It's time to play, Pin the Tail on the Terrorist!

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 5:31 pm

When my wife and I saw the horrific pictures of September 11th, we knew it was coming. I turned to her that night and said that the people who died there were only the first casualties. Ideas and controversy will be the second.

So, guess what...? Remember Microsoft, those fun folks who lost out to supplying an OS in all the local, state and federal governments of Germany just last week, because the latter wanted an open system OS, and switched to Linux? Well, Microsoft has funded a report from the far-right Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. This has now been leaked. (The full white paper should be out this coming week.) It's called Opening the Open Source Debate. Here's a quote:

"Terrorists trying to hack or disrupt U.S. computer networks might find it easier if the federal government attempts to switch to 'open source' as some groups propose...open source might facilitate efforts to disrupt or sabotage electronic commerce, air traffic control or even sensitive surveillance systems."

This paper, mind you, was funded by the same Microsoft whose own OS has many, many security breaches--Klez worm, anybody? Code Red? Nimda? As a friend of mine remarked the other day, Microsoft is engaged in a war of words with Linux, and equating Linux with terrorism in the US right now makes it The Enemy.

I only hope this isn't the first salvo in a return to the infamous Red Scare of the 1950s.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 5:35 pm

What did you expect? Microsoft is out to make money. The best way to make a lot of money is to eliminate competition. Playing dirty has always been part of the game. If you can't beat them, a little bit of character assassination is a good way to make someone vulnerable.

Dottie · Post by **Dottie** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 5:36 pm

If im allowed to be abit optimistic I dont think anyone is going to buy that. Atleast noone with the knowledge to make a concious choice between those two OS.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 7:50 pm

Originally posted by Dottie
If im allowed to be abit optimistic I dont think anyone is going to buy that. Atleast noone with the knowledge to make a concious choice between those two OS.

There are a lot of politicians in Washington, DC and elsewhere whose knowledge of computer issues is based entirely on what they're told via lobbies--of which Microsoft employs a very good-sized one.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 9:04 pm

One has only to look at how Microsoft became what it is today to discern exactly what they're engaged in. Bill Gates did not become as wealthy as he is simply by offering the best product. Linux has actually become somewhat of a threat to Microsoft, and rest assured they'll do whatever it takes to eliminate that threat. The means certainly don't matter - they never did to Microsoft. None of this surprises me in the least.

Ethically, it's blasphemous. From a purely business standpoint, it's survival. I personally don't find any of it palatable, and more than likely, many others don't either. In the end, it boils down to this: how many of us have a Microsoft OS installed on our computers? How much software on the market is compatible with a Microsoft OS? Consumers are left with little choice.

@fable:

Do you know the status of the federal "lawsuit" that Microsoft was engaged in? I've been out of touch for a while; but it seemed to me that it's quite the farce. Whatever the outcome, Microsoft seemed to gain.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 9:09 pm

On the brightside, Dubyah hasn't quite reached point of pin the tail on the terrorist state.

Quite yet...

hahah, I should send SNL that one. cant you just imagine Bush and his senior advisors in the oval office and a map of the middle east/asia/europe. They could blindfold and spin dubyah round then send him towards the map with a pin modeled after a cruise missile. Wherever it was stuck would become the next target of America Strikes back!!

Aegis · Post by **Aegis** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 9:10 pm

All I can say is that I hope the US government does something about Microsoft and it's ball-hold on the computer industry. In the mean time, I suggest using Linux as an OS. Much more stable, and much nicer interface (for those who don't mind using a lot of type-commands to navigate)

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 7:46 am

One man's terrorist...

So Bill Gates holding the world to ransom is, by his own definition, a terrorist? Since he's the one man with the keys to Microsoft. Linux, on the other hand, are freedom fighters. I'm willing to make a bet there are people in Microsoft who'd sell their souls and the source code for ideals or money.

I wish people wouldn'y sully the memory of those who lost their lives.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 8:10 am

What's this story @ Fable? I would have thought that governments would be using Linux by now anyway... ps, who uses Microsoft, and who uses Unix, out of GB residents? Split over two PCs, I have Windows ME *spits*, 2000, Mandrake and Redhat...I probably use Red Hat the most (just because we got it first so I know more about it).

Anyway, it seems Microsoft will never give a sucker an even break. @ Chanack, AFAIK the last developmnt was a decision not to break up the MS Corp. (bribery and corruption anyone?). A friendly solution over Netscape is being worked towards apparently, though almost nothing is going to the press about it (more bribery and corruption anyone?)...

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:55 am

Originally posted by Aegis
All I can say is that I hope the US government does something about Microsoft and it's ball-hold on the computer industry.

It hasn't. While the Clinton adminiistration pushed this, the Bush boys were anxious to distance themselves from any effort to limit a Microsoft's monopoly--I suspect, because they don't want to be seen as being "anti-business."

Having spent a fortune prosecuting Microsoft, the resulting ruling that the administration settled for is so pitiful it would cause laughter, if it weren't our money going down the drain. Consider: Microsoft was required to add an "uninstall feature" to their applications. The way they did this was simply to add a button that removes the application buttons from your Start Bar. That's it. Nothing is uninstalled. It's Microsoft's finger to our government and (indirectly) to ourselves. Makes Linux more and more attractive.

humanflyz · Post by **humanflyz** » Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:21 pm

I haven't seen this discussed anywhere yet. Since Linux itself is an open-ended application, and it's kernel and source code is all public knowledge, why doesn't Microsoft just simply make their own version of Linux, like what Mandrake and RedHat is doing? Microsoft has the money and the influence to persuade developers to develop software for Linux, and from a business perspective, it's a very good way to eliminate the competition using the competition's product. I am not sure about the underlying legal works and all that stuff, but I haven't seen anyone discuss this in all the Microsoft-related threads, so I thought I'd share my idea.