliberate. He wants me to install StarOffice.

So it is, in effect, a remote code execution exploit. And I refuse those on principle, just like unsigned ActiveX controls and invitations to punch the monkey.

> Well I'm writing this with Firefox, in Gentoo Linux.

And look, it opens great in IE7 on Vista. Isn't interoperability great?

But if it didn't, I wouldn't read it. You're some random guy on the internet. What you say may be very smart and insightful and interesting, but it's not important. I don't NEED to read it any more than you NEED me to read it.

Now, if my manager sends me an important document in StarOffice format, that's another matter. That isn't going to happen here at Microsoft. It never happened when I was working anywhere else, either - except when I was running my own company on "no Microsoft software EVER for ANYTHING", and I sent out important documents in StarOffice format, and then I would get them back with messages saying "WTF, use MS Office".

So I did. You can't run a company doing things your customers hate. It leads to bankruptcy. I flushed about $75,000 down the toilet fighting the good fight on the open source front lines, and then I figured out that you people honestly don't care about me. You don't care if my business succeeds. You don't care if my work gets done. You don't care if my rent gets paid. You only care that I don't use Microsoft products. And that's a pretty sick culture.

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

No, they are "forced" to buy Windows because there are no realistic alternatives.

Indeed. Precisely the reason I was "forced" to buy my motorbike.

If there was only one motorcycle you could buy that would get you where you needed to go and you run a business selling something other than motorcycles (like helmets) that the only motorcycle dealer has tied to the purchase of motorcycles, then you should be able to sue them.

My motorcycle came with numerous features that I was "forced" to have bundled, including a trip computer, a pillion seat and luggage.

Fortunately it also came with several things I wanted - mirrors, headlights and a muffler - for no extra charge, so that made up for it.

Please stay on topic and compare apples to apples here.

I am. Your implication is that Microsoft has bundled various features into Windows that consumers did not want and/or did not derive any benefit from. My point - as illustrated by the somewhat ridiculous example above - is that your implication is baseless, since whether the "extra features" provide value is _entirely_ dependent on perspective.

Almost every (I'd say every, but I'm sure you'll manage to find some obscure example and use it to proclaim complete and utter victory) piece of functionality "bundled" into Windows over the years has been in direct response to either competitors doing the same or customer demand. Moreover, they are quite relevant to the purpose of Windows as a product and the market it was targeting.

In general the product that wins a given sale is the one that best meets the customer's needs. By leveraging a monopoly I can create artificial problems with my competitor's products in that market. For example, I might give away a "free" helmet with every bike. In a market where neither helmets nor motorcycles are monopolized, this is perfectly fine. In a market where motorcycles are monopolized this means everyone was just forced to buy a helmet, even if it not the color, or style, or does not meet the safety requirements. Some will use it anyway. They bought an inferior product for them, because the monopolist artificially influenced the market, effectively doubling the price of competitor's helmets.

Doubling ? 2*0 = 0, I think your maths needs some work.

Your example here is still inaccurate, however, because it implies there are no alternatives to Windows when there are. They might not be as good (although I'd argue Ubuntu is pretty damn close), but that is no more the fault of Microsoft than all the other helmets on the market not being as good as the one bundled with the bike is the fault of the motorcycle manufacturer.

MS are allowed to make products better, they just aren't allowed to tie them to Windows.

Ie: Microsoft aren't allowed to make Windows better.

For example, they can invent a new protocol (exchange) and have it talk to their server, but they can't keep that protocol secret so other server manufacturers can't use that feature of their monopolized desktop.

Nor can they be allowed to have trade secrets, it seems...

They can make the best media player on the planet, they just can't bundle it with Windows insuring it will be everywhere, when they refuse to bundle competitor's media players as well.

Right. Because customers would clearly benefit from having a thousand different media players installed on their PCs by default. Hey, it would make Windows just like Linux !

This idea is so ridiculous I'm surprised someone of your intelligence would even suggest it. It's the kind of thing that gets littered throughout Slashdot comments by fifteen-year-olds who, when they make it, are thinking "Microsoft should bundle WMP and $MY_FAVOURITE_MEDIA_PLAYERS with Windows, because then I wouldn't have to go and download them !".

How many different media players are out there ? Who is going to keep track of _all_ of them to ensure they are all bundled into *and work wit

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

It's okay to want to have more wealth/power/whatever than others, and like that. It's not okay to want to use that wealth/power/whatever to dominate the others, and like that. The former attitude is what we call competitive. The latter is what we call power-hungry. Surely you can see the difference?

Re:Microsoftie

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Look, I'm not going to waste my time going through all this again. The concept of monopolies is not that hard and all your questions are easily answered by about 5 minutes worth of research. Bundling and tying is illegal when one item is from a monopolized market and another is from a separate, pre-exiting market. The market for helmets is separate from the market for motorcycles. The market for speedometers is a subset of the market for motorcycles, unless it is a replacement part. No one sold motorcycle speedometers before there was a market for motorcycles. I'm sure you'll find some way to argue against that point, but it is not because you're an idiot that can't understand the concept. It is because you're a stubborn fool who does not want to understand the concept so they are intentionally being obtuse. If you sat down with an open mind and ten minutes and a economics book, you could understand monopolies and our laws and the reason for them. You, however, already have an opinion and you are not interested in learning or understanding. You're interested in trying to justify that opinion no matter what.

Have fun with that. I'm not wasting any more of my time explaining the entire concept in detail when I've already done so in previous threads for different articles. I'm not even reading the rest of your post. Have fun with your irrational beliefs you try to support with logic, instead of opinions formed from a logical consideration of the facts. It is sad that our educational system has so failed to teach logic, to the point that it is a way to justify belief, instead of make decisions or form opinions.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Surely you can see the difference?

The difference between competitive and power-hungry is largely about whether you think the loser DESERVED to lose.

I think the loser always deserves to lose. I think that in the vast majority of cases, enough that you can effectively pretend it's ALL cases, the loser loses because of something the loser has done wrong or failed to do altogether.

It is very rarely - almost never - because of anything the winner has done particularly right. It is simply that the winner connected all of the dots without getting them out of order.

But for precisely this reason, it is entirely as valid to say that the winner DID NOT DESERVE TO WIN. In the classic story of the tortoise and the hare, these people would claim that the tortoise cheated. He won by default; the hare wasn't running. If the hare ran, the tortoise would have lost. The race was not fair.

And when you couple this with the idea that nobody deserves to lose, which isn't an uncommon viewpoint among hippies and liberals and the people who run the Special Olympics, you start thinking that the winner is always some kind of villain. After all, the loser didn't deserve to lose, and the winner didn't deserve to win. That's pretty much the definition of "cheating", isn't it? Unfortunately, it's true no matter who wins. Once you accept this idea, EVERYONE who wins by definition cheated to do so. The idea of competition becomes unacceptable. You effectively become a Marxist.

It's all in your perspective. Start looking at what Microsoft's competition did wrong or didn't do at all; the question isn't quite as cut and dried. Most of the time, they were sleeping under a tree and we just wandered past.

Re:Microsoftie

[CommandNotFound]

How careful did we need to be in a market where there was no serious competitor? UNIX in its official form was up to a hundred times the cost. FreeBSD engineers were in short supply and quite rightly demanded massive salaries. Linux was still effectively a toy. DOS was dead. OS/2 was dying. BeOS was barely trying.

I don't buy those arguments, because by the same metric, at the time DOS was a toy, and Windows 3.x doubly so. But let's take a more concrete example that doesn't involve the OS. What about WordPerfect? Lotus? Do you not think that having the application stack as well as the API (Win16/32) is not a conflict of interest? Imagine if GE controlled a large portion of the power companies. All they would need to do is switch to 50Hz, 147V power every several years, and soon enough people would get tired of buying adapters for their Sylvania or Frigidaire products and just choose the path of least resistance. It's all just 'market forces' until only one plausible provider exists. It's amazing to me that simple principles are missed: competition is good for all parties concerned in the long run. Even for Microsoft, having a monopoly will be bad for those employees who will have to fight it out during the decline.

I *want* people to be able to freely use whatever product they choose, including Windows. However, the way Microsoft designs its products, implements its licenses, and handles its lobbyists means that when someone chooses Microsoft, my ability to choose an alternative is diminished. This does not happen when someone chooses Linux, Mac, S/390, etc, other than the natural network effects.

1. Your school owes NOTHING for those 100 PCs unless and until they renew the School Agreement, which may have a term of one or three years.

So you are admitting that Microsoft receives payment for services or products rendered by another entity. I don't care if it's after one or three years. Microsoft DID NOTHING to provide services or software for those 100 PCs. Why on earth should they receive tribute for them? That is not extortion how? Do you not realize the implications of this?

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> at the time DOS was a toy, and Windows 3.x doubly so

Yes, which is why Windows 95 had no effective competition. And your point was...?

> Do you not think that having the application stack as
> well as the API (Win16/32) is not a conflict of interest?

I don't think it's a conflict of interest when a company writes applications for its own operating system. In fact, I think it's NECESSARY, so the company can ensure its API is actually sensible.

> other than the natural network effects

I think the effects you notice with Microsoft are also natural network effects, but that the network is massively large and therefore the effect is massively magnified. The same effects occur with other products, but the network is so small many effects are lost in the noise.

> So you are admitting that Microsoft receives payment for
> services or products rendered by another entity.

No we're not. Look at this timeline.

2005 - School buys 3-year Windows license for 300 PCs.

2006 - You give the school 100 Linux PCs. The school immediately receives 100 Windows licenses for them under the terms of the School Agreement, but PAYS NOTHING. This is Microsoft providing a service. The school does not have to use the licenses unless they want to. But they do. So they will.

2007 - The school gets Vista upgrade licenses for all *400* PCs and does not pay one red cent. This is Microsoft providing software. The school does not have to upgrade anything unless they want to. But they do. So they will.

2008 - Agreement expires. The school may now choose whether to license 300 or 400 PCs for Windows. If they decide to license 300, they switch to Academic Select and pay only for the 300 they want licensed. If they decide to license all 400, they can stay on the School Agreement and pay for all 400. And that's what they'll do.

Notice that the school always gets to choose what they want to do with all 400 computers, and is never forced to pay Microsoft anything for the new ones. In fact, if they like Linux enough, they can at any point decide to install Linux on all 400 machines and not renew the Microsoft license at all.

But they won't. They'll decide all on their own to turn your Linux contribution into another hundred Windows boxes. And when the renewal term comes up, they'll license all 400. We don't have to *make* them do it; they *want* to do it.

Your failure to understand why does not indicate any conspiracy or malfeasance.

Re:Microsoftie

[drsmithy]

The market for helmets is separate from the market for motorcycles. The market for speedometers is a subset of the market for motorcycles, unless it is a replacement part. No one sold motorcycle speedometers before there was a market for motorcycles. I'm sure you'll find some way to argue against that point, but it is not because you're an idiot that can't understand the concept. It is because you're a stubborn fool who does not want to understand the concept so they are intentionally being obtuse.

No, it's because I think you're wrong.

To pick an example, when "everyone else" is including a browser with their OS, how can the "browser market" *NOT* be considered a "subset" of the "OS market" ? A browser is useless without an OS to run it on. Some OSes were "bundling" a browser before Microsoft did.

Similarly with network stacks, GUIs, text editors, media players, memory management and advanced CPU scheduling (to pick a few other things you have previously argued Microsoft should be barred from including in Windows). Like Windows, most OSes include examples of at least some of these functionalities, some have done so for longer than Windows, some have not done so since their inception. *Clearly* this is currently considered functionality that can easily be identified as a "subset" of the OS market. Similarly, clearly, the definition of what these "subsets" are has changed over time. That they can *also* be replaced with third-party tools is completely and utterly irrelevant to the issue of what should be considered part of an operating system's standard featureset.

And you _still_ haven't explained why Microsoft are significantly improving Windows with every release, despite your insistence that "monopolies" do not do such a thing.

Have fun with your irrational beliefs you try to support with logic, instead of opinions formed from a logical consideration of the facts. It is sad that our educational system has so failed to teach logic, to the point that it is a way to justify belief, instead of make decisions or form opinions.

My "beliefs" are quite rational an well supported by logic. They just happen to be different from yours.

Re:Microsoftie

[CommandNotFound]

OK, set the Kool-aid down for a minute.

Let's forget the funny numbers and break it down to basics: If I buy ANY COMPUTER FROM ANOTHER COMPANY and none of your products are present or involved in those computers, you HAVE NO RIGHT TO EVEN KNOW I HAVE THOSE COMPUTERS, and therefore my purchases from another vendor should in no way influence my purchasing terms from you. I don't care if you have an 'alternative' licensing scheme to handle this case. Why in the world should you even know about the products that I received from another entity?

You are right, though, most schools will just pay the upgrade and remove the 100 Linux machines, because there is no cost benefit if Microsoft gets paid for those systems anyway. Or OS-X. Or Novell. That is why this licensing scheme should be (and likely is) illegal, because it removes any benefit of implementing alternative products once the agreement has been entered. And not entering it in the first place means paying a relative fortune for the Windows machines they do have.

I'm tired of arguing about this. This is clearly unethical and justice will one day be served, and I suspect that you will one day not look fondly on your involvement during these times.

Good-bye and best of luck.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

The idea of competition becomes unacceptable. You effectively become a Marxist.

Yes, facing the reality of corporate capitalism does that to people, eh? Wonder why...

It's all in your perspective. Start looking at what Microsoft's competition did wrong or didn't do at all; the question isn't quite as cut and dried. Most of the time, they were sleeping under a tree and we just wandered past.

To be honest, I don't care much about whether Microsoft being the Only One is fair or unfair. I just know it sucks for me personally. (I code Win32 C++ apps for a living, using MS IDE and toolchain; you know what's one of the most common error messages I see? it's "INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR" ...).

Apparently it makes a lot of other people uncomfortable as well for one reason or another, hence all the negativity towards the company. No, we are not envious or anything. We just don't like bullies, and even more so when the bullying affects us, directly or indirectly. Most of all, we don't like the "you can have any color as long as it's black" attitude, which seems to be the more visible facet of Microsoft business model. So we fight back.

And in that game, all means are fair. Calling people who oppose you "socialists" (or "communists", or "Marxists") has that one unpleasant side-effect - it might well turn out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you push the scales too far, it might backfire, and the people might actually consider taking on the labels you're assigning to them so liberally more serious.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Why in the world should you even know about
> the products that I received from another
> entity?

We don't. You're missing the point. You're so bound up in the idea that we get paid for something we don't deserve, you're simply refusing to see that we're actually providing services and software for which we NEVER get paid.

We have a contract. When you sign that contract, we say "how many eligible computers do you have?" and you are required by the terms of the contract to tell us.

If you get more computers, you don't have to tell us anything. We DON'T know you have them. We simply extend your license to cover those computers. If you install Windows on some of those computers and activate it through Windows Genuine Advantage, THEN we know you have more computers, but you still don't pay anything for them.

At the end of your contract, when you renew it, we say "how many eligible computers do you have?" and you are required by the terms of the contract to tell us. If you don't like that, you don't have to do it! We also have a different contract. For that contract, we ask "how many computers do you want to license?" instead.

So if you don't want us to know you have Linux machines, you don't have to tell us. But if you go from "we have Windows on all 300 of our machines" to "we have Windows on 300 of our machines", we can sort of figure out that you have more machines. We just don't know how many or what they're running.

> it removes any benefit of implementing
> alternative products once the agreement
> has been entered

But in the timeline I provided, the school gets to use 100 Linux machines for 2 years if they want. Isn't that enough time for them to say "hey, this is great, let's switch!" and install it on the other 300? Then they can tell us to go to hell when the contract is up.

It's all about choice. The problem with choice is that when you suck, people don't choose you. And that's why you want to FORCE your school to use what YOU give them, instead of giving them the choice. We give them the choice.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> Yes, facing the reality of corporate capitalism
> does that to people, eh?

No, deciding that nobody deserves to lose does that to people. The reality is that most products are losers, and deservedly so. If you invent the scratch-and-sniff floppy disk, you're an idiot, and however many thousands of dollars you waste trying to sell this stupid idea are dollars you deserve to lose.

Meanwhile, somewhere along the line, you have to get someone to manufacture these things. If I run a manufacturing plant where they can be produced, and you come to me and say "how much will three thousand of these cost?", I know you're an idiot and your product is stupid and you're wasting your money. But I don't care. I am not in the business of telling you what to do with your invention. I'll just tell you what they cost, and take your money.

Now, I don't particularly deserve that money. I didn't invent anything. I was just sitting around and you came wandering up. But in the end, you lose your money, and I win it. This is what usually happens. It's how capitalism really works.

Now, Marx would say that I have exploited you to get this money, and that it was wrong. But Marx was an idiot. He based this conclusion on the fallacious idea that work in and of itself has value regardless of what is produced, and this same idea is at the heart of complaints that some competitor in the marketplace didn't deserve to fail.

> you know what's one of the most common error
> messages I see? it's "INTERNAL COMPILER ERROR"

I always thought that meant "your code sucks". I've only seen it twice in fifteen years, and in both cases my code sucked. Is there any chance you're just a shitty programmer?

> Calling people who oppose you "socialists"

That's not what I said. I said the idea that nobody deserves to lose inevitably leads to Marxism. It's the same kind of stupidity that leads people to complain about "income inequality". The highest income is always going up, thanks to inflation and interest, but the lowest income has always been and will always be zero. This guarantees that income inequality always increases.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

Allow me to set the policital flamewar aside - nothing ever comes out of it, anyway... so let's get to more technical matters.

I always thought that meant "your code sucks". I've only seen it twice in fifteen years, and in both cases my code sucked. Is there any chance you're just a shitty programmer?

No, it means two things:

1. MSVC cannot properly handle complicated (and sometimes not so complicated) template metaprogramming techniques.
2. People who wrote MSVC have rather poor understanding of what "graceful termination" is.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> template metaprogramming techniques

You're doing it wrong. Refactor.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

It's 2007, not 1996, sorry. State-of-the-art these days is Boost, not MFC (not that the latter ever was that). I do not have to work around compiler deficiencies. I want my code to be efficient and readable, yet avoid repeating myself. That's what metaprogramming of any kind is for. In modern C++ this means templates.

And you know what? With GCC, I can do that, and it works. With MSVC, it doesn't. Conclusion: MSVC doesn't do its job.

Re:Microsoftie

[CDarklock]

> In modern C++ this means templates.

I am of the opinion that "modern C++" is a non sequitur. You should write C++ for one of two reasons.

1. You have a massive C++ codebase that you are maintaining
2. C++ is the best language to do what you are doing

If you are in situation 1, you should not expect a modern compiler to work with your application. I have worked on projects within the past five years that needed to be compiled with MSC7, because a large codebase existed which wouldn't compile on newer compilers. The code could, however, be compiled as a library - and was then happily loaded and used by a .NET assembly. If today's compiler doesn't work on your old codebase, throw it out and use one that does.

If you think you are in situation 2, you are almost certainly wrong. Complex template metaprogramming is probably not what your application does. It is most likely a solution to a problem your application has. If your application has a problem that can only be solved in C++ by complex template metaprogramming, you are using the wrong language.

This is, of course, a religious issue. Many people would rather write everything in C++, because no matter what your application might be, you KNOW you can do it acceptably in C++. I tend to think that you should instead learn several languages, so you can do it better and faster by picking the language best suited to the task.

There are a lot of web projects I could write in a week using C++, or in a day using ASP, or in an hour using Ruby. And of course, if I get paid by the hour, my choice is very different than if I get paid by the job - but since I work at Microsoft, anything I do at the office tends to end up using ASP. What I do on my own time is a different story, because I like learning and using lots of languages.

Re:Microsoftie

[shutdown -p now]

Let me put it that way. I do not decide which tools I use for this job - solution architects do, and they think it's C++. For the most part it's indeed because of a large existing C++ codebase (as usual). I do not see why a modern compiler should not work with it, though - the ISO C++ standard has been around for 8 years now, and most of our code is very strictly conforming to it (excepting obvious things such as low-level disk management). There is no reason why a modern C++ compiler cannot compile "legacy" code which is valid ISO C++. If if cannot, then it is broken. Granted, no compiler on the market today is fully ISO C++ compliant - but GCC at least seems to be so much closer to it than MSVC, from my experience, and especially so when it comes to being able to handle complicated template constructs properly; whereas VC... incorrect behaviour at best, "internal compiler error" at worst. VC8 was a big step forward, but why GCC is still better, despite the fact that it is non-commercial, and has to target more platforms than VC?

All this has little to do with respect to "choosing the wrong tool for the job", anyway. After all, even if I do that, I at least expect the tool to work as advertised. As for the choice being wrong, well... I know that template metaprogramming in C++ is pretty pale in comparison with e.g. Lisp macros, or even any decent dynamic language with closures, such as Ruby or Smalltalk, in terms of expressive power, and I often wish I had either of that at my disposal when writing long chunks of C++ code. But templates do help when C++ is otherwise a necessity, so when they don't work either because of a compiler deficiency, getting frustrated is only to be expected.

It's sad that people can be such sheep

[meosborne]

I guess this just proves that if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability. People won't concern themselves with how you got your money.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[wild_quinine]

I see a lot of people bashing Gates in spite of his donations to charity. That's fine by me. If he's really giving the money away for the right reasons, he won't care what anyone thinks of him. But all the same, I applaud him for it.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[keithmoore]

bingo. Microsoft's willful negligence in making their email readers and web browsers insecure has cost consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, and they're doing their best to cripple their customers computers in order to extort more money from them. They still manage to effectively impose a significant tax on the vast majority of computers sold, even if the consumer never uses Windows.

There seems to be something in American culture that causes many people here to reserve their greatest admiration for the politicians and companies that abuse them the most.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[aadvancedGIR]

Unfortunately, it's not just an american problem. And I believe it is just an example of the human need for a divine figure (one way or another, we are looking for a higher being that would rule our life and give it a meaning).

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Afecks]

There seems to be something in American culture that causes many people here to reserve their greatest admiration for the politicians and companies that abuse them the most.

Ahh, So THAT is why Apple is getting so much more popular lately!

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Dr. Manhattan]

"It is morally as bad not to care whether a thing is true or not, so long as it makes you feel good, as it is not to care how you got your money as long as you have got it." - Edmund Way Teale

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I see a lot of people bashing Gates in spite of his donations to charity. That's fine by me. If he's really giving the money away for the right reasons, he won't care what anyone thinks of him. But all the same, I applaud him for it.

Interestingly enough, some of the largest charitable contributions in history have been anonymous. A person more interested in doing good than getting credit should probably follow suit. I'm not wealthy, but I do donate to charity and I always do so anonymously. I think this is a much more honorable practice.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess this just proves that if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability. People won't concern themselves with how you got your money.

I don't know - it takes a lot of dimes to begin to sweeten a sour reputation. For example: John D Rockefeller Sr vs Ludlow.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sheep"? You've just described the majority of slashdotters, who fall lockstep into the "Microsoft is the epitome of evil", "software should be free (yes, as in beer too)", "RMS is GOD" doctrines without thinking twice about it.

Think about it - you've actually convinced yourselves that it's the highest virtue to make software for free so that multi-billion corps can sell it for profit while you get nothing but a warm feeling in your heart at saving the world or sticking it to the "man" (and there's no bigger "man" than IBM, who's laughing all the way to the bank as they lay off their AIX devs so as to exploit the free labor of the deluded masses of OSS devs).

I'm actually surprised that the slashdot editors even had the guts to even post this story.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Reality Master 101]

I guess this just proves that if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability. People won't concern themselves with how you got your money.

Or, another way to look at it, the Gates Foundation makes whatever minor annoyances* we've suffered from Microsoft worth it. The Gates Foundation is going to do a hell of a lot of good in the world. There are certain things that can only be done if you have an enormous pile of money in one place not beholden to elected leadership.

*And they are just minor annoyances. Would I like it if Windows wasn't so mediocre? Sure. But I'd say that Microsoft succeeded partly because of their business practices, but more because of the incompetence of the competition. And the software industry just ain't that important in the scheme of things. A better desktop operating system doesn't affect our lives to any great extent.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[ThePopeLayton]

if you have enough money you can always buy yourself some respectability

. Yes that it true, but I would really like to see if you could give up BILLIONS. People always talk about being generous once they hit it, big but very few are actually as generous as they said they would be once they get their millions (the poorest in America are those that donate the most). If it really was that easy to just give up your money once you hit it big more people would be doing it and it wouldn't be headlines material.
You can be as cynical of Mr. Gates as you want but he did something HUGE that will benefit generations to come.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[wild_quinine]

Interestingly enough, some of the largest charitable contributions in history have been anonymous. A person more interested in doing good than getting credit should probably follow suit. I'm not wealthy, but I do donate to charity and I always do so anonymously. I think this is a much more honorable practice. This is an excellent point, and I also applaud you for your (previously) anonymous charitable actions. But, to play the devil's advocate, there might also be reasons for not making philanthropic commitments anonymously. Firstly, to raise awareness, and secondly to garner further funding - for example, Warren Buffet's commitments to the Gates foundation may have come about because the Gates foundation is in the limelight. If the reason for donating publicly is kudos, then this is a bad action. If the reason for donating publicly is to enable the charity, then this is a good action. These two things may be indistinguishable in all but intention, which we will never know. So I say, bash Gates all you like. He may very well be donating for dishonourable reasons. And if he's not, he won't care a jot what we think. I will say one thing though - Gates was donating for years before the Gates Foundation made any kind of impact, so my personal belief is that he chooses to do it out of duty, or charity, rather than to mitigate the opinions of others. But I may very well be wrong. At the end of the day, at least more good is being done than if Gates were not donating.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Reality Master 101]

Interestingly enough, some of the largest charitable contributions in history have been anonymous.

The reason most rich people make anonymous donations is two reasons: 1) to avoid being a target by more charities, and 2) to avoid having their name be identified as rich and a potential crime target.

Gates can actually do a lot more good by being public and raising awareness of the issues he's interested in helping, such as African children vaccinations. Case in point: Warren Buffet gave his huge pile of money because of the transparency of what he sees Gates doing.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[mmalove]

"A better desktop operating system doesn't affect our lives to any great extent"

I propose a new "-1 : Blasphemy"

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Cornflake917]

?Microsoft's willful negligence in making their email readers and web browsers insecure has cost consumers hundreds of billions of dollars I'm calling BS on that. First of all, do you have a link/reference to that number? Second of all, you are ignoring how much money businesses have made off of MS's products. I'm sure is alot more than what they lost from security flaws. Third of all: WILLFULL negligence?? You really think they put security flaws into their products on purpose? I've not had to pay a single dime in having to download Microsofts updates to fix their security flaws. How in the world are they exorting me for more money?

Do you think it's easy to make a flawless operating system when so many people are trying to break/hack/exploit it all the time?

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[RightSaidFred99]

Ooh. The ironing is delicious. A SlashDot anti-MS sheep complaining that people who don't have a pathological hatred of Microsoft are "sheep".

You win "Ironic statement of the day" award.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[just_another_sean]

You're exactly right. Haven't you heard? Reality has become a commodity

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The reason most rich people make anonymous donations is two reasons...

How can you make assertions about the reasons for actions of anonymous people? You can provide potential reasons, but making statements like you did is over the top. FYI, some religious groups mandate that all charitable donations be anonymous, so I'm sure at least some do it for moral reasons. I donate anonymously for ethical reasons.

Gates can actually do a lot more good by being public and raising awareness of the issues he's interested in helping, such as African children vaccinations.

This may or may not be the case. I'd argue a lot of the donations he makes are raising the awareness of causes that are treating symptoms rather than the root problems and as such are not as effective as other charitable causes. Does that mean it is a net benefit or loss to the world?

Case in point: Warren Buffet gave his huge pile of money because of the transparency of what he sees Gates doing.

You picked a terrible example to make your case. Mr. Buffet stated he would be donating the bulk of his money to charity long before the Gates foundation existed. It did not motivate him to donate money, it merely was where he chose to donate it to. Would the world be a better or worse place if he had created his own foundation or donated it elsewhere? No one can argue the B&MG foundation is the ideal charity, given their investment in so many questionable institutions. I'm not saying that the PR generated by publicly donating is not beneficial, but I don't see it as a given. It is quite possible if Gates and Buffet had agreed privately to donate anonymously the creation of the world's largest charity by anonymous parties might have created more PR than said donations with known contributors.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Reality Master 101]

It is quite possible if Gates and Buffet had agreed privately to donate anonymously the creation of the world's largest charity by anonymous parties might have created more PR than said donations with known contributors.

I don't agree with your points (you seem determined to cast everything in the worst light... vaccinating children is possibly a net loss to the world??), but your above point is moot. It would have been impossible to move around 50 billion dollars anonymously. First, how many people do you think can do that? Second, since this is stock wealth we're talking about, it'd be tracked by the SEC.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I don't agree with your points (you seem determined to cast everything in the worst light... vaccinating children is possibly a net loss to the world??)

Not at all. I'm not saying that the very public donations and uses are a et loss, I'm just saying you haven't shown that they are necessarily a good thing. Say some of Warren Buffet's money was used to vaccinate children because he donated it to the B&MG foundation instead of creating another charity. Was some of it used to bribe the mexican government to standardize on MS software? Was some of that money invested in a company that uses that capital to use predatory loans to cheat the elderly out of their homes and kick them onto the street? The B&MG foundation has used their money for both purposes. Would it have been better if Mr. Buffet had created a foundation that invested more responsibly and did not try to bribe governments to buy products from MS and which vaccinated a different group of children or researched and found a cure for HIV? We don't know. I don't and you don't. The point is, you can't just assume the way things worked out is for he best. It is entirely possible the PR surrounding Gate's charitable work has redirected funds that otherwise would have done more good. You asserting otherwise with a simplistic," but, but they helped kids" is not convincing.

It would have been impossible to move around 50 billion dollars anonymously. First, how many people do you think can do that? Second, since this is stock wealth we're talking about, it'd be tracked by the SEC.

Perhaps you're right that he could not have donated it all anonymously, or maybe he could have, or maybe he could have but it would have resulted in a lot of lost money due to the liquidation. I'm no expert. I still think your arguments are naive.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[keithmoore]

Yes, willful negligence. I was an active participant in the IETF working group that wrote the MIME standard. Before MIME, Internet mail was only capable of sending plain ASCII text, MIME was adding the ability to send text in other character sets as well as attachments of arbitrary types. I was concerned about the security risks of sending around arbitrary attachments. Other working group participants actually doubted that such risks existed. So I wrote some exploits in three of the formats we thought people would use for attachments - TeX, troff, and PostScript - and sent them to the working group mailing list. The exploits didn't actually compromise the affected systems, but they demonstrated that such compromise was feasible.

As a result of my efforts, we got some rules put into the MIME standard. One was that mail readers should not by default display message contents without a reasonable belief that it was safe. Another was that a mail reader shouldn't let the author of a message specify what program would be used to display a particular attachment. Another was that new content-types had to have documented security considerations. Another was that objects using the generic content-type (application/octet-stream) should not be presented, the mail reader should just offer to save them. And since HTTP ended up using MIME's content-type system, those rules applied to the web also.

For many years, MS mail readers and web browsers violated all of those rules, and they continue to violate some of them today. They didn't bother registering content-types for their proprietary data formats or analyzing them for security risks. They didn't label attachments in outgoing mail with meaningful content-types, instead labeling everything as "application/octet-stream" even for contents clearly expected to be presented "inline" as part of the message - expecting the recipient to make sense of the filename suffix. On receipt, their mail readers would ignore the content-type and look at only the filename suffix, thus giving the author of a message the ability to send attachments to any application on the recipient's machine that had a filename suffix associated with it. Vendors of competing products more-or-less had to follow suit in order to make their products "usable" by those used to the MS behavior.

In 1996 I was having a discussion with the manager for Microsoft's Exchange product about this, and I said "you really need to fix these problems." He replied that these were deliberate design choices that MS made because they felt that such choices would give them a competitive advantage. When I asked him about the harm this would do to their customers' security, he replied that MS had decided it was worth the risk.

So yeah, they're culpable.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[AK Marc]

Worked for Rockefeller and Carnegie...

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[mpe]

For many years, MS mail readers and web browsers violated all of those rules, and they continue to violate some of them today.

Effectivly they decided to do their own thing.

They didn't bother registering content-types for their proprietary data formats or analyzing them for security risks. They didn't label attachments in outgoing mail with meaningful content-types, instead labeling everything as "application/octet-stream" even for contents clearly expected to be presented "inline" as part of the message - expecting the recipient to make sense of the filename suffix. On receipt, their mail readers would ignore the content-type and look at only the filename suffix, thus giving the author of a message the ability to send attachments to any application on the recipient's machine that had a filename suffix associated with it.

Thus meaning that a naming convention which goes back over 20 years still has meaning. Interestingly enough whilst CP/M used the 8.3 convention the filesystem actually used 11 character (7 bit) filenames.

Vendors of competing products more-or-less had to follow suit in order to make their products "usable" by those used to the MS behavior.

It dosn't help that Microsoft wern't even consistent with how they handled things. Which lead to all sorts of exploits involving renaming .EXE files and having them still execute.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[Cornflake917]

Interesting post. MS obviously could have done things better to make their apps more secure. But your original post seems to imply that MS where negligent on purpose in order to get people to pay them to upgrade. There's no evidence of this.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[init100]

vaccinating children is possibly a net loss to the world?

The act of vaccinating children cannot be a net loss to the world in itself. But if you consider the B&MG Foundation's other investments, such as oil companies and other polluting industries, the picture becomes less clear. I have also read somewhere that they invested in companies using child labour. And then there is the donations to certain countries showing interest in F/OSS, resulting in the F/OSS alternative being silently dropped. Now, is the B&MG Foundation a net gain or a net loss to the world?

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[init100]

I'm calling BS on that. First of all, do you have a link/reference to that number? Second of all, you are ignoring how much money businesses have made off of MS's products. I'm sure is alot more than what they lost from security flaws.

And I'm calling BS on that.

Re:It's sad that people can be such sheep

[keithmoore]

Obviously I can't prove it to you. But I do consider being told personally by a person who was part of the decision making process to be reliable evidence.

Microsoft came out on top of this survey.....

[8127972]

.... by using the same methods it "corrects" Wikipedia entries.

WTF?

[M-G]

I'm sorry, but WTF does Gates spending his personal fortune on charitable causes have to do with the company? I would think that the typical WSJ reader wouldn't use that as part of their opinion of MS overall. I'd be more inclined to believe that the typical WSJ reader would have voted for them because of their ruthless nature and ability to make money hand over fist.

Haha! Ahahaha! Hahaha!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh my! Naïvety is well and alive in Corporate America these days.

that's great

[LuciferosX]

But somehow I don't think they're getting the whole story...

If there is nothing good to say about Vista...

[skyryder12]

then paint the company "less evil" because Bill G donates money. So, it is OK to bully your competitors, and engage in illegal activity, and be convicted of crimes as a company as long as your CEO gives the money to 'worthy causes". Welcome to U$A...culture of the buck....

Re:If there is nothing good to say about Vista...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell Yes. Steal from the rich, give to the poor. What the hell is wrong with that?

Re:If there is nothing good to say about Vista...

[denzacar]

it is OK to bully your competitors, and engage in illegal activity, and be convicted of crimes as a company as long as your CEO gives the money to 'worthy causes". Wasn't that exactly the same strategy that certain CEO from England used while back?
Bulling competition? Yeah.. funny nobody mentions Trevor and his happy lads anymore.

Who knows... 200-300 years form now... Bill Gates may be remembers as William "The Good" Gates who took from the ritch and gave to the poor.
And Steve Ballmer may be remembered as Jumpin' Steve. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-344693193 1514285011

Re:If there is nothing good to say about Vista...

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to USA where once you pay for your crimes, you keep paying, forever...

Don't be so hard on ol Bill....

[Churla]

He's just taking a page from the Andrew Carnagie playbook...

how does that work?

[Lxy]

How does Bill Gates giving away his fortune turn Microsoft into a "good" company?

Let's say I own company X. I have a personal wealth of $300 million. I decide that I should give away $150 million to various charities. I'm still bloody rich, but now look like a "good guy". How does comany X get any credit? No one else at the company is giving away money. The money I gave away was out of my personal bank account, not company X's. Company X is not any better perceptually becuase I gave away money. Why would Company X get put on the "good" list?

Last I checked, there's still plenty of money grubbing rich folk at the top of the pyramid which is Microsoft. What Bill Gates does with his own money shouldn't have any bearing on the comany's status.

And finally, please mod me up because this is my 1,000th post to Slashdot.

Re:how does that work?

[dcskier]

bill gates and microsoft to the common person are one in the same. anything he does will reflect on the company and likewise, no matter if it's the case or not. even the slashdot microsoft icon is a picture of bill, err i mean borg bill. so yes him giving away his money will reflect on microsoft.

Re:how does that work?

[kahei]

How does Bill Gates giving away his fortune turn Microsoft into a "good" company?

Let me remagnetize your moral compass there, buddy.

Generic megacorp: Profits -> Higher stock price / dividends -> mainly sprawling McMansions
Microsoft: Profits -> Higher stock price / dividends -> partly medical research

See? The second one is nicer. More "good" if you will.

Of course, winning the niceness prize among multinational corporations is a bit like winning the deliciousness prize among steaming lumps of fermenting elephant dung. But still.

Re:how does that work?

[93 Escort Wagon]

"And finally, please mod me up because this is my 1,000th post to Slashdot."

Will do... oh crap!

Re:how does that work?

[drinkypoo]

Generic megacorp: Profits -> Higher stock price / dividends -> mainly sprawling McMansions Microsoft: Profits -> Higher stock price / dividends -> partly medical research See? The second one is nicer. More "good" if you will.

Is it just me, or is the thought of Microsoft holding the patents to years of medical research particularly frightening? I went in for an operation and ended up with the blue spleen of death!

I'm quite serious, though; Microsoft has invested very heavily in Biotech. Microsoft is going to hold half the patents in medicine at this rate. Is that really the future you want to live in?

Besides, McMansions aren't all bad. They stimulate the economy. They provide jobs.

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Besides, McMansions aren't all bad. They stimulate the economy. They provide jobs."

There are better ways to stimulate the economy and provide jobs that use a lot less land.

Re:how does that work?

[jvkjvk]

I recall when Bill first announced this plan. Some people at that point were saying that one of the reasons he did so was to improve Microsoft's image. Another group most vehemently defended him and said that his acts as a private individual wouldn't polish the tarnish from the corporation.

Well, I guess we know now in a more concrete way which of those viewpoints is more likely to be true. After all, when you think of Bill Gates how can you not associate him with Microsoft?

It is possible to literally buy elections with advertising, it is certainly feasible to buy goodwill with charity. That appears to be the situation here; even if it was not his primary goal it would be idiotic to think that this upsurge of goodwill wasn't anticipated and encouraged from the Corporate standpoint.

The problem is people want others to be good, even companies. People extend trust when they shouldn't and are generally willing to forgive the abuse of that trust when individuals or companies make signals that they have or are changing.

In this case I would say that the majority of abuses are so subtly hidden from normal users that they probably don't even realize they are being abused. On top of that people have been conditioned to many of these and accept them as SOP. Sure, some may stumble upon the tip of the iceberg but not many have the patience, knowledge or desire to "go diving" to see the rest of it. It takes a long look at the continuing history of MS to see the scope, breadth and focused intensity of their corporate psychopathic conduct both towards other companies as well as individuals.

Re:how does that work?

[andcal]

How does Bill Gates giving away his fortune turn Microsoft into a "good" company?

Let's say I own company X. I have a personal wealth of $300 million...

Hold it right there

$300 million? What the crap are you doing wasting your time posting on /.?

Re:how does that work?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does comany X get any credit? No one else at the company is giving away money.

I beg to differ.

From the link:
The generosity of our employees has made Microsoft number one in per capita employee giving among major companies in the United States.

2004 Corporate match for employee giving $24,200,000

hahahah

[iXiXi]

Give me a few billion dollars and I would be happy to give my monthly interest to the poor unfortunates. If I push the crumbs from my table and the dog eats, does that make me a hero?

Re:hahahah

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it just makes you less of a jerk.

Re:hahahah

[derrickh]

I'm sure the dog is less concerned about your business practices and more interested in the food in its belly. So yes, it does make you a hero.

D

Re:hahahah

[geekoid]

If you give all your interest to the poor, that means you are lowering your capital to live.

So yeah, it's a lot of money that you didn't need to give away.

Many people don't do that.

Bully?

[darjen]

To be sure, some respondents still complain that Microsoft bullies its competitors and unfairly monopolizes the software business. But such criticism is less biting and less pervasive than it was just a few years ago.'"

People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks. As much as I can't stand certain aspects of using Windows, there is no doubt what MS has done for the tech industry, and the charity world. Windows domination of the marketplace won't last forever. Complacency at the top of the market is what will kill you. As will releasing ho-hum products like Vista. As people begin to move towards better and lower cost alternatives, their market share will definitely decline. Instead of focusing on such criticism as stated above, and trying to tear them down, we should continue working to unseat them with better (free) products.

Re:Bully?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks.

Please educate yourself on monopolies before trying to argue this subject. Monopolies are anti-capitalist. They allow a company to break the capitalist system by undermining the benefits it normally provides, which is why almost every country in the world restricts their action. The basic idea of the capitalist method is that you can get more innovation by appealing to people's greed, using competition. Maybe three companies all duplicate the same research, development, and production facilities. That's pretty wasteful. But, because all of them are motivated by the market (greed) to deliver the best product to customers, they make good decisions and in the end consumers get a choice among several superior products instead of one inferior one.

So in a free market for some product multiple companies make them and the one that is the best for those customers wins most of the market and gets most of the money. Enter a monopoly. Say some other company has a monopoly on some other product (market actually). If they can tie their offing in both of the markets together, they can take over the second market despite not having the best offering. This is because while they may not be innovating the best solution, they can introduce artificial problems with their competitor's products. For example, IE may not be the best Web browser, but most people still use it because the cost is bundled into Windows and they can't buy Windows without it. For another example, Windows server may not be faster, more stable, cheaper, or more versatile, but is speaks a slightly modified, patented, and obfuscated version of the protocols all other servers speak, and MS's desktop OS does the same, tying, the two. As a result, the most innovative product does not win the market and consumers get an inferior product, despite the fact that they are still making the correct decisions for their own self-interest.

Theoretically speaking, unless monopolistic abuse is stopped, a capitalist market continually consolidates until there are very few companies left and what remains looks a lot like feudalism. Anyone who argues that MS is not breaking anti-trust law or is not abusing their monopoly in such a way to undermine the free market, is an idiot, or possibly just very ignorant. If you disagree with me that is fine, but please do not bother to argue this unless you actually understand how monopolies and capitalism interact. I'm very tired of having to explain over and over and over again the basics of economics to geeks that haven't bothered to read or understand anything about them, but are eager to share their uneducated opinions anyway.

...there is no doubt what MS has done for the tech industry...

Yes, they slowed innovation to a crawl and turned one of the fastest growing and most promising chunks of that market into a slow moving market that has held back related fields of study for a decade. We're easily 5 or 10 years behind where we could be if our anti-trust law was enforced.

Windows domination of the marketplace won't last forever. Complacency at the top of the market is what will kill you.

Window's domination of the desktop OS market has illegally been leveraged into MS domination of DRM, jukebox software, Web technology, gaming, office suites, Web browsers, e-mail clients, server OS's, online video players, etc. Your claim that complacency at the top will kill, is a bit misguided. MS is not complacent, they just have no motivation to improve their desktop OS, except in certain limited ways and the market cannot move to something else easily because of all the artificial lock-ins. They have a lot of motivation to innovate in ways that don't benefit the customer and add more of these lock-ins or help leverage the takeover of another market, despite not having the best product in that new market.

As peo

Re:Bully?

[drinkypoo]

As much as I can't stand certain aspects of using Windows, there is no doubt what MS has done for the tech industry, and the charity world.

What exactly HAS Microsoft done for the tech industry? They've never invented anything of interest; every useful product or technology coming out of Microsoft is either bought from someone else, a mediocre copy of someone else's product, and/or their usual "embrace and extend" bullshit.

Compare what Microsoft has done to the tech industry. Recently they funded the SCO pump and dump scheme as an attack on Linux. They've gotten into bed with Novell and made an indemnification clause for the same purpose, although some people are having a hard time seeing it. They used anticompetitive business practices to build a veritable monopoly, and in the process pushed a horribly insecure operating system that has on occasion brought the internet to its knees when some worm or other malware has snuck onto a super-crapload of Windows systems, and it's estimated that 25% of the computers on the internet are part of a botnet due to crap Windows security. Tell me, just what has microsoft done for the computer industry?

Re:Bully?

[Joey Vegetables]

Harmful monopolies are harmful precisely because they initiate force and/or fraud, neither of which are allowed in a libertarian society. Libertarians (and anarchists, such as myself) would prefer to address the root of the problem, which is the initiation of force and/or fraud. If that were done, the symptom would take care of itself.

Re:Bully?

[init100]

I'm very tired of having to explain over and over and over again the basics of economics to geeks that haven't bothered to read or understand anything about them

I'd like to thank you for a very clear explanation about the problems caused by monopolies. I knew most of it already, but I would probably not have been able to put it out that clearly. I'm going to keep a link to this post, to use whenever I need a good explanation why monopolies harm society.

When the only real competitor in a market is a collaborative, non-profit work designed specifically to resist classic capitalist usage, you can be pretty sure you have a very broken market indeed.

That brings me another thought that I have had before, and that is comparing marketshare with elections. A large majority seem to find no problem with a company having a 90-95% marketshare, but when a political party or a president gets 90-95% of the votes, everyone starts yelling "election fraud". In the latter case, people point out that people have different opinions about how to run the country, but in the earlier case, the same people claim that it is better if everyone use the same (software) product (different opinions regarding software seem to be absent in the eyes of those arguing that), often for compatibility reasons, as if compatibility would be impossible if people had used (software) products from several vendors. Some people have clearly never heard about (de jure) standards (de facto standards seem to be well known, since Windows is claimed to be the "standard").

Re:Bully?

[drsmithy]

What exactly HAS Microsoft done for the tech industry?

Facilitated the commoditisation of computers.

(You might (well, will) argue that "anyone could have done it". I will not disagree, however, the historical fact remains that it was Microsoft who did.)

Tell me, just what has microsoft done for the computer industry?

Indeed. What *have* the Romans ever done for us ?

Re:Bully?

[drsmithy]

Please educate yourself on monopolies before trying to argue this subject. Monopolies are anti-capitalist. They allow a company to break the capitalist system by undermining the benefits it normally provides, which is why almost every country in the world restricts their action. The basic idea of the capitalist method is that you can get more innovation by appealing to people's greed, using competition. Maybe three companies all duplicate the same research, development, and production facilities. That's pretty wasteful. But, because all of them are motivated by the market (greed) to deliver the best product to customers, they make good decisions and in the end consumers get a choice among several superior products instead of one inferior one.

The irony being, of course, that the ultimate objective of any seller in a capitalist marketplace is to become a monopoly.

As a result, the most innovative product does not win the market and consumers get an inferior product, despite the fact that they are still making the correct decisions for their own self-interest.

By definition, if consumers are making the correct decisions for their own self-interest, capitalism is working. This holds true even when they are making decisions that you - or other "we know betters" like you - would not make.

Unless, of course, you assert there is some way of defining, objectively, what "the most innovative product" is (what's the capitalist word for God ?).

"The most innovative" (or "best", if you prefer) product never wins, because "best" is a subjective, relative metric. No one product can ever be the "best", because no product will ever be everything to everyone - ie: perfect.

(And even if such a product ever was invented, the concept of anti-trust would be compelled to make it illegal.)

If you disagree with me that is fine, but please do not bother to argue this unless you actually understand how monopolies and capitalism interact.

If Microsoft is a monopoly, why do they continually improve their products (in measurable, objective ways), especially with features the vast majority of their customers are unaware of ?

Yes, they slowed innovation to a crawl and turned one of the fastest growing and most promising chunks of that market into a slow moving market that has held back related fields of study for a decade. We're easily 5 or 10 years behind where we could be if our anti-trust law was enforced.

Why don't you just say we're 73.85493% worse off ? It would be about as valid.

Re:Bully?

[drinkypoo]

Indeed. What *have* the Romans ever done for us ?

This is not even close to a parallel. Besides, Roman roads didn't only work with Roman chariots. Roman aqueducts didn't only dispense water finally through Roman-designed faucets. etc etc.

Re:Bully?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The irony being, of course, that the ultimate objective of any seller in a capitalist marketplace is to become a monopoly.

This is an empty assertion. Assuming the only interest of sellers in a capitalist marketplace is to make as much money as possible, you could just as easily assert the goal of all sellers is to become dictator for life. Both are ways to unfairly accumulate large amounts of money. More realistically, however, sellers can behave legally, within the bounds of a free marketplace. We expect sellers to obey laws regarding theft so as not to disrupt the free market by simply taking funds by force. We expect sellers to obey fraud laws so as not to take funds via direct deception. How does expecting companies to obey the laws and not take funds by leveraging a monopoly differ? They all are ways the market may be undermined via breaking the law. A capitalist seller can make boatloads of money selling into a competitive marketplace. Illegally leveraging a monopoly merely lets them do so without operating within the bounds of a free market.

By definition, if consumers are making the correct decisions for their own self-interest, capitalism is working.

If the same model of TV is for sale for $50 at one vendor and an identical TV is for sale for $2000 from a different vendor, it is in the consumer's best interest to buy it for $50. Does that mean capitalism is working? What if the $50 TV is being sold by the government who subsidized it with tax dollars collected from everyone? It does not change what is in the consumer's best interest. What if the TV was stolen? Does that mean capitalism is working? Your assertion is thus proven false.

Unless, of course, you assert there is some way of defining, objectively, what "the most innovative product" is (what's the capitalist word for God ?).

That has nothing to do with it. Capitalism relies upon the motivation of the product creator and the buyer. If either of those can be subverted as shown in the example above, then capitalism can be shown to be broken. For example, it is possible to prove the government made TV in the example above cost the taxpayer a larger total amount, thus it would be in the best interests of the people as a whole to never buy TVs from the government and everyone would pay less. That doesn't mean it is not in the interests of the individual purchaser to still buy the government funded one. What is best in the long term for society (innovation, competition, lower prices) is not the same thing as what is in the best interests of an individual purchaser and even if it is, that may not be apparent to the purchaser. Either way, proper decision making for society is undermined by the monopoly. The courts don't look at available offerings to see "what is best" and then try to stop some other product if it is doing better. That would be idiotic. They simply look for monopolies that are using that monopoly to influence consumers in a different market. After all, if the monopolist has the best product in that other market, then they will win the competition anyway. The only reason to leverage the monopoly is if they would not win (or not as much). Stopping that leveraging of a monopoly hurts no one but the lawbreaker.

If Microsoft is a monopoly, why do they continually improve their products (in measurable, objective ways), especially with features the vast majority of their customers are unaware of ?

Did you see the final feature set for Vista? The lion's share of the new "features" do not benefit consumers, they benefit MS. Built in DRM allows them to move into media markets. Built in XPS allows them to move into the PDF/PS tool market, Defender allows them to move into the antivirus software market, indexed search allows them to take market from Google's toolbar, IE improvements allows them to illegally take share from Firefox, etc., etc.

There are comparatively few improvements in Vista that are not designed to attack something outside the desktop OS market.

Re:Bully?

[drsmithy]

Besides, Roman roads didn't only work with Roman chariots. Roman aqueducts didn't only dispense water finally through Roman-designed faucets. etc etc.

Last I checked, Windows still runs non-Microsoft software.

Re:Bully?

[drsmithy]

This is an empty assertion. Assuming the only interest of sellers in a capitalist marketplace is to make as much money as possible, you could just as easily assert the goal of all sellers is to become dictator for life.

You could, but given that changes the scope of the discussion from economics to politics, it's hardly in context.

(Or you could take the perspective that in capitalism, a vendor with a genuine monopoly _is_ a dictator.)

How does expecting companies to obey the laws and not take funds by leveraging a monopoly differ?

Because a) monopoly status is not objectively defined and b) typically a company connot know if it is "abusing monopoly" until _after_ it has done.

There are qualitative differences between the concepts of anti-trust law, and the concepts of fraud and property laws. Do not try to conflate them, as it just makes you look dishonest.

A capitalist seller can make boatloads of money selling into a competitive marketplace.

Not as much as they can make as a monopoly, which is the point.

Illegally leveraging a monopoly merely lets them do so without operating within the bounds of a free market.

And, hence, without the downsides that brings. Again, the point.

If the same model of TV is for sale for $50 at one vendor and an identical TV is for sale for $2000 from a different vendor, it is in the consumer's best interest to buy it for $50. Does that mean capitalism is working? What if the $50 TV is being sold by the government who subsidized it with tax dollars collected from everyone? It does not change what is in the consumer's best interest. What if the TV was stolen? Does that mean capitalism is working? Your assertion is thus proven false.

I should not need to specifically say "when all else is equal" to stop you playing pointless semantic games.

What is best in the long term for society (innovation, competition, lower prices) is not the same thing as what is in the best interests of an individual purchaser and even if it is, that may not be apparent to the purchaser. Either way, proper decision making for society is undermined by the monopoly.

Again, you are straying from context. Capitalism has nothing to do with "the good of society", it is about the efficient production and distribution of goods and services. It is an inherently amoral system.

Did you see the final feature set for Vista? The lion's share of the new "features" do not benefit consumers, they benefit MS.

"Benefitting consumers" and "benefitting Microsoft" are inseperable. Microsoft cannot (feasibly) "benefit" consumers without giving them a product they want to buy and, hence, benefitting themselves.

The "lions share" of the new features in Vista have direct and demonstrable benefits to users.

Built in DRM allows them to move into media markets. Built in XPS allows them to move into the PDF/PS tool market, Defender allows them to move into the antivirus software market, indexed search allows them to take market from Google's toolbar, IE improvements allows them to illegally take share from Firefox, etc., etc.

Built in DRM allows users to consume content they would otherwise be unable to. Built in XPS allows users to create and transfer print-ready documents without relying on (or having to pay for) third party software. Defender assists users in identifying and removing malware, without relying on (or having to pay for) third-party software. Indexed search allows users to find their data quicker and easier than previous versions. IE improvements make browsing the web easier and safer.

*All* of these improvements in Vista give direct and demonstrable benefit to users.

There are comparatively few improvements in Vista that are not designed to attack something outside the desktop OS market.

With the bias and perspective you have demonstrated so far, I'm astounded you concede there are _any_ improvements in V

Re:WTF?

[mikelieman]

Typical WSJ reader is a MSFT fanboy, because they don't have a clue what REAL TECHNOLOGY is capable of.

red flashy thing

[snoggeramus]

Would you like to take part in a survey? First look in to this red flashy thing and ...

He is the largest stockholder

[wiredog]

One of the founders. The public face of the company.

This calls for a new tag:

[Anonymous Coward]

headasplode!

QFT.

[FatSean]

It's easy for the average clod to understand that the CEO gives millions to poor and hungry people. It's hard for that clod to understand the sneaky business practices, and upgrade cycle that brings little but costs lots.

Re:QFT.

[QuietLagoon]

Exactly true. It just proves what I've said previously that Bill Gates is trying to buy his way into the good graces of history.

Re:QFT.

[StikyPad]

That could be because helping an entire continent of people survive pretty much more than makes up for sinking a business or 20 along the way. You can continue to sound the anti-MS horn as you please, but at some point it starts to sound more like holding a grudge than a legitimate complaint. Apparently most people, or "average clods" as you call them, believe that point is now.

Education

[pubjames]

The one thing that I'm afraid I really can't forgive Gates for is the way they have targeted schools IT budgets in the UK (and I'm sure in the rest of the world). They basically have used every trick in the book to make sure they always get the lions share of schools IT budgets, and the schools haven't actually got very much in return. And Microsoft has never actually shown much concern about actually helping educate the children - it's all just about turning the kids into Microsoft zombies.

So Gates' generosity with his money doesn't impress me, take money that should be going to children's education and you're forever a scumbag in my view.

Re:Education

[MyNameIsEarl]

So Microsoft is like the tobacco companies, going after children in order to gain a customer for life. An interesting strategy to be sure, but certainly not one of a "good" company in the terms of morally good and not in the good for making money sense.

Re:Education

[Anonymous Coward]

it's not a crime if you change the law.

Re:Education

[stubear]

So the OLPC project is the Devil incarnate then? Not only are they targeting children, they are targeting children in third wold countries who likely need running water more than they need a laptop computer with a poorly designed Microsoft Bob rip-off UI.

Re:Education

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't those schools say no then? MS isn't a charity, everyone knows that. Of course they are going to act in a way that is aimed towards their own profits. What do you expect them to do?

Re:Education

[MyNameIsEarl]

No because the OLPC project is "doing good". Unlike Microsoft and tobacco companies which are only trying to create a revenue stream for life, the life of the customer anyway.

Re:Education

[Dunbal]

Unlike Microsoft and tobacco companies which are only trying to create a revenue stream for life,

      I am sure most of these people could never afford Windows Vista and a box that runs it, much less have a use for it.

Re:Education

[tbone1]

Unlike Microsoft and tobacco companies which are only trying to create a revenue stream for life

Say what you want about the tobacco companies, but you have to admire the business acumen of anyone who can kill off their 20,000 best customers a year and still make a profit.

Re:Education

[An ominous Cow art]

it's all just about turning the kids into Microsoft zombies.

The image of little Bobby coming home from school one day and spewing spam all over the house comes to mind...

Sorry, it's been a long day. :-)

Astroturf on Slashdot!?!?!

[Temkin]

Slashdot allows astroturf!?!?!? Say it isn't so!!!!

Check out these links! ;-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously, the Wall Street Journal (and apparently many other readers) haven't seen this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

or this, for another example (and many others):

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

the cheapest PR MS could buy

[drjzzz]

and also kinda nice.

Not good enough

[GauteL]

Bill Gates have become insanely rich from illegal and immoral business practises. Even if he gives away some of his money, he has still benefitted personally from these practises. He is quoted as saying he wants to give away almost all of his fortunes before he dies, but the money is useless for him when dead anyway.

If I was to steal $1 million, I would not suddenly be a moral person if I gave away half to charity, and I would not be in the clear just because I decided to give away all of the remainder to charity in my will.

Re:Not good enough

[bagjuice]

The nature of any business involves some cutthroat practices. From oil companies to the tech sector, see Enron to Sony. If you believe Microsoft's rivals have a clean slate you are mistaken. It is to kill or be killed, and in the process they have established more admirable products than not, improved the software industry far more than they have detracted from it, and more than any other company have bolstered us into this new era of mainstream computing. They don't pillage countries for their product, they don't "wack" mob targets, but they compete tooth and nail for marketshare. Yes they have leveraged themselves into other markets and us as consumers have benefited from it.

To see slashdotters whine about Microsoft's "illegal and immoral business practices" after the richest man in the world is following through with a pledge to give away the majority of his fortune really disappoints me. He did not do it to bolster his company's image. And even if he did, it's a small price for tens of billions of dollars.

Re:Not good enough

[RightSaidFred99]

Wow, Gates was convicted of a crime? That's amazing. Please provide documentation for this.

Of course.. you can't because you are quite simply lying.

Re:Not good enough

[Anonymous Coward]

If I was to steal $1 million, I would not suddenly be a moral person if I gave away half to charity, and I would not be in the clear just because I decided to give away all of the remainder to charity in my will. I know you'd keep the whole million, ya greedy bastard. See, this is why I like Bill better than I like you.

Re:Not good enough

[GauteL]

Gates has become rich on the back of Microsoft. Microsoft's illegal and immoral business practises are Well documented. As the majority shareholder he could have stopped those practises at any time. He is thus ultimately responsible for Microsoft's behaviour.

Wrong.

[twitter]

you can't really argue with Gates's way of using his riches. Even the most cynical would have to admit his heart is in the right place.

I can argue with the way he uses his riches. If you do more to know about it than listen to advertisements, you find Mr. Gate's heart is the same as it ever was. He has used foundation money to purchase newspapers critical of his company, the San Jose Mercury News and The Contra Costa Times, arguably to silence them. His spending on schools, as most of his deals are, is just another lever for control. At the local Gates high school, the state is spending nine dollars for every one he gives but he ends up with complete control of the results. His moves into medicine are backed by his "IP" propaganda, which has been a disaster for medicine itself. A truly cynical person would say that his foundation is just another tax shelter for his continued diversification and attempts to control even more of the US and world economy. Philanthropy is about helping people, not telling them what to do for your own good.

as the saying goes

[hany]

How do a group of people who are not evil get together and do something evil?

Maybe it has something to do with the saying:

Road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Or take a look a look at story covered in following post: UK Greens Declare Vista Bad For Environment - maybe the attempt to give customers "better experience" and also "satisfying *IAA" is supported by good intentions but here you are: at least greens consider it evil.

Re:as the saying goes

[CDarklock]

How exactly does this saying apply to Microsoft?

And WRT Vista being bad for the environment, aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

Re:as the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

And WRT Vista being bad for the environment, aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

No, they are honest and concerned and the very antithesis of brainwashed corporate shills like you.

Re:as the saying goes

[hany]

How exactly does this saying apply to Microsoft?

In the same way as your description of your perception of people in Microsoft apply to Microsoft - you wrote it confuses you that some people claim Microsoft is evil claiming there arre good (not evil) people there. In response I speculated based on your post, advancing it along this path:

• people at MS are good
• so they they have good intentions
• based on those intentions they are doing things
• their actions have some effects
• one of those effects is them (MS people) being percieved as evil (by some other people)

Of course I'm not going to insist there is mathematical pecission nor exact logic in this. I even do not insist this is some kind of reasoning nor correct explanation of your dilema.

I'm just suggesting possibilities.

And WRT Vista being bad for the environment, aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

Maybe. But for example also people who make peace by starting war looks to me as having same deficiency.

:)

Re:as the saying goes

[WED Fan]

And WRT Vista being bad for the environment, aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

Consider it as those who should be marginalized self-identifying for you, so you don't have to listen to more of their fringe-speak to determine if they have anything important to say. They are the example of people who just can't pick their battles, so they shotgun it and by doing so, put themselves on the fringe.

If you're going to be an activist, learn to pick your battles.

Re:as the saying goes

[CDarklock]

The fundamental confusion for me is that when you say something is "evil", you don't just mean that its effects are bad, you mean that the effects were INTENTIONALLY bad.

So to use the "bad for the environment" example, Microsoft would only be "evil" if someone were sitting in a room somewhere saying "With the release of Vista, millions of components containing toxic chemicals will be thrown away and damage the environment, MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" - because if that doesn't happen, any detrimental effect that happens isn't evil; it's just bad.

I'd take issue with the idea that Microsoft is a "bad" company, too, but at least I'd understand the reasoning. My company had a great email client in development, and then every email client on the planet decided to be free. Waste of time and effort to bring it to market now. I can understand that this might be called "bad", although I can also understand that if you want an email client, having all the available options drop from $40 to free is far from being a "bad" thing.

But when you propose that Microsoft was being "evil" and made its email client free because it wanted to ruin everybody else's business, I get a little skeptical.

Re:as the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

> aren't the people saying it just a little bit... crazy?

This from the person who says "Fred Fred Burger, Fred Fred Burger, Fred Fred Burger, Fred Fred Burger... yes!"

Re:as the saying goes

[crush]

It doesn't matter anyway because Microsoft is fucked because their ability to attract top talent has been eroded by Google. Microsoft's offers of stock are less attractive when you see that the stock isn't going anywhere.

(Your whole argument is also premised on the idea that evil has to be intentional. I'd disagree. I don't care whether a child-raping, mass-murdering psychopath was constrained to behave in that way because of a structural genetically caused defect in his brain structure or if he got spanked too much as a child. All I care about are his actions. Now, I'll grant you that you probably don't rape many children in your cubicle, but you do produce a really crap OS. Still, I expect your inability to see yourself as anything other than a victim is based on the poor quality of Microsoft hires these days.)

Re:as the saying goes

[everphilski]

It doesn't matter anyway because Microsoft is fucked because their ability to attract top talent has been eroded by Google.

That's funny, because Microsoft still does attract talent. They do a lot of R&D work that is more than just coding web applications, which seems to be the limit that Google will commit to.

Microsoft's offers of stock are less attractive when you see that the stock isn't going anywhere.

That is even funnier, because Microsoft stock made 12% last year and Google stock made only 9%.

Re:as the saying goes

[init100]

So to use the "bad for the environment" example, Microsoft would only be "evil" if someone were sitting in a room somewhere saying "With the release of Vista, millions of components containing toxic chemicals will be thrown away and damage the environment, MUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!" - because if that doesn't happen, any detrimental effect that happens isn't evil; it's just bad.

I disagree. There is a lot of concern for energy usage, global warming, etc, around the world today. When Microsoft completely ignores all those sentiments and produce an operating system that require much more computing power, i.e. energy, to run, that could surely be seen as evil. Completely ignoring environmental concerns to just make the most money is evil. Almost as bad as those that dump toxic waste into the ocean.

But when you propose that Microsoft was being "evil" and made its email client free because it wanted to ruin everybody else's business, I get a little skeptical.

It's not the fact that Microsoft does not charge for their email client that is evil, it is the bundling with the operating system that is considered evil. Since an email client is bundled with the operating system, most people do not even care to investigate other email clients. The evil part is in using your current monopoly (operating systems for desktop computers) to create a new one (email clients).

Re:as the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

And the only thing better than moronic hypocrites like you!

Re:as the saying goes

[StikyPad]

Or take a look a look at story covered in following post: UK Greens Declare Vista Bad For Environment

While comments related to that topic are probably best kept in that topic, the fact is that very few people are going to upgrade their systems to obtain Vista. The response thus far has been lethargic, will probably continue that way, and likely Vista will only make its way into the mainstream through computer sales which would have occured regardless. There will be no distinguishing "landfill line" where people suddenly started throwing away their existing computer parts. If Vista was some sort of wild success, then maybe, but that would still constitute a small portion of users; namely those with plenty of disposible income to buy all-new hardware on a whim and an early adopter mentality.

Re:as the saying goes

[drsmithy]

Or take a look a look at story covered in following post: UK Greens Declare Vista Bad For Environment - maybe the attempt to give customers "better experience" and also "satisfying *IAA" is supported by good intentions but here you are: at least greens consider it evil.

If the UK Greens are anything like the Australian Greens, they'd consider anything that didn't end up with everyone starving in the dark, "evil".

Re:as the saying goes

[drsmithy]

I disagree. There is a lot of concern for energy usage, global warming, etc, around the world today. When Microsoft completely ignores all those sentiments and produce an operating system that require much more computing power, i.e. energy, to run, that could surely be seen as evil.

Ignoring for a second the tortuous reasoning, the false assumption that Vista delivers no benefits to justify its "higher resource usage", the fact that even the assumption of "higher resource usage" is questionable, at best, given PCs up to around 5 years old are quite capable of running Vista and the fact that most computer upgrades are to run applications and games, rather than the OS...

Why is Microsoft being singled out for such criticism, when essentially everyone's software is doing exactly the same thing ?

Re:as the saying goes

[mysticgoat]

I expect that most of the privately owned WinXP boxes that get replaced by Vista boxes will become hand-me-downs or Goodwill donations.

I am concerned about whether the corporate changeovers to Vista will dump hundreds of boxes at a time on the way too few volunteer refurbisher/recylcers like Free Geek.

These donations are tax write-offs for the businesses. Places like Free Geek strip them down, test and salvage the good components, and use those to build Linux boxes that are put back into the community. Some are awarded as grants to non-profits like churches and youth groups; some are awarded to volunteers who have completed a term of service. Components that fail testing are sorted into scrap bins and sent to recylcers. It is mathematically certain that some of the gold on the pins of CPUs that Intel produced last week was used in a computer before.

Places like Free Geek will need to ramp up in a big way if the corporate world makes a sudden change to Vista. Fortunately, that isn't likely to happen any time soon, if at all.

Re:as the saying goes

[hany]

There is maybe little misunderstanding: you stated your confusion about some claim people made about Microsoft. I replied ttrying to point out possible (I stress: possible) answer and possible example supporting such answer. I did not stated whether I agree with "Microsoft is evil" or not.

Now, if I understand properly you reply, I think you think I think Microsoft is evil. Well, I dont know whether you're right. I'm quite sure I did not make any statement regarding my perception of Microsoft in this thread. I made some statement along those lines elsewhere: see my post to the article Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?.

So back to this thread: if some actions are to be rightfuly percieved as evil, is it necessary to do this evil things intentionaly?

Well, if you judge yourself, your statement is valid (as you wrote it). So I agree that in such case the answer is yes.

But if others are judging your actions (or mine, or whomever), the answer is IMO no. Why? Other has no way of knowing your (mine, ...) intentions, they can only see what has been done and what are the effects.

Then, if you want to know, why some people think that Microsoft is evil, you have to ask them.

For starters, take a look as that article mentioned above. If you engage in discussion there I think peole will respond even if the article is alredy more than one month old.

Or, if you want to be precise, post your own "Ask Slashdot" question, because "Why Does Everyone Hate Microsoft?" is not same as "Why do you think Microsoft is evil?". Or we can continue the debate here.

I'm looking forward to that (prefferably specialized "Ask Slashdot" post, as that way more peole will participate). You may end up making clear some misconceptions and things will be better - in Microsoft and in the world in general.

Re:as the saying goes

[Anonymous Coward]

You should your Mommy and Daddy to buy you a dictionary so that you can look up the meaning of the 'big' words you are trying to use.

What can we do?

[Anonymous Coward]

What can we do as Slashdotters to counteract this? Anything that makes Microsoft looks good needs to addressed, and addressed hard.

poop master

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you post so much on slashdot while being such an almighty poop master? Poop mastery is time consuming, if you want to be any good at it...that's why I chose a different career.

Re:poop master

[Dunbal]

almighty poop master

      Poop master? What are you 10 years old or something?

at least he's trying

[romit_icarus]

I know this is /. and MS bashing is de rigeur, but let that not detract from the fact that what Bill Gates is doing is admirable to say the least.

Why is it admirable? It's not that he is rich and has a lot of money etc. It's the fact that he's getting into global developmental issues and spending a majority time working on that than on IT. I live in India and I've seen the positive work that his foundation is doing in HIV prevention. Also on a personal front, he's moving away from IT where he has leadership position to an area where he is new. Yes we know that money can buy you leverage but then you could argue that way with anything he does..

He could have just retired to the carribean, bought out an island and enjoyed his wealth. But he didn't and so let's give him a cheer just for that.

Re:at least he's trying

[Mikkelin]

But he didn't and so let's give him a cheer just for that.

Steve could do that.

Re:at least he's trying

[IamTheRealMike]

He could have just retired to the carribean, bought out an island and enjoyed his wealth. But he didn't and so let's give him a cheer just for that.

He pretty much already did that. Look at his house, for instance. I believe he also owns his own cruise liner. Now he's basically bought everything he could ever want and is still the richest man in the world, what else is there left to do?

Re:at least he's trying

[Anonymous Coward]

"I know this is /. and MS bashing is de rigeur, but let that not detract from the fact that what Bill Gates is doing is
admirable to say the least."

Thats right; Bill Gates has done some charity; NOT Microsoft. MS is still a monopolist; and abuses the markets / competition. For those actions; we get less competition in the market place; lack luster products and a slow down of innovation. Do you believe MS would have done anything with IE if Firefox wasn't creating and improving their browser. MS only makes improvements when there is someone there to eat their lunch. Monopolies are lazy and they sit on their laurels.

How does Bill Gates action; excuse MS actions? Remember, Bill Gates is still rich; even after his donation. Microsoft is still a billion dollar company.

Re:at least he's trying

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the likes of Richard M. Stallman who is dedicating his whole life to the betterment of society and mankind, instead of doing it part-time and in a limited way only.

I never get that Bill Gates gets so much credit for doing some good deeds some of the time with some of the MS tax money (i.e. legally 'extorted' out of all people, governments and companies), whereas RMS gets a lot of flack for being a somewhat 'fanatic extremist' about FREEDOM for everybody, all of the time.

If you place mother Theresa higher on some scale of philanthropy than Bill Gates, and you care about (digital) freedom, you should also place RMS higher than Bill Gates.

Re:at least he's trying

[gamer4Life]

[blockquote]I know this is /. and MS bashing is de rigeur[/blockquote]

Microsoft fandom is also de rigeur, as evidenced by the replies to this story. Usually replies defending Microsoft are modded +5 insightful here ;)

What about . . .

[walterbyrd]

- Lying to the US-DoJ in Video taped testomony?
- Letters from dead people campaign?
- Caught dead-to-rights in outright theft of IP from competitors?
- Abusing the US legal system by funding scam lawsuits to FUD the competitions?
- Filing about 40 bogus patents every week for week for years?
- Secretly rigging supposedly independant benchmarks, and TOC studies?
- Payola to bloggers, and wikipedia contributors?
- Payola to "journalists" like Enderle?
- Payola to fake think-tanks like AdTI?
- Threatening to sue all Linux users and contributors over fake IP issues?

Should I go on? Msft really is organized crime. As a libertarian, I can assue you is not just anti-capitalists who have low regard for msft.

Re:What about . . .

[darjen]

Should I go on? Msft really is organized crime. As a libertarian, I can assue you is not just anti-capitalists who have low regard for msft.

I'm not really sure any of that stuff makes them organized crime per se, especially compared to the legal systems they have used to get ahead. They aren't taking a gun to people's head to force them to buy software. Unlike the mafia, who outright extort and launder people's money and threaten them with physical harm if they don't pay for protection services. Payola is not a criminal act. I'm not convinced that IP theft should be a criminal act. Same with lying to the US government.

Re:What about . . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Unlike the mafia, who outright extort and launder people's money and threaten them with physical harm if they don't pay for protection services.

The key to MS's acceptability is their crimes are complicated and most people are idiots. People understand passing bad checks as theft or fraud. They don't understand abusing a monopoly position in the market because most people don't even truly understand what a monopoly is, or what a market is, or what would constitute abuse and why. So long as your crime is complex and indirect enough, outrage will be minimal. Add onto that millions spent spreading misinformation and marketing propaganda designed to confuse the issue and outright lie to people and the average person shakes their head and ignores it. It sure is easier than understanding the issue. Even here on Slashdot where most people are a little above the average, almost every discussion of monopolies results in a an analogy, which includes no monopolies. I don't think I've ever seen an exception to this. People are used to a free market instead of monopolies so they assume all markets are not monopolized, even when that is the issue at hand. Most people simply don't understand what a monopoly is so they ignore the term.

Payola is not a criminal act.

Payola is illegal under the Clayton Act and Sherman Antitrust Act. It is a criminal act. You are misinformed.

I'm not convinced that IP theft should be a criminal act.

You can see the confusion right here. There is no such thing as "IP theft."

Same with lying to the US government.

Lying in court, under oath, should not be illegal?

MS is organized (by definition since they're a corporation). They have been convicted of breaking the law. Ergo, they are organized crime.

Re:What about . . .

[darjen]

They don't understand abusing a monopoly position in the market because most people don't even truly understand what a monopoly is, or what a market is, or what would constitute abuse and why.

You are right, people do not understand how monopolies and markets work together. Unlike most people, I do not necessarily view monopolies in a free market as a bad thing. If you have a monopoly and wish to continue to do business, you damn well better be providing a valuable service to the community, because if you don't people will have a huge incentive to come up with better alternatives. I really doubt Linux would have much of a following if it weren't for MS's perceived injustices and shoddy products.

Payola is illegal under the Clayton Act and Sherman Antitrust Act. It is a criminal act. You are misinformed.

Do you have a reference for this, or do you just expect me to take your word for it? Even if it is illegal, should it be? I'm not convinced it should.

You can see the confusion right here. There is no such thing as "IP theft."

Exactly. So what's your point?

Lying in court, under oath, should not be illegal?

I do not view the US govt as a legitimate organization. Therefore I don't have any moral problems with lying to them.

MS is organized (by definition since they're a corporation). They have been convicted of breaking the law. Ergo, they are organized crime.

Which laws have they broken, and are they just laws created by a just organization? This seems to be the main issue for me.

Re:What about . . .

[geekoid]

As a libertarian you shouldn't care how a corporation acts because it's all part of the market.

Libertarian = not giving a crap about a society,
Basically a lazy mans anarchy.

Wierd, I typed that and rush's 'Working Man' pop into my head.

Re:What about . . .

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Unlike most people, I do not necessarily view monopolies in a free market as a bad thing.

Privately run monopolies combine the worst aspects of capitalism and socialism. The monopoly acts for the profit of the shareholders, not the good of the people, but at the same time has all the lack of incentive, consolidation of power, and unaccountability to consumers of socialism. They are, in my opinion, a necessary evil that need to be prevented from destroying additional markets. Our current anti-trust laws are quite similar to most of the rest of the world. They came about because monopolies developed, destroyed markets, killed innovation, and spread uncontrollably causing immense suffering and very nearly taking control of our government and turning us into an authoritarian regime. When monopolies abuse their position, they need to be stopped or we're all at risk.

If you have a monopoly and wish to continue to do business, you damn well better be providing a valuable service to the community, because if you don't people will have a huge incentive to come up with better alternatives.

The nature of monopolies is such that even a better alternative often cannot win market share. Otherwise, we would not need to regulate them.

I really doubt Linux would have much of a following if it weren't for MS's perceived injustices and shoddy products.

On the contrary, the Linux development model is more efficient (financially) than the classic model. If not for MS's artificial barriers to entry Linux would probably be much, much more popular and there would be huge motivation(greed) for OEMs and application developers to invest funds in developing it.

Do you have a reference for this, or do you just expect me to take your word for it? Even if it is illegal, should it be? I'm not convinced it should.

The RIAA has been convicted three times for antitrust behavior, twice for price fixing and once for payola. I don't have references handy, but I'm sure Google will provide if you're interested.

I do not view the US govt as a legitimate organization. Therefore I don't have any moral problems with lying to them.

Morals are subjective and, thus useless for discussion. Ethically, you are responsible if you lie to the US government as much as to anyone else. Whatever your views on the government, I don't see how they apply to the practical considerations. Ethically, corporations may have the right to sell whatever they want, but ethically, I can ignore patents and move onto any piece of land I want. Laws are about making compromises between the rights of individuals to achieve a stable and beneficial quality of life.

Which laws have they broken, and are they just laws created by a just organization? This seems to be the main issue for me.

They violated antitrust laws in the US, Canada, the EU, Korea, and several other countries, all of whom have similar antitrust laws. You can argue the legitimacy of all those governments I suppose, but I don't see it as practical. MS built their business model on breaking the law, then bribing officials and paying off lost lawsuits with a portion of the proceeds. In the process they have destroyed progress in the computer industry and held adoption of new technologies back for their own profit. Their actions were illegal and they result in a net negative for society. Either way you approach the issue I don't see a lot of justification for the legal existence of an entity of that sort. Corporations exist because they were invented by governments and as such their only justification is a net positive for society. MS does not fit that description, IMHO.

Re:What about . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Payola is illegal under the Clayton Act and Sherman Antitrust Act. It is a criminal act. You are misinformed.
> Do you have a reference for this, or do you just expect me to take your word for it? Even if it is illegal, should it be? I'm not convinced it should.

Don't be lazy, Google the acts in question. Here, I'll even give you a starting place. I'm sure you can find out exactly which sections Spitzer charged Sony with if you follow a few links and do a little reading.

>> You can see the confusion right here. There is no such thing as "IP theft."
> Exactly. So what's your point?

I'm not him, but it's pretty damn hypocritical to get all high and mighty about your sacred IP only to turn around and not only to rip off someone else's product, but to sell it as your own. Microsoft has done this on more than one occasion, too, as I recall.

>> Lying in court, under oath, should not be illegal?
> I do not view the US govt as a legitimate organization. Therefore I don't have any moral problems with lying to them.

Besides, they're not *just* lying to the USA, they're lying in order to further defraud the people they've ripped off by getting away with whatever crime they committed to land in that lawsuit to begin with. In other words, they're perverting justice, not just telling a fib to Uncle Sam. If you don't have a problem with that, there's a problem with you.

> Which laws have they broken, and are they just laws created by a just organization? This seems to be the main issue for me.

Ad homenim. The laws would be just (or unjust) depending on what effects they have, not based on who created them. Whether it was Moses or Draco[1] giving it, a law against murder would be just as just. Now, if it were subsequently perverted into redefining "murder" such that some class of people weren't considered people for the purposes of the law, you'd have more of a point, but in that case we'd still be equivocating two different laws, because such a perversion would morph the original law into something else entirely. The one unperverted law would be just in either case, and the perverted law would be perverse in either case.

[1] Draco here refers to the guy because of whom we call laws "draconian", not the bad kid in Harry Potter. I'm including this note because I don't expect there to be enough people who know of him.

Ill gotten gains...

[Lodragandraoidh]

Two words: Tax Shelter

Once you have more money than anyone on the planet, being 'charitable' is easy - and provides a nice tax shelter for the money you don't show us that is still in your financial instruments. The good will that builds for the company you founded (and certainly hold large amounts of stock in) is just stock-value-inflating icing on the cake.

Bravo! Don't be upset when I fail to give you a standing ovation.

Re:Ill gotten gains...

[goldspider]

I imagine Gates doesn't give a shit whether or not you appreciate his philanthropy. I'm sure there are plenty of people around the world who do, and they are far more important to Gates than you.

Feel free to sit tight with your smug superiority while the Gates Foundation does some real good for the world.

Re:WTF?

[LotsOfPhil]

I don't think the respondents were WSJ readers necessarily. They describe 5 people as: retired professor, homemaker, college student, person who gets free medicine from Merck (no bias there), and a sales rep for a medical photography company. It was just a phone survey, I think.

Reminds me of the mob bosses.

[zerofoo]

Those guys used to give big-time money to their church.....and then go "whack" some guys as a matter of business.

The leaders of an organization do not necessarily reflect the true nature of their organization.

Bill and Melinda are probably very nice people, and they do very nice things with their money, but their company is a ruthless and brutal company. Microsoft has demonstrated, time and time again, that they will do anything to maintain their monopoly and stranglehold on their market. They have put the screws to their "partners" and customers, and have caused much ill will between those parties.

No amount of gift-giving, by a few at the top, will change that.

-ted

Re:Reminds me of the mob bosses.

[drinkypoo]

Bill and Melinda are probably very nice people, and they do very nice things with their money

What makes you think they're nice people? We already know beyond the shadow of a doubt that Billy Boy is not. Hell, he lied, cheated, and stole his way to the top and fucked customers over from the very beginning. If you got a defective paper tape of their Altair BASIC software, Bill would not replace it. And yes, in those days, you dealt directly with him.

Re:Reminds me of the mob bosses.

[I_HATE_THIS]

Which successful company is not "ruthless" and "brutal"?

You must be new here...

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

You must be new here. Slashdot is about 55% corporate astroturf, 20% press releases from various game companies and various game magazines, 15% stories about morons drilling holes in their mom's swimming pool to cool their XBox, and 10% science-related topics.

I keep coming back mainly to witness the laughable cluelessness of the average IT drone; there are people out there who actually rely on this site for "news" (shudder).

Re:You must be new here...

[Temkin]

Nahhh... My uid is 1/5th yours. I'm just in denial man!

Too early for this...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did anyone else read that as,

Microsoft Tops Corruption Survey! ?

This coffee isn't working.

Other People's Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Except Bill Gates doesn't spend it own money... He gets people like Warren Buffet to donate a few hundred million dollars, and then spends that...

Re:WTF?

[Da Fokka]

That's because it's easier to identify with people than with the companies they (are perceived to) represent. People dislike America because of Bush, people like Virgin because of Richard Branson and when the public perception of Bill Gates changes, so will the public perception of Microsoft.

The REAL victims of Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this attitude completely ignores the misery and suffering of the real victims out there: Lunis Torvalds and the Lunix comminity.

Think about it: now that Gates is using his wealth to help humanity, people are going to look at Lunis and wonder what exactly he is doing to help people... and by extension, wonder exactly what the Lunix community is doing to better the world (other than making yet another text editor, I mean).

This is another sad, sad testimony on how the Lunix and OSX communities are, as always, chasing Microsoft's tail lights. And the last thing either of them needs at this point is yet ANOTHER reminder of that: it's bad enough how Vista has them yellowing their underpants.

Kicking them when they're down... that's just not right. We have to get Gates to end his shameful philanthropy, and think about all the poor zealots it's victimizing.

Funny thing

[WindBourne]

This foundation is about his wife's work; She is a PR person. Basically, they are looking to buy ppl and it is working quite nicely. But even in the early days of the foundation, you could see how intertwined it was with MS. In Colorado, a few of the small town libraries obtained computers from MS. I went into one and asked them about it. At that time, it was the lowest end computer that would run MS. More importantly, when I suggested that they run Linux on it, they said that they were prohibited from doing so. In fact, they were prohibited from running anything except what they bought from a MS site. It was deeply discounted software, IIRC, the OS was something like 50 and top office package was 150. Now, I do not know if that is still the case, but, it was obvious back then that the foundation was tied directly to MS.

Re:Funny thing

[twitter]

[a public library] were prohibited from running anything except what they bought from a MS site. It was deeply discounted software, IIRC, the OS was something like 50 and top office package was 150.

Wow, what a great gift, having to forever purchase their product and run it in a prominent public place. Given TCO, they probably lost money in the bargain.

Re:Funny thing

[AK Marc]

More importantly, when I suggested that they run Linux on it, they said that they were prohibited from doing so. In fact, they were prohibited from running anything except what they bought from a MS site.

Then if Microsoft "donated" the hardware and deducted it from taxes, they are in violation of tax law. The "value" of the donation must be deducted, not its purchase price. The value of a computer that you can't choose what to run on it is less than a computer with no such restrictions. That means that deducting the full hardware cost would be tax fraud. If such shenanigans are actually occurring, I would recommend those affected contact the IRS and let them know (regardless of whether it is MS or someone else screwing over a charity for false deductions)

Re:Funny thing

[Anonymous Coward]

MS is a very illegal company. But somehow, I seriously doubt that they would play this game with the IRS. As it is, the hardware was donated by Gate's foundation, and the steeply discounted software by MS. Issue solved.

Re:Funny thing

[AK Marc]

As it is, the hardware was donated by Gate's foundation, and the steeply discounted software by MS. Issue solved.

That is not the situation if they lose the hardware if they install other stuff on it. I do not know if it is true, but the person I replied to was saying that the hardware had strings attached, not just the software.

fuzzy logic

[hany]

I'm sorry, but WTF does Gates spending his personal fortune on charitable causes have to do with the company?

One of the founders. The public face of the company.

I.e. something like "fuzzy loging" or "intuitive decisions" or "estimate" or whatever: great feature of our mental powers but also source of fataly wrong decisions in some cases.

Links to follow: The Cerebral Symphony, We're Only Human..., ...

Those links may not be the best for this topic but I'm unable to quickly find the one I was wanting for this. Sorry. :/

how disappointing..

[pjr.cc]

I'm just blown away by this. Goes to show you how ridiculous things really are in the world. your average joe on the street who knows jack-crap about what MS has done and continuous to do the software industry see's a wonderfull company where the rest of us see an "evil" empire.

Reminds me of the scene in star wars 3 where Amidala says "so this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause". Things like this just make me lose total faith in the world.

I think i might start up a business dedicated to destroying organizations like the world wildlife fund, greenpeace, the salvation army etc. Then i'll build it into a massive empire so i can keep half of everything i take from them and later give it away to the people who needed it in the first place. Should earn me a nobel prize or 2 if i can engineer it as well is Bill has. Of course, if any of you start up a business that looks like it might compete, im going to squash you out of existence which wont make any difference because by the time im done i'll have enough wealth to control everything people read or see so only people who look hard enough would have a clue as to how truly despicable i really am.

Re:how disappointing..

[drinkypoo]

Reminds me of the scene in star wars 3 where Amidala says "so this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause". Things like this just make me lose total faith in the world.

Dude, you are never going to get laid.

I think i might start up a business dedicated to destroying organizations like the world wildlife fund, greenpeace, the salvation army etc. Then i'll build it into a massive empire so i can keep half of everything i take from them and later give it away to the people who needed it in the first place. Should earn me a nobel prize or 2 if i can engineer it as well is Bill has.

But you're 100% on the money here. And so is Bill. Oh wait, he's in the money... Probably literally.

Re:how disappointing..

[RightSaidFred99]

I love how you nutcases make stuff up about Microsoft as if they used armed thugs to go out and steal money.

They made all their money by making deals between consenting adults. Everything else you're blathering about is the utmost nonsense.

Winning at losing.

[twitter]

No, most people still think M$ is sleaze. As the article put it.

The corporate world's overall reputation remains dismal, with new scandals emerging, such as the improper dating of stock-option grants to business executives. About 69% of respondents graded corporate America's reputation as either "not good" or "terrible," just slightly lower than the 71% in 2005.

It's disturbing that M$ could lead the pack, but overall people don't trust them. The lesson learned is that the bad behavior of some companies rubs off on all.

Also, the methodology can lead to funny business.

For the first part, 7,886 respondents were contacted online or by telephone last summer and asked to name the two companies they believe have the best reputations and the two with the worst. The 60 companies mentioned most often were then rated online last fall by a second group of 22,480 Americans, and each company was assigned a score and ranking based on those evaluations.

The first question is asking people to rate what their neighbors think, not what they think. That's a bad idea if a large portion of people think everyone else is sheepish. The whole study, of course, is tilted towards the opinions of people who would actually participate in a study. My wife and I think very poorly of big dumb companies and are highly unlikely to pay attention to phone or online spam. If you look at it like that, it's not surprising that M$ came out on top of an online study.

It's hard to tell without details, but the general population is less sheeplike than you think.

Precisely

[toby]

I call it reputation laundering.

Microsoft is just a manifestation of profound human weakness and limitation. Presumably as long as we are defective, imperfect creatures, we will not be free of such destructive and criminal institutions. But we can continue to resist!

I can't help but think of that saying

[Cius]

What was it? Oh yea, "once bitten, twice shy."

Same old greedy man.

[miffo.swe]

Bill Gates is the same greedy powerhungry man he was when he started Microsoft. This just shows you can buy reputation without really doing anything good. Microsoft is the exact same evil company as before, theyve just bought enough magazines now.

No suprise

[Henry V .009]

Their software has gotten a lot better since the Windows 95 days. Since 2000, Windows has been stable. It has also been secure if you take simple precautions (run automatic updates, don't click "Yes!" to everything you see on the internet). No wonder people are happier with Microsoft these days.

You want to know how?

[Ogive17]

It's because the average person doesn't know or care about how microsoft got to their current position. What they do know is they have windows installed, it typically works well for them, and Bill Gates gets lots of publicity for donating billions of dollars.

Sometimes the answer is very easy, just hard to see it with the anti-MS bias here.

Thanks AJAX!

[ear1grey]

Thankfully the tagging dropdown helped me to spell "antitrust", though I had to manage "coercive monopoly" all by myself.

You don't even have to be cynical

[Gr8Apes]

The B&MG foundation does very little effective good. It treats symptoms, much like putting a cold compress on a malaria victim's head.

If B&MG really wanted to help people, they'd fund public domain research to find cures for diseases. They'd fund the beginning of economic systems in places. IOW, they'd fund HIV research into a cure instead of ineffectively funding treatments for symptoms for existing patients. They'd fund education about contraception and provide contraception options instead of orphanges and soup kitchens for starving children. They'd fund stem cell research instead of hospice care.

All of those research efforts are short of funds at this time, and a true philanthropist would work to direct some of that research, including things he didn't necessarily agree with on the off-chance that a break-through would occur. After all, a true philanthropist is interested in results, not PR.

Yes, that's a hardline, and seems cold. I'm aware they're doing some funding of research, but the bulk goes to treatment of symptoms - it's the biggest bang for the buck PR-wise, and if nothing else, BG loves attention and his sense self-importance.

Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[El Cabri]

As a former red-blooded MS basher, I really cannot say that I've become a Microsoft fanboy either. I mostly don't care, and consider that PC OS technology has become a very boring field anyway. Here's a take at a list of things that have cooled me off :

• Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use.
• William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it.
• Desktop Operating System peculiarities are growing more irrelevant every year in most domains. The general indifference around the release of Vista is the best proof of this.
• No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way : free software, commercial OS companies (Be), alternative OSs pushed by proprietary hardware vendors (Apple, Sun), etc.
• In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors (I'm talking mainstream environments, not niche or academic ones like Scheme, Haskell or SmallTalk). These are probably the best contribution to mainstream application and system development environment, since Kernighan tried system programming in a high level language and made C. They also have some of the best advanced research in that domain.
• By experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux into doing properly all that XP does. Install Cygwin, a proper text editor, MS's free command line compiler suite, and learn how to configure the Terminal, and you're done.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I mostly don't care, and consider that PC OS technology has become a very boring field anyway.

I think you're a bit confused as to cause and effect. Remember the term "stifling innovation?" What did you think it meant? The current stagnation and glacial pace of change in the desktop OS market is not indicative that MS's monopoly does not matter, it is indicative that MS's monopoly has slowed innovation in the market.

Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use.

Windows XP and Vista are both flawed for the uses you describe because of the following:

• no easy sharing of functionality between programs, e.g. write a new spellchecker for every application.
• does not let users safely run untrusted binaries, a commonly needed function. Where is the default sandbox for crap from the internet?
• does not inform the user what is happening. Millions of machines are spambots, why doesn't the OS inform the user when it starts sending large amounts of e-mail?
• systems need to use myriad device drivers which need too much trust and can cause too much instability, the OS should be proof against crashes from drivers
• users commonly move from and old machine to a new machine... this is way too difficult for no good reason

I'm sure there are other deficiencies, but that's a good start.

William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it.

Gates has devoted a few percent of his wealth to charity and you think that justifies his acquisition of it by unethical and illegal means? So if I go rob a bunch of businesses, pay off the cops so I don't get punished, then donate 5% to charity I'm in the clear, ethically speaking?

Another item to not is the charitable donations Gates has made are said to be invested funding some incredibly dubious ventures including agriculture using child slave labor, cut and run health care scams, and predatory lending that swindles the elderly and poor out of their family homes.

Desktop Operating System peculiarities are growing more irrelevant every year in most domains.

Desktop operating system development has slowed to a crawl. No one wants to invest in it since the market is so broken. Only Apple is really keeping innovation going at all and they have very limited resources.

No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying...

Credible OS's have emerged, they just haven't been able to take significant market share. That is expected since having a monopoly allows you to create artificial barriers to prevent no, superior alternatives from gaining shares of the market. This is a bad thing for anyone interested in having a good OS, not the other way around.

In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors...

They also have a lot of inbuilt problems designed to undermine the market further. Claiming they are good for the market is naive.

y experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux...

Your working around deficiencies is indicative of something beneficial how again?

MS has singlehandedly done more damage to the effort to advance the computer industry than any other company I know of. They have broken the law and behaved as unethically as they could get away with out of simple greed, and the whole world is paying for it. Anyone who is a computer person and who values innovation and improvement should understand how much damage they have done, holding the whole industry back until they could control each aspect of it.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[ratboy666]

"* Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use."

-- Given that it costs $230 CDN, I should hope so.

"* William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it."

-- Sure

"* Desktop Operating System peculiarities are growing more irrelevant every year in most domains. The general indifference around the release of Vista is the best proof of this."

-- Only because the discussion is about eye candy, not the actual OS. And, the discussion is XP vs Visa.

"* No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way : free software, commercial OS companies (Be), alternative OSs pushed by proprietary hardware vendors (Apple, Sun), etc."

-- Only if you consider XP (or Vista) a credible alternative to Solaris. Or Linux. My argument is that after BILLIONS of dollars of investment, Microsoft has not produced a credible alternative to Fedora Core.

"* In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors (I'm talking mainstream environments, not niche or academic ones like Scheme, Haskell or SmallTalk). These are probably the best contribution to mainstream application and system development environment, since Kernighan tried system programming in a high level language and made C. They also have some of the best advanced research in that domain."

-- C# competing against Java, .NET competing against, what, Java class libraries? Pushing C# with Windows, after being sued by SUN (successfully) for attempting to pollute Java? Ok, C# was a small improvement to Java; but Java improved (incrementally) as well.

"* By experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux into doing properly all that XP does. Install Cygwin, a proper text editor, MS's free command line compiler suite, and learn how to configure the Terminal, and you're done."

-- And my experience is that MS's free command line compiler suite works fine under WINE, so I can cross develop on Linux/BSD for Windows. Anyway, I don't know what XP does that I need. My MythTV box runs fine, I can play DVDs, and it talks to my DSM-320 "media extender". I have networking, including NIS sign on, shared directories, RAID 5 storage server. VISTA (not XP) will do NFS (finally), NIS is possible with the Microsoft Unix add-in, but automount still isn't (although NIS sign-on can be made to work). I lose functionality by going to XP. I guess that Microsoft supports some kind of media kit for XP, supporting the DSM-320. I tried the supplied uPnP software that came with it (having a Windows machine), and it doesn't work well (certainly not as good as the built-in MythTV support for uPnP). I run Fedora Core 5 as my primary dev machine, on a Pentium II/400 with 256MB and an 8GB hard disk. Having TRIED XP on a similar machine, I wouldn't dare. By the way, that machine is shared, others work on it as well, AND it runs WINE and the MS command line compilers (for cross-dev).

I keep thinking "now is the time I should try out Microsoft"; I give it a whirl. I end up SEVERLY disappointed. Objectively, MS makes no products that fit into my infrastructure: my dual-proc Pentium Pro with 128MB that is my gateway machine. Quality hardware, has run since 1998. I *could* replace it, but then it ends up in a landfill. It was a $6000 machine when new. I rescued it from landfill fate in 2000. XP on it?

My storage server? A Pentium II/266, 128MB, Again, a landfill rescue. Quality hardware (GL 300 s

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[Anonymous Coward]

As a former red-blooded MS basher, I really cannot say that I've become a Microsoft fanboy either.

Please point to a slashdot post where you've bashed MS. The rest of your post proves your fandom; we are nerds, not that easily fooled by plastic grass.

• Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use.
  
  When I installed my copy, it disabled my Roxio (I think it was Roxio, came with my Imation burner) software saying it would make the system unstable, despite the fact that my 98 installation had been very stable. But it wouldn't let me uninstall the offending software. Then the first automatic update updated my network driver to the point that it wouldn't work.
  
  

• William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it.
  
  He is putting less of a percentage of his wealth into worthy causes than you do when you drop a five in a Salvation Army kettle.
• Desktop Operating System peculiarities are growing more irrelevant every year in most domains. The general indifference around the release of Vista is the best proof of this.
  No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way : free software, commercial OS companies (Be), alternative OSs pushed by proprietary hardware vendors (Apple, Sun), etc.
  
  You have never heard of Linux, I see. Or Macs.
• In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors...
  
  Then why do we still have buffer overflows in programs written in these (IMO) bad languages? I don't know COBOL, does it allow a buffer to spill into code?
• By experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux into doing properly all that XP does. Install Cygwin, a proper text editor, MS's free command line compiler suite, and learn how to configure the Terminal, and you're done.
  
  I see you've never heard of KDE. The only thing Linux won't do that Microsoft will is run proprietary software that was written for Windows. like TurboTax. Outside the OS realm, why do all word processors EXCEPT MS Word (e.g. Star Office or Word Perfect) interoperate while Word will not? I can read your Word document in either of those two editors, but you with only Word can't read my native document. Shoddy.

I can't tell if you're shilling, trolling, or brainwashed. You've clearly never used any OS besides Windows; your post shows your ignorance. Windows is WAY behind both Mac and Linux for anyone who doesn't need eye candy in their OS.

Microsoft software works backwards from everyone else's (take its command line - everyone uses a slash except MS, who uses a backslash). Everyone uses javascript, except Microsoft which uses jscript. Almost compatible, but not quite.

Then there's their (your?) habit of completely changing everything in your menu system everytime a new version is produced. One version of IE had "options" under "edit" (and IIRC it wasn't called "options" then). Then it's under "file", then "tools." I suspect IE7 has it under "view".

I've never used a Microsoft product I didn't passionately hate, mostly because either you compute the Microsoft way, or no way at all. Every other OS (and almost every other program) lets you work how you want to work.

Gates throwing a fiver in a red bucket at Christmas doesn't make me like his shoddy products or unethical business practices any better.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[nomadic]

-- Given that it costs $230 CDN, I should hope so.

What's that, $5 American?

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[I_HATE_THIS]

No you are wrong, that is about 200US, and with the spending rate of US gov., the same 230CND could worth $400US in not so distance future.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[I_HATE_THIS]

Did you ever consider your PII actually is a threat to the environment? It uses more energy than VIA mini itx, which run XP just fine. If the US citizen is so concern about the env., it wouldn't be the country with the most SUV density.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[I_HATE_THIS]

Yes, my FC 5 box work just fine, except everytime I do a update, it reset my x86 config to single head generic card and monitor. I guess I really want one generic monitor, and the FC 5 overlord knows better.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[jonasj]

...

        * Windows XP is a fairly stable operating system, with no serious architectural flaw for office use, software development, workstation or hobbyist use.

All those anti-virus, firewall and anti-spyware programs that everybody needs on their Windows systems are nothing but workarounds for architectural flaws. I need none of those on the various free operating systems that I use/have used.

        * William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight and is leveraging his wealth in a remarkably, socially responsible way, making this accumulation truly beneficial to the world that has created it.

Or is he? See links earlier in this discussion.

        * No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way : free software, commercial OS companies (Be), alternative OSs pushed by proprietary hardware vendors (Apple, Sun), etc.

Only if your definition of "credible" includes "made by Microsoft".

        * In the domain of software development, MS's contributions with .NET and C# are objectively superior to most of their predecessors (I'm talking mainstream environments, not niche or academic ones like Scheme, Haskell or SmallTalk). These are probably the best contribution to mainstream application and system development environment, since Kernighan tried system programming in a high level language and made C. They also have some of the best advanced research in that domain.

Please prove how C# is "objectively superior" to Python. Or Ruby.

        * By experience, I have found out that it is easier to tweak XP to behave as a Hobbyist's or developper's UNIX box, than it os to tweak Linux into doing properly all that XP does. Install Cygwin, a proper text editor, MS's free command line compiler suite, and learn how to configure the Terminal, and you're done.

Like many other people here on /., I often build and set up computers for friends and relatives. Some years ago, I would install Windows, spend sometimes HOURS looking for drivers, install office software, install more secure web browser, install anti-virus and other security software, install various utility software, etc, etc. Today, I just install Ubuntu (which by the way is a much simpler process than installing any version of Windows), paste a one-line script which installs all of the nonfree stuff that regular people want (codecs, flash, etc), and I'm done.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[ratboy666]

You assume that I am in the US? I quoted the price of XP in Canadian dollars.

Anyway, there is the on-going power consumption factor. My boxes draw 70 to 140 watts (typical, startup current is higher). I am sure that the "mini-itx" system would draw less. Maybe as low as 30 watts (or am I being hopeful?). Even at that, it would take YEARS to make up the cost. Factor in the environmental cost of disposing of the old machine (these are not "green") and I don't think I can justify the replacement. At least not as long as the old machine still works.

Of course, you can convince me... If a new machine over two years is less expensive than the old machine, I'll go for it -- including XP. In a formula:

new machine cost + power = old machine power + disposal environment cost

If that cannot be met (and I don't think so), I stand by my assertion that Microsoft should open up Windows 98se (not open source, but licensing).

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[crabpeople]

"William H Gates III has stepped away from the company's spotlight"

Thats why I just watched him spend 15 minutes hyping vista on the daily show and around the world right?

"No true credible alternative OS has emerged after fifteen years of trying in each and every way"

Win2k. If they had just taken win2k and made optional addons (firewall, wireless config) then we would all still be running the most stable windows os ever made. Now you get a pile of vista crap, a giant step backwards.

Re:Factors that have changed my own mind about M$

[El Cabri]

True. It should be a serious wake-up call when one CAD will be worth more than one USD. Until now, Americans without a degree in economics had the following understanding of the international currency system : when we cross over to Canada, they give us more dollars than we change. That was supposed to be the symbol of American economic predominance.

RATS

[sproketboy]

Who are we going to complain about now?

Re:RATS

[Dunbal]

Who are we going to complain about now?


      Don't worry, there's always the **AA's to complain about! I don't see THEM helping starving HIV infected african kids. Although they claim that's what their artists will become if we download an mp3...

They didn't poll slashdot

[sulfur_lad]

Oh, the sweet teenage angst on here whenever someone says something nice about Microsoft.

Welcome to running a business, you want to make sure you stay on top. Addressing an earlier post, MS does not try to create MS Zombies in schools, good teachers (whom I observe weekly) leverage whatever technology they have to enable content that helps them to instruct. Then there are other teachers who tell their students that the phases of the moon are caused by the shadow of the earth on the moon. I saw this being taught on a Mac, so obviously that's Apple's fault.

Honestly about 5 years ago I would have jumped on the "obviously this is false" slashdot bandwagon, but the honest to goodness truth is that things have gotten better. I have friends who are currently dedicating two years of their lives to travel around the world to various Global Giving projects. I've been trying to look at my life and figure out how I could do something like that and make it work. That Bill Gates has the resources to do it is one thing, the fact that he does do it - no matter what people here describe as a small percentage of what he's worth - is excellent. The halo effect means that whatever the boss does reflects on the company. To most people on the planet MS is Bill Gates, and so the impression is now good. You can add that XP has been an awesome product with an excellent run (that's not over) that has elevated the company (compared to previous offerings), and you get a much better impression.

And anyways, for the haters and the teen angst-kids here, if you don't use Windows then who cares, don't whine. They're not forcing you to just like they're not forcing me to run Windows Server instead of Linux (which is running) on my server.

Re:They didn't poll slashdot

[geekoid]

MS's abuses effect everyone, even non-MS users.

This is known as...

[Anonymous Coward]

Robbing from the poor, and the rich, and then giving them a little bit of their own money back to make them think you're doing them a favour.

Copycat reputation lives on

[Anonymous Coward]

He's just taking a page from the Andrew Carnagie playbook...

Man, does Gates ever stop copying someone else's ideas???

You're an idiot

[donutello]

I strongly recommend learning elementary math and the basics of the tax code before spouting off on stuff that you don't know anything about.

Jerry: So were going to make the Post Office pay for my new stereo?
Kramer: It's a write off for them.
Jerry: How is it a write off?
Kramer: They just write it off.
Jerry: Write it off what?
Kramer: Jerry, all these big companies they write off everything!
Jerry: You don't even know what a write off is.
Kramer: Do you?
Jerry: No. I don't.
Kramer: But they do, and they're the ones writing it off.
Jerry: I wish I had the last twenty seconds of my life back.

You don't pay taxes on the money you give away because you are giving it away. That is the only "tax advantage" that charity gives you. And trust me, the taxes you're saving will always be less than the money you're giving away.

Re:You're an idiot

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

You don't pay taxes on the money you give away because you are giving it away. That is the only "tax advantage" that charity gives you. And trust me, the taxes you're saving will always be less than the money you're giving away.

This isn't actually true. In many cases charitable donations can result in deductions from the tax you pay. The US generally does not tax wealth, they tax income. As a result if you have 10 billion dollars, and earn 1 billion dollars a year, and donate 500 million, you may end up paying 50% less taxes, rather than 5%. Also, taxes are often applied progressively, so that spending 500 million on charity might result in a tax rate of 30% of your income instead of 40%. It certainly can and does result in paying less taxes overall.

The upshot of all of this is that there are real tax advantages to charitable donations, but in general they do not result in a net gain for the person donating, although they often don't result in nearly as large of a net loss as you seem to imply. It is entirely possible (although uncommon) for a person to donate millions and have the end result be the same amount of wealth as if they did not donate millions, but instead paid more taxes. It just means the money goes to the charity instead of the government.

Re:You're an idiot

[donutello]

It is entirely possible (although uncommon) for a person to donate millions and have the end result be the same amount of wealth as if they did not donate millions, but instead paid more taxes. It just means the money goes to the charity instead of the government.

No. That is not possible. It is possible for someone with millions to hedge their money into tax shelters that lets them end up with more wealth than if they hadn't but that's orthogonal to charitable donations. Charitable donations will never let you end up with more or even as much wealth as you would have had without the donations.

Tax rates are marginal so dropping from a 40% to a 30% bracket does not mean you save 10% of your entire income on taxes.

Behold my startup

[Anonymous Coward]

It's going to keep thousands of skilled developers out of work and create menial jobs maintaining our defective product. We're going to break competition law at every opportunity, screw over all our partners, make vague threats against foreign governments and generally retard human development for our own benefit.

Who in Wall street will fund my company?

Ok, here's the icing on the cake, I'll set up a pro-capitalist foundation and give my ill-gotten gains to charity. See, you've gotta look after those poor little brown people or they'll never buy our stuff. I've got a heart of gold!

Unless.........

[obsidianpoet]

"But such criticism is less biting and less pervasive than it was just a few years ago.'" Unless you read slashdot of course :)

Re:Unless.........

[I'm Don Giovanni]

I noticed a downturn in slashdot bashing of MS in 2005 and the first part of 2006, but since then it has increased to its former heights, only this time it's much more shrill, and largely devoid of logic. A bunch of ranting poppinjays, screaming about DRM and the like, most of which is FUD and most of which normal people don't give a damn about. It's as if slashdotters instinctively recognized that MS-bashing was losing steam, both here and in the normal world, so the ratcheted up the bashing with any and every excuse, they could come up with, no matter how flimsy.

I wouldn't accuse Gates of that...

[Shivetya]

though from moderation its obvious the mentality at /. would believe it. If Jobs did the same would be ok? Does the fact he doesn't cause Apple any issues?

Gates is associated with Microsoft and the halo effect of his charity will rub off. The big thing people here forget is most people don't care about what OS they use. They don't give a flip about the business issues. To them PCs are just another appliance, an aggravating one at times, but nothing more. Also, the majority will never have a problem with their machine.

Money can buy you notoriety. It can buy you face time and fame. It cannot buy you respect. You earn it by your actions, just because one his actions is charity at a level not seen in ages should not begrudge him the respect for doing it. Unlike the hollywood types he doesn't go looking for TV time to laud him for holding a dirty baby in some village. And unlike hollywood types many people seem his as real person

Inheritance/Estate Tax Avoidance

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gates Foundation has done a lot of good, but like any other foundation setup by the very wealthy, it's a way of avoiding estate taxes on Bill's personal wealth when he passes away.

The foundation is setup and a large amount of personal wealth is donated. The descendents are guaranteed high salary jobs at the foundation and the estate taxes are minimized when the contributor passes away.

The side benefit to society is that they are actually doing some good work, but that isn't why the foundation was setup, it's all about keeping vast wealth in the family.

Re:Inheritance/Estate Tax Avoidance

[RightSaidFred99]

This is the most ridiculous load of crap I've seen yet in this thread, and that's saying a lot because it's basically full of crybaby Slashdot nerds crying like little fucking babies.

You have the sand to claim that he's doing this because he wants to leave _more_ money to his offspring? I think you're applying logic that applies to "normal" rich people to someone who is well beyond "normal" rich. He has no need to do such inane things to pass money on to his children. He can pass enough on to them to provide for them and the next 10 generations to live in top .01% percentile luxury.

In short, your point is nonsensical.

Re:Inheritance/Estate Tax Avoidance

[lstellar]

This is simply illogical. Despite what the true incentives of his donations are, the tax break these donations provide pale in comparison to other forms of estate planning that could also save him money. If Gates set up the foundation solely as to circumvent tax laws, leaving the philanthropy secondary, he would not need to give half his wealth, leaving your methodology as inefficient. The donation tax break vs. the death tax works in percentages, and never is such high a percentage as what he has donated needed to achieve this goal. If he wanted his kids to keep "vast" wealth he could set aside $5bil each kid and still save enough money in the foundation to bypass the tax with enough money for a small island on the side. Yet it is reported he is leaving a number floating around the "low millions" ($50-200mil [I WISH I considered that "low millions"]) per child. Not to mention, every two-bit estate planner with his Series 7 knows these laws, guaranteeing almost EVERY millionaire to billionaire also takes advantage of the "donation" law. Yet none have given such high percentages or raw wealth to a charitable trust, albeit one of his own. Flaming this act of donation as selfish is simply immature when the foundation should be revered, regardless of your view of Gates, M$ or their product.

My conclusion: Microsoft is adversarial.

[Futurepower(R)]

Quote from the parent comment: "I studied MS extensively for a political science thesis. My conclusion is that MS is evil."

In 2003 I wrote an article about Windows XP: Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going.

I came to the conclusion that Microsoft is very adversarial toward its customers, manipulating them whenever it is able to find a weakness.

You are all selfish jerks.

[derrickh]

So, according to the majority of these posts it doesnt matter how many starving people Bill Gates has helped feed, or how many children lived because of the Gates' contributions to medicine, or how many families recieved shelter from the elements because of Bill Gates opening his check book. All that means nothing because you think MS could have written a better email program? Since IE isnt better than Firefox and Office is a resource hog, that takes precedence over a baby in Africa getting vaccinated?

The more I read, the sicker I get. Everyone posting has a life 1000x better than most of the people Gates gives money too, just by the fact that you have electricity. But still, you feel that not getting to see the source code for Outlook is a big enough slight to negate giving hundreds of millions of dollars to charity.

What percentage of your income have you given? How much of your time do you donate? Before buying that harddrive or monitor, did you even think about how much medicine that money would've bought a sick child? Did you care enough to even pause before handing over your credit card? Before trashing -anyone- that helps others, look at yourselves.

D

Re:You are all selfish jerks.

[Hucko]

Don't mistake the posts. They are saying doing good doesn't reduce the evilness of the original crime(s), and nice owners don't have a nice dog by default. :)

I understand the post to be largely decrying the unfairness of the effect a monopoly has on a culture. I am thrilled that the beneficiaries have become just that, but wish it were that the same result could be achieved without the criminal practices.

Yes, I know people who give the majority of their incomes/time to charities but inspite of efforts to give them real recognition, they go unrecognised. They lack substantial money thus lack (recognised) power despite changing the lives of many unfortunates.

Yes, I have done as you have suggested for a number of years and had a second thought before going out and buying the latest. I also recognise lowering myself to their standard of living doesn't raise theirs equally.

Re:You are all selfish jerks.

[si1houette]

I think that it is refreshing to see the giant benefit the economy a little bit, but i am not fooled about why they do it. They do it to gain a little public respect (which they do admittedly need). do you not find it odd that Gates has moved to become this lovable character right when vista came out? Yes, I too think that it is nice that Microsoft is giving to the poor, but they should not be doing it in this manner. They should not blow a horn before they give to charity so that everyone knows. If Microsoft was more interested in giving to the poor than selling an image they would have been quietly giving sizable amounts well before vista was published.

Re:You are all selfish jerks.

[Hucko]

sooo.... you are here because...?

So that makes it OK?

[iion_tichy]

Suppose you were a Mafia boss and would make Billions from crimes, as long as you donated half the money to charity, it would be alright?

Not saying that Microsoft is evil (I think they are just a company), but I think the donations should also be seen in perspective. It's also a lot easier to donate if you have lots of money to begin with.

How would you act with $50 Billion?

[genghis_1971]

Bill Gates is extremely modest compared to the few peers he has. He has taken to charity like Mark Cuban has taken to the Mavericks (his charity). We should all hope he's as successful as Cuban. As far as monopolies go, Microsoft's transgressions are minor. Comparatively, MS is honourable when compared to the practices of other Present and past monopolies such as Standard Oil, Major League Sports, DeBeers, Private Toll Operators etc. I believe MS has successfully walked the tightrope of being aggressively competitive and being a good corporate citizen.

Altruism My Elbow!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates gives money to charities that are 'encouraged' to buy stuff from companies that he has shares in. I fail to see the act of altruism, even if it does benefit starving children who now won't get AIDS, and big pharma.

Benefit of the doubt

[zerofoo]

I merely said they appeared to be nice people since I have never met them.

I do, however, know the company very well, so I felt comfortable commenting on that.

-ted

It's Melinda

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill is getting credit for Melinda's generosity.

Gratuitous

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one welcome our philanthropic overlords.

And you have a hopelessly romantic world view

[Anonymous Coward]

The Gates Foundation ain't Microsoft and Bill Gates ain't Robin Hood.

Never mind trying to play the fucking guilt card, Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization. Does the percentage of Microsoft plunder that makes it's way back to charity excuses their criminal behavior? Can charity ever excuse criminality? if I come and beat you to a pulp and then donate 90% the contents of your wallet to charity are you going approve?

You and simpletons like you need to stop focusing on the left hand that is being waved around to distract you!

Re:And you have a hopelessly romantic world view

[Higaran]

No charity can not excuse criminality, but all of you MS bashers need to lay off. If MS fired everyone tomorrow and hired entirely new staff, would any of you stop compaining? If you want to ues Linux, of SUN, or make your own OS from scratch that fine, but I've heard enough of MS is bad for what ever reason, besides most of the stuff they did that was criminal was back in the mid 90's and almost none of it is relevant to anything they do today. So move on, get over it and go back to wacking it to images of the iphone or something.

I wouldn't expect it

[tacokill]

I wouldn't expect a standing ovation from you. But the tone of your post suggests he is "bad" for seeking solutions that minimize the tax effect.

That's just retarded. *IF* the tax break leads to "good behaviors" (ie: people donate more money), then what's the problem? Are you suggesting there are nefarious purposes to this arrangement? Or are you just bent out of shape they don't donate more? I don't understand the purpose of your post other than seeing your cynicism about tax writeoffs for charitable donations. If you don't like how that arrangement works, go lobby your congresscritter. Bill is just working within the system he was given (as we all are)....

Your post is like hanging a person for doing something they have a self-interest to do. "Man, you got a great deal at that store. But you are an ass because you didn't spend more, for the same thing, at store Y". Of course Bill Gates wants to minimize his taxes. Everyone does.


I mean, he could have given away $0 and lived happily ever after. That's the reason we give tax writeoffs for charity -- to encourage giving. Stop hanging him, unnecessarilyy, for (what you say are) his motives.

Microsoft's Reputation

[c0d3r]

Its my opinion, having seen inside of Microsoft, that the interal ego maniacs beneath upper management took over the soul of Microsoft. All of my attempts to make the solution better were squashed with internal politics and self centered ness of others as opposed to creating a better product. In comparison to the Silicon Valley, where most of my experience is from, their engineers seemed to be very incompetent and tried to get by with bs and politics instead of skill.

Re:Microsoft's Reputation

[geekoid]

GO over their heads.
In my experience, half the time it works, and the other half I end up looking for a job, which I was giong to do anyways.

Re:Microsoft's Reputation

[c0d3r]

I tried that, and they'd simply have the specs updated to introduce bugs and speced out in the most difficult way to implement. Often I'd be blocked with dependencies. Also, I implemented a bunch of items that were scoped out to another milestone and they opened bugs on those items and insisted that I unimplemented them. Mangagement over your group was inaccessable.

W2K

[antdude]

I think Windows 2000 was better than XP in terms of stability. Is XP really that much better?

Re:W2K

[AK Marc]

I think Windows 2000 was better than XP in terms of stability. Is XP really that much better?

XP is an improvement of 2000. If you disable the stuff in XP that's not in 2000, XP is more stable and faster. 2000 was supposed to be the convergence of the 95 line with the NT line, but 2000 was unable to run sufficient 95 derived software, resulting in the ME/2000 releases. XP was an update to 2000 to make it be what it was supposed to be in the first place. Even in the numbering, XP is not considered a new release. 2000 is NT 5.0, and XP is NT 5.1. That numbering fits how the OSs have operated for me. XP is an incremental improvement over 2000 (not revolutionary, but with new features and capabilities).

Re:W2K

[westlake]

I think Windows 2000 was better than XP in terms of stability. Is XP really that much better?

W2K was never significant in the consumer market. The distinctions inevitably become blurred, particularly when you look at the SOHO and laptop markets, which is why you get products like XP Pro and Vista Ultimate.

In other news...

[Baavgai]

Money really can buy love.

At the zoo, the have a sign

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase: "Don't feed the troll."

YOU ARE A DOG

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for admitting it.

charitable my ass

[Kirth]

The Gates Foundation has recently been found lobbying for biotech-patents. Doesn't surprise, since it has investments in a load of the big pharmacy-companies: Pfizer, Merck, J & J, Wyeth, Abbott Labs.

See also: http://100777.com/node/1331

I'm afraid you're wrong

[blueZ3]

The B&MGF gives money to schools in such a way that it must be used for MS technology. They are all about "...try[ing] to create MS zombies in schools..." by having good teachers (I like to think I was formerly among the ranks of this group, before I left the politics behind for the computer industry) using MS products that are the only option in the "whatever technology they have" class.

In cases where schools accept this "strings-firmly-attached" financial assistance, the chances are that students will only ever be exposed to MS Windows, MS Office, and the MS way of doing things. Getting people to switch to another OS later in life is difficult--it is far, far harder/more expensive to get a customer in the first place than to keep a customer who is used to your product. This is the lesson that Apple learned and then forgot.

The "excellent" work you tout that the B&MGF is doing is mainly tied to coercing schools into using MS products, encouraging 3rd-world governments not to switch to alternatives, and gaining intellectual property rights to medical advances. Whatever Bill is like on a personal level (and I've met people who know him pretty well and think he's a reasonably nice guy) his "philanthropic" projects seem to have a common thread of increasing the influence of the company. The Foundation is at its heart a PR tool and salve to assuage Bill's guilt over having made an astounding amount of money through practices that were not completely above-board.

As for your last statement, while they're not forcing consumers to use Windows, they've for years forced them to pay for it, whether that was the OS they were going to run or not. There was a time (not so long ago) when it was impossible to buy a computer from a major manufacturer without an OS installed, because of illegal business practices on Microsoft's part. Indeed, it is still very difficult to find this as an option on most sellers' Web sites.

IBM, HP, SUN created the evil image

[Anonymous Coward]

in reaction to M$FT's revolution in overturning mainframes and other higher priced niches markets with affordable software for ordinary people. IBM still burns about it. And they did everything and worse than what Gates and Balmer ever did when they stomped out all hardware and software competition for decades.

Capitalism == Monopoly?

[Famatra]

"People can complain all they want, but it doesn't make it so. It [Microsoft] just happens to be an easy target for anti competition, anti capitalist folks."

Make no mistake: Monopoly isn't a feature of capitalism, it's a failure. Free markets do not work without government to do things like: provide courts to enforce contracts etc, and intervene when a market failure occurs, such as with monopoly.

As well, monopoly is a tax on the benefit and welfare of society. You can look it up, dead-weight-loss isn't also call the excess burden of (taxiation/*monopoly*/subsidy/etc.) for nothing. Bill's ill begotten riches come on your and my backs and for him to get credit for spending them is simply insult on top of injury.

Re:Capitalism == Monopoly?

[darjen]

It's interesting that you insist monopolies are bad, yet advocate a complete government monopoly over contract enforcement. Monpolies that abuse their position are typically a short lived feature of true capitalism. MS will be no different in the long run. Bill never forced you at gunpoint to purchase a copy of windows.

Re:Capitalism == Monopoly?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's interesting that you insist monopolies are bad, yet advocate a complete government monopoly over contract enforcement.

The government is, supposedly, run by the people. What's the alternative to government enforced contracts, hiring mercenaries? At that point why bother with the contracts in the first place, just get as big an army as possible and take what you can.

Monpolies that abuse their position are typically a short lived feature of true capitalism.

Monopolies that abuse their position are typically (historically speaking) stopped by government intervention, or by a violent bloody revolt after a period of long-term, widespread poverty and suffering, where the company owners are murdered and their wealth taken back by the people. That's not exactly a recipe for stability or optimal standards of living.

MS will be no different in the long run.

Hopefully it will be the former instead of the latter.

Bill never forced you at gunpoint to purchase a copy of windows.

What does this have to do with anything? If I sneak into your house and steal all your clothes I didn't force you at gunpoint to hand them over. Does that somehow make it more ethical or legal to steal or to illegally leverage a monopoly?

Re:Capitalism == Monopoly?

[darjen]

The government is, supposedly, run by the people. What's the alternative to government enforced contracts, hiring mercenaries?

The government is run by rich moneyed interests. The alternative is mutually agreeable private arbitration.

a violent bloody revolt after a period of long-term, widespread poverty and suffering, where the company owners are murdered and their wealth taken back by the people. That's not exactly a recipe for stability or optimal standards of living.

Are you talking about monopolies here or government? Why don't we compare the number of violent, bloody revolts against governments in history and the number of violent bloody revolts against companies. That alone should speak for itself. The government is the one who gave MS the monopoly in the first place. We wouldn't be having this problem if MS wasn't able to use our tax dollars to protect their source code from being copied.

If I sneak into your house and steal all your clothes I didn't force you at gunpoint to hand them over. Does that somehow make it more ethical or legal to steal or to illegally leverage a monopoly?

I would be very hard pressed to equate a software monopoly with theft. So, how exactly did Bill steal from me? Specific example please.

Re:Capitalism == Monopoly?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

The government is run by rich moneyed interests.

Like monopolists?

The alternative is mutually agreeable private arbitration.

Why? Assuming the government is not stepping in, why wouldn't the more powerful of the two parties simply enforce their will, when it benefits them? How is this different than "might makes right?"

Are you talking about monopolies here or government?

In the past, monopolies have tended to grow larger and larger until they controlled the government. See standard Oil, for example. They were above the law and sometimes became the law, was as the case with the West Indies Trading Company. Already MS is one of the largest contributors to both the Republican and Democratic parties and while convicted of breaking the law were punished with basically nothing at all (shortly after the politicians they patronized came into power).

Why don't we compare the number of violent, bloody revolts against governments in history and the number of violent bloody revolts against companies. That alone should speak for itself. The government is the one who gave MS the monopoly in the first place. We wouldn't be having this problem if MS wasn't able to use our tax dollars to protect their source code from being copied.

Sadly, human nature prevents a lack of governments. Abolish them and then a few guys get together and as a group are stronger than individuals... the next thing you know they are a small oligarchy and it goes from there. So what are you proposing? We disband the government? You think that would work? I think we're way off topic.

I would be very hard pressed to equate a software monopoly with theft. So, how exactly did Bill steal from me? Specific example please.

The term "steal" is horribly abused because it is so easy to put into analogies. The murderer stole a life. The rapist stole her virtue. Not all unethical behavior is stealing. What leveraging a monopoly does is nothing more than using our laws to skew the free market. You make a lot of money and then buy an innovative company and kill them to maintain your profit stream. Is that stealing innovation from the entire world? It does slow down progress. When you tie two products together you make an inferior product the better option so people pay more money for a crappy product and the company that makes a good product goes out of business. Did the monopolist steal that profit from the better company?

The action MS took was not stealing. It was leveraging a monopoly, which is something else entirely. Unfortunately, most people don't understand how the free market works, what a monopoly is, or how leveraging one undermines that process to the detriment of society. So let me try to explain for the bajillionth time how leveraging a monopoly works using simple examples.

Say I have a monopoly. That is fine and legal. Say it is even a natural monopoly. I found the only source of some un-synthesizable compound on the entire planet. All well and good. This substance X is very useful, say it extends life spans by 50%. Selling that substance is legal and profitable and ethical, even though it is a monopoly. Now say that I decide to expand my operations. After all, I'm a businessman now. So I decide I'm no longer selling the wonderful substance X, by itself, I'm only selling a bundle of substance X and a lifetime contract to buy food from my store at a set rate of $200 a month. Well, everyone needs or wants substance X, so people still buy it and with it they get a lifetime of groceries. Most of the other grocery stores go out of business, while I get rich. The quality of my groceries is very poor, but not so bad that people are willing to throw it all away and buy from somewhere else after having already paid me, and most people can't afford to do that anyway. In a free market, normally companies compete and the one with the lowest price and best quality wins, so companies are motivated to provide that. What is my motivation to make my

Re:Capitalism == Monopoly?

[drsmithy]

Make no mistake: Monopoly isn't a feature of capitalism, it's a failure. Free markets do not work without government to do things like: provide courts to enforce contracts etc, and intervene when a market failure occurs, such as with monopoly.

Monopolies (well, a single monopoly) are the only logical conclusion of an unregulated free market - at least so long as scarcity exists (and if it didn't, well, there wouldn't be any need for capitalism ).

(Of course, you couldn't still call it a "free market" by the time that happened, but it would be inevitable.)

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates is NOT spending his personal fortune, he is investing his and Warren buffet's. He gives the interest to charities to avoid paying taxes and buy PR to change his soiled image. Very clever I must say.

Historical Achievements of MS Pay Off

[Anonymous Coward]

Readers of the WSJ seem to be less willing to indiscriminatingly bash MS. Most of their business practices are lawful; for the rest they are being sued constantly. They have a track record of some mediocre and some good products. And they did some excellent innovation in some areas (most specs of the widely used C++ programming language; invention of XML and large parts of HTML; invention of Wikis).

Wow! This Thread Is Better Than

[aquatone282]

. . . watching an angry mob torch a building and then pull the unlucky escapees apart limb-by-limb!

Re:Microsoftie - not stupidity, but entrenchment

[Anonymous Coward]

Your post was very one dimensional.

How about the a company or government agency that "standardized" on windows a 5 years ago when OS/X was the only real alternative.... They have now moved to MS Office, Exchnange, and Windows on the desktop (2K or XP). It would cost them a bundle to switch to a completely open source stack. Only in the last couple of years has OpenOffice been a viable solution for many. Only in the last few years has Linux been usable on the desktop. Corporations and especially government entities move at a glacial pace. If the CIO says Windows, then it shall be.

Also, if you really want games to work on your PC, you will need to run Windows. I have spent several DAYS trying to get Wine to just work and most games I have tried work with some success, but look at the wine application list....

What about specialized hardware and software such as lab software? What about Photoshop? Is there a Linux port yet? How about legacy devices such as printers (I have a Canon) which just aren't supported anywhere other than Windows?

Also, to middle management today, a PC is a Windows X86 box and a word processor is Word. It takes time and effort to learn something else. If you get a copy of Windows on the new computer you purchase at Best Buy or Circuit City, and it comes with Word, what will you use? Most likely what came on the box....

They may not be forced but there is cost associated with the change: time (time is money), training, books, etc.

zomg

[DuroSoft]

I thought this day would never come, but a monkey just came out of my butt.

Quite simply...

[Aurisor]

Note: this is not a troll. I am trying to explain why people think Microsoft is evil, and I'm just not going to mince words about it.

In the opinion of many around here, Microsoft makes shitty software. Its marketshare is so large that, as a rather tech-savvy segment of the population, we are *forced* to deal with Microsoft or at least its effects on the industry.

Microsoft, like all other companies, tries to maintain and even increase its marketshare. To us, that is effectively an effort to spread the use of shitty software.

Microsoft is not evil or predatory or destructive in the way that the RIAA etc are...techies have just built up a lot of resentment towards the company over the years and 'evil' is the lowest-common-denominator slam.

Re:Quite simply...

[CDarklock]

> I'm just not going to mince words about it.

That's actually appreciated.

> Microsoft, like all other companies, tries
> to maintain and even increase its marketshare.
> To us, that is effectively an effort to spread
> the use of shitty software.

What I see over here is that we have software with quality X, and we build a new version with quality Y, such that X Y. If you define "shitty" as Z, and Y Z, then the software is still shitty. But doesn't it count for something that it's now LESS shitty?

If not, doesn't that essentially mean that Microsoft can't do anything right short of producing Microsoft Linux, which would be a massive failure along the lines of a "First Satanist Church of Christ"?

Criticism is useful when you can do something about it. If we can't do anything about it, why keep criticising?

Re:Quite simply...

[Aurisor]

I should probably start by saying that I'm a linux guy. I run linux (but dual boot for games that I can't wine). I work as a linux programmer, and I spend 50 hours a week at a linux machine working on linux servers.

That said though, I believe a lot of the hatred towards Microsoft independent of the actual products that Microsoft makes. In my opinion, Microsoft hardware kicks the stuffing out of every other manufacturer in the market today. I've been using Vista since beta, and although I personally don't care for the interface and layout, it mostly does what it says it does. Even the biggest Linux / OSS zealots have to agree that Excel is a damn nice piece of software.

If it's not the software, then what is it?

Well, first of all, a lot of us have bad, bad memories of old Microsoft software. I don't care how long vista stays up without crashing...after running windows 95, I am just too skittish to call any Microsoft OS stable. I still think some of their software is terrible (*cough* IIS *cough* *cough*) but that's not really relevant; every company has some duds.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, a lot of techies KNOW that microsoft is big enough that the entire computing industry pays the price for their mistakes. It has the power to force DRM onto us, and it can effectively lock us in to its own proprietary standards. For example, just because IE was the default browser on XP, and there are a bajillion IE installs out there, I spend a huge amount of time dealing with its endless bugs and quirks at work.

Really, what it comes down to is the "feel" we get from the company. As you may or may not remember, a lot of Linux people had GREAT disdain for Apple right up through OS9, mostly because they regarded their software as overly pedantic. However, Apple has always made a strong effort to tell the consumer that they are making their products FOR THEM. Their good personality as a company made sure that people always paid attention to them, and as soon as they started making better products, they started flying off the shelves.

The feeling that Microsoft is using its size to force me to deal with their software against my will is very hard to shake. Also, even though Microsoft will go to great lengths to tout the new features in Vista, the biggest ones I see are the Activation, the DRM, and the transparent look they ripped off of apple.

Of course, I'm sure there are a million people out there who could rebut all of this....but I mean...as I was kind of saying earlier, it's not about the facts anymore....it's about the feeling I get from the companies.

Apple seems like that kind of annoying artsy girl who's got a pretty good body but knows that less is more when it comes to getting your attention. Microsoft is a fat girl trying to get me alone in the elevator with her.

Honestly, unless Microsoft makes a concerted effort to make me feel like it's putting my *personal* needs above:
- the desire to compete with EVERY SINGLE PRODUCT ON THE MARKET THAT MIGHT MAYBE EVER TURN A PROFIT (e.g. zune, msn live maps, msn search, msn, vista, tablet pc's, keyboards, mice, xbox, etc etc etc)
- the needs of the media cartels (drm)
- its desire for control (using xp to push ie)
- it's need to stamp out piracy (activation)
I'm not going to trust them. As it is I think they just get into as many markets as possible and use their size to push out competitors so they can do the minimum work possible.

Anyways, I've rambled on much longer than I should have. I suppose the reason I didn't cut this off a few pages ago is that you (claim) to actually work for microsoft, and I know that no matter what you think of your employer it's gotta suck to see a fucking army of people on here dumping on your employer like it's a full-time job. Sad to say, I think no matter how good you ever get at your job there, you won't ever change the perception out here that Microsoft makes "shitty" software and that it's "evil." There's just some unshakeable, fundamental feeling that Microsoft does not "care" about me as a consumer and no amount of good software will ever shake that.

Re:Quite simply...

[CDarklock]

> a lot of us have bad, bad memories of old Microsoft software

I'm getting the same impression. It seems like all the accusations of "evil" come from the 3.x and 9x era; there's not much in the past five years. I chalk the problems back then up to "we learned how to do business from IBM", and "we had to figure out how else we could do business". And since I agreed that Microsoft was a right bastard of a company right up until about 1998, and remained massively disapproving of them through about 2002, I'm not learning a lot about why Microsoft is considered evil *today* except that some people can't drop a grudge.

Which is still worth learning, but I'm more interested in things we could conceivably fix. We can't change our past. Microsoft Bob is always going to be in there, no matter what we do.

> (*cough* IIS *cough* *cough*)

I love ASP.

That's all I have to say about that.

You can probably read between the lines. ;)

> a lot of techies KNOW that microsoft is big enough
> that the entire computing industry pays the price
> for their mistakes

What should we do about this?

I mean, I'm of the opinion that the answer here is that some group of companies need to step up and collectively seize 30-40% market share on the desktop. I don't care if that's split 20/20 or 10/30 or 10/10/20 or whatever. But fundamentally, the problem with Microsoft's bigness is that nobody else seems even remotely competent to do that.

If I ever have the political clout to be taken seriously, I may actually go to Microsoft and say "let's auction a snapshot of the current Windows source to the highest bidder". I think Microsoft has to take the lead and actively *create* a viable competitor. This notion is, of course, dangerously insane (as an informal survey of my immediate colleagues confirms). But since I have roughly the same clout as the average intern, it's not going to reach anyone important anyway. Yet.

> the biggest ones I see are the Activation, the DRM, and
> the transparent look they ripped off of apple.

Vista's benefits are mostly under the hood. It's dogs that aren't barking. You sort of have to wait a while before you can tell.

> Honestly, unless Microsoft makes a concerted effort to
> make me feel like it's putting my *personal* needs above

You want a company with hundreds of millions of customers to demonstrate to you that it cares about your personal needs?

Doesn't that strike you as a little unrealistic?

I recently had an argument about someone here regarding PowerPoint. He wanted a particular feature. He didn't understand why we didn't immediately shove it into the product. I explained that it wouldn't work in most circumstances, and he replied that he didn't care.

Well, we don't get to say that.

Microsoft isn't allowed to not care. When a feature goes into Office, we're not allowed to say "this isn't what millions of people want, but those five guys in Nebraska will sure appreciate it". We have to care about those millions of people. And increasingly, what those millions of people want is not to see any new buttons that do things they don't want done.

So when we say "this feature is not good enough", that isn't Microsoft not caring about your needs. It's Microsoft caring about millions of other people's needs. And the evidence of that is a dog that doesn't bark: you *don't* see a new button on the toolbar that does something you never do. Every time we release a new version of Office, tens of thousands of bad ideas DIDN'T get into it.

Of course, it's probably not very reassuring to say what amounts to "hey, I know you think Vista sucks, but it was GONNA suck a WHOLE LOT WORSE!" ;)

And you are detached from reality

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Yours is the most idiotic post on this thread yet.
You use the word "criminal" and "criminality" over and over, yet neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft has ever been accused of a "crime" let alone convicted of one. Did you ever take civics? Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law before you start spouting about "criminality". If you can't bash Microsoft without resorting to distortions (like "Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization1!!", then why should we lend any weight at all to your rants?

BTW, if MS/DOJ and MS/EU cases *were* criminal rather than civil cases, then "conviction" would have required a unanimous jury verdict of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", rather than the much lower burden of proof used for civil cases, which is "preponderence of evidence" (which means 50% of the evidence + 1), as determined by a single judge (who turned out to be a moron). The case against MS wouldn't have met the "beyond a reasonable doubt" burden and MS would have walked scot free. So be glad that the case was merely civil rather than criminal. But don't then run around like a deranged lunatic screaming over and over that the MS cases were criminal when they have not been.

You misunderstand

[Anonymous Coward]

What they are really saying is that they want someone to force the rest of the world to use Linux or Mac OSX so they can stop feeling like third-rate bench monkey's using a niche OS.

This debate isn't about choice at all.

I Beg to differ

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding??? My title of job is Microsoft Field Representative... They pay us less than Best Buy Geeksquad employees, give us fewer benefits(which is almost nothing) unless you are full time in which case you get an equal set of benefits as a Best Buy equivalent but with lower pay and more hours which makes it impossible to go to school while working. We cover a much larger product mix than our competitive reps do. We have to fix the endless series of operations mistakes coming down the line from Microsoft not to mention answer to it in our stores. I personally trade the hard work and lower pay for my awesome/cute District manager and flexible hours. When this person leaves... I'm never working for Microsoft again.. and I advise all my girlfriends in grad schools around the country not to as well.

lying with numbers

[oohshiny]

respondents gave Microsoft very high marks for leadership and financial results. But Mr. Gates's personal philanthropy also boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft.

So do the mafia and the Cali drug cartel. The reputation of a company shouldn't be measured by how ruthless or financially successful it is, or how much money their founders give away, it should be measured by whether they comply with the law, innovate, are socially responsible in their business activities, and produce high-quality products.

Robber baron strategy from time immemorial

[alienmole]

Gates joins Carnegie and other robber barons in improving public relations for himself and his company through charity. I don't know about his heart, but his PR strategy is in the right place.

Personal vs. Professional ethics

[kingbill]

I think Bill reflects a pretty common philosophy in our society. Bill and Melinda Gates' philanthropy has convinced me that they are genuinely nice people who care an awful lot about the world's problems and are taking both a smart and a very dedicated approach to solving them. I think there is an idea common in our society that when running a business, there are no ethics other than desire for profit. I've heard it referred to as the Pecuniary Pseudo-Truth. "If it's profitable, it's true." An otherwise ethical person can abandon all ethics in pursuit of profit and can justify it to himself. In all honesty, I can't deny that it's something I struggle with on a much smaller scale than Bill Gates.

Microsoft Charity

[Doc Ruby]

Bill Gates's personal philanthropy boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft

That alone should clear up any mystery about why Gates would spend so much money on charity: it protects his monopoly.

How long before Gates has a monopoly control of the global charity market, too?

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back!

[countSudoku()]

Sorry, but plenty of CEOs and other execs give to charities. Most have the decency to not crow about it, they just do it. It's unfortunate that this PR stunt is so well thought of.

2.3 million lives saved, etc.

[mschuyler]

Bill Gates' philanthropy has saved 2.3 million lives because of vaccinations alone. 140 million children have been vaccinated since 1999 when this program started. He has done this through the Global Alliance for Vaccinations and Immunizations, which receive donations from other sources as well, including nations. The US gave $70 million last year, about the same as Norway. Gates has given $1.5 Billion over the years just to this initiative alone. (Seattle Times, 1/26/07) Though health issues are by far the foundation's largest activities, they also contribute substantial amounts to education ($284 million in 2005), public libraries ($25 million), community grants to at-risk families, from homeless to early learning ($75 million) for a total, with all their other initiatives of well over $1.5 billion a year. Operating costs are fairly low as a percentage of their grants, less than 10%. The foundation is worth about $30 billion. Gates keeps throwing money into it and pledges from people like Warren Buffet will double the size. Indeed, it's a problem giving all that away, which Gates says will be accomplished within fifty years of his own death. As is always the case, there has been some criticism of the foundation, including its investment strategy, but, then, everyone seems to feel they are in a position to tell Gates what he ought to be doing.

Re:2.3 million lives saved, etc.

[HiThere]

I notice that you quote the Seattle Times, but that's hardly a primary source. What was their source? An MS press release? That seems, to me, quite likely.

It's great to make pledges for what will happen after you aren't in control, but who's going to ensure that it happens that way?

(Yeah, I read reports of similar things. I'm cynical, and don't believe something just because a PR guy says so. And I've too often seen PR releases passed off as news stories to believe news stories. [Also I was present at a few things that I later read reports of. That was a real boost to my cynicism.])

MS is a known liar, cheat, etc. Why should I believe ANYTHING they say without evidence that *I* can check to back it up?

Re:2.3 million lives saved, etc.

[El Gruga]

What nonsense. As if money would help people with disease in a country where there is no decent water to drink and gunmen roam the streets getting the lions share of Charity cash. What do you think happens? You think they just send a bank draft for $300 million to Nigeria and it magically turns into vaccines and shiny happy kids dancing in the park? The kids get some vaccines - maybe - and then they go home to misery and crime and famine. Most of the cash is eaten up with staff and 'investments' and local organisers and every low-life do-gooder fro the West who is looking for a hand-out to fund his or her's special 'cause'. religious loonies, political loonies, medical loonies - Africa is full of them. Lets say they want to distribute condoms - seems reasonable? Well not if the local population has been persuaded to convert to Catholicism - then they cant have condoms, so they must die of various STD's. But thats OK - heres Billy Gates with a cure for AIDS, caused by the Catholic Church loonies. How stupid is that? Invent a problem then turn up with the 'solution' - but not really, of course. Everyone wants a piece of 'third-world' people and their resources and they want a piece for their own needs for control and greed. And of course everyone has the right to criticise Gates - they all bought fucking Windows crap to put him in the insane position he's in. The people made the idiot a billionaire - they have EVERY right to criticise his spending of what used to be their hard-earned cash.

mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

Very interesting/informative/insightful. I recommend modding parent up.

Evil bosses explained.

[Stoutlimb]

I had an evil boss once. He was quite the tyrant. He had a habit of making customers (and employees) cry. His motto was "everyone's replacable". While technically true, it's not something you want to repeat every day to career employees.

My boss regularly gave to charity, and made sure it was always very public and visible, so as many employees and customers could see that he was such a good man who gave to charity. It seemed that he was far more concerned about the visible act of giving, than the actual charity. Could you imagine why?

The article above trumpets how good and charitable Mr. Gates is. That is exactly what Mr. Gates paid for.

Rubbish.

[El Gruga]

Get real - this article is a crock. Workers wages relative to costs continue to drop for the 15th year or so. Evil idiot egomaniacs running companies get more and more. 'Charity' is a pile of controlling political moves wrapped in 'goody-goody' language that only fools who watch TV can swallow. Laws are increasing so that its now dangerous to protest against the standing government. Gates and Microsoft are ugly greedy bastards who produce CRAP that the hypnotised masses buy. 'Top' the survey? They probably bought the frickin' survey.

Gates saves, Microsoft doesn't

[Wiseman1024]

I agree. Bill Gates is doing good things, and if what he said about donating his fortune to science when he dies is true, he may very well be humanity's greatest benefactor.

Microsoft, and what he did when he was at Microsoft, on the other hand, is one of humanity's lowest. It hinders technology development, or, to put it simply, rapes our asses. Let's hope they went too far with Vista and the Windows empire falls.

And here are the counterpoints.

[Anonymous Coward]

* Microsoft's EULAs. I don't like the idea of giving a company the right to have the BSA invade my home or business. Yeah, they mostly go after businesses, but just ask Ernie Ball what that's like. There are plenty of other objectionable terms, too--you can't use MS Agent to do anything disparaging to Microsoft, etc. And those are just the publicly available contracts. I'd probably be sick if I could read the OEM contracts and all the anti-competitive terms they've contained according to the anti-trust filings I've read about.

* I don't like how they brib*cough* donate to third world countries to leverage their monopoly position. Other posters have mentioned that as soon as some country or organization says they'll switch to Linux, Microsoft sends some kind of response to convince them otherwise. The Massachusetts turmoil was one thing (and using disabled groups to argue against it was just low), but what really makes me sick were the times the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation showed up seemingly on Microsoft's behalf. To me, that's NOT the sort of act a charity should be involved in. They may do good things with their money, too, but that doesn't excuse the bad things.

* Microsoft's ruthlessness in crushing competitors using its ill-gotten monopoly power. They have the gall to call out people for "piracy" and yet Microsoft has illegally distributed more than one person's program commercially. You wonder why no credible contender has emerged, so you apparently don't know about all the damn ways they're working to lock us in. As long as people are stuck with Microsoft-only formats and protocols to communicate, they're stuck with Microsoft, too.

So except for the DRM and horrible security reputation, I really don't hate Microsoft because of its products. I hate it for the ways it stops competition using both lobbying and its ill-gotten monopoly power, I hate it for pushing DRM and unfair contract terms on me and others via disgusting EULAs, and I hate it for making software that puts the company's needs ahead of the customer's.

Yeah, on that last point, I realize that it's hard to find any company that wouldn't do that. But that's one of the very best things about Open Source--we are the 'company', the software serves us.

Here, here!

[thanksforthecrabs]

I've have had experience with the Gates Foundation and I can honestly say they are genuine people. (Yes, they were successfully validated!) If Windows had been an open-source project Slashdot would think Gates is Christ in the flesh. (and I run Vista, XP AND Red Hat boxes, thank you.)

Holy crap!

[Anonymous Coward]

1,000 posts qnd a five digit UID and you STILL have no karma? What are you, a Microsoft using Christian SCO shareholder with a girlfriend?

Only because

[Anonymous Coward]

This is only because Bill got married! Had he not gotten a wife he would be keeping all of it.

Gates is just another "robber baron"

[raddan]

So Gates finally learned the trick that John D. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, and Andrew Carnegie figured out: philanthropy. You can be a convicted monopolist, you can pay your employees slave wages under brutal conditions, and then knowingly murder them when you send in the "strike breakers", but you throw a little money around here and there-- start a university or set up a charitable arm of your company-- and history will remember you as a great philanthropist.

I don't mean to belittle the charitable giving that Gates has done. I'm certain that he has had a direct influence on the course of poverty, ignorance, and disease, especially in places like India. But like those capitalists of old, Gates' company still merrily chugs along, willfully breaking the law, churning out a shitty product, and locking their customers in. Before we shower the guy with praise, let's remember what he did to amass all that wealth, and consider the fact that he's still doing it. He may not be a bastard to the degree that Rockefeller, Morgan, and Carnegie were, but he's still a bastard. The homemaker quoted in /.'s summary is an idiot.

Re:Gates is just another "robber baron"

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't mean to belittle the charitable giving that Gates has done. Yes you do. And if Steve Jobs walked down the street an started pissing on people's cats, you'd be all "Steve Jobs is a fucking amazing human being!" Gates has made a lot more peoples lives better than Torvalds or Jobs ever will.

Re:Gates is just another "robber baron"

[raddan]

And if Steve Jobs walked down the street an started pissing on people's cats, you'd be all "Steve Jobs is a fucking amazing human being!" Gates has made a lot more peoples lives better than Torvalds or Jobs ever will.

Who said anything about Steve Jobs or Linus Torvalds?

Besides-- I hate cats. If Steve Jobs wants to piss on a cat, yes, I would cheer him on.

Re:Gates is just another "robber baron"

[StikyPad]

I'm fairly certain that in no way could a MS salary be considered slave wages. Moreover, I've never heard anyone complain that they were treated poorly. Crappy, uninspiring, tedious work environment, sure, but nothing like EA's been accused of. MS has, at worst, put out mediocre products and leveraged their market share to ensure they remain dominant. Nothing too great or noteworthy about that (unless you're an investor), but not exactly goose-stepping baby eating either.

Don't confuse today's organized crime with

[walterbyrd]

organized crime of the 1930s - 1970s.

Today it's more about political contributions than knee-cap breaking.

Conspiracy theory warning...

[TruthSeeker]

Doesn't anyone else find it strangely ... convenient ... that Bill Gates would suddenly announce his philanthropic intents a few months before the release of Vista? Or is it just me? I mean, it's not like his bank account was emptier a few years back.

The Real Picture

[pchoppin]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft

Since the 1980s, Microsoft has been the focus of much controversy in the computer industry. Most criticism has been for its business tactics, which some perceive as unfair and anticompetitive. Often, these tactics have been described with the motto "embrace, extend and extinguish". Microsoft initially embraces and extends a competing standard or product, only to later extinguish it through such actions as writing their own incompatible version of the software or standard. These and other tactics have led to various companies and governments filing lawsuits against Microsoft. Microsoft has been called a "velvet sweatshop" in reference to allegations of the company working its employees to the point where it might be bad for their health. The first instance of "velvet sweatshop" in reference to Microsoft originated from a Seattle Times article in 1989, and later became used to describe the company by some of Microsoft's own employees. I find it astonishing to see terms as "Microsoft" and "Bill Gates" in the same article as "philanthropy" and "high marks for leadership". Clearly, Microsoft is not in business to be appealing, only inasmuch as it reflects their bottom line in a positive direction. Don't be as naive as this article suggests, featuring Mr. Gates as a humanitarian, with no personal agenda other than the improvement of mankind. His public displays of charity directly affect Microsoft's stock prices as well as perceptions of the company in the global community. Rather, it is a business tactic meant to position Microsoft well in the corporate world amid scandals and CEO indictments suffered by other companies. Why can't Mr. Alsop paint the real picture here.

The REAL victims

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah! And that goes double for the multi-billion dollar charity organizations led by that brutal monopoly, Apple, and it's leader Steve Jobs!

I think this entire discussion completely ignores the misery and suffering of the real victims in this world: Lunis Torvalds and the Lunis comminity.

Think about it: now that Gates is using his wealth to help humanity, people are going to look at Lunis and wonder what exactly he is doing to help people... and by extension, wonder exactly what the Lunix community is doing to better the world (other than making yet another text editor, I mean).

This is another sad, sad testimony on how the Lunix and OSX communities are, as always, chasing Microsoft's tail lights. And the last thing either of them needs at this point is yet ANOTHER reminder of that fact: it's bad enough how Vista has them yellowing their underpants.

Heck, Lunix can't even get an application installer or a hardware autodetect/configure on par with Windows 95. Those poor guys are over ten years behind MS in pretty much everything not related to text editting!

Kicking the cult of Lunix when they're down... that's just not right. We have to get Gates to end his shameful philanthropy, and think about all the poor zealots it's victimizing.

No, you!

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the word "criminal" and "criminality" over and over, yet neither Bill Gates nor Microsoft has ever been accused of a "crime" let alone convicted of one. Did you ever take civics? Learn the difference between civil law and criminal law before you start spouting about "criminality". If you can't bash Microsoft without resorting to distortions (like "Microsoft is a convicted criminal organization1!!", then why should we lend any weight at all to your rants?

Because Microsoft were found guilty of (felony) violations of the Sherman act?

Re:WTF?

[Frozen Void]

Slashdot isn't what it used to be.
there is 1/20 signal to noise ratio here.
And comments are marginally better.
Here are stories from RSS which i found interesting:
1.Stonehedge.
everything else is funny comments with worthless stories.(the kernel article is of interest only for kernel hackers)

Re: and millions of lives lost, destroyed by Gates

[Anonymous Coward]

Again, you need to do some research, fanboy:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gatesx07jan07,0,6827615.story

And this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- na-gates8jan08,0,7911824.story

Yes, Gates wants to appear to be saving the world, while destroying it...
Brings to mind that Vietnam classic:

"We had to destroy the village in order to save it..."

Gates != Microsoft

[Eric Damron]

Most people hear about Mr. Gates good deeds and they transfer those deeds to their image of Microsoft. Also most people are unaware of the extent of Microsoft's bad behavior.

No amount of money given by Bill Gates to the poor excuse Microsoft's bad behavior and no amount of dirty tricks by Microsoft reduces the good that Bill Gates is doing. They are two different things.

This rating is meaningless (or should be)

[Anonymous Coward]

The average Joe on the street is a casual computer user and just uses what is available, they know nothing about the choices they have been denied because they never see them. Ask the survey respondents, did you this, or this or this, go down the list of unethical MS actions; we all know what the answer will be. MS dictates, or dominates after the fact, every direction taken here, and the audience is simply unaware of other possibilities.

One of the worst aspects of microsoft (among many horrible things) is how he has thoroughly infiltrated corporate IT. Scads of Ms windows (which seem to be known in corporate/it vendor parlance by the euphemism "Intel servers", how annoying is that?) systems are being used for mid and back-end systems for which they are totally inappropriate. How is Joe Schmoe non-it professional going to know or care about that?

Flamebait? Does the truth hurt?

[Anonymous Coward]

All of those accusations are true, so far as I know, except for one--they never actually paid the guy to contribute to Wikipedia. They *considered* doing it (and floated the idea openly), but quickly abandoned the thought once it became clear how many people hated the idea.

It's Bill Gates' reputation mapped onto Microsoft

[HermMunster]

This isn't really a Microsoft reputation represented in that survey. Most people just can't seem to make the distinction between Microsoft and Bill Gates. If they only new.

I'm writing this and wondering if anyone has compiled a list of those things that Microsoft has done that are both good and bad. It would be interesting to see.

A couple notable things that Microsoft has done recently are:

- Ballmer accuses every Linux user of stealing IP from Microsoft (without showing proof and without apologizing when called out to prove it) and indicates each one will soon have a price to pay.

- Microsoft was sued by a company called z4 which had ownership of the IP used to activate software over the internet. z4 won the suit. The judge fined Microsoft an additional $25 million because of NUMEROUS counts of misconduct (much of which didn't make it into the decision but was noted as having happened by the judge). The main misconduct surrounded the fact that Microsoft flooded the court and the plaintiff with paperwork in an effort to hide the evidence which proved the plaintiff's case. Autodesk was also sued but were not fined for misconduct. The judge clearly stated that these instances of misconduct were done because Microsoft felt z4 was incapable of defending its' rights. The end result was that Microsoft was sued by z4 for stealing the very IP used to keep some from illegally using their software (Windows XP and Office). They got caught and it cost the bunch over $100 million in judgment and fines. This case was upheld on appeal including the extra $25 million fine.

- Microsoft recently copied an individual piece of web work invented by an individual for some web related concepts and admitted they had done so some time ago. Then they attempted to patent that very concept they copied. They claimed they had done it by accident. The big question is how does someone patent someone else's idea by accident after admitting they had copied it.

These are just 3 recent situation. Clearly Microsoft isn't being distinguished from Bill Gates' philanthropy.

Now we have a world-wide nightmare created by releasing Vista with all of its' DRM and CRM. Clearly these are attempts by Microsoft to write their own laws. They implemented the same WGA into Vista that was rejected in XP. The end result is exactly the same: you were verified yesterday, you were verified last week, you were verified last month, you were verified 6 months ago, and now you are being accused of being a thief again today--and you should conform to their requirements because you don't want to be seen as a thief by your peers. This is the equivalent of Microsoft making their own laws (without the checks and balances in our legal system) and then enforcing them by coming into your home (which your computer is an extension of your home) and rifling through your things in order to prove you are a thief of their product. Even the law doesn't have the right to enter your home of vehicle without a warrant issued by a court and signed by a judge--yet with Microsoft's (and other content provider's DRM/CRM implemented in Vista) they have written their own laws to allow them to do just that. They have also hidden these pieces of information from the average user so that most don't know that they are agreeing to this sort of draconian activity before they purchase and install Vista.

Fixing the lopsided view on Gates Foundation

[Freed]

While a few comments on this story rightly question the survey and of how the Gates Foundation aids Microsoft's reputation and in turn its dealings, there is an embarrassingly uncritical acceptance here of practices of the Gates Foundation itself. Some criticisms involve questions of: (1) diversity, (2) promotion of abortion and contraception, (3) investment in oil companies and drug companies, and (4) diversion of health care resources. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_and_Melinda_Gate s_Foundation#Criticisms)

In principle, a charity is, of course, a good thing. However, in practice, especially with such a disproportionately influential and powerful charity as the Gates foundation, a healthy skepticism can increase accountability, which, after all, any honest dogooders would have no problem with.

The same thing happens in the military

[Anonymous Coward]

I've offered to optimize Fairchild Air Force Base's computers at both the library and the teen center. At least one computer a month at the teen center falls victim to viruses and is shut down and reformatted. I offered to install fedora or ubuntu on the machines, even as dual boot, and run a clustered network at the library. Both places told me that such things were prohibited because the military gets steep discounts from M$ and are in turn prohibited from running any other operating systems unless it's actually mission critical stuff (the Army uses some linux machines, etc). The guys in the comm squadron even agree that Linux or BSD would be better, but they're not allowed to do anything about it. Even AAFES won't allow competition with M$ by stocking and offering boxed Linux OSes. I guess that is more understandable because they are concerned only with profit. But still, it is frightening that the US Military is in the hands of M$.

And that's why he does it!

[Master of Transhuman]

"Bill Gates's personal philanthropy boosted the public's opinion of Microsoft"

How many times have I said this? Not to mention how many times I've pointed out that he benefits personally by being able to use the stock that the SEC won't let him sell personally to influence companies through the Foundation's investment portfolio.

"Jeanie Cummins, a survey respondent and homemaker in Olive Hill, Ky., says Mr. Gates's philanthropy made her a much bigger fan of Microsoft. "He showed he cared more for people than all the money he made building Microsoft from the ground up," she says."

Yeah, and this homemaker hasn't read the articles pointing out how the Gates Foundation barely qualifies as a charity under Federal law given how little they actually give out, and the recent articles on how most of their investment portfolio actually harms the people they're supposed to be helping.

Which makes her a moron, like most people.

Suckers.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical slashdotter is anti-MSFT fanboy that's under the delusion the he knows everthing there is to know about technology.

How much TAX has Gates actually paid so far?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just out of interest. That big song & dance about the Gates foundation must have more basic reasons..

More proof people have selective memories...

[DougofTheAbaci]

Now that philanthropy is fashionable again, Bill Gates is handing out money like there's no tomorrow, and people think that makes him a saint? What choice does he really have, everyone else is doing it. 40+ billion dollars of it, his foundation (him and a bunch of other wealthy doners and other persons who donate small amounts to the fund) were only able to tie that. Tie it!

And why does no one remember how he barely gave out anything before he married his wife? He gave out money, true, but to him it was little more than pocket change. This is a man who makes what most people make in a week, he makes in a day. His gains and loses money at such a rate that his wealth can only be measured in the theoretical. And people think what he does give makes him a good person?

But beyond that, somehow this very recent bought of generosity is enough to cleans Microsoft of all it's sins? What bout all the monopolies they've tried to create? The ways they've screwed over users to cover their own tails legally time and time again? The fact that they tend to not listen to what people actually want and instead tell them and at the end of the day claim they were the first. The list goes on and on and yet somehow, after Gates decides to finally join the human race and truly support his fellow man by giving money to those in dire need of it, that suddenly makes up for the years of social apathy and commercial negligence?

Personally, I'm appalled to see that the sentiments and trust of people is so easily bought. Yes, he has recently given away large sums of money. I say it's the least he can do and that it's about time. Let me know when he fixes all the other ways he's screwing everyone over and then we'll talk about how good Microsoft is. I swear... This is like the Vatican announcing that they're OK with the use of condoms in Africa to help stop the transmition of STDs (a total reversal on their current policy) and everyone saying, "Oh how benevolent and wise is the Vatican! Truly they are a banner to follow in the battle for safer sex!"

...Please.

Re:It's Bill Gates' reputation mapped onto Microso

[MMInterface]

I think you just have a hard time accepting that the public doesn't necessarily share your views. Your argument is based on everyone having the same values, the same standards and the same agenda as you. You assume that if everyone knew what you did (because this is secret information that only you know about) then they would share your opinion. A lot of people could care less about some of the issues you brought up. And if thats the case it could easily explain why the Linux or Mac community could hate MS, while the general public has their own opinion of the company based on different values that could cause their opinion to go either way. If the general public did hate Microsoft it would probably be for a totally different reason that you are oblivious to.

charity... what about bills?

[Anonymous Coward]

how about paying your bills, bill? i think you owe europe about a half billion.

how about paying up and following the rules.

Microsoft Buys Corporate-Reputation Survey

[Anonymous Coward]

There. Fixed that for ya.

pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

It's stories like this that really grind in how we aren't an adequately intelligent species to be viable. Really.

Well, that and the time our local newspaper juxtaposed a story on "millions starving to death in Africa" next to a "Have you ever cried at a fashion show?" ad for Weight Watchers.

Re:It's Bill Gates' reputation mapped onto Microso

[drsmithy]

The big question is how does someone patent someone else's idea by accident after admitting they had copied it.

"Someone" doesn't. However, Microsoft is not "someone", they are a collections of tens of thousands of "someones". As anyone who has even a passing acquaintance with groups of people will be able to tell you, even the most organised ones frequently have instances of miscommunication and confusions.

The surprising thing is not that it happened, it's that it hasn't happened more frequently.

Hmm. So they surveyed only Gates and Ballmer?

[liftphreaker]

Looks like the only people they surveyed were Gates and Ballmer. I have a thing or two to tell the surveyors if they care to listen.

Re:Microsoft, where dollars begat dollars

[mysticgoat]

I checked out where Gates' heart was a week or so ago, and posted about it on another thread. Going by the required public annual reports of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (seek and ye shall find... on Google),

• For the last several years, B&MGF has made annual donations of 4.8% of its total value to charities
• During those years, earnings from investments have increased its value in varying amounts between about 9% and 15% annually
• IRS requires a philanthropic foundation to donate at least 5% of its assets annually, or it loses the special tax status it enjoys.

I have no doubt that after various corrections for overheads, B&MGF donates 5% of its current year assets, or maybe even a smidge more. There is nothing blatantly illegal about this; B&MGF can continue to make a profit and still be a legal philanthropy.

But this is not Bill giving away his money. Bill's money continues to grow.

You have GOT to be kidding me!

[FeralCTO]

Microsoft is the embodiment of slimeball business practices. Unbelievable.

You are supporting ....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... the whitewash of immorality with dubious repentance.

Sorry, but all the good deeds in the world (which others have documented are not fully unblemished) should not blind us about the nature of the dishonest and even ilegal practices of MS.

And as it has clearly been stated elsewhere, we have a real problem when people do not have the intellectual capacity to distinguish between the deeds of a company and the deeds of an individual in a private capacity.

Don't be an Asshat

[Anonymous Coward]

While money is all well and good it isn't actually the sole motivator of sane people (note to Ayn Rand) and when it becomes so the behaviour of the individual in question becomes psychopathic.

This has never been Miss Rand's opinion, the opinion of her fictional protagonists, nor the opinion in her "manifesto" as penned by Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. However, you may find that opinion among devotees, but that goes the same for any philosophy especially those that espouse the love of money as the root of all evil (note - it is the "love of" that is evil, not the "money" - per the old quote).