So far as I'm able to see, the driving force behind Microsoft's unparelelled 'abuse' is security and/or control. People are interested in profit, yes, but it's a human construct, not a basic biological urge; the desire for money stems from something deeper.
When you look at the way MS products are geared, it's basically about perpetuating their own survival as a corporation, with undertones of the struggle for power. I have no idea where I heard this, but someone brought to my attention that one of MS's fundamental corporate goals is to maneuver other users and smaller companies into a position where the larger corporate constituents have control over their data flow. It's a very common 'technique' among codependents to bust down anyone who they percieve as 'needing them', in order to perpetuate the pattern of being needed. Perhaps what's going on here is Mr. Gates setting up his legacy, or filling a need created by getting teased at school or something stupid like that.
Abuse is definitely an element of what's going on with the Microsoft saga, but I think the underlying issue is Billy Gee filling his essentially human needs.
Now, if you're like me, and would rather find a conclusion than an outlet, there are several avenues: You could wait for the man on top to move over; the new guy might not be better, but he'll lay his resources out differently (unless he's totally brainwashed), to fill a different set of emotional needs. Alternately, you can look at the way these things have gone in the past; an unbalanced individual creates unbalanced scenarios. The corporation is very likely to either destroy itself, or rebalance itself before it does.
The (debatably) sad part is, it'll probably take the North American economy with it, what with the stock market revolving around him and all.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
Yes, I have to agree with that. A very scummy move on the part of the American Government(TM)... now if possible, I'd love to develop a very heavy duty encryption scheme out of the United States. Just one question on American legality definitions, though: Free software under the GPL can be (and usually is) developed by many people around the world, in many different countries. Does the US have any right to stop the spread of encryption algorithms developed under a GPL and by people in other countries as well as the US?
Slashdot Mirror
So far as I'm able to see, the driving force behind Microsoft's unparelelled 'abuse' is security and/or control. People are interested in profit, yes, but it's a human construct, not a basic biological urge; the desire for money stems from something deeper.
When you look at the way MS products are geared, it's basically about perpetuating their own survival as a corporation, with undertones of the struggle for power. I have no idea where I heard this, but someone brought to my attention that one of MS's fundamental corporate goals is to maneuver other users and smaller companies into a position where the larger corporate constituents have control over their data flow. It's a very common 'technique' among codependents to bust down anyone who they percieve as 'needing them', in order to perpetuate the pattern of being needed. Perhaps what's going on here is Mr. Gates setting up his legacy, or filling a need created by getting teased at school or something stupid like that.
Abuse is definitely an element of what's going on with the Microsoft saga, but I think the underlying issue is Billy Gee filling his essentially human needs.
Now, if you're like me, and would rather find a conclusion than an outlet, there are several avenues: You could wait for the man on top to move over; the new guy might not be better, but he'll lay his resources out differently (unless he's totally brainwashed), to fill a different set of emotional needs. Alternately, you can look at the way these things have gone in the past; an unbalanced individual creates unbalanced scenarios. The corporation is very likely to either destroy itself, or rebalance itself before it does.
The (debatably) sad part is, it'll probably take the North American economy with it, what with the stock market revolving around him and all.
"Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup."
Yes, I have to agree with that. A very scummy move on the part of the American Government(TM)... now if possible, I'd love to develop a very heavy duty encryption scheme out of the United States. Just one question on American legality definitions, though: Free software under the GPL can be (and usually is) developed by many people around the world, in many different countries. Does the US have any right to stop the spread of encryption algorithms developed under a GPL and by people in other countries as well as the US?