I totally agree with you... 3 years ago I was assigned with a project
to create a Linux distribution to be used as a migration effort by the
university I was studying to move to open source, promote open source
and to teach open source languages like PHP, Python and Ruby to
students. The plan as it is written on my contract is for the
distribution to be deployed to over 200+ campuses across the country,
also in the contract says they will be funding TV advertisement to
promote open source to students so that the university will be a
household name for a school that teaches open source.

When Microsoft found out about the open source initiative this major
school is planning, they soon set a meeting with the head officials
and instantly the open source deal was off... The working product is
already enjoying the deployment, but everything has changed.

I don't know what happened in the meeting, but after just a week, new
computers have been coming with Microsoft OS, Office, and Visual
Studio pre-installed... All the old computers have been installed with
Linux is reformatted to Xp. I was real close on getting a shot of
changing the course of local tech eduction, but then Microsoft ruined
everything... All the hardwork and countless hours I spend on the
Linux project gone down the drain, thanks to Microsoft.



On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:11 PM, »John« <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Building something out of spiteful resentment at seeing the success of
> another is bad.
>
> I've heard this shit before and everyone who believes this is completely
> missing the point. As a matter of fact, M$ was successful only because
> they were lucky and what I hate about them is not their success, but the
> way they keep themselves on top - I'm pretty sure everyone with as much
> as a single trace of sense of fair play will come up with the exact same
> conclusion if he does some digging and reads about all the bribery and
> extortion this fscked up corporation never hesitates to use if it's in
> their best interest. For example, let's take a closer look at their
> licensing policy - if you wanna get your hands on a bunch of cheap OEM
> kits, you gotta either bundle Winblow$ with the whole model line or
> you're simply outta luck. Of course it's also hardware vendors' fault
> that they agree to this in order to save some quick buck, but that
> doesn't change the fact that it's M$ who does this on purpose to
> artificially slow down the adoption of all competing software,
> restricting end consumers' choice in the process (which is something
> they don't give a fsck about). In the end the whole thing results in
> "chicken and egg problem" with both hardware and software support for
> every system other than Winblow$. Another clear example was the process
> of "standardizing" OOXML - isn't it funny that a lot of committee
> members who eventually reconsidered come from developing countries and
> changed their minds after receiving generous donations from M$ or
> something like that? Isn't it funny that M$ is always there to "help"
> everyone who's seriously considering to move away from Winblow$ like
> India or China? Am I the only one seeing a causal link here? Hardly. How
> about bribing Russia not to go ahead with oficially daclaring them as a
> monopoly? Does that ring any bells? The point is, that all this
> completely brings down fundamental principles of competitive market, so
> M$ can feel free to do whatever they want without suffering any
> consequences. So go ahead and protect the corrupt tyrant from the wrath
> they so richly deserve!
>
> --
> Microsoft has a majority market share
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>