I'm always amused by comments on this blog suggesting that I'm biased against Microsoft. Of course I am. I'm a blogger, not a journalist. Who told you otherwise?
I compete with Microsoft and am a strong believer in open source. I'm biased. That said, I'm also an admirer of much of Microsoft's technology. It is not easy to make software that works well (or reasonably well) for such a widely disparate global population of users. Microsoft tends to make complex technology look easy.
So, I have professional respect for Microsoft, both technology and business practices. I also have professional disdain for Microsoft, both technology and business practices. It's hard to be overwhelmingly for or against Microsoft.
Yes, you'll read a fair number of posts on this blog that are critical of Microsoft. Get used to it. You see, it's an open source blog, and until Steve Ballmer figures out how to say "open source" without throwing up in his mouth, there will likely be an "anti-Microsoft" angle to many of the themes I cover. If you want the rosy view on Microsoft, head over to the MSDN blogs and lose yourself in praise of Microsoft.
But if you stop off here, expect to hear criticism of Microsoft. If you don't like it, there are lots of other blogs on the planet to read. Just don't waste my time with comments that complain that I don't love Microsoft more. Microsoft has billions in the bank. It doesn't need my love.
Some time ago I discovered that I didn't like reading "the news" very much. Perhaps this resulted from reading too many British newspapers, which don't try very hard to disguise their angle on a story. Some are pro-monarchy, some are pro-business, some are pro-Left, some are pro-Right. You choose the paper that matches your bias.
In the United States, we still pretend to be unbiased. I'm not sure why. I'll occasionally get comments on this blog accusing me of bias in favor of Apple, against Microsoft, or whatever. Of course they're right. I make no attempt to hide it. I find blogs refreshing precisely because, as a general rule, they make no attempt to mask bias. This is what I want: Transparency, not some purportedly clinical examination of "news." I don't believe the latter is possible.
Take a look to the right. CNET clearly displays my bias, as it does for all of its outside bloggers. See the disclosure link? Now go to one of CNET's writers and bloggers' pages, that of Ian Fried, in this case: No disclosure page.
Not that CNET is alone in this. Head over to Tom Yager's blog at InfoWorld. No disclosure. Steve Gillmor over at eWeek? Nada.
Presumably this is because these writers aren't biased? That they have miraculously managed to live on this planet for a few decades as a tabula rosa, writing the world as it sees itself? Let me pause while I snicker into my sleeve.
We don't read these excellent writers because they lack bias. We read them precisely because of their biases. It's the commentary that makes "news" interesting, and that commentary is always heavily flavored by bias.
... Read more
CNET Channel has announced that it is partnering with Microsoft to help consumers purchase Windows-supported products with ease and little hesitation. Just what I wanted from my unbiased, neutral news broker.
CNET Channel's high-quality, accurate and consistent product content helps over 2,100 high-technology manufacturers and channel businesses in 35 national markets drive their online businesses and increase sales effectiveness. As an aggregator of best-of-breed content and e-commerce services, CNET Channel will now deliver 'Certified for Windows Vista' and 'Works with Windows Vista' logo information ... Read more
- prev
- 1
- next
