Image from Wikimedia

MATT Asay and the usual trolls from ITWire continue to show their utter contempt for desktop GNU/Linux. It's the usual suspects and, suffice to say, the latter case is deliberate provocation that had us pondering a 'link embargo' on ITWire (or particular writers from there).

Elsewhere on the Web, what seems like Vista 'advertising' is almost disguised under the teaser headline "Hasta La Vista, Microsoft Vista." It tries marketing the unwanted operating system using the "inevitability" tune. This relates to a former Microsoft tune, which goes like: "computers are only desktops, and therefore Linux is not important." It's total nonsense and a case of aligning one's statistics to suit an agenda [1, 2, 3].

Another noteworthy item is Microsoft's choking of Xandros at ASUS, having tied them up [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], brought back XP, and begun selling it for very little, some say $0 (i.e. anti-competitive dumping).

One of our readers, Slated, remarked on such tactics yesterday:

> The plundering of the Earth by those that we call "businessmen" is a 
> fact that more people should be aware of.  It seems that all sorts of
> immoral, selfish, back-stabbing behavior is forgiven, if the result 
> is money made.





But just to be clear, I'm not anti-business. I'm anti-monopoly and
anti-Corporatist, certainly, but I have nothing against legitimate
business. In fact, as I've pointed out many times before, it's the
Corporatists who are anti-capitalist, since they seek a state of
monopoly which suppresses the Free Market Economy. This is nothing
more than State-endorsed racketeering, just like any other form of
monopoly (e.g. patents).





Microsoft are not unique in this regard, in fact they are not even
the worst culprits, but in the context of Free Software they are
the biggest threat to the kind of equal opportunities conducive to
Freedom and choice.





> Could it be denied that Bill Gates and his cohorts "zealously" 
> perused their goals of dominating the markets that they participate 
> in?





Given that a "zealot" is merely a derogatory term for someone with
absolute intolerance for others' ideals, then yes, it is perfectly
accurate to describe right-wing extremists like Microsoft (or even
any other Corporatists) as zealots. Their goals and principles are
the antithesis of the Free Software community's, and they (Ballmer
in particular) have made it perfectly clear in word and deed, that
they utterly despise everything we stand for.





The flip-side of this is, of course, that since I am diametrically
opposed to Microsoft's goals, and absolutely committed to opposing
their right to pursue those goals, then it is technically accurate
to describe me as a zealot too. But, as I said, it is a derogatory
term, so I'd only expect to be denounced as a zealot by anyone who
opposes my ideals. Given that those ideals are just the opposition
of something immoral, it's highly inappropriate to describe such a
position in a derogatory fashion, unless those making such comment
are themselves immoral. Hence my assertion that "zealot" is a term
which is only used in a derogatory sense, since intolerance is not
in and of itself necessarily wrong, if that which is not tolerated
is immoral.





And Microsoft's goal of monopolistic dominance is most certainly
immoral, since this is not merely about making money; but they aim
to make that money by denying others the opportunity to do so, and
they accomplish this unworthy goal using the most depraved methods
the law will allow (and even break those laws on occasion). That's
not business, it's racketeering; totalitarianism; Corporatism. And
worse still, having achieved this position of dominance, they then
abuse it to force others to buy their products. This precludes the
need for them to compete at all, and so they become complacent, to
the point that their products become grossly substandard, but they
have a captive audience who must accept these substandard products
without choice. This situation may be improving with the emergence
of products like Netbooks, but this tends to be an exception to an
overwhelming rule of pre-installed Windows systems; bundled by OEM
vendors who are bribed to do so, then bribed again to lie that the
"[Vendor] Recommend Windows". Again - that's not business, it's an
immoral means of securing profits; synonymous with racketeering.





There's business ... then there's "bizniz". I'm not opposed to the
former, but I am certainly opposed to the latter. If that makes me
a "zealot" then so be it. I suppose the EU Commission; the US DOJ,
and I, all bear the the same "zealot" hallmark.

Thoughts are as welcome as always. ⬆