On 14 Oct 2005 19:01:42 -0700, "Xah Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I think this guy should run for President. Anybody says M$oft is trying to screw the little guy is "alright" in my book. >Microsoft Hatred, FAQ > >Xah Lee, 20020518 > > Question: U.S. Judges are not morons, and quite a few others are >not morons. They find MS guilty, so it must be true. > >Answer: so did the German population thought Jews are morons by >heritage, to the point that Jews should be exterminated from earth. >Apparently, the entire German population cannot be morons, they must be >right. > >Judge for yourself, is a principle i abide by. And when you judge, it >is better to put some effort into it. > >How much you invest in this endearvor depends on how important the >issue is to you. If you are like most people, for which the issue of >Microsoft have remote effect on your personal well-being, then you can >go out and buy a case of beer on one hand and pizza on the other, and >rap with your online confabulation buddies about how evil is MS. If you >are an author writing a book on this, then obviously its different >because your reputation and ultimately daily bread depend on what you >put down. If you are a MS competitor such as Apple or Sun, then >obviously you will see to it with as much money as you can cough out >that MS is guilty by all measures and gets put out of business. If you >are a government employee such as a judge, of course it is your >interest to please your boss, with your best accessment of the air. > >When i judge things, i like to imagine things being serious, as if my >wife is a wager, my daughter is at stake, that any small factual error >or mis-judgement or misleading perspective will cause unimaginable >things to happen. Then, my opinions becomes better ones. > > Q: Microsoft's Operating System is used over 90% of PCs. If that's >not monopoly, i don't know what is. > >A: Now suppose there is a very ethical company E, whose products have >the best performance/price ratio, and making all the competitors >looking so majorly stupid and ultimately won over 90% of the market as >decided by consumers. Is E now a monopoly? Apparently, beer drinkers >and pizza eaters needs to study a bit on the word monopoly, from the >perspectives of language to history to law. If they have some extra >time, they can sharpen views from philosophy & logic contexts as well. > > Q: What about all the people in the corporate environments who are >forced to use MS products and aren't allowed the option/choice to use >Mac/Linux/UNIX? > >A: Kick your boss's ass, or, choose to work for a company who have >decisions that you liked. > > Q: What about MS buying out all competitors? > >A: Microsoft offered me $1 grand for saying good things about them. >They didn't put a gunpoint on my head. I CHOOSE to take the bribe. >Likewise, sold companies can and have decided what's best for them. >It's nothing like under gunpoint. > > Q: Microsoft forced computer makers to not install competitor's >applications or OSes. > >A: It is free country. Don't like MS this or that? Fuck MS and talk to >the Solaris or BeOS or AIX or HP-UX or Apple or OS/2 or Amiga or NeXT >or the Linuxes with their free yet fantastically easy-to-use and >network-spamming X-Windows. Bad business prospects? Then grab the >opportunity and become an entrepreneur and market your own beats-all >OS. Too difficult? Let's sue Microsoft! > > Q: Microsoft distributed their Internet Explorer web browser free, >using their monopoly power to put Netscape out of business. > >A: entirely inane coding monkeys listen: It takes huge investment to >give away a quality software free. Netscape can give away Operating >Systems free to put MS out of business too. Nobody is stopping Sun >Microsystem from giving Java free, or BeOS a browser free, or Apple to >bundle QuickTime deeply with their OS free. > >Not to mention that Netscape is worse than IE in just about every >version till they become the OpenSource mozilla shit and eventually >bought out by AOL and still shit. > > Netscape struggles, announced open browser source code in 1998-01, >industry shock >http://wp.netscape.com/newsref/pr/newsrelease558.html > > Netscape browser code released in 1998-03. Mozilla FAQ. >http://mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html > > AOL buys Netscape in 1998-11 for 4.2 billion. >http://news.com.com/2100-1023-218360.html?legacy=cnet > > Jamie Zawinski, resignation and postmortem, 1999-04 >http://www.jwz.org/gruntle/nomo.html > > suck.com, Greg Knauss & Terry Colon, 2000-04, Netscape 6 mockery >http://www.suck.com/daily/2000/04/10/ >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/200004,greg_knauss_netscape.zip > > Xah Lee, Netscape Crap >http://xahlee.org/Writ_dir/macos-talk/58.txt > > Q: Microsoft implemented extra things to standard protocols in >their OS so that other OS makers cannot be compatible with their OS >while their OS can be compatible with all. They used this Embrace & >Extend to lock out competitors. > >A: My perspective is this: suppose you are now a company who's OS sits >over 90% of computers (regardless how this come to be for the moment). >Now, lots of standard protocols in the industry is a result of >popularity (RFC = Really Fucking Common), and popularity resulted from >being free, from the RFCs of the fantastically incompetent by the >truely stupid unix tech morons. What can you do if you want to improve >these protocols? If you go with totally different protocols, then the >incompatibility with the rest 10% isn't your best interest. I would >adopt existing protocols, and extend them with improvements. Being a >commercial entity, i'm sorry that it is not my duty to release my >improvments to my competitors. Any of you incompetent IBM/AIX/OS/2 or >SGI/Irix or HP/HP-UX or Sun/Solaris or Apple/AU-X/Mac can do the same, >not that they haven't. > >Of course, the universe of moronic unixers and Apple fanatics cannot >see that. The unix idiots cannot see that their fantastically stupid >protocols are fantastically stupid in the first place. The Apple >fanatics are simply chronically fanatic. > > Q: Microsoft product is notorious for their lack of security. > >A: In my very sound opinion, if Microsoft's OS's security flaws is >measured at one, then the unixes are measured at one myriad. If unixes >suddenly switch popularity with Windows, then the world's computers >will collapse uncontrollably by all sorts of viruses and attacks. This >can be seen for technical person who knows unix history well: > > http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/freebooks.html (e.g. >ftpd/proftpd, inetd/xinetd, sendmail/qmail, X-Windows, telnet, passwd, >login, rsh, rlogin.) > > on the criminality of buffer overflow, by Henry Baker, 2001. >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_/buffer_overflow.html > > Fast Food The UNIX Way: >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/_fastfood_dir/fastfood.html > > Jargon File: http://www.tuxedo.org/%7Eesr/jargon/ > > The Rise of Worse is Better, by Richard P. Gabriel, 1991, at >http://www.jwz.org/doc/worse-is-better.html > >and plenty other pre-90s documents to get a sense of just how >fantastically insecure unix was and is. Unix today is not just >technically slacking in the security department, but the unix >ways created far more unmanageable security risks that's another topic >to discuss. > >The unix crime, is not just being utmost technically sloppy. Its entire >system and philosophy created an entire generation of incompetent >programers and thinking and programing languages, with damage that is a >few magnitude times beyond all computer viruses and attacks damages in >history combined. See also: > > Responsible Software License: >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/responsible_license.html > > Q: Microsoft products are simply poor quality. > >A: Perhaps this in general is true pre-1997. I think the vast majority >of MS products today have better performance/price ratio then >competitors. This includes their operating system, their input devices >(mouse & keyboard), their X-Box gaming console, their software game >titles, their software architectures and languages (.NET, C#), their >technologies (few i know: SMB), and many of their software applications >(suite of Office, which consistently ranked top since early 90s). > >e.g. Tom's hardware review on x-box, esp in comparison with Sony >Playstation 2. (2002-02): >http://www4.tomshardware.com/consumer/02q1/020204/index.html > >the leading role of MS Office products can be seen in MacUser & >MacWorld magazine reviews through out early 90s. > > Q: BeOS was once to be bundled with PC, but MS meddled with it and >basically at the end fucked Be up. > >A: BeOS is a fantastically fucking useless OS. No DVD player, No Java, >No QuickTime, No games, no Mathematica, no nothing. For all practical >purposes, fucking useless in a different way than every donkey unixes. >Not to mention the evil Apple computer, refused to pass the QuickTime >technology, and tried to prevent BeOS from running on Apple hardware by >refusing to release their PPC hardware spec. Be founder Jean-Louis >Gassee wrote an article about it. Who's fucking whom? > > Q: X inc tried to do W, but MS threatened to depart. > >A: Dear X inc., try to find a bigger dick for your needs. If you cannot >find any, too bad! Suck it up to the big brother and hold on to what >you can get! If you have the smarts, milk him dry! Free country, free >to choose partnership. Ladies, previous night's indiscretion is not >rape the morning after. > > Q: I'm not a beer bucket or pizza hole, but i want to do research >over the web. Is there any free stuff on the web i can grab? I'm an >OpenSource advocate, i demand free things. > >A: >http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm >(The Center for the Moral Defense of Capitalism) > > http://www.cato.org/pubs/policy_report/v21n2/friedman.html (The >Business Community's Suicidal Impulse by Milton Friedman, 1999-03) >local copy > > Q: I'm thinking of putting my wife and daughter on the table. What >do you suggest to begin with? > >A: Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell: >http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/jdini/basic_economics.html > > Q: Are you confident enough to bet your wifes and daughters for >what you say? > >A: No. But I put my reputation in. >------- >This post is archived at: >http://xahlee.org/UnixResource_dir/writ/mshatredfaq.html > > Xah > [EMAIL PROTECTED] >? http://xahlee.org/
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
