Microsoft hits new ethical low point?

[Niall Kavanagh]

On Sun, 18 Feb 2001, Patrick Ohiomoba wrote:

> with distinctive personalities).  I don't think that there was any less
> difference between Bush and Gore than between Clinton and Dole, Clinton
> and Bush, Dukakis and Bush, or any number of previous elections.  If you

Absolutely agreed.

> consider stances on the environment (including energy policy), abortion,
> gun control, campaign finance reform, taxes, health care policy, and the
> role of government in peoples lives in general, for example, you'd find
> the candidates had noticibly different stances.  And now that Bush has

Really? I'm unaware of even one major issue where either candidate had a
fundamentaly different stance.

> Since the person likely in charge of the Microsoft case in the Bush
> administration sides with Microsoft in terms of government antitrust
> interference in the software industry, you can't even say it doesn't
> affect our lives (Gore would have likely had a different person in

It doesn't affect Our lives. It does affect _our_ lives. The public
doesn't have much to gain/lose no matter what happens to Microsoft. Rather
the public is more concerned with their rights, medical care, social
security etc.

But that's not the point I'm making and unfortunately this is turning into
a political discussion, which is good and bad. Bad because it is
off-topic, good because it demonstrates the point I was trying to make.

Obviously we have different opinions on the political climate. This is
good, because when we make our opinions known, we discuss them. If we're
both reasonable people, we will begin to notice that the other has good
points and adjust our own views accordingly. We will also vehemently
disagree and solidify other opinions when we disagree strongly. Without
mutliple viewpoints, or choices, we become stagnent.

> 
> The whole argument that the two party system holds back our political
> system and disinterests people is also not fully valid.  Major countries
>

I'm trying _so_ hard not to go off-topic, but I'm failing. ;)

I never said the two-party system was the problem. I said the two
candidates were essentially the same, and suggested that the recent influx
of new political parties is a good thing. Besides bringing their own
viewpoints to the mix, they cause the current two-party system to
re-evaluate their positions. This is good.
 
> If we bought the things the media had to say about open source vs
> commercial software without investigation, we'd have a different view of
> our beloved free software.  We similarly shouldn't take this whole no
> diference between the two parties without similar investigation and
> substantiation for our opinions.  In both software and politics,
> substance, not marketing should prevail.
> 

I absolutely agree with you, and I don't think I've said anything to
suggest otherwise.

--
Niall Kavanagh, niall at kst.com
News, articles, and resources for web professionals and developers:
http://www.kst.com


-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).