The convenient fiction that Microsoft is evil
It's a convenient fiction that Microsoft is the source of all evil in the technology world, particularly for a vocal minority within the open-source community.
For such people, Microsoft hate is an excuse for a distinct lack of introspection, and credits Microsoft with far better execution and strategy than it actually possesses.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer has a goofy laugh. I'm not sure it's an evil one.
I mention Microsoft because some within the open-source community quickly pounced on the company's inadvertent violation of the GPL in its Windows 7 USB/DVD Download Tool. Microsoft's Peter Galli was quick to acknowledge it:
[The license violation] was not intentional on our part. While we had contracted with a third party to create the tool, we share responsibility as we did not catch it as part of our code review process.
As conspiracies against open source go, it sounds pretty harmless--because it probably is. Open-source licensing is complex enough and the process for acquiring open-source software is loose enough, that there is room for all sorts of error, both nefarious and benign.
Guess what? People--and corporations filled with people--make mistakes. Even Microsoft. If it was as evil as some suspect, the devil himself would be out of a job.
As open-source adoption dramatically increases, we should expect to see errors of this kind increase, and not out of any sinister plan to pilfer open-source code. Errors are natural and are evidence that adoption is spreading beyond the inner sanctum of open sourcerors.
We shouldn't expect open-source adoption to be flawless or painless.
Consider Symbian. The foundation decided to aggressively embrace open source as a way to guide it to an optimistic future, but the process of open-sourcing its code is taking time. A lot of time. As Rich Sands suggests, Symbian may actually be taking too much time, frustrating its community and allowing Google Android to assume the leadership position in open-source mobile platforms.
Who knew that giving away things for free could be so hard?
It's tempting to think that open source should be an automatic reflex for companies and individuals alike. It's not. It takes time to learn how to do it properly, and even then mistakes are possible. Perhaps likely.
In the case of its Windows 7 tool, Microsoft screwed up. It's not the first time, and it's not the last.
But error is not evil.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay. 
I wonder why more people don't focus on $teve Job$.
Apple is the new evil with it's enforced censorship of apps we would like to have on our phones, colllaboration with the communist Chinese government to oppress its people just to make a quick buck, and the refusal to make a computer the developing world can afford, unlike PCs running Linux or Windows.
Come to think of it, when has APple or $teve Job$ really done something to help the world like open source has, or even Bill Gates for that matter?
Fan boy's to your corners.
I want this to be a dirty irrelevant flame war.
Pull no punches, use wild analogies, and defend your preference with rabid enthusiasm.
Are we clear?
Get it on.
"Come to think of it, when has APple or $teve Job$ really done something to help the world like open source has, or even Bill Gates for that matter?"
As far as BIll Gates...have you ever heard of "The BIll & Melinda Foundation"? The pore millions upon millions into this foundation for health and learning aids around the world. This is why Bill stepped down from Microsoft...so he could concentrate on the foundation. As far as Jobs...no clue.
Bill Gates (Microsoft) has been convicted twice--once in the mid '90s and again towards the end of that same decade. I don't know about you, but to me if a person is convicted, then that means they did something illegal. That also means that what they did shouldn't have happened in the first place if the illegal action hadn't taken place. Therefore, Microsoft's popularity at the time of those convictions (first with the OS, and then with the browser) should be considered null and void. In short, the industry was hindered during that time period for almost 10 years (give or take). You can argue all you like as to whether they would have still been successful if they had not done those illegal acts, but the fact is there is no way to know for sure because those illegal acts did happen.
Now the only barometer we have to measure what may have happened is how well they have been doing over the last 5-6 years after their every move was being monitored by the courts to make sure they didn't do anything illegal again. I have to admit I was one of those who felt Microsoft should be split up--one, because they deserved it; and two, because they needed it. However, looking at what has happened to the industry over the last 5-6 years, I have to admit the judge was right. If you make sure to stop the illegal practices, competition would correct the problem by itself. (I still believe to this day that splitting up Microsoft is the best thing for it because it is too big and misguided.) So using the last 5-6 years as a guide, we can see what a good portion of the '90s would have been like. When I look at it from this point of view, I resent the fact that Microsoft basically caused the stagnation of the industry for close to 10 years. The competition and growth we are seeing today (not just from Apple, but others in the industry as well), could have happened almost a decade sooner. To me, that can be considered evil because it was "willfully" done, not accidentally. They knew what they were doing. Conscience decisions go a long way to defining evil.
As for Bill Gates' charitable contributions, I can't see why people praise him for giving away money that really shouldn't have been his in the first place. I would like to refer you to a quote by Bill Cosby: "This isn't the same person I grew up with. This is an old person who is trying to get into heaven now." In my opinion, I think Bill saw the writing on the wall. That is why he left. And it wouldn't surprise me if he came back, but it won't be until Microsoft is completely out of trouble with the government (or someone finally takes the heat for the company's demise). In either case, I'm afraid that will be a long time coming. But when it does, he has to make sure his name hasn't been tarnished. So what better way to accomplish both at the same time: leaving the company for a reason that doesn't look like you are guilty; and ensuring when you come back, your image is the best that it can be.
I'm sorry, but I just don't trust the man or anything he's involved with...
Drinking too much koolaid there!!! Being found a monopolist is not a conviction, nor is it in the criminal codes of any country. You make it sound like someone went to prison pver this, lmfao. Yeah you are a zealot. Goodluck on your smear campaign though.
To claim he is a philanthropist is laughable.
What is this arbitrary requirement that you have for proving that someone is a philanthropist?
How would you setup a multibillion dollar foundation that attempt to tackle problems for people in the most desperate situations, but without anyone else ever hearing about it?
Your hate is reaching pathetic levels.
Your ignorance is showing. The Bill and Milinda Gates foundation letter od finance and objectives are clearly visible to all for a reason. Acountability. You very rarely are Bill and Melinda in the public eye. Actually very private people.
You are right. Begin a monopoly is not criminal. However, being convicted of anti-monopolistic practices is. There is a difference.
In the United States, most people who get convicted of a crime do not get to keep the fruits of that crime, Microsoft was an exception. They were convicted of illegally establishing a monopoly and yet got to keep said monopoly. That they were willing to barter away their moral and political beliefs to keep their ill-gotten gains brings their actions into the realm of 'evil'.
Microsoft was unable to pressure politicians in Europe, so they have paid many fines stemming from the European Commission's antitrust litigation.
While perhaps not terribly evil (just look at what bankers have done in comparison) it does stifle competition and creativity in the marketplace.
No Gates nor any of his official where ever even charged with a criminal enterprise, therefore no convictions. Get it you dunder heads.
End of story.
Nothing "illegal" about what practices MS did. Enron was illegal, Madoff was illegal, MS was very aggressive and legal in their practices.
Understandable, and easy to do in a large organization. OTOH, Microsoft certainly has quite the habit of it... more than most. I don't ascribe it to "evil" as much I do to incompetence and perhaps even arrogance on their part. It's as if they'd never heard of the term "due diligence".
The contractor/vendor Microsoft hired OTOH did copy the code - they had to have known where it came from and how it was licensed, since most instances of source comes with at least some sort of license info, included as comments in the code itself. There are more than enough references online for any codemonkey to learn that you don't just copy and distribute it w/o certain conditions.
That said, the legal folks handled this one superbly - they quietly got Microsoft to acknowledge the error. Pity that Microsoft didn't just open-source it themselves and keep it distributed, like they did when they bought Connectix and turned it into SFU.
"Evil" or hate are emotions that don't fit to corporations. Now, if you want hatred - the blogger who discovered the copy-job had to put up with quite a bit of hate from fanboys claiming him to be ignorant, stupid, a liar, and worse...
And for a company the size of Microsoft, do they really just take 3rd party software and bundle it with their new OS as if any of it is just some scrap of 100% functional and fully tested code? They claim all kinds of testing goes on but they have no process for handling the licensing issues of the code they get from said 3rd party developer? I just don't believe that.
Where is the proof this 3rd party developer exists anyways? Are we really supposed to believe the same Microsoft which repeatedly lied to a judge in their antitrust case? They get the "evil" label in my book because they've so many many times earned it. Remember how conveniently they had a bug in their Windows 3.x( or was it win95?) TCP/IP stack which kicked AOL users off-line? Remember how those people were so conveniently presented with a dialog to get online with MSN? And remember how it took AOL taking Microsoft to court and then Microsoft was allowed to play the game that it was going to take over 6 months to get the update out? This is Microsoft, if you don't understand tech, it might look like they are legit but reality is something completely different. What the technological neophyte sees looks very different. It's the nature of technology and having or not having an understanding of what's going on.
"OTOH, Microsoft certainly has quite the habit of it... more than most. I don't ascribe it to "evil" as much I do to incompetence and perhaps even arrogance on their part. It's as if they'd never heard of the term "due diligence"."
Arrogance seems to fit more, truth be told. They simply assume that they can get their way and do whatever they want - of course, only as long as they don't screw up too badly, or get caught. The US DOJ certainly didn't help to dissuade them from that notion.
Was it contract code? Possibly. That was exactly how they wound up paying a ton of money and cross-licensing to Apple back when Steve Jobs returned. Fanboys everywhere assume that Microsoft was just trying to "save Apple", but if you Google for "San Francisco Canyon Quicktime", and look at Apple's financial statements from those years, you'll see a whole different story.
Maybe Microsoft should just write their own code from now on, quit outsourcing, and save themselves the trouble?
You still embarassing yourself???!!! What a joke.
" they had to have known where it came from and how it was licensed"
1. Who is 'they'?
2. Why would 'they' have read the license?
3. Why would the vendor leave the license in the source for 'them' to see it?
Yet another challenge -- back up your FUD you troll.
"1. Who is 'they'?"
Either Microsoft and/or the subcontractor - whichever entity obviously copied the code in question.
"2. Why would 'they' have read the license? "
...because most open source projects list the license type in the source code files, at the top where you cannot miss it. Only a completely incompetent programmer would go to cut+paste code and not stop to wonder what kind of license the original file was released under. Following that, any company or shop that doesn't insure purity in their code licensing deserves what punishment it gets. TBH, Microsoft got off far lighter than any company would have if said company were caught lifting Microsoft-owned code.
"3. Why would the vendor leave the license in the source for 'them' to see it? "
The point is that whoever copied the code would have seen the license statement on the original that was being copied from.
Microsoft's code (yes, it was theirs by that point) was proven to have verbatim cut+paste copied code in it, right down to function names, FFS - five minutes and Google would have told them... oh, wait, they used Bing, didn't they? (hehe - couldn't resist).
-------------------
Wow - the rabid fanboys finally showed up... Let's see what they left on the doorstep (and why it may be flaming...)
Me: Who is 'they'?
RW: Either Microsoft and/or the subcontractor - whichever entity obviously copied the code in question.
>> Ok..
Me: Why would 'they' have read the license?
RW: ...because most open source projects list the license type in the source code files
>> As expected. Makes sense so far.
Me: Why would the vendor leave the license in the source for 'them' to see it? "
RW: The point is that whoever copied the code would have seen the license statement on the original that was being copied from. Microsoft's code (yes, it was theirs by that point) was proven to have verbatim cut+paste copied code in it, right down to function names, FFS - five minutes and Google would have told them... oh, wait, they used Bing, didn't they? (hehe - couldn't resist).
>> And finally you fail. Some vendor hired by MS did an incompetent job and copied code. You don't have to Google/Bing it genius -- unless you specifically know the licensing terms for code, you simply do not copy that code into a product. Simply. Do. Not. Day 1 of employee orientation in a software company, you will get a handbook, and you will be told that the cardinal rule is to not use code that you do not know the license for. In other words -- the contractor basically was incompetent (or made a mistake -- however you want to look at it). And yet, you'll claim that Microsoft ripped off code and is a serial offender. ("Microsoft certainly has quite the habit of it... more than most." were your exact words). Sad.
Amazing. Between you and Crashpad it's like a 'special needs' convention.
Again with the character assassination? Last time I challenged you to back it up you couldn't even manage to put up an argument -- you just replied with "awesome". Point out the flaw, and maybe then you'll have something. I called out Random Walk on his trolling, and I'm calling you out as well.
Microsoft sucks in the sense of releasing Vista too early and it was not ready and Windows 7 is basically the fixed version of Vista. Basically double charging for the same OS, but Windows 7 fixed all the problems. It should have been free....but can't do that. So basically double charging their customers.
Apple sucks too....but they have the right to conduct their business the way they want. Censoring apps...yes they provide the service to sell the apps. They also make a better product....sorry Windows.
Supporting 2800 student computers on campus, I have seen the shift from Windows to Mac. Mac used to be almost non existent on campus, now it is like 10-15% of the entire student population. And more people are also registering Linux computers. Next year and even after the holidays, I feel that there will be more Mac computers on campus.
We've seen the shift too in our 18-20k student population, though we're seeing 70%+ incoming students with Macs. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. The users have purchased machines that fit an image/status, they know nothing more about their Macs than the Windows PCs they got rid of. This is especially clear when our user base's Macs are just as likely to be brought in for service (software and hardware) as windows machines.
"...they know nothing more about their Macs than the Windows PCs they got rid of."
To which a common reply is, So what? The point is that they don't have to - all they know is that, judging by consumer surveys and reports, they now don't have to worry as much about malware, breakdowns, crap customer service, etc. as they did before.
What's the matter - do you feel that threatened by the overall shift to an OS that you don't like/understand/use/etc?
But to those who remember before Microsoft had the iron grip on the OS market, where there were still contenders to the desktop OS beyond that oddball Apple making OSes just for their own hardware and the Linux that a sliver of geeks use - yeah, Microsoft has a long history of being evil. Extortion, FUD, any number of slimey business techniques.
Apple, in the very early days of the Mac, had a brilliant version of BASIC ready to go. Microsoft sent the word - if that project doesn't get buried and never sees the light of day, no Word for the Mac.
Forcing deals on PC makers - if you want to be able to sell PCs with DOS or Windows on it, you have to pay us for every computer you make, even if it doesn't ship with DOS or Windows on it. So if they were considering offering Be OS or NeXT - they'd have to pay for two OSes, the one that shipped on it, and the Microsoft one that didn't. Surprise, surprise, surprise, nobody did.
A very good (for the time) PenOS was getting ready to be released, that could have made tablets a staple of computing. Microsoft hurriedly announced PenWindows, made some fast mockups, made grand claims. Nobody wanted to jump on PenOS when the 20,000 pound gorilla was about to enter the market, and it died. PenWindows was quietly killed as a project almost immediately.
So, yeah. For those with long memories, the concept of Microsoft being evil is anything but a fiction, and so it's tempting to assume evil intent now. Unfair? Perhaps. But perhaps it would be unfair to assume otherwise, when Microsoft worked so diligently and for so long to get that reputation.
Sure your company can offer an alternative operating system on the computers you sell! Just expect to pay more for Windows if you do provide other options. Sound familiar?
I wonder how many people realize that if it were to do just that, Ballmer and his cronies would laugh all the way back to their mansions and live off their non-MS related investments, while over 56,000 working stiffs would pile into the unemployment office.
That being said, I don't actually think Ballmer or any of his friends are "evil", but if you're reading this and wishing for Microsoft's downfall, i want you to stop and think who that would hurt the most. (HINT: It wouldn't be Steve Ballmer)
I'm not so sure, for a couple of reasons:
* Most of Ballmer and his "cronies" have their wealth tied up in MSFT stock, so it's not as if they wouldn't feel the pinch. I daresay their wealth would blow off the majority of its collective mass if the price of MSFT shares ever tanked.
* There are too many assets there that would be hungrily devoured by competitors and startups alike: physical assets, intellectual assets (e.g. patents/copyrights), talent pools, product lines, etc.
IMHO, the only real losers in that situation would be those middle-managers who weren't smart enough to pull the D-ring before it came crashing down, and those who managed to parlay either luck or long-dead skill into a long-term position.
Uhm...sorry, anybody who makes six figures or more per year isn't stupid enough not to have a diversified investment portfolio. Yeah they'd lose alot of money on Microsoft's collapse, but they'd still have plenty more.
* If you saw/noticed Ballmer, Gates, et al selling off massive quantities of MSFT stock over any time period, and word got out to Wall Street, how long do you think the MSFT stock would last before it got delisted? (not counting any takeover fights, which brings us to...)
* Considering the sheer number of stocks out there for the company, ownership of said company would always go to whoever held 51% of it, or at least a more of that stock than anyone else (depending... not sure how MSFT set up their charter, but the point is that whoever owns majority share owns the company). If the principals of the company (Ballmer, Gates, etc) weren't (individually, or collectively) holding majority share, they'd be thrown off the board instantly by whatever person/group did have (or get) the majority. Now this means that either the likes of Ballmer are even wealthier than most reports indicate, or that the majority of their wealth is tied up in MSFT stock (so they can retain control of the corporation, etc).
Microsoft developed a reputation for squashing innovative companies by spotting new industry developments and then adding the same capabilities to Windows, effectively killing the opportunity for everyone else. Microsoft's versions were not usually the best, nor were they first to market, but they were good enough because they were 'free'.
Google is now doing exactly the same thing.
If a beer company finds out that someone is making a new hot selling fish flavored beer...they'll be working on their version of fish beer and will get it market as soon as they can...
It's always been dog eat dog in the business world...Those who compete survive...Those who fail complain.
EXCEPT Apple
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2006/06/16.html
and also a Ray Ozzie review here:
http://www.sriramkrishnan.com/blog/2006/10/ray-ozzie-review.html
Without MS, as the great satan in their quest, I have to wonder if the community would have been as successful as they have been.
In any case, I have to agree with Matt that it probably has more to do with being a large, bureaucratic, risk adverse enterprise where the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, than some enclave of evil.
Ummmm...okay. Is there a point to your cute response?
It has been clearly documented that MS had a crisis culture that drove it to where it is today. There have been various targets over the years that have fallen by the wayside (OS2, Novell, etc.) and some that are still around like Apple, but MS always needed someone to 'threaten' them to make any huge advances. Many argue that they have become too big and bureaucratic to even make that work these days.
The 'irony' is the Open Source community seems to thrive on the very same thing and if they can't rail against MS, who will be their target?
Either way it's wrong. Open Source does especially well when the taking on a big, slow, entrenched incumbent. Its favourite home is the niche, the alternative, the specialist market. Microsoft _is_ the incumbent responding to challengers when threatened. They're complete opposites of the scale.
You're also completely missing the point of (F)OSS. It's not about microsoft, it's about all closed source software. Microsoft made it about Microsoft by being the only company to openly attack open source.
You have more issues than Random_Penguin, your thoughts and opinions really are nonsense.
There fixed that typo for you.
I guess clippy can be called an MS innovation.
Guess what,you are paying another $25k to MS for SQL Server.
crap i dont have to live in a cardboard box cause i make money.......... im evil too....OMG!!
because you lack the skill to become a fortune 500 contender doesnt mean that people that do have the skill to do it are evil... bill left the company he started to devote his life to helping the under privilaged... warren buffet donated 37 billion dollars to charity....... when was the last time you even gave change to a begger?!?
They drive competitors out of the market, they utilize the same anticompetitive tactics that partner Intel does- through their ad subsidy and lockout policies, etc.
If being evil simply wasn't enough, they simply don't even understand their users, and their stupidity alone is enough for one to hate them. The entire computing world hated Vista until later in its lifecycle, but Ballmer and the Microsoft ilk STILL touted it as a revolution for the industry. It wasn't. The arrogance that Ballmer spews everytime that ass speaks also burns many the wrong way- just listen to him talk down about the "mere" 3-5% of Mac users, gotta love his superiority stance. Windows Mobile 6 and 6.5- utter failures, but they wont admit to that. Windows 7, while being widely touted as revolutionary in itself is just a facelift and rebranding of Vista!
No, Microsoft may not be the open-source arch nemesis, but they are evil and bad for the industry in general. Imagine if we didn't have the Google's, Apple's and Mozilla's of the world FORCING Microsoft to change and slowly adapt..
However the corporate philosopy has permiated the organization. Support quit trying to solve a problem with Vista, their legal division issued a DMCA take down notice on some unused and uninstalled sotware and never worked with me to resolve the issue, their support for their products drops off a cliff long before the product life cycle is over and so on.
Taken together the company isn't worth my time as a consumer and I avoid them to the greatest extent possible.
He wrote something like this" YOUR ARE UNPROFESSIONAL, MICROSOFT IS A GREAT COMPANY WITH GREAT PRODUCTS, YOU ARE JUST JEALOUS" YOUR ARE NOT TECHNICAL ENOUGH TO CLAIM THESE ARE BUGS AND YOUR COMMENT WAS VERY STUPID" and then it went one with more insults about the company I worked for.
My thought is many people who work there are arrogant and self centered. They have no reason to be arrogant as they do don't do innovation they buy it or crush it. They also replaced a woman just because she had breast cancer. A lot of people there have zero ethics and empathy. Bill Gates only started giving to charity after the press beat him up for not giving. He is doing good work now I will give him that. His foundation is truly great.....but this is a man who also was a destroyer most of his life and let's not forget that and let's not forget how many people lost their lively hood because of his corrupt practices. My two cents and I am not a microsoft hater I actually buy and use a lot of their technology.
Once again, amazing. Such searing wit. Such towering intellect. Such a waste of my bandwidth.
Worst troll comment ever.
1. Your story is just an anecdote that anybody could make up.
2. The presenter you claim sent you that email would risk being fired for doing something juvenile like that. Simply not believable.
3. The rest of your thinking regarding innovation / Bill Gates being a 'destroyer' most of his life, etc. is just more of the usual anti-MS tripe.
People think that if they repeat this kind of stuff often enough it becomes true -- and to an extent they're correct in thinking that. It's always fair game to say any inflammatory stuff you want about MS with zero proof (or ridiculously unbelieveable anecdotes) to back it up -- and it's become so commonplace that nobody stops to think about it or question it anymore. For instance -- what is your arbitrary standard based on which you consider Bill Gates a destroyer? What is your arbitrary requirement for when he should have started giving to charity?
btw - You're wrong about your assessment that Gates only started doing charity work after he copped tons of criticizm. He was always involved -- but only to the extent that other billionares and millionaires tend to be (essentially writing checks -- making donations). The foundation took things to a completely different scale altogether, and by comparison it looked like he wasn't doing anything -- but he was. And the turning point wasn't public criticizm as you claim. It was his family. His mother (who passed) was the one always reminding him that with the kind of wealth he has, he's got a responsibility to make it count for something.
You have to remember -- Bill Gates started Microsoft when he was just a kid essentially. A few years ago, he had to give up his job altogether to be able to commit adequate time to the foundation work. Why is it so hard to forgive him, for not being able to make that time earlier in his life? After all he's done, why should he be held to such an unreasonably high standard? There are people with his kind of wealth that couldn't be bothered to write a check -- never mind quitting their day jobs so they can focus on he world's problems.
- by saturation November 16, 2009 10:22 AM PST
- Evil? That's what they used to say of IBM when they ruled computer circles. Anyone who is a monopoly is potentially evil, Standard Oil is the prototype.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by DragonWizard November 16, 2009 10:31 AM PST
- Finally some fresh air amongst the noxious fumes of fanboyism from both sides...
- Like this
-
- by CrashPad63 November 16, 2009 1:51 PM PST
- Good post, relevant to topic brought up, thank you.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (105 Comments)But the real evil isn't the folks doing IT, but the finance and insurance industry. Don't fret about Windows 7 or Vista vs Mac, there are worst things in the world.