Quote:
|
Originally Posted by suneel112
I hate Micro$$$$oft also. Why doesn't Bill Gates just stop caring, since the interest rates from Micro-$oftMoney can pay for all of M$'s expenses. Since I don't have the finger strenght (and I don't want to repeat what some dummies called "Microsoft Lovers" will call "Propoganda"), I will link you to this site. |
Propaganda? Maybe--but heavily biased, certainly. What are we supposed to do with this site? Laugh? Cry? Use it to topple Microsoft's evil domination of the proletariat?
That site, while offering some legitmate commentary on Microsoft's practices, completely fails to account for the fact that most of these practices are fairly normal, and
accepted in most other sectors of the marketplace. If the quarrel is with large corporations in general, then several of their arguments are wholly legitimate ("predatory practices", for instance). If, as it seems, the quarrel is entirely with Microsoft, claims of "closed standards" and "backward incompatibility" and the like could be equally applied to numerous other computer-technology firms. Apple, for instance.
Also, the frequent claims of buggy software are foolish--look at Mac OS 10, and describe how the bugs in it's original release were fundamentally different from the bugs in XP. And many of them were fixed in 10.1 and 10.2 and XP SP1! While I admit that programmers can frequently be lazy, and quality assurance departments lax, It just isn't feasible for most software to be scrutinized to the level that we would wish (even in an ideal situation). With up to 50 million lines of code in a fully-featured operating system, and the need to bring it to market in a reasonable time, it is positively inevitable that bugs will exist--and when you do have the most popular products on the market, it is very likely that those same bugs will impact a greater number of people. And how big a project is an operating system, logistically? Thousands of programmers and quality testers are involved--you expect them to get it perfect, the first time?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by suneel112
I like Linux. I would run linux, except that my games will not run on it, unless I get WINE. Even then, the Microsoft Software Cartel controls so much of the software industry, they will have specially designed products to not run on linux. I wish that Bill Gates had been convicted back in 1997, before he bought media corporations to publicize the Clinton affair.
Alright, now you know that I HATE Bill Gates and Microsoft, even though you probably also learned that I am left of Nader (this is not true though, though some people would think it when I talk about politics schmolitics).
In conclusion, there should be a FIRST-wide boycott of Microsoft products. Since many of us are "techies" anyway, we should start a FIRST software company, where we MAKE OUR OWN SOFTWARE. (i.e. The Brotherhood of FIRST Software, Inc.) Games, technical programs, operating systems, anything. In fact, this boycott could even drive Microsoft into Bankruptcy (Never underestimate the power of FIRST  ). |
Microsoft considers Linux to be a competing platform. It's not unreasonable to favour your own platform over that of a competitor. So what's the problem?
The other accusation is laughable. I hope that was an attempt at humour, like the solutions you propose.
Edit: Some clarification up there...