Friend or foe? (Economist)
Only in Mr Mundie's nightmare scenario would Linux and other open-source software wipe Microsoft from the face of the earth. Mr Ellison's prediction might then come true, but with a drawback: his own firm, Oracle, would be wiped out too."
Posted Apr 12, 2003 2:25 UTC (Sat)
by stomfi (guest, #10602)
[Link] (16 responses)
Their unethical behaviour was and is at odds with the mores of many Australians. We find it difficult to continue supporting a company which uses despotic like practices to maintain its power in the industry, and find it strange that industry members in the USA seem to have forgiven them. Is this sort of behaviour only wrong for the USA when it is perpetuated by a foreign power like Saddam's Iraq, or is avarice more important than ethics in a capitalist economy? Stomfi
Posted Apr 12, 2003 5:42 UTC (Sat)
by ksmathers (guest, #2353)
[Link]
Posted Apr 12, 2003 8:09 UTC (Sat)
by Peter (guest, #1127)
[Link] (11 responses)
It's not a matter of forvigeness, for most businesses. Forgiveness implies that the guilty party has wronged you personally; thus it only really applies to companies that have tried to sell OSes, productivity suites, and similar software. Other businesses may feel wronged by MS every time a virus outbreak costs them $BIGNUM dollars, but that's an issue of product quality, not of antitrust violations. Of course, more than a few companies have learned, to their extreme discomfort, that just because Microsoft doesn't compete with you today ... it doesn't mean they won't expand into your field tomorrow and wipe you out. I'm a little confused about why you would bring Saddam's Iraq into this. I assume by "this sort of behavior" you are referring to Iraq's membership in OPEC? But that makes no sense - if your theory holds, why is the US not invading any other OPEC member states? So. Either you have a major bias against large companies that play with the boundaries of antitrust law, or a major bias for governments that engage in minor things like - hmm, how to make it sound P.C. - extreme oppression of minorities. (Not to mention a lot of hullaballoo about some weapons of mass destruction.) To answer your question, yes, most Americans consider Saddam Hussein to be worse than Bill Gates. Are you saying you do not?
Posted Apr 12, 2003 14:49 UTC (Sat)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (6 responses)
That's an interesting question. I wish I had more time to sit around I reckon Gates is doing more harm to the world than Saddam. * Saddam doesn't fund American election campaigns (read as: buy laws) * Saddam doesn't gather information on the majority of American computer * Saddam doesn't try to convince India to make a no-Free-Software * Saddam doesn't have a monopoly on a key part of the American Gates and his Microsoft do all these things plus: * They bend every rule possible to abuse temporary workers. (workers who ....my times run out. Gates is an asshole. oh yeh, Saddam doesn't leave his country[1], Gates is viral. Ciaran O'Riordan [1]Please don't counter with "kuwait", Kuwait was once part of Iraq, [2] and Britan etc.
Posted Apr 12, 2003 18:43 UTC (Sat)
by TimCunningham (guest, #10316)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't think you can compare dollars to lives.
Posted Apr 14, 2003 9:28 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
oh, you're breaking my heart. Soundbits this that might win the hearts and minds of the TV watching The way Microsoft maintain a low standard of living (/low wages) for many ...also, when you condemn Saddam, try to remember that you only listen to I restate: I'm not a Saddam regime fan, he's an evil man but I think it's Ciaran O'Riordan [1] I'm from "the west"
Posted Apr 17, 2003 16:55 UTC (Thu)
by ericbr (guest, #5904)
[Link]
Bill Gates does not run torture rooms. Bill Gates does not imprison children because they don't join the Gates Youth. I don't recall Bill Gates *ever* running 120V AC through anyone's testicles. Open your eyes! Microsoft typically paid their temps *more* than they did their employees - at least, they did when I was working there. And as for buying laws - Microsoft only got interested in setting laws up in DC after its competitors decided that their products couldn't compete and to use the government as a club. But hey, Microsoft is Evil, so you won't bother listening.
Posted Apr 12, 2003 19:40 UTC (Sat)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
* Throwing flowers at Linux advocates in the streets. * Kissing photographs of Linus Torvalds. * Pulling down statues of Bill Gates. :-)
Posted Apr 14, 2003 21:53 UTC (Mon)
by Peter (guest, #1127)
[Link] (1 responses)
So, I guess in your world the Iraqi government is more democratic and sensitive to the needs of the common man than the American government, then? Pardon my saying so, but that's pretty funny. Yeah, maybe not. In my opinion there are quite a few worse sins in the world than underhandedly collecting information on your customers, but hey, whatever. Yeah, terrible. (To quote Ciaran O'Riordan, "You're breaking my heart.") Trying to convince someone to buy your products. Not at gunpoint or anything, mind you, just talking, and promising things like price cuts or maybe some foreign investment. Somehow to me it still seems a bit tame compared to, say, launching SCUDs at civilian targets. Maybe I'm just confused. As a member of OPEC, though, he does control part of an oligopoly on a key part of American infrastructure. While I (unlike most armchair foreign policy experts) think oil is not really much of an issue in the Saddam question, it does correspond fairly well to your point. I guess I must have missed hearing about all the Microsoft temporary workers saying "Oh, when will the suffering end? I wish I were in an Iraqi prison cell instead." Hmmm. Interesting view - but if Saddam "had to go", how would you have gone about accomplishing this? Maybe ask him to please step down? Maybe tell him that if he peacefully surrenders, we'll give Iraq lots of free copies of MS Windows XP?
Posted Apr 15, 2003 0:54 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
I just wrote a BIG long response to your post but then deleted it. This isn't the forum, and peoples opinions on this issue are already another time and place.
Posted Apr 12, 2003 18:07 UTC (Sat)
by dcarrera (guest, #9087)
[Link] (3 responses)
Though I do think that Saddam is worse than Gates, I would still like to offer some comments: No, I think that the original author was referring to "despotic practices to maintain power", which - as the original poster correctly points out - both Saddam and Gates are guilty of.
I do think that Saddam's despotic practices are worse than Gates' though.
The hullaballoo about WMDs never materialized. The US and UK forces have not found any WMDs whatsoever, and most of the country has been searched already. I think that this is how I might rate them (1 being worst):
Posted Apr 12, 2003 19:50 UTC (Sat)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link] (2 responses)
One might come to that (mistaken) conclusion from watching the tube, but in truth probably less than 10% of country has been searched. And they haven't even really started with the Syrian border, not to mention Syria itself.
Posted Apr 13, 2003 23:47 UTC (Sun)
by dcarrera (guest, #9087)
[Link] (1 responses)
What basis do you have for saying that? I admit that I don't know for sure how much has been searched, but I have been following the war fairly closely. I don't mean just "watching the tube", but I research many different sources of information (I follow several papers from from the US, Brittain, Pakistan, Saudi Arabian and the UN and I read them daily) to get a good picture. What I can conclude is that most of the country has been searched, but there is debate over the small fraction remaining is the one most likely to contain WMDs. Before entering Baghdad, the US claimed that this was, by far, the most likely place to find WMDs, and they didn't. Therefore, I find it doubtful that the remainder of the country yet to be searched has any.
Posted Apr 14, 2003 19:40 UTC (Mon)
by tjc (guest, #137)
[Link]
Just a conservative estimate based on the observation that allied forces have occupied less than 10% of the country. It directly follows that they have searched less than 10% of the country. Before entering Baghdad, the US claimed that this was, by far, the most likely place to find WMDs, and they didn't. Baghdad has not yet been thoroughly searched. This could take weeks. Therefore, I find it doubtful that the remainder of the country yet to be searched has any. It seems reasonable that they would be hidden in the least likely spots; there again it could take weeks or even months to find them.
Posted Apr 14, 2003 6:02 UTC (Mon)
by guybar (guest, #798)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2003 17:05 UTC (Mon)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
that sounds kinda fascistic. I hereby add OT Guybar-related references to Godwin's law. actually, it also sounds like G.W. Bush. Strange. Maybe he should get a mention on Godwins list... Ciaran O'Riordan
Posted Apr 14, 2003 22:55 UTC (Mon)
by Strike (guest, #861)
[Link]
And guybar, damn you for beating me to this :)
The reason that many people in Australia are switching to Linux is that Microsoft was found guilty of using its monoploy for illegal practices and got off with a "slap on the wrist with a feather".Friend or foe? (Economist)
Many many US jurists honestly believe that:
Friend or foe? (Economist)
Friend or foe? (Economist)
We find it difficult to continue supporting a company which uses despotic like practices to maintain its power in the industry, and find it strange that industry members in the USA seem to have forgiven them.
Is this sort of behaviour only wrong for the USA when it is perpetuated by a foreign power like Saddam's Iraq
Who is worse: Gates or Saddam?Saddam or Gates?
writing an answer but I don't, so in short:
users (all MS Windows users).
government policy. I view this as a terrible human rights abuse. India
is one place that would really benefit from Free Software. Why pay the
same price as the most advanced/developed nations when they can have GNU
for near-zero cost. Spend the money on agriculture and infrastructure
instead.
infrastructure.
don't have any other job choice because of the economy.)
I'm not a Saddam lover, but I do believe that Microsoft cause more harm
that Saddam did. Saddam had to go but bloody hell, America's war was a
farce, and the situation they've[2] created is going to suck Big Time.
there's a big long history and who should own it is debatable. America
prefers Iran to have it, that doesn't mean it should be Irans.
How many people has Gates ever had killed?Saddam or Gates?
> How many people has Gates ever had killed?Saddam or Gates?
>
> I don't think you can compare dollars to lives.
general public but if you take a look at the long term effects of
monopoly practices I suspect you'll find that Gates has caused more deaths
than Saddam.
of their employees (temps). Buys laws in America. Uses Ballot-stuffing to
influence votes in standards groups and in Europe. And uses bribes to
get anti-freedom laws passed in India.
the news that is fed to you by the media machine of the West[1] (most of
which is owned by the also-not-nice Rupert Murdoc).
probably that Gates causes more harm.
Are you out of your freaking mind?Saddam or Gates?
On the other hand, I've never seen liberated Windows users:Saddam or Gates?
Saddam or Gates?
Saddam doesn't fund American election campaigns (read as: buy laws)
Saddam doesn't gather information on the majority of American computer users (all MS Windows users).
Saddam doesn't try to convince India to make a no-Free-Software government policy. I view this as a terrible human rights abuse.
Saddam doesn't have a monopoly on a key part of the American infrastructure.
They bend every rule possible to abuse temporary workers. (workers who don't have any other job choice because of the economy.)
Saddam had to go but bloody hell, America's war was a farce, and the situation they've created is going to suck Big Time.
Hi Peter.Saddam or Gates?
entrenched and irrelevant.
Ciaran O'Riordan
Friend or foe? (Economist)
> Is this sort of behaviour only wrong for the USA when it is
> perpetuated by a foreign power like Saddam's Iraq
I'm a little confused about why you would bring Saddam's Iraq into
this. I assume by "this sort of behavior" you are referring to Iraq's
membership in OPEC?
...or a major bias for governments that engage in minor things like -
hmm, how to make it sound P.C. - extreme oppression of minorities.
(Not to mention a lot of hullaballoo about some weapons of mass
destruction.)
The US and UK forces have not found any WMDs whatsoever, and most of the country has been searched already.Friend or foe? (Economist)
One might come to that (mistaken) conclusion from watching the tube, but in truth probably less than 10% of country has been searched. And they haven't even really started with the Syrian border, not to mention Syria itself.
Friend or foe? (Economist)
What basis do you have for saying that?Friend or foe? (Economist)
I hereby propose (and invoke) an extension of Godwin's law to any OT Hussein-related reference, effective immideately from parent post ;)
Entended Godwin's
> I hereby propose (and invoke) an extension of [...] law [...] effective immideatelyEntended Godwin's
So you reply to his (supposedly semi-joking) invocation of Godwin's law by accusing him of fascism? Were you being intentionally ironic?Entended Godwin's