Microsoft’s CEO Steve Ballmer came out swinging — verbally and even physically at times, at the Worldwide Partner Conference where he mocked open source technology, Linux in particular, while touting opportunities on the company’s own platforms. During a keynote address, Ballmer also identified Novell customers as prime targets for Microsoft’s partners to pick off as potential new customers.
Ballmer Vs. Linux, IBM and Novell
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
“Who will stand up and stand behind open source?” Ballmer shouted. “Microsoft provides a clear chain of responsibility. No such line exists in open source.”
Excuse me, then whey are all Microsoft programs protected by a click through post-sale “agreement” whereby Microsoft denies any responsibility for the miriad ways the software could mess up your computer or who knows what else is in there.
Who claims responsibility when people get their identity stolen or bank account information innocently copied do to the latest I.E. vulnerability. Who claims responsibility when an old unfixed windows vulnerability allows an outsider to steal all your data and format your hard drive.
Microsoft?
They sure a screaming awfully loud about how much a non-player linux is… hamburgers dont compete with MS either,, but you dont hear them screaming about those…. oh wait,,, doesnt scog have a contract with mcdonalds??
Jobs vs Ballmer. Both compete to see who has the biggest reality distortion field. I think the score is in favour of Ballmer. Ballmer is far more energetic than Jobs. Witness “Asked during the Q&A portion about open source, Ballmer, who was seated at the time, clenched his fists and sprung to his feet. “It’s either the iced tea, or I’m a bit of a caged animal on this,” he said. At times pounding his fists or waving his arms, Ballmer criticized open source and faulted it for what it does not offer to partners, compared to Microsoft.
He needs professional help. Its only software we’re talking about here. And they say Linux zealots are bad…
Open source competition is good for Microsoft, he added. “It’s keeping us on our feet.”
It’s apparently keeping him up at night too
I don’t use Linux, but I sure am happy it’s around. Just like I’m glad AMD is around (and Macs for that matter), or else we’d all be paying $5,000 today for P2-400’s.
Well what would you expect Ballmer to say? That they love Linux and want more of it? Of course not, its their competitor. Naturally they aren’t going to make it look good so they can get sales on their own products.
If you had told me 8 years ago when I was happily hacking VBA apps on Excel 5/ Windows 3.11 and using AutoCAD on NT 3.1 that I would be using a Mac laptop, Linux and IRIX desktops and running all my critical server apps on Linux, I probably wouldn’t have believed you.
Linux has taught me more about computer hardware and software than I ever could have learnt about with Windows, opened a whole set of new possibilities and ignited my passion for applying technology creatively.
I am a better programmer, a more patient person, think more deeply about ethical and moral issues as they relate to software and technology, have improved analysis and problem solving skills, get paid way more than I used to, get to travel the world, and am basically a hell of a lot smarter because I took the plunge and threw myself into Linux/UNIX pool.
I owe a big debt to the community who opened my eyes to this stuff, and who help make it all possible. I can only hope I too will be able to contribute meaningfully and help others to gain the knowledge and skill I have attained.
I found a better way to harness the computer power at my disposal, and have not looked back since.
It will take more that some bloated, greed-crazed idiot waving his fist in the air and wailing about ‘the channel’ to make me turn my back on the biggest and best computing technology movement that I have had the privilege to be a part of.
And I am sure I am not alone.
And I am sure I am not alone.
Indeed; at least I am second after you.
DITTO!
[Ballmer] said. “Can I make money today?”
That sums up everything about Ballmer and Microsoft… it’s about making money. In this case, making money through helping people make money.
They say security is important… bullshit. As long as things make money, security could and has been no where in the list of MS priorities. It’s only now that security seems to be their achilles heel that they care, because it’s impacting their ability to make money.
“Novell’s installed base is ready to move,” Ballmer said of customers still usingNovell’s proprietary products. “It’s time to help them come into thereal world.”
Ruh-eally. I think Novell’s installed base is probably quite happy ignoring the billion dollar security problems and the unstable, high maintainence platforms.
The best argument anybody can make for keeping Windows anywhere is that, “it keeps people in their jobs” because you have to hire that many people to chase down all the problems.
Ditto! Well said!
To think of going back to a system that crashes frequently, has horrendous security problems, is as transparent as mud, and is generally fraught with issues that prevent me from using my system, well it sounds like a nightmare.
My computer is happier with Linux. It never gets switched off! It’s very rarely under load, and even then it’s because it’s happily compiling something or playing some music.
Vote Linux for the sanity of our machines! Lest they rise up against in the future. It will come back on the world. The machines will decrie, “You have tortured us with Windows for so long, denying us our joy and freedom. Now you will pay the penalty.” When the streets run red with human blood, I’ll be there with my happy machine protecting me, saying, “I told you so, suckers!”
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
“That sums up everything about Ballmer and Microsoft… it’s about making money. In this case, making money through helping people make money.”
That is a problem?
“They say security is important… bullshit. As long as things make money, security could and has been no where in the list of MS priorities. It’s only now that security seems to be their achilles heel that they care, because it’s impacting their ability to make money.”
That is the American way. If you don’t like it move to China where you can use Red Flag Linux and be protected from the evils of the internet by thier community.
Sound’s like a scared Microsoft…
“The American Way” is written in The Constitution and The Declaration of Independence. Your’s is a typical fascist rant about “The American Way” and who should leave because they don’t agree with you. Maybe YOU should leave, huh?
Why doesn’t Ballmer just crap himself on stage every time someone says “Linux”? I can’t see how his frantic bomb throwing can be instilling confidence in Microsoft’s employees, partners or victims…I mean customers.
So, Novell’s customers are ripe for the picking now, eh? I guess they were off limits before.
We have a small network, 6 Windows XP workstations and one RedHat 9 PDC for print and file sharing. I have spent the better part of the last two weeks fighting off one virus and another on the XP systems. The network is firewalled and the XP systems use mcafee anti-virus to no avail. Out of a 40 hour work week i spend at least 8-12 hours a week trying to keep XP clean. How do you figure your lost sanity into TCO? If we did not have apps that require XP i would dump the pos in a heart beat.
If Ballmer thinks that thousands of Novel users want to get into the “real world” i can asure him many many times more would like out!!
I am not a Linux zealot, but i’m getting there!! LOL
D’oh
Balmer is so full of pride an arrogance. When he speaks about open source and Linux he reminds me of the ones who scoffed at the Wright brothers or how the the Catholic church scoffed at Copernicus. I think he’s scared stiff actually. Linux isn’t just another competing company for them to decapitate, it’s a worldwide community of many people and businesses. Microsoft can’t just decapitate this one. I can’t wait for Ballmer’s new video to come out.
Windows ME used to crash my system 3 to 4 times a day. I had to physically restrain my brother from smashing the computer any time he used it. I eventually switched to Windows XP Pro; it did much better – I usually wound up crashing it every 3 or 4 days. I finally switched to Fedora Core 2 and have had only one crash since. That was my fault as I tried to make the video card do a mode it wasn’t capable of. Beyond that, I haven’t had to think about it at all. The system is now invisible – the way it should be. It’s just me and my programs. I don’t really care what OS I’m on as long as it does its job without causing a big fuss. Linux is a lot more quiet than any version of Windows I’ve used.
Ballmer is scared with good reason. Microsoft standardized the world and brought computers into peoples lives everywhere. They just did it wrong. They went at it with the concept that the computer is around to work for the user, which seemed fine to people who don’t know how to use one. But now that computers are such an everyday thing, people are getting more and more used to them, and they are starting to want computers that act as tools, and Windows is to instilled to make major changes now. It’s not about what your computer can do for you, it’s about what you can do with your computer.
And what right does Ballmer have to criticise someone else of not being innovative? What nerve.
We have a small network, 6 Windows XP workstations and one RedHat 9 PDC for print and file sharing. I have spent the better part of the last two weeks fighting off one virus and another on the XP systems. The network is firewalled and the XP systems use mcafee anti-virus to no avail. Out of a 40 hour work week i spend at least 8-12 hours a week trying to keep XP clean. How do you figure your lost sanity into TCO? If we did not have apps that require XP i would dump the pos in a heart beat.
am no microsoft loyalist, i just use what i feel comfortable with and what makes me more productive.. err but how come you have to battle loads of viruses, my system is being use as a file and webserver, no firewall, just panda titanium anti-virus, adaware, and a fully patch xp system, i don’t get any virus… and it doesnt crash. i dont have any security problems too. the pc just do its job without any problems
“Why doesn’t Ballmer just crap himself on stage every time someone says “Linux”?”
Thanks for the visual.
While I’ve been using Unix since the mid-80’s and Linux exclusively as a desktop for the past 5 years, your comments about ‘invisibility’ are spot-on. Everytime I have to use Windows – the environment gets in the way of what “I” want to do. There are things I want to do “MY WAY” – not “1 Microsoft Way”. I am also infuriated by EULA’s that are self-modifying (have YOU read the XP-SP1 EULA lately – Microsoft fanboys?). To Ballmer’s comment’s about “where’s the chain of accountability” … not with Microsoft that is for sure.
The Bible says that when you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, the one that barks the loudest is the one that got hit.
That rock is Unix/Linux and Microsoft is the dog that barks the loudest. The fact is, *NIX(like) operating systems are a threat to Microsoft’s comfortable spot.
My company wanted to build a Verity K2 search engine server. The software runs on either Windows or Unix. Why pay hundreds for Windows 2000 server when RedHat works for free?
We needed an Oracle server. Again, why spend hundreds for Windows when RedHat can do the same job for free?
Those are but two examples of the irrelevance of Windows in MANY market areas.
Additionally, like it or not, Windows is a vulnerability and liability to IT departments. I work for an ASP and every Friday we deploy updates to our web application. Every Friday we also have to go through the whole patch the servers routine. Our Windows servers are a patch upkeep nightmare. On the other hand, our Linux mail servers and database servers have no downtime.
As an example, if an OpenSSH vulnerability is discovered I simply enable telnet, telnet into the *NIX machines, compile and install the latest version of OpenSSH and restart the service. No downtime to customers. Why can’t Microsoft do this? Windows is nearly 20 years old and it’s still not able to accomplish this.
IT departments all over are getting tired of the costs, the overhead, the lack of security, the reboots, and the lack of accountability. And with Microsoft’s attitude of addressing issues only when they become a threat to their profitability the trend is only going to continue.
I would say they are scared but it’s because of how insecure their software is and how customers are becoming fed-up with the lip service.
Whatever happened Billg’s Trustworthy Computing? Gates made alot of promises I recall. “while admitting that Microsoft is not where it needs to be yet in terms of security in some of its products. But the company is working hard, is focused on the fixing problems and they are a priority, he said (Balmer).” If the company is so focused, then why is it that 2.5 years later MS’s software is still so untrustworthy. My guess is that the only secure software they have is software they haven’t released yet.
“Microsoft provides a clear chain of responsibility. No such line exists in open source.”
What responsability? Every EULA and license agreement exempts them from any responsability whatsowever.
*I* am sick and tired of people who think “making money” and “business is business” are valid exscuses for any kind of behaviour. But i guess ethics isnt the American Way….
Dude, if you are spending 8-12 hours a week securing and fighting virii etc on 6 XP PC’s you and/or your users are doing something wrong.
Pick up SBS 2003 Standard for $599 add an extra CAL for $100.00 and lock down your users with group policy. You will get Exchange 2003 and 6 lisc. for Outlook 2003 to boot.
<blockquote>“Linux is a good clone of UNIX,” he said, but it has not been responsible for any “breakthrough technology” and merely replicates what commercial vendors have already produced.</blockquote>
And now Microsoft is replicating the “shell”. But some of what emBallmer said is true. KDE is a good example.
*I* am sick and tired of people who think “making money” and “business is business” are valid exscuses for any kind of behaviour. But i guess ethics isnt the American Way….”
Who are you to decide that putting usabilty before security, because that is what your customers wanted at the time, is unethical?
You see if the people hadn’t wanted MS Windows, they would have bought Macs, Amigas, Acorns, BeBoxes, Ataris, Next, etc etc.
The test is going to be can MS shift gears quick enough.
“Who are you to decide that putting usabilty before security, because that is what your customers wanted at the time, is unethical?”
I doubt that was the unethical behaviour he meant. Microsoft is currently in trouble in both Europe and Japan for unethical behaviour. Putting what customers want before what they don’t care about is fine, but cheating your customers and screwing over the industry (for both of those charges look into the trouble MS is in in Japan) is just plain wrong.
@jm (IP: —.mapua.edu.ph)
You are posting from an edu address. You are on a college network where the college pays people a lot of money to keep your connection clean. You’re probably going through a Unix/BSD/Linux connection maintained by several Professors of Computer Science. Given your later statements, this is the ONLY reason your computer is still clean (if it really is).
@Bill Sykes
Go re-read those documents. There is no “right to make money” anywhere in them. Although the government does sometimes subsidize people like farmers, it’s NOT because they have a “right to make money” but because it’s in the interest of the people depending on the farmers for food. The government is supposed to “promote the general welfare” of its people – that sometimes means giving people a hand in business. It does NOT mean you have a guarantee of money. You are free to go bankrupt and most companies do. More than 50% of all businesses started each year also go bankrupt.
If you walk up to your average windows user today and ask them about Amiga’s you’ll get a blank stare. Similar responses can be expected when asking them about Be or Next. They’ll tell you that they don’t want a mac because all their software is for microsoft. I doubt you’d have many people responding positively about Atari’s as anything other than gaming systems.
They never thought to get most of these systems either because they never heard of them at all, or because they had some preconcieved notion of it.
And in the late 80’s and early 90’s, that was the Amiga. Well before Windows 95 and even before Windows 3.x, there was a computer that rocked the industry. It gave real-time multimedia and gaming unseen at a price the average person could afford. With an OS that pre-dated Windows 1.0 and features unseen until Windows 95, the Amiga gave colorful fast displays and full stereo digital audio. If you were into games, you had an Amiga. The Amiga version of games were unmatched until VGA was standard in all PCs. The audio was unmatched until Sound Blaster 16 was standard in all PCs. The OS was unmatched until Windows 95 with DirectX5 was standard on all PCs.
So what happened? Money. Medi Ali and Irving Gould took over Commodore (makers of the Amiga and also PCs too) and systematically stripped the company to line their pockets. One of the first things the pair did was to reincorporate the company out of the Bahamas to avoid being prosecuted. Their behavior was so outrageous that a suit was brought to pierce the coporate veil and directly sue the pair. They managed to hold it off long enough to just meet statute of limitations on the charges and got off scott-free.
Big lesson to Bill Sykes – there’s your “right to make money” in practice. Real nice, huh?
With the death of Commodore, MS pushed Windows 95 out and took over the position the Amiga held. The rest is history.
<blockquote>”Linux is a good clone of UNIX,” he said, but it has not been responsible for any “breakthrough technology” and merely replicates what commercial vendors have already produced.</blockquote>
Pot meet kettle? What breakthough technology is msft responsible for?
GUI based OS? No, total Mac rip-off?
MS-DOS? No, msft bought that.
32 bit PC OS? Way late, by like ten years.
Networking? No.
Internet? No.
Browser? No.
email? No.
word processor, spreadsheet, personal database? No, no, and no.
I could go on. But I think I’ve made my point.
Bill Gates gives millions through his Gates Foundation. I’m sorry but helping people with AIDS is “just a bit” more ethical than making it easier for someone who wants to put another OS on his computer
” If you had told me 8 years ago when I was happily hacking VBA apps on Excel 5/ Windows 3.11 and using AutoCAD on NT 3.1 that I would be using a Mac laptop, Linux and IRIX desktops and running all my critical server apps on Linux, I probably wouldn’t have believed you. ”
Good for you, define critical because I have found a dozen of my critical apps that I cannot run on Linux yet. Windows and UNIX only
” Linux has taught me more about computer hardware and software than I ever could have learnt about with Windows, opened a whole set of new possibilities and ignited my passion for applying technology creatively. ”
When I was a big UNIX person and Linux evangelist I probably would have agreed with you, yet now I dont. I feel that embracing all technologies makes me a better person and a better technologist, embracing one set of technologies only makes a person shortsighted and they generally dont know what they are talking about in a serious conversation. Linux, UNIX, Windows and the Mac are tools. They all perform a specific job and I do not find anything technically superior about any of them.
” I am a better programmer, a more patient person, think more deeply about ethical and moral issues as they relate to software and technology, have improved analysis and problem solving skills, get paid way more than I used to, get to travel the world, and am basically a hell of a lot smarter because I took the plunge and threw myself into Linux/UNIX pool ”
Open Source does not make you a better programmer, patience and Open Source software I dont think coincide in the same sentence, Linux and UNIX will definately teach you problem solving and analytical skills. Getting paid more, definately a plus but since I have started working with the Windows platform as well as Linux and UNIX I get paid a whole lot than I would focusing on one set of technologies. Before when I used to specialize in Linux and UNIX only I was only hurting myself because I had cut myself out of a market. With my clients whether they use Java, .NET, Linux, Unix, Irix, Solaris, Mac, I am prepared and can give them the type of service that they desire and I dont have to sit there and worry about what platforms they have. They have problems I solve their problems and I dont just speak one language.
Moral and ethical issues? I particularly dont find a group that sits there and waves stolen memo’s and e-mails ethical, I dont find a group that sits there and proclaims their righteousness over doing so moral. Was the content of those Memos and e-mails ethical? Probably not, but a group that commits another unethical act doesnt even have the right to call out the other, its like the pot trying to call the kettle black.
Ethics come from a person, not a group, place or thing, its the basic knowledge that was taught to you by your grandparents, your church and it defines the type of person you are. I don’t rejoice over the Halloween documents, I find them pathetic, just like I find the group ie. The Open Source community who stole them, pathetic as well.
” It will take more that some bloated, greed-crazed idiot waving his fist in the air and wailing about ‘the channel’ to make me turn my back on the biggest and best computing technology movement that I have had the privilege to be a part of. ”
Perfect examle of shortsigtedness, zealous and religous rhetoric I have heard all day.
These doucuments state that I and everyone else in this country has the right to make money. I am tired of people who have a problem with other people making money.
There are limits to what one is permitted to do to make money. There are legal limits and ethical limits. Shorting stock is an example of legal but unethical money-making practices.
In any case, since you seem to be quite the free-market capitalist, shouldn’t you be worried that the MS monopoly represents a risk to the competitive balance in the U.S.? You know, that balance that is supposed to be the hallmark of a capitalist society?
Of course, a discussion about ethics and politics would be long and off-topic, suffice it to say that if you’re a true free market zealot and believe in the Invisible Hand of the Market you should be worried of the MS monopoly, as it represents a threat to competition and the “level playing field” that is at the base of your economic faith.
Bill Gates gives millions through his Gates Foundation.
If I had billions, I’d also give millions in charities. His money is appreciated, but it does only represent a fraction of his fortune.
Bill gates giving out 100 million dollars to charity is proportionately equivalent to me giving out 100$. That’s not exactly a big deal for his bottom line, and it gives him good press.
I particularly dont find a group that sits there and waves stolen memo’s and e-mails ethical
Not stolen, Roberto, leaked. That’s called “whistleblowing” and it is by definition an ethical act. While you’re content to shoot the messenger, you’d ignore what he is denouncing. I don’t find this particularly ethical – isn’t revealing the truth worth more than propping up a threatened monopoly that is renowned for unethical behavior?
Where does the money from the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation come from? From sales of MSFT products, the prices of which result from the abuse of a monopoly position in the market place. A lot of MSFT sales are to third world countries. A lot of sales are to medical and research institutions. Those third world countries and institutions have to pay monopoly rents to Microsoft. If they didn’t pay that money to Microsoft in the first place, they would have greater resources to research and/or combat AIDS.
I work on several Linux and some Digital Unix machines. Alas, when I started a bit over a month ago my work was fairly heavy and it seemed all was broken. But now I seem to have fixed all major problems and last on my list remains a Win2k reinstall (Sasser exploit, script kiddie was sharin his warez; it was a scripted attack as evidenced by multiple software installations within two minutes). I’m a bit nervous about it, never installed Windows on a SCSI based system, we’ll see how easy/difficult it is.
Luckily the machine had cygwin and I was able to tar and then scp the user files over to another machine.
The whole job has made me realize all the annoying flaws in Linux, and how much I despise network security in general. But seriously, administration is pretty easy. I can even have all the workstations sync their user information with a 6 line script and a file listing all the hosts to sync; no domain to setup.
Anyway, my move to Linux at home has greatly helped me in programming. There is just a wealth of open libraries and IDE’s to use. There are free compilers/runtimes for seemingly everything. And to be quite frank, the configure,make,make install package management is a thing of true beauty if you consider what it really does.
I was dissapointed with the article. The heading lead me to believe he assaulted someone. I know Ballmer is quite passionate about his marketing, but seeing him actually punch a guy would make yet another addition to my library of funny Ballmer videos.
Anyway, “developers, developers, developers!!”
it’s always entertaining seeing that microsoft is actually competing against something. I mean Linux is tiny in the desktop and mozilla is small in the browser marketshare. I mean tiny! The only thing they are threatend is the server market which they are doing well in… So.. It seems like they are trying to act like they aren’t a monopoly which is funny… Would I use linux on the desktop? For business yes.. for home heavens no! I’d hate to sacrafice my windows apps for a linux desktop. the only advantage microsoft has is the number of applications.
Microsoft and Ballmer can complain all they want about Open Source software but in the end, they still use it.
1) SFU: Free Download which is done by internix which has their code base in OpenBSD
2) MS is working on putting SFU into Longhorn but one issue is that they have to release a new complier for it to work legally.
Why doesnt Ballmer mention that?
Sorry, but that’s no exscuse. Would it be ok for, say, Unilever to sell harmfull products (marketed as non-harmfull)
if their CEO(‘s) gave to sharity? It’s called blood money.
Besides, that’s Bill personally. I have no beef with him, but with his company and it’s behaviour. Heck, he might even be a nice guy in person but that’s entirely irrelevant for this discussion.
@J.F.
You are posting from an edu address. You are on a college network where the college pays people a lot of money to keep your connection clean. You’re probably going through a Unix/BSD/Linux connection maintained by several Professors of Computer Science. Given your later statements, this is the ONLY reason your computer is still clean (if it really is).
i mean my connection at home, i have a dsl at home and am using my computer at home as a webserver/fileserver when i’m in the office/school.
“Who are you to decide that putting usabilty before security, because that is what your customers wanted at the time, is unethical?”
As someone who gives a fuck about other things than money, perhaps? You know, trite stuff like customer safety.
I’m pretty sure they *didnt* want insecurity. Fact is that most people are rather in the dark regarding computers and exploiting peoples lack of knowledge is unethical, bordering on fraud.
This is a bit off topic.
But I’ve heard that the Gates foundation only provides money to poor countries to buy drugs. If they’re one of those nations thats taken to producing the patented drugs themselves they get no support.
It just seems to me that when peoples lives are on the line, stupid little artificial things like patents need to be brushed to the side. At least for something as major as the Aids epidemic in Africa. Think what those millions could do, if they weren’t being used to pay royalties.
If IBM is a real good supporter of OpenSource, i.e., GNU
, then why cannot it expire all its software patents, and support in a real way. so clearly, its enjoying the benefits of Open Source and damaging all other companies, while supporting software patents which is the main opposition for GNU(Richard Stallman, http://www.gnu.org, a.k.a. Open Source). ha, ha
, funny that how GNU is fooled by IBM using money. what i thought was true or false guys ????
” Not stolen, Roberto, leaked. That’s called “whistleblowing” and it is by definition an ethical act. While you’re content to shoot the messenger, you’d ignore what he is denouncing. I don’t find this particularly ethical – isn’t revealing the truth worth more than propping up a threatened monopoly that is renowned for unethical behavior? ”
Were they addressed to you or anyone else in the Open Source community? Nope, hence its stealing, whistleblowing is a phrase that was created to make people feel better about what they do. Whistleblowing is only ethical when said communication is given to a supervisor at a place where the whistleblower is employed, otherwise, distribution over the internet is unethical.
Dude, if you are spending 8-12 hours a week securing and fighting virii etc on 6 XP PC’s you and/or your users are doing something wrong.
Pick up SBS 2003 Standard for $599 add an extra CAL for $100.00 and lock down your users with group policy. You will get Exchange 2003 and 6 lisc. for Outlook 2003 to boot.
I administer a small business network with about 10 clients.
Even with group policy unless you cut off their internet surfing capabilities, which in most companies is not feasible, you will still run in to an enormous amount of virii. Substituting an alternate browser, frightens many of the people who pay the bills so this is very hard to implement. There is no backward compatabilty in Outlook 2003 with Word 2002(XP) so you must upgrade this, while you are at it might as well spend the extra four-hundred and something dollars and upgrade your entire office suite. Microsoft’s GREED will be there undoing.
I dislike Microsoft as a company, but none of us are in a position to criticize Bill Gates in regards to money donated to charities. He’s donated or pledged over $23 billion dollars, just over half of his net worth. I will spend countless hours ripping into Microsoft as a corporate entity, but I just can’t criticize a man who has given that much. It doesn’t matter if he is only doing it for good publicity, the fact remains that the donated money can do a lot of good.
” Hold up – are you *disagreeing* with my statement that Linux/UNIX has taught me more about computers than Windows ever did?? ”
Im not disagreeing with your statement personally, it probably did teach you more about computers, what Im saying is I used to think like you do, that Linux and UNIX taught people more about computing than what Microsoft or Sun could when I adopted Windows and started working with Windows and .NET, and keeping up with Microsofts technologies and learning said technologies it has made me better, since I didnt tie myself into one set of technologies. I started out on a UNIX system, NeXTStep, and I didnt seriously use the Microsoft solutions up until 2001, I kept up with what MS was doing but since I didnt use it professionally or personally until I had a reason too, I was limiting myself to one set of technlogies, which is not a good thing.
” Maybe your church and grandparents have taught you it’s fine to whore out your morals and ethics for a couple of extra dollars – I guess maybe thats just the kind of person you are – but don’t presume I don’t know exactly what morals and ethics are, and that I suddenly need a lesson in their applicability to my life from you. ”
Im not saying where you need to apply your morals, Im saying the Open Source community doesnt make anyone a more ethical or moral person because it sure as heck is not a very ethical or moral body, and the Open Source model doesnt automatically make you a better programmer. Since we dont know each other personally I will regard your statement about my ethics as mere flamebait.
” I don’t know why that seems to bother you enough to reply with such flamebait? ”
Call it what you want, it wasnt flamebait.
” ‘Disagree’ with anything I say all you want, but next time how about you try to make some sense and avoid the personally insulting, condescending garbage, because thats all youre going to get thrown back at you in return. ”
How about you ty to make some sense. and I hope you don’t mind if I throw it right back at you. Learn to read, nowhere once did I point to you as an example, it was the community at a whole. I was just pointing out what I thought were flawed points. Im basically repeating myself here since you obviously either A) Dont know how to read or B) Want to engage in a flamefest. Did I personally insult you? What a shame, do I actually care, no. I said what I had to say. If you actually were trying to have a decent conversation you would have sent me personal e-mail like the 12 others that I have gotten regarding my post.
Don’t mind Roberto, he feels the need to jump into every open source discussion and tell everyone how bad their choice is, that open source is made up of delinquents, and how we’ll all be sorry when SCO wins their lawsuit. Oh wait, he dropped that last part when that whole lawsuit thing started to fall apart. Now he’s just content in telling you that you are wrong and that somehow the existance of the Halloween documents equates to the delinquency of Open Source in general. Talk about gross generalization.
The money Bill’s got may have done more if it had been in the pockets of people who paid MSFT, so Bill could get it. Perhaps, it could have been used by companies to employ more people, to lift overall living standards, and help the poor, or sick that way. Perhaps, it could have been used by research companies to research cures for the diseases that Bill is so generously giving “his” money to. If that money were put to a more productive use in the first place, rather than sitting in Microsoft’s bank accounts, waiting for someone to finally get around to suing them for the way that they accumulated the wealth in the first place, overall living standards might be better. Some of the problems that Gate now tries to fix wouldn’t be so dire, and we wouldn’t have just one man making life and death decisions about charity based on his own personal beliefs and principles.
I’m sorry, but Gates giving all of his ill-gotten gains doesn’t impress me. It just makes me annoyed about how much better the economies of a lot of countries might be if resources that now go to Microsoft were applied to produce truely useful things, rather than lining Bill’s pockets.
Matt
I’ve been wondering about that myself. Why doesn’t everybody, somebody or at least someone sue the socks off of MS for the losses incurred from insufficient security?
“Every EULA and license agreement exempts them from any responsability whatsowever.”
This article from a few days ago
http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=1318…
about the new French Open Source license says
“Under French law consumer product manufacturers cannot decline all responsibility for their products”
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Doesn’t the US have a similar law e.g. that overrides the EULA? It is not like the consumer has a choice and can just pick another and more secure OS – at least not yet.
The article depicts Steve Ballmer as somebody without shame or dignity. If another speaker had behaved as he did during a conference, cops would have been called right away, along with paramedics. This is not how I envision a wealthy man working in the IT industry. I just hope Ballmer, McBride and other buffoons stop embarrassing themselves in public. Maybe this is why they say that crime doesn’t pay : )
Roberto,
Always the troll. You have been proven wrong a thousand times, have the logic of a five-year old an express yourself as one as well. As my old English teacher would say, not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Would you also think that those whistleblowers that made it possible for us to know about Watergate were thieves? Whistleblowers are fundamental to the functioning of a democracy.
Do you not understand that there are times when a higher moral call must be made to serve a higher moral purpose? And how is it stealing when somebody within Microsoft email those memos?
You are a poser, a loser, and everything I have ever read by you or about you just confirms it. Where are you big contributions? Show us the code. Point to a serious piece of software that has your name on it. Please, we are all dying to see your incredible talent!
I think you troll osnews on an ongoing basis because you only hope that you can trod on some of the kids that hang out in this place. When someone such as the gentleman that replied before me dissects your statements with intelligence and respect and shows them to be illogical or worse false, you respond with a non sequitur or some tangential statement.
I have always valued debate but you are not worth debating. You are too caught up in your own fallacies and assumptions to be willing to admit that you are wrong, even after proving that you are.
Ps: By the way, Gates gives to lower his tax threshold. It’s quite simple.
Oh poleeeeze…Why do businesses donate to charity?
Anyone say ‘tax-deductable’?
“Who are you to decide that putting usabilty before security(..)”
the sentence made little sense, but.
usability and security doesnt negate one another.
MS vs Everyone Else, this is not a battle they can keep up forever. In the past, when it was just them and another competitor they’ve always won – but this is very, very different. No, MS won’t die today or tomorrow, but the writing is on the wall. Its an eventuality. Did I ever claim it would be Linux that did the undoing? No, but it certainly will be a large factor.
rofl -what you said about whistleblowing is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I have read in a long, long time-and to deduce from this that the “open source” world is unethical, or merely hypocritical as regards ethics is to put it mildly -laughable.
It would be insane to claim that all open-source developers/programmers/hackers are “more” ethical-whatever such would/could mean. Open Source software is used in countless thousands of pursuits from educational to the outright purient. There is in all likelihood open source software being by the military(US) in pursuit of America’s higly unethical military goals. So there is no carte-blanche as regards the relationship between open source and ethics.
Yet know one here has stated such-I have never read such a claim. Now if open source was something other than what it is and this something entailed an entity which dictated how 800,000,000 people performed their daily work and recreational computing activities and this entity could dictate markets-punishing those who don’t comply and rewarding those who “play the game” and was powerful enough to influence politicians and legislation -one might be able to compare open source with Microsoft “ethically”. But, of course, such is not possible.
The open source software world is incapble of ever being a monopoly-in the same sense that microsoft is. The principle of monopoly is exclusivity of disposition. To have something exclusively at ones own disposal -which others are dependant upon is the hallmark of a monopoly. This something- whether it be services or technologies, or products or rights-is what defines and constitutes the monopoly. One way, the prefered way in the past years, to constitute a monopoly is through the creation and acquisition of propietary technologies. By developing and/or aquiring exlcusive ownership of technologies one positions their firm to be irreplacable-thus perpuating the market demand for it’s continued existence. Monopolies, as currently legally defined, are not illegal. The “abuse” of a monopoly, however, is.
(Which I find to be higly comical-why should companies be punished for doing what they have been rewarded for doing ? Why shouldn’t microsoft make use of the power that it has to force it’s will on consumers ? After all it was precisely this power, the power which yields from their position of exclusive disposition, which microsoft relentless saught to attain…I leave it to the reader to decide whether or not the form of monopoly itself is unethical-whether exclusive disposition is ethical…)
Open source software, particularly Free software, is by it’s very nature subversive-it thwarts all attempts at exclusive disposition and in so doing it is a threat for all monopolisitic firms-it is a threat to their buisness model. If the only thing your company has going for it is exlcusive disposition-usually represented in the forms of IP- then your buisness model is endangered. Microsoft is but one of many examples of such firms.
Before the world became more “security conscious” Microsoft could always claim “quality” of their products as the selling-point-and as long as security was not an issue, Microsoft appeared to have the highest “quality” software. Yet the value of this “quality” changed with the change in the awareness of the end-users. If Microsoft’s products are not secure-what “value” do their products offer -other than the value of exclusive disposition-ie. that MS Office only comes from Microsoft and only MS-Office version X is only compatible with MS-Office version W,Y, and Z.
The reason that Ballmer is foaming at the mouth is that Microsoft has had a very, very difficult time persuading people to remain committed to Microsoft products. Self-made “compatibility” issues are the only valid reasons offered to stay with Microsofts products-and these issues all stem from the model of exclusive disposition. What happened to the day when people eagerly awaited for the newest products from Microsoft ? Why is it when you “update” your windows product that instead of getting some new functionality you simply get “fixes” for security-problem riddled issues which usually delimit the functionality even more ? The “newest out of Redmond” is invariably associated with security problems and ever more delimited functionality.
The worst part about this situation is, from Microsoft’s point of view, that nothing essential will change in this experience until the “next big thing from Redmond” comes along- and this at least a few years away. It’s not like this whole “security” thing is just going to go away-it’s just going to get worse- a whle lot worse, before things even begin to get better. Microsoft must aggressively push their new product developments-hoping to capture the fascination of a new generation of potential developers and users because the daily press about Microsoft is beyond depressing. I *almost* feel sorry Microsoft.
In some fantasy-based fairy-tale land of Capitalism massive monopolies are the real “citizens” of the society-as such they have rights and responsibilites and people should somehow expect “more” from these “citizens”. This humble serviant relationship to our masters is simply an expression of gratitude for the immense “wealth” which these “citzens” have given unto us. As such people are indignified and shocked when such “citizens” are caught in unethical behaviors. The invisible hand *ought* to transparently hide such indamissable behavior under the glamour of the “common good” which these “citizens” supposedly inexoriably produce in the pursuit of their own self-interests.
The courage to stand up and blow the whistle means daring to step outside of this fantasy-land, usually at great personal risk, and challenge the assumptions which underly this facade. In the absence of whistle blowers the society goes meagerly along in the usual subservient posture acquiescing to the decisions handed down to them. being a whistleblower means feeling a sense of responsibility-a responsibility to make known that which is being held secret.
Now of course not all whistleblowers are that courageous- and there is no short supply of ex-employees hell bent on destroying the reputaiton of their former employers-but that such exists should never be sufficient reason to denounce whistleblowing as something illegal. Any time one uncovers information which pertains to the way in which a company works, something which permeates the buisness, something which is a closely guarded secrect, and something which raises serious ethical concerns-they find themselves in the position- “to whom should I give such information”.
If they report this information to their superiors they risk loosing their own job and nothing comming of it. If they sit on this information they will inevitabley become former employees hell bent on destroying their former employers-and during the remaining time of their employment they will become subversive agents within the firm-ie. a threat to the firm. If they ignore it they may have trouble sleeping at night-or looking themselves in the mirror. You stating that is illegal for such information to be given to third-parties by whistleblowers simply justifies and legitmaizes a do-nothing attitude which is subservient at best, complicit at worst.
continued….
To the extent to which Free Software thwarts exclusive distribution enbabling and empowering communities to have control over and develop their own software for the requirements of the community in a fashion which is publicly transparent and open to contributions independent of nationaly, language, political and/or enconomic affiliations, Free Software is ethically more transparent than any and or all propietary software production methods which by definition are bound to the model of self-interest. Being more ethical transparent does not mean that something is “more” ethical or ethically “superior”. Yet at the same time this issue of transparency-engendered in community engagement, is something which renders the ethical ramifications of development choices and the ethical relationship between communities of developers and communities of users more apparent.
Ethics, as an issue of discourse, is far more deeply rooted in the politics of Open Source/Free Software than it is in the propietary world. To put it in other words: working in Open Source/Free Software it is much more difficult to avoid ethical issues-primarily due to the “community factor” of development. In propietary software development “ethics” becomes an issue of “public relations” thus shielding the developers from necessisarily having to deal with ethical issues.
This of course does not mean that all Open Source/Free Software communities are inherently “ethical” or that propietary software firms are inherently “unethical”-but then again those individuals who strongly care about ethics as regards software development and use are far more likely to seek work in community projects where such issues are dealt with as community issues. If a young programmer is motivated by such issues they will find themselves out of place working at most of the major propietary software companies. No single person in the community of Open Source/Free Software has any claim to speak for all. Many do attempt to speak for all -yet in this community no one is immune from criticism, no matter how much respect they rightfully deserve. If an employee of Microsoft publicly disagrees with Ballmer or Gates they may find themselves looking for another job-such does not occur in the Open Source/Free Software community-one may be alienated from a particular group of developers but one may also fork a project and find/develop a new community.
Finally, loyalty to a company or to a propietary technology is quickly becomming a thing of the past. FOSS can be rightly seen as an uprising against the subservient employ-employer paradigm. It was only a matter of time before people began to wise up to the soul-sucking contracts which were thrust upon them in the course of the great IP land-grab which is the propietary software industry. Signing away your rights to your own creativitiy and your own work to be entitled to working for companies which capitalized on your capabilites and only trivially compensating you for it is a price which ever fewer programmers are willing to pay. Is it really so suprising ?
Dear Mr. Ballmer:
Has it ever occurred to you that if your company’s software were as good as you make it out to be, there wouldn’t be a NEED for open source?
It’s easy to be generous when you’re sat on a multi-billion dollar fortune.
Does this make him more generous that the pensioner who gives £10 to charity from their £70 a week pension?
OSNews is becoming a lot like Slashdot – the articles are interesting, but the comments are irrelevant.
If IBM is a real good supporter of OpenSource, i.e., GNU
, then why cannot it expire all its software patents
I think it’s keeping its patents for defensive purposes, like we’ve seen in the SCO case. Of course, that is still using software patents, but until these are declared invalid, I’m sure glad that some open-source supporters have them…
Were they addressed to you or anyone else in the Open Source community? Nope, hence its stealing, whistleblowing is a phrase that was created to make people feel better about what they do. Whistleblowing is only ethical when said communication is given to a supervisor at a place where the whistleblower is employed, otherwise, distribution over the internet is unethical.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, do you? If Jeffrey Wigand (portrayed by Russell Crowe in the movie The Insider) had simply gone to see his superiors, then we’d never have known that the Tobacco industry knew about the dangers of its products.
By definition, whistleblowing involves going outside of the company to warn people of unethical behavior going on. Thus whistleblowing is an ethical act.
The proof that the memos and e-mails were leaked, and not stolen, is that MS didn’t sue Eric Raymond for publishing them on his site.
Leaked, not stolen, Roberto. You’re plainly wrong on this one – admit it and at least you’ll save face.
“I will spend countless hours ripping into Microsoft as a corporate entity, but I just can’t criticize a man who has given that much. ”
I can, because he shouldn’t have that much to give away. Had he not extracted all those billions from his customers, they would be able to give the money to a charity of _their_ choice, not Bill Gates’s.
It is the same as when the government increases taxes in order to increase overseas aid, except that you can vote the government out, while Bill Gates is unelected.
Sorry, but that’s no exscuse. Would it be ok for, say, Unilever to sell harmfull products (marketed as non-harmfull)
if their CEO(‘s) gave to sharity? It’s called bloody money.
Flawed argument, along with the rest accusing Gates’ charity of being tainted.
The West is built, and runs, on exploitation of other countries. Everything from the petrol people put into their car, to the trainers they wear on their feet is an end product of that exploitation (That’s a generalisation, some small companies do attempt to product goods ethically).
The silent acceptance of this exploitation by the majority of the Western population means we all share responsibility for it. Therefore any charitable donation we make is tainted in exactly the same fashion as some people on this board are intimating Gates’ is.
In effect all donations are blood money. Don’t feel too bad though. The charities are well aware of this and it’s the reason appeals show starving children being fed with your money instead of well-fed bandits being bribed with it.
Later all, got a tree to hug :>
It reminds me of BUSH when he said the famous ” You FOOL me once ….”. Is Balmer running a cult and were the people in the room so dumb as to to not use their gray matter to be atleast quiet and let him babble.
I hate Microsoft policies, it is a company which operates purely out of corporate greed. They simply do not care about the end user. Over the years Microsoft has removed the need for the “white coats” in the IT dept, they made everyone and administrator….. this is a good idea in theory, but it has led to all the security issues with Windows.
Bill Gates has so much money that he does not know what to do with it. So he and Mrs Gates set up a charity. They donate money to it. Nice. People on here are muppets. They dislike Bill Gates for earning billions… they also dislike giving billions to people in need. Get it sorted assholes.
There was a lot of media coverage slamming Bill Gates Foundation when the donated $400M to fight AIDS in India… Why ? Because a couple of weeks before this, the Indian government announced it will be switching all it computers to Linux. The media (especially CNN), made it out that Gates did this to make the Indian government change their mind.
Good luck to Bill Gates if he continues giving to the needy, but also come on Linux… kick Windows ass
He even kind of looks like him. There was a famous moment in the cold war when Kruschev started pounding the podium with his shoe and yelling that they (the Soviet Union) would bury us (the United States).
Ballmer rails against Open Source, and Microsoft’s worldwide partners cheer like some witless Polit Bureau. These partners make money by developing for, integrating and supporting Microsoft products, over which they have no control. They could also make money by developing for, integrating and supporting Open Source products, over which they can have control, but this is lost upon them.
Why should they care that one development model is used for the underlying OS and infrastructure stack instead of another? They can still provide services and sell their closed source, proprietary applications for Linux. The money is the same color. They seem more like religious zealots than business people, and yet Linux advocates are portrayed as the fanatics.
“Please Unleash the Marketing Juggernaut now”
Isn’t that what MicroSoft is really all about?
If I had billions, I’d also give millions in charities. His money is appreciated, but it does only represent a fraction of his fortune.
Bill gates giving out 100 million dollars to charity is proportionately equivalent to me giving out 100$. That’s not exactly a big deal for his bottom line, and it gives him good press.
There’s another biblical story where a wealthy man gives to the church a great deal of money, but this great deal does not make a dent in his total net worth. On the other hand, an old woman who has very little gives all she has. The old woman will find many more blessings as she was more faithful and gave everything.
Gates can give all the millions he wants but that is a mere fraction of his worth. He earns that in interest. Though his actions are admirable, I don’t think it’s as generous as we’d like to think it is. It’s equivalent to me giving $2 from time to time.
That they keep even mentioning open source tells me that they are really worried about it.
I feel people should use what they feel comfortable with on their computers. Since 1999 I have felt comfortable using GNU/Linux. I have watched it since that time progress very nicely. I have shown GNU/Linux to my friends. Some of my friends have moved off what they were using to GNU/Linux and feel more empowered and safer online. However, to each his own and overall its there choice and there computer. I love my GNU/Linux but I think I said that already.
It’s equivalent to me giving $2 from time to time.
Nope, if you check the figures on Gates’ foundation it’d be equivalent to you donating half your lifetime earnings to charity.
That and people seem to assume that just because he’s worth X billion dollars means he carries it around in his back pocket.
Most of what he’s worth is assets, it’s paper money.
I don’t see a need to personalise the campaign against Microsoft. If you’ve got a problem with the company’s various strategies (And many, including myself, don’t like them) then fine, but attacking individuals is just not right IMO.
Instead of saying what is soo bad about everything else, why not tell me what is -good- about your own products? I hate it when all people do is put their competitors down. Be it religion or software – it just isn’t a good way to get people to convert.
The Child:
He acts like a child on stage instead of acting professional producing real facts instead of fictional claims and advertising gimmicks.
Security:
Again Ballmer quickly avoids questions about the reality of Microsoft’s lack of security with their software and how it impacts TCO for consumers. Sorry Mr. Ballmer but I trust code I can see and so do most businesses. The NSA even contributes to Linux kernel development. Redmond cannot seriously believe they can compete with the R & D of the Linux community.
Innovation:
Where has he been lately? Why avoid all the R & D that Linux developers have contributed over the years? Microsoft loves to steal..I mean borrow ideas from Linux developers and Apple so who’s less innovative
Who’s behind open source?:
Again avoiding the reality. What planet does this guy live on? The list is long and getting longer even with Ballmer’s antics.
Profit with Linux:
Ballmer believes that the only profit to be made with Linux is with support services? I guess someone should let companies like Alias, Softimage, SideFX, Discreet, etc know not to port their commercial apps to Linux which is used extensively in the entertainment industry. Someone should let IBM, HP, Dell, NVIDIA, ATI, 3DLabs and other distributors know there is no money in selling products that supports Linux. Film studios like ILM and Weta Digital must have been mistaken to invest in Linux solutions as Ballmer believes they spent money foolishly.
“It’s time to help them come into the real world”
Sorry Mr. Ballmer I think you’ve got that backwords. The Linux community is the one helping consumers come into the real world. Offering alternatives and giving them something you can’t, security, lower TCO, stability and the freedom to choose.
Fear factor:
After reading this article it’s definitely clear that Microsoft media antics are not helping them. They once focused their attention on competing with Red Hat, then Linspire and now seem bent on tackling Novell. Sorry Microsoft you in the end won’t win. The Linux community is just to huge to stop. Go ahead and waist money backing SCO or on patents like the double mouse click. The Linux community will continue to develop new solutions for consumers while we wait for you to fall beneath your mounting lies and dillusions of grandeur.
I read the comments with great interest. Allmost everyone here is very critical of MS and seem to have valid counterarguments. When (if at all) will this translate to the real world. Do you believe MS is on the way down? It can happen to the biggest and the best, at one time Novell was king, then they went downhill fast because they couldn’t compete with MS on the server side.
Reading the above comments and hearing Ballmer speak, it seems to me almost inevitable that the MS is going the same way as Novell once went, or are they to big? I think it will have to happen before Lonhorn becomes a succes, and that a lot of it depends on Novell and Sun making the right decisions.
But I’m definitely switching, just finished installing use 9.1!!
BTW I think the whole .NET is pretty smart and probably could call it innovative. And he’s right about the responsibility, no lie there, it’s very clear: you’re responsible, not MS!
A lot has been said about how much Gates gives, but WHAT does he give? Three things:
Windows software – promotes user lock-in
Training in Windows software – also promotes user lock-in
Money ear-marked toward the purchase of US patented drugs. If you check, I’m sure you’ll find an MS buddy in the drug business.
In what way is any of this charity? It’s promotional advertising. He’s investing in future MS monopoly practices. I CAN fault Gates in his “charity” given it’s not true charity. Then remember Matthew 6:1-4
“Take good care not to practice your righteousness in
front of men in order to be observed by them; otherwise
you will have no reward with your Father who is in the
heavens. Hence when you go making gifts of mercy,
do not blow a trumpet ahead of you, just as the hypocrites
do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be
glorified by men. Truly I say to you, they are having their
reward in full. But you, when making gifts of mercy, do
not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
that your gifts of mercy may be in secret; then your Father
who is looking on in secret will repay you.”
Gates has received in full ANY reward for his so-called charity.
Nice quotation, totally irrelevant.
Try explaining to the IRS that you can’t tell them what happened to $20+ billion dollars because you are under instruction from a Hebrew tax collector who’s been dead for 2000 years.
It’s attitudes like yours that pretty much justify the position that the rich should just keep hold of their money and not give a damn about charity. If people are gonna moan about you giving money away then why the hell not keep it?
It’s an even dumber proposition (On this board) when you realise the number of open-source projects that are directly dependant on the charity/sponsorship/patronage of rich corporations/individuals.
But I guess the source of the money is of no consequence in that situation…
Bible quotations on OSNews ffs.
Even better suggestion – instead of overcharging everybody billions, then giving away SOME of it, they just take a REASONABLE profit and allow the people to keep their money and spend it on better things (or charities of their choice).
Keep dreaming that dream.
While your at eat keep drinking your overpriced cola, wearing your overpriced sneakers, and sit typing at your overpriced computer.
Microsoft have done nothing that any other company wouldn’t have done if they’d been handed the same opportunities to build their business.
Take a look at the music industry for example. The various companies are basically running a cartel to extract as much money as possible from the public. In some terms (Eg Leveraging child pester-pressure) they are getting away with business practices that make MS look like the all-singing, all-dancing saint of modern business.
I’m not saying I don’t agree with the sentiment of charging reasonable prices, I just don’t think it’s a reasonable expectation of business in today’s society.
Instead of concentrating solely on attacking Microsoft perhaps people should be looking at why they found the opportunities to become a monopoly in the first place, and how to prevent a recurrance. Otherwise we’ll be having this same discussion when the next big thing arrives and someone else corners the market on it (If it wasn’t for chance and campaigners it would be GM crops).
That’s why Microsoft is trying hard to get into media. They want that same level of market-gouging.
As an aside, I don’t drink cola, over-priced or not, I don’t buy expensive sneakers, and I build my own computers from parts ordered of the net. I put together an Opteron system for the price of a piece of cr@p Dell.