“Even computer programmers can sometimes let their emotions get the better of them. ‘If I made a great product, and Microsoft offered me a lot of money, I would spit in their faces,’ says Brett Slatkin, a student at Columbia University in New York. His colleagues roll their eyes and accuse him of being stuck at the ‘hippy stage.’ But when talk turns to the serious business of programming, they are of one pragmatic mind.” Read the rest of the story at MCNBC.
The Threat of a Linux Generation
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
For this new “KDE” interface to come out!
…..a Columbia University student shoots self in foot after looking a gift hourse in the mouth……..
When you need the latest-breaking news in the fast food industry, count on McNBC.
Sorry, couldn’t resist 🙂
You’re completely right — what place do morals and self-respect have when a sh*t load of money can be had?
Seriously, at least we still are allowed a choice. My grim suspicion is that in 10 years we will have no choice at all. Even though open source operating systems can’t be bought or really eliminated as long as the source is available, there’s a good chance that not too long from now it will be illegal in the US to run one. Think about that for a few minutes, and then contemplate that student’s response.
At first the piece looked fairly straightforward like a piece of actual fact and news. Then there was the half-truth about KDE and the opinion in the very last sentence of the piece.
So much for journalistic integrity.
there is a http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/03/03/2050212“>discussion&… business>” rel=”nofollow”>http://www.airwindows.com/dithering/index.html”>businesswould” rel=”nofollow”>http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=28897&cid=3102703″>would to the likes of microsoft.
“You’re completely right — what place do morals and self-respect have when a sh*t load of money can be had?”
I hardly think this is a moral issue. After all, its not like software is a living entity or something. If someone considers free software to a be a moral value, they really need to find something more important to stand up for.
Save the whales, or the starving children in Rwanda. These are moral questions. But software a moral issue? Give me a break. Find something more important to stand up for on moral grounds.
“Even though open source operating systems can’t be bought or really eliminated as long as the source is available, there’s a good chance that not too long from now it will be illegal in the US to run one. Think about that for a few minutes, and then contemplate that student’s response”
Do you really think that there is a realistic chance of this happening? I recall that right after 9/11 there was a bill that in effect would have done this, but I can’t imagine something like that becomming law, if only because IBM and other big corporations now have such a stake in Linux.
“Save the whales, or the starving children in Rwanda. These are moral questions.”
I couldn’t agree more.
“But software a moral issue? Give me a break.”
Silly. Being told what you can and can’t do; what you can and can’t see, what you can and can’t hear, what you can and can’t write, and eventually what you can and can’t know — this *is* a moral issue.
Infringements on rights almost always start slowly, subtly. The little things dissapear and we think “well, at least it’s not worse”. Next thing we know it is worse and we still think “at least it’s not worse”. We get used to it, and the next thing we know it’s too late.
Now let me make myself clear, here. Like it or not, our computers are by this point an extension of ourselves. Yes, we can live without them. But at the rate (at least western) society is going, in ten or twenty years the idea of a citizen not owning a computer will be preposterous. The computer will be to the citizen/consumer of the near future like food or housing. Not owning one will be at best socially disadvantageous, at worst a crime.
When this day arrives (barring a massive luddite sociological revolution), would you rather be in control of the machine, or would you prefer Microsoft? Think a little about MS’s track record for a moment. Be honest.
“Silly. Being told what you can and can’t do; what you can and can’t see, what you can and can’t hear, what you can and can’t write, and eventually what you can and can’t know — this *is* a moral issue.”
There is nothing moral about it. No one is being told what they can and cannot do. You are free to use whatever operating system you want. And the programmer is free to sell out if he or she wants to. I don’t consider this a moral issue at all. It’s just software. If someone wants to charge for their software there is nothing immoral about that. They are perfectly within their rights to do so. People have a right to be PAID for their work.
Where do we draw the line?
Maybe we should say it is immoral to sell clothes and the stores should be required to give clothes away? After all, clothes is something people actually need (unlike software). What about airlien tickets? Should airlines be required to give them away free? Maybe pilots should be required to fly for free?
Do you see how absurd it is to suggeast the free software is a moral issue? People have the right to get PAID for their work if they choose to do so. There is nothing at all immoral about selling software and getting paid for your work.
“Now let me make myself clear, here. Like it or not, our omputers are by this point an extension of ourselves.”
Speak for yourself. Not everyone is so attached to their computer that they consider it an extension of themselves. My computer is a tool that helps me get my work done more efficiently. It is no more an extension of me than a handheld calculator, pencil, or any other tool I use to do my work. In my mind, computers are a tool that help me work more efficiently. They are nothing more than that.
Yeah its a moral issue.
Simply.
Microsoft has a monopoly; fact.
Microsoft has ILLEAGLY put competitors out of business; fact.
Microsoft has FORGED letters with DEAD peoples signatures to politicians; fact.
Microsoft has KNOWINGLY paid for FALSE statistics to their benefit; fact.
Microsoft has incorporated HIDDEN “tools”/”features” into Windows and it components to GATHER PRIVATE INFORMATION from its customers PCs WITHOUT consent or knowlege; fact.
Microsoft does NOT pay taxes; fact.
Microsofts questionable accounting practices have been dicovered, and they are flat out AGAINST THE LAW, but for fear of hurting the economy they suffer no penalties; fact.
Microsoft operating systems are used on PCs that house data for countless people, GOVERNMENT AGENCY and private and PUBLIC business, but yet they have the WORST track record for SECURITY PROBLEMS of ANY software house; fact.
I can add 100 more facts about how MORALLY CORRUPT this company is, and all of this information and more can easilly be found documented so WEN YOU willingly CONTRIBUTE to this IMMORAL monstrosity that contribution is IMMORAL. Period.
“Microsoft has a monopoly; fact. ”
Microsoft is a consumer created monopoly. There is nothing illegal about that.
“Microsoft does NOT pay taxes; fact.”
Many large corporations don’t pay taxes. And sorry, once again it is perfectly legal. If you don’t like the current tax laws, complain to the IRS. Not Microsoft. There is nothing illegal about Microsoft not paying taxes.
“Microsoft has KNOWINGLY paid for FALSE statistics to their benefit; fact.”
They aren’t FALSE. They are SPUN. Statistics can be manipulated to say what you want to them to say. Read the fine print and you will find that the statistics are NOT false. They simply don’t show everything.
“Microsoft has incorporated HIDDEN “tools”/”features” into Windows and it components to GATHER PRIVATE INFORMATION from its customers PCs WITHOUT consent or knowlege; fact.”
This is a FALSE statement. You really should be more careful. Microsoft would have grounds to sue you for making false statements like this.
“Microsofts questionable accounting practices have been dicovered, and they are flat out AGAINST THE LAW, but for fear of hurting the economy they suffer no penalties; fact.”
I think you are confusing Microsoft with Enron. Once again, the fact that Microsoft does not pay taxes does not mean they are breaking the law. There are ways that businesses can get away with not paying taxes that are perfectly legal. Once again, complain to the IRS if you don’t like it.
Now let me give you some more facts.
FACT: Microsoft creates thousands and thousands of jobs.
FACT: Microsoft has done a good job of giving the average consumer what they want.
FACT: Microsoft made the PC into a tool that the average person could use. (I don’t want to hear any Apple sob story. Apple had the chance to do this and they blew it. Microsoft capitalized on Apple’s mistakes).
FACT: In many ways, Windows 2000 is more secure than UNIX. Should we talk about file sharing? UNIX has been using the horribly insecure NFS system for way too long. What about centralalized administration? Give me NT domains over NIS any day. NIS is about as insecure as NFS.
“I can add 100 more facts about how MORALLY CORRUPT this company is, and all of this information and more can easilly be found documented so WEN YOU willingly CONTRIBUTE to this IMMORAL monstrosity that contribution is IMMORAL. Period.”
I think you are confusing ETHICS with MORALS. They are NOT the same thing. Microsoft may have UNETHICAL busienss practices. They may be an UNETHICAL company. But they are not an IMMORAL company. After all, it’s not like Microsoft is out there testing their products on animals or engaging in other MORALLY questionable behavior.
Do not confuse MORALS with ETHICS. They are NOT the same thing.
>>After all, it’s not like Microsoft is out there testing their products on animals or engaging in other MORALLY questionable behavior. <<
I wouldn’t be so sure he he 🙂
MrMadd: “Microsoft has incorporated HIDDEN “tools”/”features” into Windows and it components to GATHER PRIVATE INFORMATION from its customers PCs WITHOUT consent or knowlege; fact.”
Simba: “This is a FALSE statement. You really should be more careful. Microsoft would have grounds to sue you for making false statements like this.”
Actually, Simba, it is true… WMP in XP was recording information about DVDs that have been watched by the user. This was an “undocumented feature” (aka spyware) that MS was caught out on. They now have included it in their EULA – however, they still did the dirty on anyone who agreed to their EULA -before- this ammendment.
>>After all, it’s not like Microsoft is out there testing their products on animals or engaging in other MORALLY questionable behavior. <<
>> I wouldn’t be so sure he he 🙂 <<
Too right!
After all, Microsoft has been Sodomising users for years! Thats’ pretty immorral to me!
“Microsoft has a monopoly; fact.
Microsoft is a consumer created monopoly. There is nothing illegal about that. ”
Incorrect, Microsoft is a monopoly due to the illegal contracts with computer manufaturing companies(dell, hp, gateway) to only sell windows and not have dual boots, once these contracts were wide spread, and programs written for win couldn’t be used in other programs(save java apps and wine, which both came years later) MS built Windows into an illegal monopoly OS that should be stopped; fact.
Well, it seems just about every counter”point” you made has been shot down, except for the ones about MS bad accounting habits, so I’ll provide a couple interesting links for ya’ll
http://www.billparish.com/20010322boeingandmsft.html
http://accounting-net.actg.uic.edu/Articles/FASB%20-%20SEC/…‘s%20Accounting%20Practices.htm
FACT: The IRS is an unconstitutional and illegal entity.
–> “Microsoft has incorporated HIDDEN “tools”/”features” into Windows and it components to GATHER PRIVATE INFORMATION from its customers PCs WITHOUT consent or knowlege; fact.”
This is a FALSE statement. You really should be more careful. Microsoft would have grounds to sue you for making false statements like this. –>
actually this statement is very true
case in point Windows Media Player collects information and sends it to microsoft
FACT
check your sources. this is a well know fact, and it doesn’t stop there
“actually this statement is very true
case in point Windows Media Player collects information and sends it to microsoft.”
Windows Media Player also tells you about this during the install, as well as telling you how to disable it.
“Incorrect, Microsoft is a monopoly due to the illegal contracts with computer manufaturing companies(dell, hp, gateway) to only sell windows and not have dual boots, once these contracts were wide spread, and programs written for win couldn’t be used in other programs(save java apps and wine, which both came years later) MS built Windows into an illegal monopoly OS that should be stopped; fact.”
This is old news. And so far, no court has ruled that these contracts were illegal. If you recall, the lawsuit had to do with bundling Internet Explorer. It had nothing to do with any contracts Microsoft made with hardware vendors.
The basic claim was that by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows, Microsoft engaged in an anti-competitive business practice that harmed Netscape Communications. But even this is a somewhat baseless claim.
OS/2 Warp shipped with IBM Web Explorer bundled in. OS/2 Warp even shipped with a bundled office package. (IBM Works). Yet no one sued IBM simply because OS/2 wasn’t as common as Microsoft. But think about it, if Netscape can sue Microsoft for shipping a web browser with Windows, they can also sue IBM. And there would be several other companies that would also have grounds for a lawsuit against IBM because of all of the other bundled office applications.
There seems to be a double standard here. People don’t want to tolerate Microsoft doing what they don’t seem to have problems with another company doing.
yes, there are two standards. companies that meet the definition of monopoly have additional restrictions placed upon them. microsoft has been shown to be a monopoly in a court of law, so it has to operate under these additional laws.
this is no more a double-standard than that i am in a lower tax bracket than bill gates.
Come on, folks, let’s not post riduculously inaccurate statements (“MS pays no taxes”, “the IRS is illegal”) as “facts”. I can just go to Slashdot for that.
FACT: I don’t have any facts.
Just try to prove me wrong.
I agree that free vs. proprietary software is not intrinsically a moral issue, but I can easily see why some people consider Microsoft immoral. It is pretty clear that they have a track record of going beyond what the laws allow in their efforts to defeat competitors. A lot of businesses have failed and a lot of people have lost their jobs and money because of these practices, which at the very least must be described as hard-nesed, ruthless business. Whether Microsoft sells software or anything else is irrelevant.
Also, I meant “ridiculously” on the above post.
“I agree that free vs. proprietary software is not intrinsically a moral issue, but I can easily see why some people consider Microsoft immoral. It is pretty clear that they have a track record of going beyond what the laws allow in their efforts to defeat competitors.”
Once again, I think this is a result of confusion between the word MORALS and the word ETHICS. The types of actions mentioned go against business ethics, but they are not immoral.
I will be the first to admit that Microsoft is an unethical company that engages in a lot of unethical business practices (including many that are perfectly legal). However, I would not say that Microsoft is an immoral company.
The word ETHICS and the word MORALS do have somewhat difference meanings. It is incorrect to use them interchangably, even though it is a very common practice to do so.
“Come on, folks, let’s not post riduculously inaccurate statements (“MS pays no taxes”, “the IRS is illegal”) as “facts”. I can just go to Slashdot for that.”
“Come on, folks, let’s not post riduculously inaccurate statements (“MS pays no taxes”, “the IRS is illegal”) as “facts”. I can just go to Slashdot for that.”
I don’t know whether Microsoft pays any taxes or not. But even if they do not, that doesn’t mean they are breaking the law. There are perfectly legal ways that mega-corporations can get away with not paying any taxes.
But yes, the idea that the IRS is illegal is absurd. The founding fathers specifically allowed for the government to collect taxes. Some of the taxes we pay are probably unconstitutional. But the IRS itself is not illegal.
Sorry that I perpetuated the confusion – you are absolutely right that I was referring to Microsoft’s ethics, not morals. Anyway, the point is still that even if the software per se has no moral (or ethical issues), the behavior of the company can still be something about which to care or even take a stand.
“Anyway, the point is still that even if the software per se has no moral (or ethical issues), the behavior of the company can still be something about which to care or even take a stand.”
This is true to an extent. But as you know, the average person doesn’t care. The average person considers their computer to be a tool that helps them work more efficiently. They don’t care whether it is supplied by a monopoly or not as long as it does what they need it to do.
As far as Microsoft being a monopoly, this is definitely due in part to the failure of other companies to capitalize on what they had. Apple could have become the monopoly that Microsoft is today. But they chose to focus on niche markets instead of the average consumer.
You can attack Bill Gate’s ethics all day, but you cannot attack his insight. Bill Gates simply had insight that other companies didn’t have. And that is largely responsible for how Microsoft got an initial foothold where they were able to influence hardware vendors into signing unethical contracts and such.
Go read some history, stupids. It was illegally instated after the depression crisis.
“Go read some history, stupids. It was illegally instated after the depression crisis.”
Whatever you say. Apparently you failed history and have virtually no understanding of the constitution.
mine’s correct. This is the kind of thing that’s going to lead the US government to outright ownership of your ass in the future. And it’s obvious that you havn’t even bothered to look into it. Toodles, Chattle. Yes, you are chattle.
chattel.
“mine’s correct. This is the kind of thing that’s going to lead the US government to outright ownership of your ass in the future. And it’s obvious that you havn’t even bothered to look into it. Toodles, Chattle. Yes, you are chattle.”
How about you back up your claim. Find me one sucessful lawsuit against the IRS where a court has ruled that the IRS is an illegal entity. Find me any case in the history of the Supreme Court where the IRS has been declared illegal.
The IRS is NOT illegal. You obviously haven’t looked into it at all. Like I said, do some research of legal cases that have gone before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has not said that the IRS is illegal.