Microsoft is not eveil because they are Microsoft [LWN.net]

Microsoft is not eveil because they are Microsoft

Posted Jun 24, 2004 17:47 UTC (Thu) by Ross (subscriber, #4065)
Parent article: On dealing with Microsoft

One thing about the language sticks out. It reads as if Microsoft is
inherently evil. Are we fighting against Microsoft's misdeeds or against
a logo?

Yes, the absolutely use unfair tactics and leverage their monopoly power
whenever they can get away with it. Their products aren't great and they
force changes on customers when it suits their needs. But that doesn't
mean the only way to "win" is to destroy them. If Microsoft were to start
playing nicely with others and improve their products there is no reason
to continue "fighting" them. (I'm not saying I have any hope that they
will reform, just that we should remember what the fight is really about.)

And Linux, Free Software, and open source can never be destroyed by
Microsoft's FUD. Yes, they could destroy our market share but we will
always be there waiting for them to falter. We would still affect the
industry by forcing them to produce better products at a lower price.
Microsoft might be able to destroy our market by outclassing us. In that
case what would be the problem? If cusomters were genuinely happier why
shouldn't they use Microsoft's products? (Again, I'm not saying that is
likely.)

This is not a war and there don't have to be a losing side. We certainly
don't have to worry about being completely obliterated.

What is a problem is Microsoft's influence on the governments of the
world, on the UN. That is a real threat. That is something which could
result in the death of the GPL, open source, etc. But again, it's not
all about Microsoft. There are many forces at work here including the
RIAA and MPAA.

Another point is that the "open source" guys don't necessarily understand
what business want any than the FSF. You'd think so, but they said that
businesses would never accept the GPL. Yet they are now embracing it.
Most businesses now prefer to use the GPL over other open source licenses.
So they may be wrong about freedom as well. Is freedom not important to
businesses? It means they will not be stuck if the vendor goes out of
business or stops supporting the product. It means another vendor can
compete which means lower service costs. It means they can do the work
in-house if they feel like it. It keeps their options open. At least to
me there are real, tangible benefits to Free Software.

The point about Free Software being confusing applies to open source as
well. Is Microsoft's Shared Source program Free Software? I don't think
so. Is it open source? Well, that depends on if you use the normal
meaning of the word or the one which is a euphemism for Free Software ;)

(Log in to post comments)

Microsoft is not evil because they are Microsoft

Posted Jun 29, 2004 16:39 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

No, they're not evil.

They're amoral.

It'a the natural result of being a public company.

But, from our viewpoint, we have to *treat* it as evil, since it has the same results. Micros~1's goal is the same as any other public company: maximize shareholder value. In any necessary fashion, lest the officers get canned and the directors sued.

And since the only practical way they can see to stay in business (going out of business tends to minimize shareholder value in the extreme) is to put F/OSS out of business, whether by competition, by legislation, or by painting us as terrorist-helpers and letting Justice do it, then yes, I agree with those who assert that it's a war.

Our not wanting to be in a war has little to nothing to do with whether it is one.

But, of course, it may just be me.

(Say it with me now :-) So many things are just me.