Home > Microsoft > Following Bill Gates’ Linux Attack Money Following Bill Gates’ Linux Attack Money Submitted by Dave Whitinger 2005-06-30 Microsoft 28 Comments Following yesterday’s article, in what will become a long string of articles on this subject, Tom Adelstein has uncovered a plethora of new information on the trail between Microsoft and government officials. About The Author Thom Holwerda Follow me on Mastodon @email@example.com 28 Comments 2005-06-30 7:42 pm Anonymous is osnews? I don’t think comments from us will be very good evidence. on a serious note, what is the second link supposed to link to? 2005-06-30 7:47 pm Anonymous http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/38971/index.html Have fun whining 2005-06-30 7:53 pm Anonymous The submitter forgot to add the link, and I forgot to check it thoroughly enough. It’s fixed now. 2005-06-30 8:14 pm Anonymous …though this report wasn’t intended to be. The author has said that he will be laying out a set of facts over the span of severial reports. I’m going to wait and see what he reports before passing judgement either way. 2005-06-30 8:53 pm Anonymous I wasn’t “whining”, it’s called being sarcastic. thanks for the link though 2005-06-30 10:28 pm Anonymous I know Tom Adelstein and talked to him on the phone about this series of reports on Tuesday. This is indeed the scoop that hes making it out to be. 2005-06-30 10:31 pm Anonymous sorry to be so blase’ about it but this doesnt surprise me or shock me at all…. need to research the M$ and apple teamup because that has a lot to do with the real reason apple is switching to intel chips…. 2005-06-30 10:33 pm Anonymous Please. Horse already flogged beyond death on /. 2005-06-30 10:39 pm Anonymous Huh? 2005-06-30 10:48 pm Anonymous Afterall MS can’t compete in computing based on technology alone. Windows is far from a quantum leap from anything out there and if their bloody marketing department wasn’t dictating the direction of development then you’d probably get decent software from them. 2005-07-01 12:13 am Anonymous Probably not. Microsoft has made it abundantly clear that they are obsessed with raw efficiency: They’ve consistently been obsessed with binary formats, in network protocols and file formats. They’re obsessed with centralized controls, and providing every library for the system (when clearly others have some excellent libraries). Frankly, if I’m going to sit down at a desktop and do work I have my priorities: 1.) It runs for weeks on end without interrupting my work. Reboots are no big deal timewise, but if you never close applications and do 5 or 6 totally different things on your PC; then it’s annoying. 2.) Useful software. I don’t want to spend an hour digging on sourceforge, or cnet for some application I need. I don’t want to go to a website and download an mp3-wav converter, or a wav-mp3 converter (and there’s a seemingly infinite number of bad mp3-wav converters). Reading documentation on using stuff is fine; I can even handle a quick search or query about what tool I need to do something: But it’s really nice to have it already installed when you can’t count the machines you use on a daily basis on one hand. That was kind of a pointless rant. The main point is that Microsoft has an obsession with raw-fast code. They’ve been willing go to a lot of work for it; and it’s fast: Great, but did we really have to sit through a decade long beta cycle? Anyway, maybe I missed something in the article. But it seems the big money was like under 2 million dollars? I was pretty astonished to see that the person running the RNC is a former lobbyist; no wonder that party is so messed up…. 2005-07-01 12:27 am Anonymous >It runs for weeks on end without interrupting my work. Windows- if you know how to use it. >Useful software. I don’t want to spend an hour digging on sourceforge, or cnet for some application I need. Need useful software to file taxes. Went to CompUSA. Explained to salesperson. Got QuickTax. Box says ‘Win 95 and up.’ >Great, but did we really have to sit through a decade long beta cycle? No, that is why Linux is not an option. Anyway, maybe I missed something in the article. Was that stuff that Microsoft did illegal? How about revealing IBM lobbying, for a comparison? 2005-07-01 3:02 am Anonymous Need useful software to file taxes. Went online. Didnt have to explain. Did it for free in a couple places to make sure numbers were right and even e-file for freeee…….. no box needed…. 2005-07-01 3:08 am Anonymous “Anyway, maybe I missed something in the article. Was that stuff that Microsoft did illegal? How about revealing IBM lobbying, for a comparison?” I don’t think you’ll find many IBM defenders here; just “IBM is slightly less evil than Microsoft, and a lot less evil than they used to be: And we sure like their contributions” types. Anyway, the fact that it wasn’t illegal makes it ok? I’ll keep that in mind if I ever get a chance to damage your mode of life without breaking the law . “It’s legal, so it must be ok!” “People are using it, so it must be good!” “I’m making conclusions, so I must be useful!” You know, people write laws; they don’t magically appear out of nowhere. People sit down and spend hundreds of hours writing and revising them. Maybe you should try being less complacent and get involved in that process! The other stuff…: Microsoft released Windows 1.0 in what, 1987? It took until 2000 before they released a usable version: 98 and 95 weren’t OS’s, and they made NT less than presented to most of us (it’s almost like they hid it from us, and said “use 98!”). Not that they hid it, but they had something great and didn’t tell me; so I’m annoyed. And no, you can run a Windows machines only between updates; so 3-4 weeks. Unless of course it happens to be a month without an update requiring reboot… Anyway, I don’t need/want a tax program; but thanks for addressing that concern I’ve never had! I think you’re the 80th person to do that for me! I’m glad to know Windows does your taxes! I actually have a secondary problem with doing my work on Windows: I have to use cygwin to have a decent desktop and shell. And well: Cygwin sucks. It’s a real pain to install (the installer fails if the mirror has some tiny issue, and then it forgets the preferences you spent 20 minutes setting). The main thing that prohibits Windows being useful for me: lack of a good virtual desktop system. I need to be able to efficiently switch desktops; I really do have 4 in use right now. 2005-07-01 3:18 am Anonymous Rich people a very influential. What a revaluation! 2005-07-01 6:53 am Anonymous Microsoft has tons of cash and promise to use it to defend its market share everywhere. Microsoft will buy your senators (because they can be bought) to have the “right” laws passed. One day, (today?), these people will depend on Microsoft money to exist and they won’t be free to taken independent actions. He! These people don’t want to be independent in the first place. They want to receive money from Microsoft (or any other company, they don’t care). They don’t care about the consequences of their vote as long as the money is coming in. In the US (and elsewhere) that’s how the world works. Today money rules … but for how long? Democracy is just a word and is profound meaning is being perverted for many, many years now. 2005-07-01 7:25 am Anonymous Give me a break, no please. Microsoft has simply been using the framework that so many other business interests have helped lay in order to manipulate the state. To focus on them would be shortsighted at best. One must not forget, the state was created to maintain private property, in essence, to protect the property of those who had claimed it from the people who they felt had no such claim. In essence, to enforce the inequality that was created. So, if you see government and business and/or the general upper class aligned in such ways, do not be disturbed, as this occurance is merely the logical extension of the use for which government was created. And so we come to realize, government is simply untenable for any other purpose. This has been proven by the so-called “communist” governments that have dicated, and eventually fallen. Yet those governments would not have been established unless there problems with the current system to press such action. So we must realize that government cannot be aligned for the cause of justice much in the same way you cannot use a sword for the healing of wounds. Such things are contrary to its intended use, contrary to its nature. If not a tool of oppression for the upper class, it will be a tool of oppression for whatever ruling class that controls it. I would hope you would still be reading after I used the taboo word of “class”. It simply follows from reason that those with more resources and thus more power will have a greater sway over the institution of government, which is the tool of execution for whatever influences it. I would hope that some would not be so stubborn as to argue this fact, but I do not doubt that there are such. For those of you who are outraged by occurances such as these, do not distress, it is a natural reaction. Yes, it is entirely natural to be distressed that the same institutions that are in control over your lives can be influenced and directed in this manner. How can such a government claim to represent you, you would not sanction such activities. Yet that is what is maintained. Because of your consent, your vote, your government is thus representative of you. Can you vote for a politician with the assurance that they would not allow such occurances? Of course not. But can we address these concerns? It is certainly frowned upon. It is claimed that nothing better can be achieved. So it is said, the society we have, as well as the economic organization that has been established is the apex of all human achievement. I would venture to say that anyone who has any sense of justice would disagree. A particular saying seems to sum this up, “our dreams cannot fit in their ballot boxes.” If we desire a more just society, we must radically rethink the validity and faults of the institutions which have disappointed us so much in the past. We must concieve new institutions, more just forms of organizations. A society for which all individuals hold mutual respect for the autonomy of all other individuals, and one which also recognizes our mutual dependence. A society in which is dominated by respect and cooperation, and not by greed and competition. Perhaps this sounds like a utopia, but it is just as palpable as people wish to make it. I provide the above not as a definative answer, but as food for thought. If you disagree with events such as these, then think. Think how things could be better. Think about problems that exist now. What are the causes of there problems? How can we solve these problems? What action is possble to take? You may not get an answer immediately, but to ponder these questions, and perhaps also discussing them will be accomplishments in themselves. They are accomplishments that may yield to even greater ones in the future. 2005-07-01 11:22 am Anonymous “The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That in its essence, is Fascism – ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any controlling private power” LOL. He almost got that right. Private companies have ABSOLUTELY NO POWER. The government is the only one who can restrict liberty. Period. When will people stop demonizing companies. If a company tries to take your property you can simply call the police. If a company A buys another B, then B decided to sell. Don’t demonize A because they were able to buy. Sounds like some people love freedom, except when people don’t behave in the manner they agree with. 2005-07-01 11:28 am Anonymous “1.) It runs for weeks on end without interrupting my work. Reboots are no big deal timewise, but if you never close applications and do 5 or 6 totally different things on your PC; then it’s annoying. 2.) Useful software. I don’t want to spend an hour digging on sourceforge, or cnet for some application I need. I don’t want to go to a website and download an mp3-wav converter, or a wav-mp3 converter (and there’s a seemingly infinite number of bad mp3-wav converters). Reading documentation on using stuff is fine; I can even handle a quick search or query about what tool I need to do something: But it’s really nice to have it already installed when you can’t count the machines you use on a daily basis on one hand.” Looks like you want to run a Mandriva Linux distro on your PCs. Because what you describe above really reminds me of my Mandriva box so much I am amazed. 2005-07-01 11:28 am Anonymous One must not forget, the state was created to maintain private property… No, it wasn’t. It was created to stop people from killing each other over limited resources. Or it was created because people naturally group themselves together and naturally fall into certain roles. Or it was created because some glory for power and others fear their gaining control. Or it was created because Marx needed a bogeyman for his crackpot theories, like the one you named. About the article: I’m not impressed. Lots of “could be”, “may be”, and “should be” does not add up to “is”. Multiplication of many probabilities, however high, makes a smaller probability of the whole, unless every last one of them is a certainty. If Tom Adelstein knows something, he should come out and say that something “is” the case, not that something “could be” the case. Otherwise it’s just a smear campaign. 2005-07-01 11:45 am Anonymous Dude, if you think private companies have no power, I suggest you take your blinders off, and do a googlesearch, for oh I dunno, ExxonMobil+Aceh, for example. And Halliburton probably has no influence either eh? Then how come they got contracts that Iraqi native companies could have fulfilled for a tenth of the price? It’s money that powers the political machine, it’s money that determines which of the 2 parties get into power in the US, and like they say: who pays, determines. Guess who the largest campaign contributors are on the whole? The disturbing thing is that people no longer care they have a plutocracy by proxy instead of a democracy. And THAT is why this article isn’t special…it’s to be expected nowadays. 2005-07-01 11:57 am Anonymous So now we all know that Microsoft gives financial support for different peoples election camps, big news! Everybody is doing it and Microsoft isn’t even biggest supporter. 2005-07-01 12:03 pm Anonymous You just backed up my points explicitly. The government is the only one who can use force against you. The point is people get worked up over stupid crap like this while the Supreme court takes away property rights, religious freedom and the peoples’ right to decide which laws govern them. It is precisely because the Feds have as much power as they do which causes politcal donors to spend so much in Washington. If they stayed within their Constirutional boundaries(Article X), the money wouldn’t be there. Who has the blinders on? 2005-07-01 1:28 pm Anonymous I guess you didn’t to the googlesearch huh? If you did, you’d see how ExxonMobil has a private militia in Aceh violating human rights and harrassing people. Can’t use force? One might say that’s abroad in a country that couldn’t be considered a democracy. Fine. But if ‘the government’ does something that’s against the greater good of all (like instituting far-reaching copyright/patent laws and enforcing them, or heck, even such a silly thing as maintaining subsidies for angora wool 30 years after it was still necessary), and the people currently in power in the government were induced to do so by a corporation…would you still maintain that corporations are powerless? Because both examples I used are real, and if you deny power by proxy to be power, you’re just screwing with semantics. If companies induce governments into making bad decisions, that’s every reason to demonize them. 2005-07-01 2:07 pm Anonymous Nothing says democracy or freedom like a POLITICALLY APPOINTED, SERVE TILL YOU DIE, body of 7 individuals, who decide the rights / roles of 260 Million people and can strike down any law, laws that were created by popularly elected officials. The supreme court needs term limits like every other politician–it doesn’t have to be 2 or 4 years, but let’s say 10 years. Judges are not blind in their justice as is evident in their rulings. The judiciary has always had too much of “check” and there is no “balance” as a result. 2005-07-01 5:06 pm Anonymous I found the tie-ins and information very credible. And I wonder how many people have the skills to do the research and tie everything together. I think the article is meritorious. Also, a difference does exist between Microsoft and the rest of the people that invest politically. The big spenders are big vendors. Microsoft doesn’t sell that much to the federal government. Their spending is disproportionate to their vendor revenue. That means one thing, they want to continue making usurious profits and not get a “wind fall profits tax” section just for them in the next tax bill. They also want to stop people from interoperating with their formats. They also like having Marshall’s go with them on their BSA audits. The way I see this – Adelstein has the tie-ins amongst the BSA/Microsoft and the law firm. (I read the article). The DeLay trip – paid for by Preston Gates et al – invoiced to them and arranged by them – I think that allowed him to pull everything together. Maybe that’s not how it happened but I wish he would say. Otherwise, why would he wait so long to publish documents dated in 2002? 2005-07-01 5:30 pm Anonymous ..posting from a different computer. 2005-07-01 6:42 pm Anonymous There are some comments from people who ask what Microsoft has done illegal here. I think you are missing the point. Microsoft was convicted of abusing their monopoly position in the market. Rather than face the consequences, they appear to have paid off the people who were to decide their punishment. At the very least, this kind of behavior should be well known, and not hidden. The scoundrels who let them get away should then be hounded out of office. And, I am dreaming here, but Microsoft should then be forced to actually compete fairly. Imagine if they actually competed fairly. It is a big dream, but just a dream, I fear.