MondoMor's Journal: FUD, karma and hypocrisy.

So this story gets submitted and posted. Is it "news"? Well, no. Is it at least current? No, actually it's from 1995. Is it real? Actually no. It's likely a hoax.

What it is: anti-microsoft FUD, which slashdot spreads with aplomb.

Look at the comments. Interspersed with all of the jokes and lies ("OMG Win2k REBOOTS EVERY HOUR IT'S A FEATURE LOLOL drool") are a very few people questioning the article's veracity. It's almost all "OMG THIS CONFIRMS MY PRE-CONCEIVED NOTION THAT MS SUCKS", and sad, tired old MS jokes.

Don't get me wrong. I don't particularly like Microsoft. They ARE a monopoly (which isn't immoral or even illegal), and it's plain to see they use this advantage to hinder competition (which is both). I don't really like their DRM tendencies, and the company I work for is in a bind wondering what to do in a few years when they migrate off Win2k. Current MS licensing is a big pain in the ass. MS software is also set up by default to be very trusting and insecure, which is stupid.

So yes, I agree Microsoft needs to play nicer. It wouldn't kill them to adopt some pro-competition measures (open document formats, etc.). It WOULD, however, eat into their massive revenue, which would piss off the investors something fierce.

That's the real problem with business nowadays. Shareholders care only about dividends. It's all short-term thinking. If the CEO doesn't perform, he's out, replaced with someone who can make money THIS quarter. Next quarter is an eternity away.

It's one of Capitalism's flaws, but more importantly it's a human flaw. It's very difficult to get Joe Investor to think about anything but his pocketbook. He similarly doesn't care where the gas for his SUV comes from, nor where his mounds of plastic garbage go. Very few people do. Slashdotters, while overwhelmingly liberal (at least on social issues) seem to eat plastic and silicon like candy. Hypocritical, no? I see a lot of bitching by people who think the U.S. doesn't do enough for the environment, yet they're writing these rants from a machine whose manufacture resulted in many, many pounds of toxins and used fossil fuel. Chances are, they're a geek, which means they have a lot more techno-stuff at home.

This sort of hypocrisy is rampant at Slashdot. Linux and GNU software (and OSS in general) is CONSTANTLY being patched and tweaked. Same with Microsoft. Sometimes MS patches are easier to apply, sometimes not. MS has improved Win32 a lot since Win95 (on which most of the FUD is based). It's funny that Linux advocates hold to this pre-conceived notion, at the same time they're annoyed at the many people think Linux is kludgy and unnecessarily esoteric.

Prejudices are only OK when they're yours, apparently.

Slashdot story submitters and editors seem to think that MS is some horrible mutant FUD spreader. Odd that any microsoft story on slashdot will have anti-MS FUD in the submitted story, the editor's half-informed snide remarks, and the vast majority of the comments tacked onto the story.

Even if that story is a hoax and eight years old. Hypocrites.

Also, I just picked up "Groo, Death and Taxes" comic collection yesterday when I wandered into a comic store on a whim. I haven't seen Groo for nigh on 15 years. EXCELLENT.

YHBT. HAND.

EDIT: as I was pounding this out, this article was posted. Odd. Despite michael's usual slanted byline, and the obvious reason for posting the story (more anti-MS FUD), there are a lot of insightful responses. Of course, the party-line posts get upmodded most.

business practices

[rnd()]

If one company has a monopoly, then the reward for successfully breaking that monopoly is extremely great for potential competetors. Much greater than if one were to start a business in an area where there already existed huge amounts of competition and very slim profit margins.

I am not convinced that Microsoft did anything illegal... even some of the "crush 'em" emails by Gates seem to me an appropriate outlook toward one's competetors. Businesses shouldn't operate in such a way that they try to help their competetors survive. Why not go out for blood and let the best company (or companies) win? All through this process, consumers benefit. The benefit comes either in the form of lower prices or better products, since each competetor will seek to create greater value in order to be chosen by consumers.

When you are involved in a business, you want your leader to be serious about winning. After all, it's your job, your future, and your customers.

If Microsoft had stopped improving things and had decided that Windows 95 was "good enough", then nobody would buy Windows anymore, since GNU/Linux and MacOS X are far superior to Windows 95 in nearly every way. But when you consider the fact that lots of people buy Windows 2000 and XP, you notice that in many ways Windows offers the best all-around choice for most people and that is precisely why most people choose Windows.

If Microsoft gets fat and happy and stops improving its products, then it will quickly be surpassed by the alternatives. Since it has not done this, then it is clear that competition is still very strong for the Desktop, Server, and Office Suite markets.

Not liking Microsoft is your choice, as is not liking Capitalism. But I think your reasoning for not liking capitalism is flawed. People act purely out of their own self-interest. This includes investment bankers and social workers. People in each profession have different things that are valuable to them, and hence different professions offer the best way of obtaining that value. If it's dollars, then choose investment banking. If it's feeling like you're making a contribution to the world, then maybe it's social work or education. That is the beauty of Capitalism. We can all have exactly what we want, provided we are talented enough and work hard enough.

Re:business practices

[MondoMor]

I wasn't very clear.

I like Capitalism. Of the economic systems I've seen, it's got the fewest flaws. It rewards calculated risk-taking, intelligence, hard work and competition. The "law" of supply and demand makes sense; when there's a demand, you should be rewarded for supplying it.

I'm conflicted because I'm disgusted with consumer culture, even while I believe Capitalism to be the better economic system. Laws can't make it better, because consumer demand drives the decisions made by the suppliers. As always, society's problems (and ultimately, solutions) lie with Joe Average's decisions and actions. We have shitty television shows, throw-away culture and short attention spans because that's what consumers WANT, and I think it's becoming a problem.

Society would function better if individuals made decisions that benefitted not only them, but society as a whole. A capitalistic society with consumers who aren't entirely self-serving would be extremely cool.

As for Microsoft, you're right in saying they shouldn't give the store to its competition. That'd be stupid. Similarly, they can't just stop and twiddle their thumbs while everyone else catches up. So keep your leading edge stuff close to your chest, but open up a little on your older stuff. Participate in some open standards. Start new divisions for new products, get them healthy, and spin them off.

That big a lead would be a good time to analyze how you got there. Was it with superior product, or superior marketing? How do we want to be leading? I would feel prouder working for a company that produced an excellent product than I would one that had the best marketing strategy.

Microsoft has improved a lot. I use Win2kPro at home and work, and it's fantastic. They've done a pretty good job at making it intuitive. And while they have "opened up a little" and participated in some standards, they're still too bent on being everything to everyone. So many things are "integrated" that it's hard to choose something different when you don't like the MS solution. When it works, it's really cool. When it doesn't it's frustrating. Competitors don't have the chance to integerate into the OS as thoroughly, even if they wanted to. And sometimes it's so damn friendly it's hard to learn exactly what's going on.

I like my OS to be a tool I use how I want. I don't want my computer going off to get permission from anyone before it does something I've asked it to do. The idea of something I've purhcased actively protecting someone else's property is troubling. MS is paying less and less attention to its customers' demands.

This reply has taken nearly an hour to write between tasks at work, so it's much lower quality than even my normal drivel. I hope it at least makes sense. I'm also posting through a proxy, since I get the "You can't post to this page" error whenever I try direct posting, and it's a pain in the ass.

Re:business practices

[Safety Cap]

Society would function better if individuals made decisions that benefitted not only them, but society as a whole. A capitalistic society with consumers who aren't entirely self-serving would be extremely cool.

US Society would also function better if the citizens insisted upon being informed, made well-thought-out decisions, and actually participated in the process.

The fact that they do none of that, allows the Corporations to buy/run the government, and basically ruin the whole thing. ClearChannel, anyone? How about Haliburton? :)

Microsoft's only "wrong" is that they got caught. Their behavior is part of the norm.

bah

[AnimeFreak]

I wish people would take advice from the three dead trolls, and understand that, "all operating systems suck."

I agree with that quote because I use Windows 2000, Linux, and Mac OS X all in a single day and understand each operating system's individual flaws.

If Apple were in the same position that Microsoft is currently in, Linux users would be doing the same to them as well.