Microsoft Hatred FAQ

[John W. Kennedy]

Wrong. The only obligation Microsoft has is to their shareholders.

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.

 

[John W. Kennedy]

And were later forced to rescind. The judge who wrote that opinion is well
known for his anti-Microsoft activism.

That's an outright lie.

 

[David Schwartz]

Mike Meyer wrote:

If you genuinely believe that, you are a psychopath.

That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

DS

 

[John W. Kennedy]

Sorry, my mistake. I knew that IBM had collators and such things back in
those days but I didn't know what percentage of their business they
comprised. I used to work with a long-time IBMer who had started out in
marketing in the 60s or so and I got the impression from him that
typewriters were still the bulk of IBM's business. Perhaps he was just in
that division and didn't know the "big picture".

Typewriters may, for all I know to the contrary, have been their main
source of profit. But it wasn't what IBM was /about/. They got into the
typewriter business by buying up a failing company.

IBM also made master/slave clock systems for schools and factories,
including tower clocks (the IBM website has some fascinating archive
material). They made dictation systems. They even made scales for
butchers. But the heart of the business was punched cards, and one of
the main reasons they became the leaders in the computer field is that
computers were a natural extension of what they were already doing.

 

[Mike Schilling]

"John Bokma" <[email protected]> wrote in message

[ w3c "standard" v.s. ISO ]

You haven't said why you thinbk "standards" are more valuable than
"recommendations". We apparently both agree they're no more likely to be
observed, so what is the reason?

That an HTML standard (ISO/IEC 15445:2000) and an HTML recommendation by
w3c (4.01 for example) are two different things, and mixing them up by
calling both standards is a bad thing.

Sorry, that's non-responsive.

Now, once more, why are standards" *more valuable* than "recommendations"?

 

[Mike Schilling]

ISO HTML and HTML 4.01 differ. If you were asked to write a validating
parser for the HTML standard, (as in ISO), and you wrote one for HTML 4.01
(as in recommendation), you made quite a mistake.

There are standards that conflict, and also recommendations that conflict.
Why is confusing standard A with recommendation P worse than

1. confusing standard A with standard B, or
2. confusing recommendation P with recommendation Q

 

[Mike Schilling]

Been there, done that, threw out the T-shirt as to ugly to wear.

Yes, you have to work around bugs in the popular browsers. That hasn't
changed since the first published specs showed up. That doesn't mean
you throw out the standards and only support a trivial set of
browsers.

If you're working on a commercial product, it means you support IE (possibly
being able to insist on a specific patch level), Foxfire if you can, and
ignore the < 1% of the market that won't live with those restrictions.

 

[John Bokma]

There are standards that conflict, and also recommendations that
conflict. Why is confusing standard A with recommendation P worse than

1. confusing standard A with standard B, or
2. confusing recommendation P with recommendation Q

Calling a recommendation a standard might confuse it with the actual ISO
standard. Imagine one buys a validating parser that states "SUPPORTS ALL
STANDARDS", and they actually meant it supports all w3c recommendations.

 

[John Bokma]

Now, once more, why are standards" *more valuable* than
"recommendations"?

standards are written by internationally recognized independent
organisations, v.s. everyone can write a recommendation. For you, and
others this doesn't matter, for others it does. Why do you think Microsoft
made part of .NET a standard? They could perfectly write up recommendations
on .NET themselves, written drafts, or RFCs and leave it at that.

 

[Mike Meyer]

If you're working on a commercial product, it means you support IE (possibly
being able to insist on a specific patch level), Foxfire if you can, and
ignore the < 1% of the market that won't live with those restrictions.

Just because you do things some way doesn't mean that's the only way
to do them, or even the right way to do them.

That's one way to do it. Didn't used to be, because the players have
changed. Which is part of the cost of doing it that way - your
targets change as the publics taste changes. It only works for a
specific market (though it's a very big one); should you decide to
expand into another market, you'll find your targets have changed
again.

One alternative, as I've said, is to write to the standards, and then
work around bugs in the popular browsers. If the public whim changes
which browser is most popular - it only has minimal impact on
you. Should you decide to move into a different market, your existing
development process works with only minor changes.

<mike

 

[Mike Schilling]

standards are written by internationally recognized independent
organisations, v.s. everyone can write a recommendation. For you, and
others this doesn't matter, for others it does. Why do you think Microsoft
made part of .NET a standard?

Marketing. It lets them claim that .NET is open and Java is proprietary.
SOAP, which is also part of their "open" story, is a recommendation.

 

[Mike Schilling]

One alternative, as I've said, is to write to the standards, and then
work around bugs in the popular browsers. If the public whim changes
which browser is most popular -

I am not holding my breath.

 

[Mike Meyer]

I am not holding my breath.

Neither did the people who coded for Mosaic, then Netscape.

<mike

 

[Steven D'Aprano]

That's almost as convincing as "that's what you think".

DS

When you are repeating a fact with as much psychological research
supporting it as that one, it isn't necessary to justify it, any more than
it would be necessary to justify a statement like "parents love their
children". It isn't John Kennedy's fault that you aren't up to date.

Both statements are generalisations, it is true, and both are probably
true about the same percentage of time.

Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths, a much higher percentage of
"go-getters" like company CEOs, generals, politicians, executives, etc.
Very few of them chop people up into small pieces and bury them in the
wall cavities of their house.

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish vicious
brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others. Or rather,
to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring about the harm done
by your corporate machinery is not a crime. Actually doing that harm is,
or at least should be, although sadly when we allow the psychopaths to
make the rules, they tend to make rules that allow themselves to prosper
at our expense.

 

[John Bokma]

Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths,

psychopaths according to DSM IV, or just some silly test from a magazine?

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish

Yup, like everybody can become an olympic swimmer, or get a degree. Just
work, and you'll make it.

Actually doing that harm is, or at least should be, although sadly
when we allow the psychopaths to make the rules, they tend to make
rules that allow themselves to prosper at our expense.

Hmmmm... and probably one in three is paranoid?

 

[David Schwartz]

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish vicious
brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others. Or rather,
to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring about the harm done
by your corporate machinery is not a crime. Actually doing that harm is,
or at least should be, although sadly when we allow the psychopaths to
make the rules, they tend to make rules that allow themselves to prosper
at our expense.

You are making the assumption that Microsoft shareholders want Microsoft
to do harm. *If* they did, you would be correct. I don't think that they do.

DS

 

[Aragorn]

:/

When you are repeating a fact with as much psychological research
supporting it as that one, it isn't necessary to justify it, any more
than it would be necessary to justify a statement like "parents love
their children". It isn't John Kennedy's fault that you aren't up to
date.

Both statements are generalisations, it is true, and both are probably
true about the same percentage of time.

Oh, and if you think I'm saying something shocking by suggesting that
somebody is a psychopath, I'm not. Something like one in five of the
general population are psychopaths, a much higher percentage of
"go-getters" like company CEOs, generals, politicians, executives,
etc. Very few of them chop people up into small pieces and bury them
in the wall cavities of their house.

With training and/or a good dose of enlightened self-interest, most
psychopaths are perfectly capable of learning to not be selfish
vicious brutes who care only for themselves and perhaps a few others.
Or rather, to stop *acting* as selfish vicious brutes. Not caring
about the harm done by your corporate machinery is not a crime.
Actually doing that harm is, or at least should be, although sadly
when we allow the psychopaths to make the rules, they tend to make
rules that allow themselves to prosper at our expense.

You are correct, Sir. The "psychopaths" who hack people up into small
pieces and use their remains for insulation, food or raincoat fabric
are in fact not psychopaths; they are sociopaths. ;-)

A psychopath is someone who lacks ethics and/or the ability to respect
his fellow human being. They are quite often narcissistic and perverse
individuals. They make good dictators and successful businessmen.

Their prevalence really isn't one out of five people - more like one out
of fifty - but I'm sure you knew that. ;-)

 

[Aragorn]

:/

psychopaths according to DSM IV, or just some silly test from a
magazine?

If I read him correctly, then he is referring to DSM IV, yes.

Yup, like everybody can become an olympic swimmer, or get a degree.
Just work, and you'll make it.


Hmmmm... and probably one in three is paranoid?

Paranoia is a typically schizophrenic tendency. Schizophrenia occurs
with one in every thousand people. It's a genetically caused disorder,
resulting from a combination of multiple genes. It's also progressive
in that it affects more of the brain over time if not treated properly.

 

[Mike Meyer]

If you genuinely believe that, you are delusional.

<mike
-
Mike Meyer <[email protected]> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.

 

[Richard Steiner]

Here in comp.os.linux.misc,

We were talking sunOS. At least I was!

Heh heh... That's what I get from reading part of a thread.

I never saw SunOS until Solaris 2.5 myself. Not all that long ago...