Nu Microsoft is a Linux distro

Microsoft seems to turn more and more into something that resembles a Linux distro company at the end of the 90s. We have the fanboi army, we have the compatibility-is-bad mindset, we have the über-arrogance of the guys in charge (despite the availability of more mature products in the targeted marketplace [tablet] and the obvious problems of Win8), we have the complete disregard of the current reality and customers and instead a messianic focus on some mythical future – Metro and apps in Microsoft’s case, Year Of the Linux Desktop in the case of their forebearers. Also, a healthy dose of stupid politics, at the expense of the customer, is there as well. Non-GNU software is bad! Let’s make it as miserable for the customer as possible if he runs commercial software! New Microsoft: Desktop is bad! Let’s make it a hassle to run the desktop and desktop software! And not to forget the complete snottiness: Windows 8 – Linux, is perfect! Everyone who says otherwise is a moron!

The similarities are stunning.

The old Microsoft never thought its products were perfect, and that mindset is one of the reasons they won the desktop. In the Kingdom of Metronia though it’s sunshine everyday and Metro is gift from the gods.

Here’s more how MS “transforms” to semi-freetardism:

Standards-even-if-it-hurts. According to freetard orthodoxy, a fart app is more valuable than a program that could generate stock market predictions without fail, if the former is “open” and/or adheres to standards. Same bug is creeping into MS. They have raped their .NET stack (worse: annoyed their WPF/SL devs) in favour of.. HTML! Steve Jobs wannabe Sinofsky was a champion in this regard. In opposite to that look what the “real” Jobs did: Steve Jobs blasted Flash not because HTML is great, but to take out a competitor to Apple’s proprietary offerings. Why championing HTML 5 and Javascript of all things? The main languages of IOS and Android (Objective C and Java) resemble C# far more than HTML+JS. And they want ports from these platforms.

Ideology over function: Metro apps would profit from chrome. The Skype app is a hassle compared to the desktop version. But, ideology says no! Notro must be chrome-free, it’s what the design language says after all! That’s freetard-think, just like kernel devs won’t allow binary drivers/blobs, even though the customer would profit from it. But GNU says no, sorry.

We-support-only-good-standards: One reason why Linux audio is subpar, is because just when an audio stack gets entrenched, a new one appears that has a slightly better design in theory but is completely untested and underdeveloped. Of course the community ditches the old one, implements the new one, hillarity ensues, the cycle repeats, but the ideology is served. Same thinking with MS: The mail app in Windows 8 doesn’t support POP3. IMAP is supported though, because it’s “better” in ways only nerds care about, even though POP3 is far more prevalent. Users are screwed, but the ideology got served. Worse, instead of not just offering ther POP3 option, THERE IS a POP option, only when you click on it the programs angrily berates you for using that shitty POP standard. It reminds me of “Spread Firefox” fanatics from 2004 “How do you dare to visit my site using the 90% market share browser!? Go away, scum!”

GNU/Linux quest: That’s minor, but the whole Metro yada reached almost FSF’s Linux naming quest. They had to change name because a German conglomerate owns the trademark (too snobby to run a trademark check, NuMicrosoft?) and MS acted totally freetarded here. Instead of just changing the name, they started to dicking around, claiming that it was never called Metro in the first place. Microsoft even wanted to ban apps from the store if they contained “Metro” in the name (what’s if your app is about the Paris Metro?). Thankfully this has been averted.


Windows 8 fucking sucks

First of all, let Microsoft themselves speak about what they thought a good UI should be like. Suzanne Hansen, a product manager at Microsoft, explains:


While the Visual Studio 2010 visual appearance is unique, it does follow the Microsoft Windows UX guidelines. Microsoft does not use one standard visual appearance for all its products for multiple reasons, including:

* Not every product has the same users and therefore the same UI is not appropriate everywhere
* Microsoft has such a wide range of products, it would be impossible to do one visual appearance that is a “one size fits all.” For example, it would be virtually impossible to use a single UI design for Zune, XBox, Visual Studio and Bing.
* Different visual appearance of different products helps differentiate/brand them.
* Having a single UI appearance would not give individual products flexibility to evolve as needed in response to trends, customer and business needs.

Thank you, Suzanne Hansen, Program Manager, Visual Studio Platform Shell Team

Suzanne explains here why Visual Studio 2010 has a different look and feel than Windows. And the explanations make perfect sense! (unlike the stuff they tout out with Windows 8) But isn’t this the complete opposite from the current Windows 8 design philosophy? And yet, this was Microsoft’s credo just two-three years ago! How is it possible to trust in Microsoft’s Windows 8 vision, when they were able to flip their own philosophy completely on its head within such a short timespan?

Windows 8 is clearly a “one size fits all” rush-job that was driven in a dictatorial fashion by its main-overseer at Microsoft, Steven Sinofsky (the man “left” the company shortly after the Win8 debute. Signs and wonders). Countless of people have raised their voices on the official Windows 8 blog when the OS was in development, yet the dev team and Sinofsky have demonstratively ignored the highly technical issues that were brought up and only answered the simplistic ones. it went something like this:

Sinofsky’s Blog
user 1: Hi there! I like Windows 8.
user 2: You said Aero shouldn’t be in Windows 8 because it harms battery life, but that doesn’t make sense because Aero can be turned off when the computer is on battery. It actually wasn’t long ago that Microsoft was defending Aero as having minimal impact on battery life. Are you now going to claim that Microsoft was wrong? In fact I have multiple links showing specific benchmarks that Aero only uses 1-4% when on and…..
user 3: Will Windows 8 have a Twitter app?
Sinofsky: That’s a great question that I’d be happy to answer. Yes Windows 8 will have a Twitter app.
(week later user 2 comment is gone)

(Quoted from the blog “Techbroil“)

I was reading the W8 blog regularly, it was EXACTLY like this.

But let’s concentrate on the product itself – Windows 8 has a new programming interface, called WinRT, and a new GUI, formerly called Metro. What’s the problem with WinRT and Metro? Here’s the list:

1. The desktop has multiple windows, Metro has not.

2. Desktop programs can be resized, Metro apps cannot.

3. The desktop has drag and drop between applications, Metro has not. Instead of just selecting the items you want to export and actually move them into the other program, you need to handle with “charms” which comes across far more unintuitive than just dragging and dropping.

4. The desktop has nearly unlimited multi-tasking abilities, Metro has not.

5. Metro apps are far more limited in scope, by design, than desktop programs.

6. Desktop programs have depth and 3D, Metro apps on the other hand seem to be approved by the Flat Earth Society.

7. Desktop programs are usually more colorful and vibrant, the Metro design principle consists of CGA style mono-color.

Winzip for Desktop:


WinRT version:


Which one does look more like a C64 program?

8. You can open up other programs in the desktop, through the start menu, without disrupting workflow. On the other hand the start screen is something like the “item menu” in games where you dress up your character with weapons etc. Everyone knows that it is quite distracting switching between item menu and game world in games, and Microsoft brought this concept onto its flag ship product! Hooray.

9. Desktop programs can be easily distributed, Metro desktops are locked-in into the store.

If an alien would just land on our planet and see Windows 7 and Windows 8 (and its programs) for the first time, without no prior knowledge, he would think Windows 7 is the successor, not 8. And that’s just the problem of the WinRT part. The fact is that Win8 has multiple control panels and update mechanisms and is a duality monster. Win8 apologists in all seriousness propose arcane keyboard shortcuts as solution for some of the glaring problems, where previous versions worked just fine without using them. Also the Metro start screen offers absolutely no indication that it is searchable, yet it is. It’s full of little news items and ad-like graphics. It resembles something like, only that CNN HAS a search box! Would you “just start typing” at, if the site had no visible search box?

So, fine. Use ONLY the desktop then! But here’s the catch, and the reason for all this negativity – Microsoft put away the start button. If you click on the hidden start button, you’re back to the Metro interface. It’s a jarring experience. They want you to force going Metro, yet the whole Metro and WinRT experience is so limited and smart phoney, it’s just insane to use it on a screen bigger than a tablet. No one, and I mean NO ONE was able to tell me what the heck the benefit of the start screen is for desktop and laptop users or why the Metro apps are this castrated (the mail app can’t handle the most common mail protocol IN THE WORLD!), yet MS forces you to use them (the default image/video/music viewers/players are awkward Metro apps in W8.. even in desktop mode! They look as if they consist of one single code line). The explanations only come to “newer mobile devices have something like that, so.. eh.. and you will get used to it!”.. And that’s pretty much it. That’s not a compelling argument to warrant such a hassle.

Oh, and did you know that for multiple users Windows 8 is just arsed? The “All Programs” system is bonkered in Windows 8. Let me explain: If installers (of Win32 programs) put links into the C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs folder, they ARE NOT GLOBAL. Not really that is. The link appears in the start screen for the user who installed the program, but all other users don’t see it. It’s only visible for them if they right-click and chose the “All Apps” screen (yes, IT’S HIDDEN ON DEFAULT!)

Windows Vista and 7 didn’t highlight newly installed programs in the start menu for other users as well, but the “All Programs” submenu-button wasn’t hidden, so it wasn’t such an issue like with W8.

Oh, and let’s also not forget that W8 Metro “apps” need to be installed per user, undeleted per user and updated per user. Just try it out: Install the updates of all the default apps through the appstore, create another account on the computer and log-in to the app-store. What do you see? You need to install the updates for that user as well! Trying to manage this for multiple users is hell! At the moment, the only reasonable tactic if you have multiple users and you want to use them apps is to let them use ONE account only and lock that one down with scripts etc. BACK TO DOS, BABY

And it’s not only about the metro-menu and all the headache that brings, it’s the whole approach. For example the darn “apps” themselves: How hard could it have been to include a “Pro mode” (with scary “You’re on your own now!” warnings if needed) or something like that which would allow sideloading? They could still have their store and still make the enthusiasts and “Pros” happy. It would have been easy to make the Metro-Notro-Win8stylestoreapps-whatever more appealing to the laptop and desktop users. How about more features availble the bigger the screen is? “Windows has detected you have a 24 inch screen, multi-tasking and windowing of Metro apps is enabled now”. Stuff like that wouldn’t be too hard, freeware like Bluestacks does it! But no, Microsoft has chosen the most limiting and existing-customers-repulsing way possible. That is why there are complaints and bad feeling all around. That’s where the “walled garden” and “dictatorial” accusations come from. MS was a quite comfortable choice between the strict Apple- and the free-for-all linux world, pretty much the golden middle, now they are doing their darndest to change themselves into a totally redundant MicroApple and this generates ill felings. The many game developers were annoyed for good reasons IMHO. And let’s not start on the limitations of the metro apps.. Oh sure, they aren’t forcing metro down on you, except they do:

Now let’s forget the start screen, just open up an audio file on the desktop.. BAM – You’re on a full screen monstrosity, with “parental advisory” graphics from obscene rap album covers and stuff like that. With no obvious way to get out of it. PROGRESS. They wanted to simplify Windows 8. That’s why instead of clicking on an easy to spot bright red X, (that’s faaar to power user for the common idiot to understand) you need to “grab” the application by its invisible head and drag it down the drain so that it can disappear. And if you managed to close it, you’re back on the metro screen instead of the desktop (where you started). Just fabulous! So just playing a darn audio file means switching through completely different GUI environments and playing a mini-adventure. Same is happening when you open up pictures and movie files. Yes, that’s what I call a great user experience right there. Then there’s the DVD codec issue and WMP not playing them even if you have the codecs installed, mail apps that can’t handle common protocols.. No one is going to change their provider just because subpar OS update decided it wants to out-hipster the whole world.

Sure, you can hack-around to link WMP back to the files etc. but shouldn’t an “upgrade” make stuff.. you know, better?! How’s stuff like that a good default experience? In the first beta versions, the welcome screen could not be clicked away. You had to drag it away with the mouse! Totally insane. That’s one of the very few things they have fixed, but the fact that something like that made it into an alpha version, yet alone beta, makes it clear what kind of carelessness the “design” of Win8 truly was/is. I am pretty sure the main reason the server got metro too is to prevent “power users” running Server 2012 as a desktop replacement.

All that is just NOT comparable to the previous versions. Never before were there such regressions in usability of Windows and “feel” of the company.

Then there’s the whole subplot about their handling of developers and the whole Silverlight affair to promote the W8 craplets – killing SL just when it was going strong as LOB tool. The amount of badwil they have created with this OS among their (former) allies, devs and supporters is just staggering.

Steve Ballmer compared Windows 8 multiple times to Windows 95, yet the comparison doesn’t hold water in the slightest.

Windows 8 is the anti-95.
Win32 programs didn’t gave you the feeling that something is amiss compared to Win 3.1 applications. (with Metro you have this feeling constantly). Even the first generation Win95 programs at launch felt more capable than their 3.1 precursors (Corel Draw 6, Office 95). Notro provides the complete opposite feeling.

Windows 95 came with uncrippled winfile.exe and progman.exe (the win 3.1 GUI), and you were able to boot directly into it without even seeing 95’s explorer.exe at all (“shell=progman.exe” in system.ini). (works in win 98 too) There was even an official option at the Windows 95 setup for that if you upgraded from Win3.1.

You also were able to directly boot into DOS with ease (just set bootgui=0 in msdos.sys, that also worked in Win 98).

Windows 95 is the anti-thesis to Windows 8. The philosphies were completely different. The team had enough courage to provide all these options because it truly seemed as if they were proud and confident about the system to stand on its own. Windows 8 on the other hand comes across as coward’s darling – “the users are too stupid to appreciate our beautiful hippster GUI, let’s cripple the desktop as much as we can to force them to this”. Windows 95 didn’t need any crippling, users chosed explorer.exe because it was better, and they had the ability to use the old GUI without compromise If they wished to do so.

Windows 95 is confidence. Windows 8 is cowardice.

And Linux still sucks

One year ago a brave soul (also known as the great Lunduke) proposed ways to improve the Linux Desktop:

Well, 12 months have passed and Linux on the desktop still sucks. Lunduke’s proposal in this video was that Linux desktop users should pay for software, donate 100$ per month for GIMP… madness. Yes, this would most likely make desktop Linux better, but it won’t be the same Linux we all love so much anymore.

He is forgetting what the motivation for most people is to run Linux. Take any of those “why linux is better” websites, what are the main reasons it is “better”?



Don’t pay $300 for your operating system


Why copy software illegally if you can get it for free?


Play hundreds of games for free

Hundreds of games are released under a free (as in “free beer” and as in “free speech”)

Take the “free” (as in beer) away and Linux crumbles totally. It’s the only thing that truly speaks in its favour as desktop OS. The rest (stability, viruses) are moot points, Windows and Mac are just as stable now. Maybe even more.

Lunduke’s only argument why his proposal might work, is that some Linux users paid for his programs (1 in 50 visitors?). But he doesn’t explain what programs those were. And just why should someone pay 100$ dollars per month for GIMP if he/she can just as well buy the much more powerful Photoshop? Just because Gimp is “libre”?

If you want pay for your software regulary, run Windows and Mac. You will get better software to boot.  OK, I’ve forgot, there is still the fanatical FSF sect who cares primarily about the ideological purity. But with the “popularity” of Ubuntu, this sect is getting marginalized even in the Linux world. The cheapskates are the main audience.

Let’s face the truth: There is NO technical superiority of the Linux system anymore compared to Windows and Mac.  It was the case in the 90s, Linux was indeed technically a better OS than the Win9x line and classical Mac, but this is the ancient past now.  Freetards can now cry “Viruses, Viruses!” as long as they want, but the truth is, it has much to do with market share and the fact that users like to install shady software, as Android is experiencing right now. If you like deathmarches, you can depend solely on repositories of course, but the bad outweighs the good here. The only argument freetards bring forth at this point is usually the ancient “IIS Argument” which has been debunked long ago as well.

And seriously, get rid of the “Linux is secure by design” trademark. That design was even present in NT 4.0 already. Seriously, it’s comical how freetards still to this day are just floored by user account separation.

In short, there are only two realistic reasons to use Linux on the desktop today:

1. You have an axe to grind with MS/Apple
2. Cost

Paying for Linux kinda defeats the most important point. So of course, it’s one year later, and Linux still sucks.

Withholding Internet Explorer 10 from Vista is a terrible decision

This blog is all about the problems of Linux and especially the cult-like mentality many of its supporters have. Criticizing Linux meant often times defending Microsoft, since that company is demonized beyond belief by the freetards to further their own cause.

But, I am not blind and I have no problems pointing out the shortcomings of companies when it needs to be done. Microsoft announced that it will not release Internet Explorer 10 for Windows Vista:

Regarding Windows Vista, our decision with IE9 [and 10] was not to build to the lowest common denominator .. Microsoft confirmed that the new browser is intended only for Windows 7

What?! Windows Vista together with the Platform Update that was released for it in 2009 is almost equal to Windows 7 API wise.

The core component of the new Internet Explorer versions, Direct2D, is available on Vista. Microsoft themselves have said that the update was designed to “[make] it easier for developers to develop for Windows 7 and Windows Vista without impacting their users“.  (source)

The Platform Update includes among other parts:

Windows Graphics, Imaging, and XPS Library: components for developers to leverage the latest advancements in modern graphics technologies for gaming, multimedia, imaging and printing applications. It includes updates to DirectX to support hardware acceleration for 2D, 3D and text based scenarios; DirectCompute for hardware accelerated parallel computing scenarios; and XPS Library for document printing scenarios.

Just what the hell will Internet Explorer 10 will do, that this will not be enough to run it? Killing of the support for Windows XP with Internet Explorer 9 was understandable, this action is not.

Given the fact that the time frame between the first Internet Explorer 9 Platform Preview and the final of IE9 was exactly one year, as it was the case with the first public beta version of IE 8 and the final, and the fact that the first Platform Preview of IE10 is already available, it most likely means that IE10 final will be released around April 2012. The mainstream support for Vista ends on the tenth of April 2012:

I guess this means IE10 will probably be released just a few days after the end of mainstream support, just narrowly in time to justifiy the shaft Vista users will get. I won’t be surprised if Microsoft artificially delays the RTM version for a few days just for this purpose. A dick move par excellence.

Yes, Vista was not exactly well received, most of it was due to massive exaggeration of issues that were mostly fixed with SP1 I might add, but this doesn’t justify this decision. Of course, Microsoft legally has all the rights to do this, but it doesn’t change the fact that this policy is boneheaded to the extreme and feels almost like an expression of contempt for the people who bought Windows Vista.

A bad move that tarnishes the Windows brand and the trust in the product for no good reason.

And the freetards hated…

OK, I have asked in the previous post: which Windows version was the one, that especially “freetards” hated?

The results:

Windows 98 ( 0.0% )

Windows Me ( 19.35% )

Windows XP ( 19.35% )

Windows Vista ( 45.16% )

Windows 7 ( 16.13% )

Well, in this case, the minority was right, because the Windows version, that freetards hated the most was:




Posted Image

Posted Image

YES! Windows XP! Surprised huh? Windows Vista was hated too, but, freetards had even more venom when XP was released. You must remember that at the time Vista was released, community sites like Digg and the like already existed, so the Vista-negativity was more ubiquitos,  while in 2001 the freetards had less places to vent. Despite this, when XP came out, the tone in freetarded circles was even worse.

The above graphics are from a now defunct site called “BoycottXP”, it was established in 2001, shortly before the release of XP. Here is an old snapshot:


Quote from the site:

We’ve noticed lots of submissions from Anonymous Heros, and while we aren’t going to prohibit that just yet we want to encourage everyone to create an account before submitting. Also, try to keep comments as comments and actual story submissions as story submissions. We’re working on this becoming more automated – but for now control yourselves!

Here’s a snapshot of how XP was received by the freetards:


WinXP is just Windows 2000 SE!

Yeah, so it begins alright… another rehashed OS with a huge hype machine behind it.

WinXP is the equivalent of Windows 98 SE. Nothing really new here, just a bunch of

integrated utilities and a revamped configuration system.…909&cid=2340198

From: September 2001



XP could sink Microsoft

Just think, consumers are not sold on XP, and Microsoft shelled out some
major $$$ to develop this thing. Customers are wary of this whole
product activation thingie. Also, MS is more concerned about their
revenue streams than they are about the consumer. What about all the
customers who have faithfully invested time and $$$ in
buying/using/learning to use Microsoft software? Is this how MS treats

This is a great opportunity for alternative operating systems to
intercept the ball, and run it back for a touchdown.…1867c9ca0?hl=en

Posted: October 2001



And so it begins….

XP will be the doom of Microsoft. One day in the future, XP will be studied along with the Apple III, IBM Micro Channel Architecture, and Intel/Rambus as an example of corporate arrogance trumping common sense with DISATEROUS results.

As one /. poster has put it (brilliantly, I might add), that with XP, Microsoft has done to itself what the DOJ never could have done: Release a product that will ENABLE competition, and possibly ruin the company.

XP is the product of the two biggest sins a corporation can commit: arrogance and contempt. It’s arrogant in that it’s overpriced, offers NOTHING new over WIndows 2000, and in fact, takes away from it.

The “Home” version strips you of network capability, unlike 98/95/ME/2000, it CANNOT be used as a client on anything but a peer-to-peer network. It won’t allow you to log into a NT domain. I haven’t tested it to see if Novell Client 32 will allow logins to a Netware server, but I’d suspect that it’s broken as well. It has no support for SMP at all (though 9X didn’t either), to get SMP requires the $200 “Professional” version upgrade. None of this is because XP can’t do SMP or serve as a network client, it’s because MS chose to deliberately CRIPPLE it, and yet sell it for a radically increased price over ME/98.

The Home version upgrade is 100% more expensive than ME! (ME could be had for $50 to upgrade from 98). For what benefit? None that I can tell. Sure, you are likely to gain some of 2000’s stability, but you will surely lose game compatibility (which is why the deplorable Win `9X is still the gamers OS). Is that worth $100? Not to me. And I’d bet not to many joe blows.

MS comits the sin of contempt with Product Activation, and it’s spyware nature. XP “decides” how far to let you upgrade your hardware before requiring reactication. Which can lose you your data if there is but the SLIGHTEST glitch in this process. MS is better known for creating “unintended consequences” in it’s “features” than it is in writing bug-free code. XP constantly monitors your hardware configuration,assigning it a “checksum” number via some formula, and if it gets too far from the “checksum” number originally generated when you installed it, it will CEASE to function.

I hope they have those support lines well staffed.

That’s right, now on a XP system, the system owner does NOT have root access to the machine! This is something no MS OS has attempted to do before.

Even if XP didn’t have the fatal flaws of arrogance and contempt, the fact that it’s a 100%-200% increase in price over 9X alone would be enough to doom it. In this time of economic crisis, particularly in the tech sector, a 100+% increase in the “MS Tax” will do nothing but slow sales, ESPECIALLY when you expect MS to make licenses of ME, 98, and 2000 scarce quickly.

The “window” of opportunity for Linux is open.


Posted: September 2001



Windows XP sucks so bad

Why is an OS created to make my life a living hell ? Why is an OS created to
make me have to buy all new hardware just to make it function properly ? Why
should I not get a refund when my computer exceeds all the minimum
requirements on the side of the box and still doesn’t work ? Why can I not
get a refund when I take the software back to the store and tell them I
disagree with the license agreement ? Why does XP look and feel alot like
Linux KDE
? Why does Linux KDE, which is free, work with everything without
a hitch when XP costs over $100 and takes a squat on every piece of hardware
and software that comes near it ? Why does Bill Gates insist on having so
many GD updates and service packs? Get it right before it is released to the
public butthole. Why is it that the only computers that I have seen function
properly with XP rather have HP, Compaq, Dell, etc on the side of them ? I
loathe Compaq…just a thought. Really, Compaq sucks so bad. I know so many
of you are going to say ooh, you just don’t know what you are doing or your
computer is a piece of crap or some bologna like that so let me say this up
front. XP does not work for me, just like ME didn’t work for so many of you,
but ME did for me. My computer is still a very good computer and it gets the
job done very nicely and I will not throw it aside with so many miles left
on it just to run a new OS. . All I am saying here is that XP is an
overpriced piece of garbage which even tech support cannot figure out. At
least they haven’t in all the calls I have taken part in. I will probally go
with a new OS, but it will probally be lindows unless Microsoft sues them so
hard that they cannot even afford to have the CD’s pressed. Just steaming
over XP, nothing more or less.…1eac2d536?hl=en

Posted: January 2002


pirating XP?

Who would want to pirate the Fisher Price operating system? There’s code that aint even

_worth_ stealing.

Posted: November 2001



XP is Shit!

Windows XP is a piece of SHIT! It’s going right back to the store tomorrow.
What a joke. Every Linux distribution I have ever installed goes smoothly,
recognizing everything. Then this “user friendly” monster from MS can’t
install. I think MANY people will return this crap. MS, what were you

Posted: October 2001


Why would you want to buy XP? It is bloated, it is
slow and it’s a hardware hog. Windows 2k is arguably the last best version
of Windows we will see. 

XP, in addition to its other faults, is also a privacy nightmare. Get ready
to sign up with MS’s notoriously insecure Passport site and put your trust
in the hands of Gates and company. I do not advise anyone to buy or
downgrade to XP. I’d convert to Linux before I’d load XP on my machine.…adf9bffe9?hl=en

Posted: October 2001

Quotes from:…pinions/xp.html
Article is from 2001: 

XP Equals eXtra Proprietary

by Michael Tiemann
Red Hat Chief Technical Officer

Microsoft has launched its latest version of Windows, Windows XP (eXtra
Proprietary). Tightening its stranglehold on all industries that use
computers, Microsoft’s XP features are certain to further degrade customer
choice, cost/performance, and in some cases, even civil liberties.

Let’s start with the premise of any free market economy: customer choice.
The Windows XP installation process offers a choice for Internet
connectivity: (1) connect to Microsoft’s proprietary MSN network or (2)
don’t connect at all. In one fell swoop, Microsoft decapitates any and all
Internet Service Providers who exist to provide customers with a wide range
of service choices and capabilities.


In the mean time, Microsoft has been earning $1B/month net income from its
monopoly, money users pay because they believe they have no choice. Should
users who have been unable to free themselves from Microsoft’s regular
proprietary technologies expect life to get any better by buying into
Microsoft’s more powerful eXtra Proprietary technologies? Let’s see.

One of the most controversial new eXtra Proprietary technologies is Windows
Media. In a twist that no framer of the US Constitution could have imagined,
Microsoft is using patents to prevent software interoperability with its
eXtra Proprietary technologies. Of course, Windows Media has to compete with
the immensely popular mp3 format, but Windows XP limits the quality of mp3
encoding and decoding. By intentionally degrading the quality of all
competing technologies, and by allowing only Microsoft-approved uses of its
own technologies, Windows Media has the potential to create yet another
monopoly for Microsoft—a monopoly that extends from software to content.
Such a monopoly would change our entertainment economy from one of unlimited
content at limited cost, to one of limited content with unlimited costs.

Moore’s Law promises that silicon technologies will offer 2x
price/performance improvements every 12-18 months. Yet every version of
Windows (and Windows XP is no exception) conspires to steal most if not all
of the dividends of Moore’s Law. The result is that PC’s have become much
more powerful, but not much cheaper nor much more functional. Microsoft
Windows, on the other hand, has become much more bloated.

Microsoft is hoping thousands of users will rush to stores and spend nearly
$100 for their latest OS. Don’t do it. eXtra Proprietary technologies
require *EXTRA* CPU speed and memory, virtually requiring a hardware upgrade
to go with your software upgrade. Indeed, Microsoft has the audacity to
suggest that if your PC is more than two years old, you should junk it and
get a new one. While PC vendors may welcome that message, such a wasteful
approach is actually bad for the economy because it bankrupts the buyers
that keep the economy going.

Another eXtra Proprietary feature is Passport, a recent winner of a Big
Brother Award ( ). Passport collects
user information (name, phone numbers, credit card numbers, etc) and
stores that information at Microsoft. Passport is the “how” that then
gives Microsoft control over the “Who, What, When, Where” and possibly
“Why” of Internet transactions. Microsoft is happy to let customers
exchange personal privacy for convenience within Microsoft’s proprietary

Is this where you really wanted to go today?


Let’s get out of this vicious trap the way we got in: by controlling what we
do with our money. If you are already running Microsoft’s products, do the
sensible thing and BOYCOTT THE MONOPOLIST. Let Microsoft’s latest products
sit in warehouses until Microsoft comes to their senses and removes all the
eXtra Proprietary technologies they’ve been engineering over the past
several years. Wait until Microsoft offers a level playing field to other
operating systems, applications, and network service providers.

For those of you who cannot stand still, join a LUG (Linux Users Group) and
maybe upgrade to Linux. Aside from saving a bundle on licensing fees (there
are none), you’ll get unprecedented freedom and control. With thousands of
Red Hat Certified Engineers, and millions of Linux enthusiasts, *any*
configuration running on *any* hardware can be supported at a fair price
(determined by a free market of competing vendors) for as long as you want.
Suddenly, hardware and software upgrades will be your choice, not a choice
dictated to you. Suddenly, money you spend will be on things that you value,
not things you are forced to pay for. Suddenly, you will begin to see the
engine of growth that Moore’s law enables come back to life, and the
dividends it pays will be ones you can put in your bank account, not the
bank account of a convicted monopolist.

You can still find it here:

Yes, that’s about the same XP, that is so revered today! (Even in semi-freetarded circles)

All of this has happened before, and it will all happen again:

The same unsubstantial FUD and exaggerations: What was “DRM” with Vista, was “Passport” and “Windows Media” with XP.

Boycott sites: Boycott XP – Windows7Sins

Arguments: XP is just a Service Pack to Windows 2000.
the same people say now, that Vista was just a Service Pack to XP and 7 is just a SP to Vista. By that logic, almost all Windows users are effectively still using Windows 2000 today.

Not seeing the real deal – NT stability was finally made available to home users. This was the game changer that most freetards completely overlooked.

The astounding hypocrisy so prevalent in the Linux community: The last FUD-ridden article was not written by some run-of-the-mill freetard on Slashdot but by Red Hat. It’s amazing that freetards only accuse Apple and Microsoft (and everyone else) of FUD and “astroturfing” but never saw and still never see the even more blatant FUD on their side.

And the usual “KDE ripoff” accusation (but at the same time, it’s a “Fisher Price” OS, while KDE looks “professional” – so what is it?)

So, the campaigns and arguments we see today with 7 and Vista were first pioneered with XP. It was the Windows OS, that freetards hated the most.

The Most Hated Windows Version

With the recent news about Windows 8 (and the unavoidable freetard-rage that will come with it), it’s time for an aptly timed quiz.

Take your guess: Which Windows version was the one, the freetards hated the most?

Following orders

Recently I’ve wrote about how freetards on OSNews and Slashdot condone piracy but are in arms about GPL violations. To the layman this behavior might be surprising, but actually they are just following the examples of their spiritual leader.

I’ve covered the hypocrisy of Richard Stallman and the FSF before, but the copyright situation is such a blatant case of astounding hypocrisy, that I feel this deserves one more post.

So, rms is pissed about recording companies enforcing their copyright:

THE RECORD companies, seeking to bully people who share music, have demanded that colleges identify students who share (“Record firms crack down on campuses,” Business, March 8). They use smear terms such as “piracy” and “theft” that imply sharing is wrong. Don’t believe it. Sharing is friendship; to attack sharing is to attack the basis of society.

But how is the FSF acting if their copyright is infringed?


Under the license, if you distribute GPL software in a product, you must also distribute the software’s source code. And not just the GPL code, but also the code for any “derivative works” you’ve created–even if publishing that code means anyone can now make a knockoff of your product.


And if they balk? Kuhn raises the threat of legal action. “We defend the rights protected by the GPL license,” he says. “We have legal teeth, so if someone does not share and share alike, we can make them obey the rules.”


In fact, the Free Software Foundation runs a lot of these “enforcement actions.” There are 30 to 40 going on right now, and there were 50 last year, Kuhn says. There have been hundreds since 1991, when the current version of the GPL was published, he says. Tracking down bad guys has become such a big operation that the Free Software Foundation has created a so-called Compliance Lab to snoop out violators and bust them.

Who pays for this? The 12-employee Free Software Foundation has limited resources. So it seeks donations. And sometimes it collects money from companies it has busted.

Last year, the foundation alleged that OpenTV, a San Francisco company that ships a set-top box containing Linux, was violating the GPL. The drama took months to resolve and ended with OpenTV writing a check for $65,000 to the Free Software Foundation. “They paid us a very substantial payment for our time and trouble,” Moglen says.

In some ways, these Free Software Foundation “enforcement actions” can be more dangerous than a typical copyright spat, because usually copyright holders seek money–say, royalties on the product that infringing companies are selling. But the Free Software Foundation doesn’t want royalties–it wants you to burn down your house, or at the very least share it with cloners.

Or maybe, as some suggest, the foundation wants GPL-covered code to creep into commercial products so it can use GPL to force open those products. Kuhn says that’s nuts–“pure propaganda rhetoric.” But he concedes that his foundation hates the way companies like Oracle and Microsoft generate billions of dollars by selling software licenses. “We’d like people to stop selling proprietary software. It’s bad for the world,” Kuhn says.

This article is from 2003 but the situation today is basically the same

So, why is it moral for the FSF to enforce their copyright and immoral if others do it? Note that the FSF even encourages copyright infringement on their newspeak-page:

If you don’t believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The same organization, who persecutes copyright violators, ENDORSES copyright violation (!) of others out of sheer antipathy to traditional copyright holders.

I would say the policies of the FSF are in some cases even less moral than those of the recording companies. If file sharers are persecuted, well, at least you can say that they got busted for violating something that was completeley not their own work. But, let’s say I would create out of Gnumeric a killer application that would even make Excel look like outdated trash. Under the GPL, I would need to give away my whole application, even if my work exceeeds the original work by far.

I am not, in general, opposed to the actions carried out by the FSF. If you want to use/extend GPL’ed software, then it’s your own choice and you should live with the implications and honor the license. The problem is, Stallman and his goonies don’t have the same respect for others.

Stallman brings forth some justifications for his hypocrisy:

To stop people from sharing goes against human nature, and the Orwellian propaganda that “sharing is theft” usually falls on deaf ears.

Well, making money is pretty much human nature, too. How would the FSF react, if I would encourage people to violate the GPL?

Accumulating wealth is human nature. That’s why you should be able to create closed source software out of existing FOSS products. Don’t use the term “GPL violation”, Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as feeding your family

Stallman: Sharing continues despite these measures; the human impulse to cooperate is strong

The human impulse for committing crimes is pretty strong, too. And crime never stopped. Is this an argument? He also somehow never sees that the main impetus for many people in this case is not really “sharing”.

The real solution is to legalize sharing. This won’t affect the record companies much, but if they did go out of business, we could rejoice that they can no longer threaten anyone.

They pay zero cents of your CD purchase price to musicians (except for superstars), so the absence of these companies would be no loss to society.

This is a problem between the artists and the companies. What has this to do with file sharing as such?  Illegal file sharing exists since well over a decade now, and it has not improved the situation of musicians. How does it help the artists in any way, if the companies completely vanish? They get little now, they will get nothing at the end.

We could support musical artists with public funds distributed directly to them in proportion to the cube root of their popularity. Using the cube root means that if superstar A is 1000 times as popular as skilled artist B, A will get 10 times as much of the tax funds as B. This way of dividing the money is an efficient way to promote a broad diversity of music.

These funds could come from the general budget, or from a special tax on something vaguely correlated with listening to music, such as blank disks or Internet connectivity. Either way would do the job.

Or we could just buy the stuff we want! Ah, wait..

It’s questionable whether that will flawlessly work. And I doubt whether the general public will readily accept, to subsidy basically all entertainment that can be digitized on such a large scale. Movies, ebooks and games can be file-shared too, and thus would fall under this tax. Essentially,  most of the entertainment industry would be quasi state-run.

And if all this would be indeed financed by the general budget, then Stallman’s endless “ethical and moral” diatribes don’t hold water:

Buying entertainment products is entirely voluntary. You won’t get harmed in any way, if you don’t listen to the newest Britney Spears CD. We are not talking about food and medical drugs here.

Likewise, pirating them is entirely voluntary, too. No one is forcing you at knifepoint to do it.

So, financing pretty much the whole entertainment industry with taxes (take into account, how much modern games and movies cost to make ), just to legalize piracy, is not that “ethical”. If you want to go that route, then these vast sums of money would be far better invested in true social programs, like health care, public transportation, support for the poor and the like.

But anyway, enough. This is not about the pros and cons of file sharing.  The FSF and Stallman invent pseudo-moralistic arguments to deny the very same right they use with a vengeance.

I don’t agree with the recording companies on many things, and I think fining teenagers thousands of dollars is ridiculous and not appropriate, but this doesn’t change the fact that Stallman and the FSF are hypocrites. If you say it’s OK to circumvent copyright, then it’s OK to circumvent copyright. End. I can invent tons of excuses to breach the GPL, too.

Stallman and the FSF act in the dangerous delusion that everything they say and do is genuinely good and moral. And that’s why certain laws should only work for them. No other mindset is more dangerous than this one.