BayStar confirms Microsoft referral to SCO

TalkBack 23 of 181:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

So a lot.

"Others, like me, look at MS as just another company selling a product. If their product suits my needs and is financially justifiable, then I use it. If there is a better alternative in the grand scheme of things, then I'll use that"

That's called the "I'm all right Jack" attitude. You are OK so you don't care about someone else's predicament. That's fine, but somewhat selfish. But what about those who liked the products that MS's illegal behaviour has killed-off?

Are we better off because Netscape was driven from the browser market? When they were around, IE exploded with new and better features on an almost daily basis. Since Netscape's demise, IE has languished without a significant upgrade in 5 years.

Perhaps we're also better of because Be OS was never able to get into the market because of Microsoft's restrictive OEM licences? OEM's couldn't even install Be for free (exactly how IE got its market share) without breaking the licence. Similar tactics were used to stop IBM shipping OS/2 as a competitor to Windows 95. Surely you don't think Win95 was actually a better OS?

Maybe you think it's OK that MS deliberately stymied the development of a Windows version of WordPerfect so that Word could take over as the pre-eminent word processor? Or that we'd have a better life now if MS could have killed of Real and QuickTime when they tried back in the 90's?

Linux is a threat to MS because it uses the only strategy that is likely to work against Microsoft's monopoly - it's free. Microsoft's only defence is to prove genuine benefits for the cost of their software - and they are struggling to do it.

"Anyone who thinks that MS won't use every available tool at their disposal to slow down Linux is a fool. So long as those tools they use are legal, there is nothing you can do but complain about it."

So as long as they don't break the letter of the law, you're happy. More of your Jack attitude.

Businesses have obligations that go beyond simply maximising profit or staying within the letter of the law. They have social responsibilities too, just as every citizen has an obligation to be responsible and contribute to society rather than just the minimal "stay out of jail" behaviour. Heck, the Bill & Melinda foundation is great, but it doesn't excuse Microsoft's unethical business behaviour that created the wealth behind the foundation in the first place. The end doesn't always justify the means.

Posted by: Fred Fredrickson   Posted on: 03/11/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Infrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now