Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2007 19:39 UTC, submitted by gonzo
Thread beginning with comment 275993
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.





Member since:
2006-12-28
Which side of their reputation are you talking about?
The side that is known for keeping interoperability information under lock and key so they can continue to monopolies their position as the world's no1 desktop?
The side that is known to invite partners to develop for their platform only to release a competing product and bundle it for free with their OS?
The side that bullies OEMs into offering systems with only their OS preinstalled?
The side that is known for trying to take over the internet with an inferior product, then providing operating systems without the security mechanisms needed to securely connect to said internet there by leaving the door open for scrip kiddies to run riot causing millions of dollars in downtime and damages?
How about the side that bankrolls other companies to threatens the only thing it can't buy, steal from or muscle out of the IT industry, i.e. Linux, and when that fails, starts threatening with bogus IP violation charges it is unwilling (read unable) to provide any evidence for?
If MS is damaging it's reputation, surely that's a good thing?