Microsoft, free software and the people

Soldato
Joined
7 Aug 2004
Posts
11,302
*** Wrote this very fast (in response to another thread, it got me thinking), the english is not the greatest, so please be patient ! ,lol ***

Just had a random realisation, microsoft, everyone moans about them, taking over the industry, bulling other companies and all that, and charging and become the richest company on the planet nearly.

The idea to westerners of linux as an honest and free for all system makes sense on the surface as an ethically and good idea, or is it ?

If the world went linux, software would be free, companies would be 'free' and all would be well, would it ?

I cant help thinking, in short, yes microsoft 'destroy' or buy out other companies that displease them or are a competator, however the people working for these other companies either get big payouts, become part of microsoft or go onto other jobs, they certanly don't become homeless or die of starvation.



Now I cant help not notice, bill gates has given $15 billion of his own money to good causes, and helping the needy, microsoft and its other executives have no doubt given more than me or joe naverage will earn in there lifetimes to good causes.

Gates has now given the rest of his life to making sure needy people get aid and not just some money as most other charities do, (I've noticed a lot of reports of charities using most of the donations to keep them running instead of it going to the needy)

So what im trying to say is........the people like me and u who own and buy windows vista or whatever, who lets be honest, WONT die if we spend £60 for something we use contstantly, who YES may get annoyed at some of the annoyances it throws up.........but no more than linux or any other OS in all honesty..........IS IT WORTH having a super power company that YES makes 100/1000 of people very very rich, but also gives more than most countries entire national earnings to the needy ?

Yes I think I would take the option of spending £60 on something every 3-5 years........and creating a global company that 'bullies' (relativily VERY rich westners in global terms) into , well taking other jobs, yet gives billions to the needy, id go for that,

ubutus, software for the people looks much less appealing now in that light. Sure us with roofs and food on the table like the idea of it, but software convenience and 'software works in everything but I.E 6' is a small price to pay for people getting something that matters, at the end of the day on a human scale, companies battle it out, and people will still get homes and food regardless, more people who are truely desperate getting something good is a better option.

Basically who gives a flying **** if we have to program a webpage twice, one for 'free software' , one for software that gives billions to the needy....... the 'its the principle it should just work everywhere' argument about web standards just basically nose dives into comparison of what actually matters in life and what matters in the world.........food, water, saftey matters, see what im saying ?

Of course microsoft may give a small % of its total earnings (but I do beleive its still more of a % of its entire company, than other companies, ill find the report) to good causes............and without microsoft taking over everything, bill gates would not of had the recources to give , what he has given, im keeping a close eye on him after he retires from microsoft, I can only predict from his previous behavior he will acheive great things.

I hope this kind of makes sense, and is defo something to think about



*Dons I read this through twice to remove swearies (I posted this on another forum also), and im 99% sure I removed them all, so please just *** out any I may of missed, I did check as best I could
 
Last edited:
While I agree with some of that. We are capable of giving to charity ourselves.

But yes, open source is hardly a feasible business model and is never going to be the same standard as good commercial software except in a few exceptional circumstances. I would be out of a job if you could actually get an equivalent open source version of the software I write, but you can't, because it's impossible.
 
It's like Tesco, EA, etc.

People complain about how big they're getting, but continue to buy their products.

If people really think Microsoft are getting to big for their boots, then just switch to Linux. When enough switch, the software support will follow suit, as that's how the industry works.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with it like it is. As you say, Mr Gates does plenty for charity, and he's sacrificed a lot to get that company where it is. Why shouldn't he reap the rewards?
 
EA are the devil though... £100 for an OS is fair enough - its extremely complex. £40 for a rushed out piece of crap that EA serve up year in, year out? No thanks! Not paid for any of their software since Need for Speed!
 
It's like Tesco, EA, etc.

People complain about how big they're getting, but continue to buy their products.

If people really think Microsoft are getting to big for their boots, then just switch to Linux. When enough switch, the software support will follow suit, as that's how the industry works.

Personally I don't see what's wrong with it like it is. As you say, Mr Gates does plenty for charity, and he's sacrificed a lot to get that company where it is. Why shouldn't he reap the rewards?

If people started switching to Linux en-masse, it (and associated software) would become commercially viable and companies would be formed to produce it and we would have to start paying for it. Then, freelancers would start to produce open source alternatives for free .............. etc. etc.

Better the devil you know .......?
 
If people started switching to Linux en-masse, it (and associated software) would become commercially viable and companies would be formed to produce it and we would have to start paying for it. Then, freelancers would start to produce open source alternatives for free .............. etc. etc.

Better the devil you know .......?

Very valid point. :)
 
Microsoft doesn't give money to charity. Bill Gates does. The two are very different, and essentially irrelevant to one another.
 
If people started switching to Linux en-masse, it (and associated software) would become commercially viable and companies would be formed to produce it and we would have to start paying for it. Then, freelancers would start to produce open source alternatives for free .............. etc. etc.

Better the devil you know .......?

You wouldn't have to start paying for it :confused: If it's open source and free (i.e. under the GPL as the Linux kernel and the vast bulk of software distributed with Linux distros is) then you can't be made to pay for it. You could pay for tech support, but that's different, obviously.
 
Microsoft doesn't give money to charity. Bill Gates does. The two are very different, and essentially irrelevant to one another.

Actually, I would imagine Microsoft do donate to charity in some form - most companies do. I know of many companies (including my employers) who regularly match funds raised by their employees for charitable causes, for instance.

I see the point you're making, that the £15bn was Gates' own money, but I'd be very surprised indeed if Microsoft did not help charitable causes in some way :)

Edit: Deluxe1 found a link - I couldn't be bothered to look for one :o
 
Last edited:
You wouldn't have to start paying for it :confused: If it's open source and free (i.e. under the GPL as the Linux kernel and the vast bulk of software distributed with Linux distros is) then you can't be made to pay for it. You could pay for tech support, but that's different, obviously.

Are you really naive enough to think that it would remain open source if it was commercially viable to sell it?
 
Are you really naive enough to think that it would remain open source if it was commercially viable to sell it?

The point of licenses like the GPL is that software licensed under it can't be re-licensed under a closed license. The Linux Kernel etc can never be locked away, so to speak. It's not legally possible. It will always be free.
 
The point of licenses like the GPL is that software licensed under it can't be re-licensed under a closed license. The Linux Kernel etc can never be locked away, so to speak. It's not legally possible. It will always be free.

Ahh, you are naive then ;)

If there's money to be made, someone will find a way.
 
I figured this would come up as soon as I posted that... Clearly $2.5bn since 1983 is very different to Bill's $15bn last year or whenever it was.

Doesnt matter if its only $100 it proves that Microsoft do give to charities and $2.5bn is still a hell of a lot of cash to give away even in 25 years.
 
Who do you think can pay for the better lawyers? People who write free software or multi billion dollar software companies?

Well, for starters, plenty multi billion dollar software companies already write free software...

I also still don't see how you're proposing to legally re-license software which is under a license saying it can't be re-licensed. That's prima facie not legally possible. Case open, case closed.
 
Back
Top Bottom