6 ms·

Where are the millions of people killed by Microsoft?

PavlovsCat 12y ago
That is not the point of the comparison; the point is that in the same way someone could use an euphemism to describe the behaviour of Stalin, "they're just a technology company looking out for their shareholders" etc. is an euphemistic simplification of why people are wary, if not hostile, towards Microsoft. I might as well have said a bee sting doesn't hurt less just because you call it "a tiny injection of fluid that quickly dissipates"; but I totally reject this squeamishness about strong comparisons when the point of the comparison isn't comparing the "strength", but something else. But since you brought it up: who knows? How can anyone measure how many people were put out of business and killed themselves because of the ruthless tactics of huge corporations? How many people have wasted how many hours paying for their inferior products, or trying to make them work, and to how many human lifespans does that add up? It's impossible to claim any company "killed X people" that way, but to think the net effect is somehow clean and unbloody is also naive. To put it crassly, some people didn't take to the boardrooms because that is more humane, but because it's more effective, because robbing and killing people is inefficient. Doesn't it make it as bad as Stalin, but since Stalin isn't the baseline for how bad something has to be to be unacceptable, that is irrelevant. Also, imagine a world where Linus Torvalds had done something else, and a bunch of other factors had worked out slightly differently; as far as open source goes, Microsoft DID try to kill it, they spread as much FUD as they could, they handed out their products to schools and universities for fear of them breaking free, and only now when they still lost they are starting to play nice. So as far as software and software freedom is concerned, Microsoft did kill plenty. And now imagine repelling the Conquistadores; not because they reconsidered, but because even giving it their best shot, they could not kill enough to totally submit everyone like they originally planned, and had to regroup or be wiped out themselves. And now I am supposed to be grateful and let bygones be bygones? No. Others can do that, but I can't respect them for it, at best despite of it. And you know what, I don't like Apple either. So I'm the position of loving computers and programming, but none of the big players, anymore. And I don't have to chose a side, I can find them all lacking. Because they are not to be compared to each other, but to the behaviour of intelligent humans with dignity, and the vision of an actual information age that empowers and liberates people, instead of just seeking to capture them, so they can be fed any old uninspired BS that is made shiny and big with all the capital leeched off the masses. This doesn't change in a few years or decades, or without fines or even prison sentences, for that matter. I'm not buying it for one second.

That is not the point of the comparison; the point is that in the same way someone could use an euphemism to describe the behaviour of Stalin, "they're just a technology company looking out for their shareholders" etc. is an euphemistic simplification of why people are wary, if not hostile, towards Microsoft. I might as well have said a bee sting doesn't hurt less just because you call it "a tiny injection of fluid that quickly dissipates"; but I totally reject this squeamishness about strong comparisons when the point of the comparison isn't comparing the "strength", but something else. But since you brought it up: who knows? How can anyone measure how many people were put out of business and killed themselves because of the ruthless tactics of huge corporations? How many people have wasted how many hours paying for their inferior products, or trying to make them work, and to how many human lifespans does that add up? It's impossible to claim any company "killed X people" that way, but to think the net effect is somehow clean and unbloody is also naive. To put it crassly, some people didn't take to the boardrooms because that is more humane, but because it's more effective, because robbing and killing people is inefficient. Doesn't it make it as bad as Stalin, but since Stalin isn't the baseline for how bad something has to be to be unacceptable, that is irrelevant. Also, imagine a world where Linus Torvalds had done something else, and a bunch of other factors had worked out slightly differently; as far as open source goes, Microsoft DID try to kill it, they spread as much FUD as they could, they handed out their products to schools and universities for fear of them breaking free, and only now when they still lost they are starting to play nice. So as far as software and software freedom is concerned, Microsoft did kill plenty. And now imagine repelling the Conquistadores; not because they reconsidered, but because even giving it their best shot, they could not kill enough to totally submit everyone like they originally planned, and had to regroup or be wiped out themselves. And now I am supposed to be grateful and let bygones be bygones? No. Others can do that, but I can't respect them for it, at best despite of it. And you know what, I don't like Apple either. So I'm the position of loving computers and programming, but none of the big players, anymore. And I don't have to chose a side, I can find them all lacking. Because they are not to be compared to each other, but to the behaviour of intelligent humans with dignity, and the vision of an actual information age that empowers and liberates people, instead of just seeking to capture them, so they can be fed any old uninspired BS that is made shiny and big with all the capital leeched off the masses. This doesn't change in a few years or decades, or without fines or even prison sentences, for that matter. I'm not buying it for one second.