"So I was a little surprised to receive email a couple of days ago from Microsoft saying they wanted to contract someone independent but friendly (me) for a couple of days to provide more balance on Wikipedia concerning ODF/OOXML. I am hardly the poster boy of Microsoft partisanship! Apparently they are frustrated at the amount of spin from some ODF stakeholders on Wikipedia and blogs. I think I'll accept it: FUD enrages me and MS certainly are not hiring me to add any pro-MS FUD, just to correct any errors I see." So basically, it seems as if Microsoft is trying to 'hire' people to edit Wikipedia.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-07-04
"Second of all, what would you say if I stole a million pounds from the Bank of England, and then gave it to the charity of your choice?"
Robin Hood is hailed as a folk-hero.
The prime movers behind the MS/DOJ case were Ellison and McNeily, both billionaires. In fact, Ellision is so full of himself that during some stock market fluctuations a few years ago, his paper worth inched above Gates' for a week, and he had Oracle issue a big press release, "Ellison now richer than Gates! Ellison is the richest man in America!1". And at the time, the anti-MS crowd loved Ellison because he hated Microsoft (including hiring P.I.s to snoop through MS's garbage dumpsters looking for evidence of something or another). And Ellision, Jobs, McNeily, have given nothing at all to charity (if you believe their tax statements). If these billionaires are the "rich" from which Gates "stole" and it's their money that he's now giving to the poor, then he's a modern day Robin Hood, and I have no sympathy that a few billionaires may have lost a few million.
In reality, I don't consider Gates a "Robin Hood", as I don't accept your belief that his money was "stolen".
The rest of your post is just your usual "MS Software sucks" garbage.
Member since:2006-04-21
Robin Hood is hailed as a folk-hero.
Which is relevant because?
The prime movers behind the MS/DOJ case were Ellison and McNeily, both billionaires. In fact, Ellision is so full of himself that during some stock market fluctuations a few years ago, his paper worth inched above Gates' for a week, and he had Oracle issue a big press release, "Ellison now richer than Gates! Ellison is the richest man in America!1". And at the time, the anti-MS crowd loved Ellison because he hated Microsoft (including hiring P.I.s to snoop through MS's garbage dumpsters looking for evidence of something or another). And Ellision, Jobs, McNeily, have given nothing at all to charity (if you believe their tax statements). If these billionaires are the "rich" from which Gates "stole" and it's their money that he's now giving to the poor, then he's a modern day Robin Hood, and I have no sympathy that a few billionaires may have lost a few million.
I could care less about the Ellison and McNealy. I think you'll find the "prime mover" behind the MS/DOJ case was...the DOJ.
In reality, I don't consider Gates a "Robin Hood", as I don't accept your belief that his money was "stolen".
Film at 11.
[i] The rest of your post is just your usual "MS Software sucks" garbage.
Whereas your posts are of SUCH high value.
Member since:
2006-04-21
That Bill Gates has donated billions to world causes and yet sad people with too much time on their hands and not enough sense in their brains still hate his guts, compare him with Satan, Hitler, etc, proves the GP's point.
First of all, I don't think I've ever compared Gates to Hitler or Stalin. After all, for one thing, even if what they did was annihilate people, they were good at what they did.
Second of all, what would you say if I stole a million pounds from the Bank of England, and then gave it to the charity of your choice? Does what I have done with the money, is it not still stolen? Microsoft's software is of such low quality, and infests the machines of so many who want nothing to do with it, that a very large portion of his money can be considered stolen.
And what, exactly, did Microsoft do that was so evil, anyway?
They bundled a browser with an OS? Or won't make a version of Office for a community that has 0.4% marketshare and loathes the idea of paying for software and therefore wouldn't recoup the development costs?
Actually, we loathe the idea of paying for software which sucks and which we don't want. Why do I get the feeling you're in that game?
These issues are NOTHING compared to real problems to get worked up about. There are REAL evils to be dealt with and MS haters are wasting time fighting an "evil" that they conjured up in their heads.
Why is software companies stealing money from people any better than, say, the Krays doing it?