On 2008-05-28, Homer
> Verily I say unto thee, that Tom Shelton spake thusly:
>> On 2008-05-28, chrisv
>>> Threats and FUD *do* work, you know...
>> Sure, I am not denying it. But, when have they actually made a
>> specific threat against against a specific company? Don't bring up
>> lindows and mikerowesoft... Those are trademark disputes, and they
>> are obligated to defend their trademark. I'm talking specifically
>> about patent suites.
> You're digressing, and no I don't have the data to answer that question,
> but then the CIOs and other managers who make risk assessments probably
> don't have that data either - but I'm sure that fact doesn't prevent
> them from being jaded against using Linux, every time Ballmer opens his
> fat mouth and makes claims of "undisclosed balance-sheet liabilities".
I understand your dislike of their posturing. I don't like it either.
I think it makes them seem small. Personally, if I were in charge, I
would not take that tack.
But, the reason you have no data on this subject is because there is none.
MS is not in the habbit of bringing these sort of litigations. Hence, it
is not their weapon of choice. It is simply a scare tactic.
> If someone who makes threats never follows up on those threats, does
> that make their threatening behaviour /acceptable/ somehow?
> When a woman screams "rape", in the minds of the community the accused
> remains stigmatised as a rapist, even if the woman later confesses to
> lying. The damage is done. That's just one of Microsoft's many filthy
> Whether or not Microsoft ever actually /deploy/ any of the weapons in
> their arsenal, they nonetheless still possess those weapons, and they
> certainly don't lack the moral depravity necessary to use them. IOW they
> are a threat, just like any other collection of thugs.
> What I find quite extraordinary is how, in the face of pages and pages
> of evidence proving Microsoft's thuggish behaviour, certain people just
> /skim/ over it all, like it doesn't have any significance whatsoever,
> then promptly forget everything they've just read. Like I've mentioned
> before, it's like such people have developed a blind spot; like they're
> become so indoctrinated into this sick culture, that preaches the idea
> that such behaviour is somehow "normal", that they just shrug it off and
> defend the thugs who both preach this indoctrination and practise it's
> vile methods.
> Does Microsoft's utter moral depravity mean /nothing/ to you?
Hmmm... No. Not really. They are a large corporation, that at times
has done some bad things - but no worse then any other large
corporation, for example IBM. But, having had contact with people on the
inside of MS I know there is another side of MS that is not as you
describe. That said, I definately do not agree with every press release or
action made by Steve B. or MS - I just realize that they are a
large corporation, with obligations to thousands of share holders and
they are trying to find a place in the changing IT landscape.
The fact is Homer, that I find the your opinion to be utterly
devoid of rational thought. You and others like you completely
exagerate the extent of Microsoft's "crimes". You act as if they are the
worst evil ever - but they are no where close. Need I mention IBM again -
the inventors of the term FUD?