Nuke Redmond!

From: Richard Erlacher <>
Date: Tue Jan 16 14:21:22 2001

Well, maybe the judge's SUV's tires will fail him. I don't mind that there
are people who dislike what one company or another produces. I object,
however, when one company is made a scapegoat for the failings of the entire
business community.

example: Firestone has always produced the worst tires in the US. Some
were OK, but the lowest quality always came from Firestone. Ford has
always, at least since the '60's, when I bought my last new FORD, used the
cheapest of these for their new cars. Now, their pigeons are coming home to
roost. You know what that does to the statue.

Now, what's this about the Mafia? That's a social organization, isn't it?
True, some of their members have been suspected of involvement in
less-than-honorable activities, but, on the whole, they're just a bunch of
boys out to have a little fun.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Lawrence Walker" <>
To: <>
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2001 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: Nuke Redmond!

> > So ... aren't there things that you want? You certainly can't blame
> > MS, as a corporate entity, for doing what it does in order to get what
> > it wants, can you? Why do you think you should make what MS wants
> > YOUR problem? They haven't done that. You have.
> The Mafia could make the same argument, unless as it seems,
> you consider "corporate entities" above the law and even common
> morality. Ever hear of the "love canal" or the hundreds of other
> incidents attesting to the rapaciousness of greedy corporations and
> their dedication to the bottom line regardless of the consequences
> to societies well-being.
> > Somebod ought to send Judge Jackson a copy of a transcript of this
> > Clearly, there is no monopoly! Apple produces a competitive GUI
> > right? OS/2 is better, it just costs a little more, right? LINUX is
> > cheaper, right? Marginally anti-competitive practices are common
> > in the corporate world. Where's the problem?
> Clearly that Judge Jackson and most people aren't as enamored
> and in awe of the corporate world as you are. Spare me from
> "Suits" logic.
> > >
> > > My problem with MS isnt' that it has been's
> > > that they want you to have one choice for all of your needs...thier
> > > products.
> > >
> > Isn't that what Mobil, or Miller Corp, or General Motors, or Wal-Mart
> > want, too?
> Of course, if they can get away with it. The history of cartels
> shows why governments all over the world passed laws against
> them as impacting on the common good of society.
> > >What software companies out there have the resources to
> > > take MS on if MS truly decided they wanted to move into that area?
> > > MS is as close to a corporation with unlimited resources as any I can
> > > think of. They've also become pretty good at dictating what the
> > > hardware companies do as well due to the way they license
> their
> > > software. Sure, there are alternatives, but none that can come even
> > > close to actually competing. There have been very few times in
> > > history where a single company had such an impenetrable stranglehold
> > > on an industry.
> > That, in part, is because so many software vendors
> > went into the marketplace with their own ideas, completely
> > disregarding what the market demands. Microsoft became the truly
> > monstrous company it is, not because they started out with the goal of
> > shoving their products down your throat whether you wanted them or
> > not, but because so many people wanted what they did produce.
> > Microsoft's made a ton of dough by giving the public, not what they
> > need, but what they want.
> >
> Crap ! Judge Jackson didn't make his ruling on the basis that M-
> S**t was just a better vendor. The testimony about unethical
> conduct was overwhelming.
> > It's unfortunate that the quality of OS and application software,
> > generally, is so low, but MS is still pretty much the best that's out
> > there. Notable exceptions exist, but for the mainstream, it makes
> > sense for people to use Microsoft's products. Until there is a true
> > competitor, which Apple isn't, and which IBM isn't, there's no sense
> > in complaining.
> Hasn't most of the commentary in this thread by knowledgeable
> computer people been exactly that it isn't "the best out there" No,
> don't complain, let M-s**t run roughshod over the computer industry
> and when King Billy puts the squeeze on the apologists can say
> "why didn't you say something before ".
> > > Anyway, my 2 cents. I normally don't get into the
> > > public MS bashing. I've used thier products for years on numerous
> > > I guess we can all thank IBM for the current mess due to
> > > the generous agreements they signed with MS in the
> > > beginning of IBM-PC development.
> > > That, in my opinion, is what provided MS with
> > >the foothold they needed, as well as the funds.
> > > Jeff --
> > > Collector of Classic Microcomputers and Video Game
> Systems:
> > > Home of the TRS-80 Model 2000 FAQ File
> > >
> > >
> End of thread for myself, tried to ignore it, but I just couldn't take
> the BS any more.
> larry
> Reply to:
Received on Tue Jan 16 2001 - 14:21:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:33:47 BST