01.03.13
Microsoft ’8′ Failure Leads to Sabotage and Daemonisation Plan
Summary: What Microsoft resorts to amid reports of mobile failure with the “8″-washed operating systems
A person whom I follow, Karthikeyan A K, wrote about a day ago in JoinDiaspora:
had a hard time removing #windows8 and installing #ubuntu on a system. #UEFI sucks.
With tactics like UEFI Microsoft is desperate to stop Linux because its own operating systems are a disaster:
Microsoft Is Fast Turning Into A Sideshow
[...]
If Windows 8 is Exhibit A, Exhibit B is Windows Phone 8. Nokia has started discounting recently launched Lumia phones, indicating that they’re not exactly moving like hotcakes. Microsoft makes excuses and says these things take time, but even a fool can tell a torrid introduction from a lukewarm launch.
As we showed in the previous post, daemonising Google has become one tactic and it’s weak. Microsoft now lashes out at Google for not writing software for Windows Phone despite the claim that:
Windows Phone is estimated to account for a mere 2.6% of the mobile market and adoption of Windows 8 is said to be weak as well.
Gordon (thistleweb) writes, “no matter how many storms of shit #Microsoft find themselves in, you can’t help feel anything other than #karma for their behaviour… shit happens when your CEO promises to “kill” them”.” █
Needs Sunlight said,
January 3, 2013 at 10:22 am
That would be “demonizing”. “Daemonizing” applies to computer processes.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:29 am
Isn’t demon just short for dæmon? Or maybe the verb requires the former form? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daemon_(classical_mythology)
mcinsand Reply:
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:35 am
Maybe NS does have a point, though, especially for the computer literate. Daemons are useful, unlike Windows, and I say this despite the fact that I remove cupsd anytime I set up a computer for myself.
What MS is doing with respect to Google is particularly sickening, though, since MS is accusing Google of using MS’ standard business practices: anticompetitive trade restraint, standards patents misuse, etc.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:40 am
The same for privacy.
mcinsand said,
January 3, 2013 at 10:41 am
As long as we’re adding to the list, we can’t forget security and honesty.
It’s about time for Apple to sue MS for copying Apple’s business model.
Dr. Roy Schestowitz Reply:
January 3rd, 2013 at 10:46 am
It’s the opposite way, isn’t it? When I come to think of it, they both copy one another when it comes to practices. Perhaps they can cross-license those business models. Oh, wait, they did cross-license. They have for decades.
mcinsand said,
January 3, 2013 at 11:13 am
Back in the early days of the PC, in the 1980′s, MS was the open platform. I can’t remember the name of the event, but hardware and software vendors used to get together to ensure interoperability, and MS actually participated. There were numerous competing word processors, drawing packages, etc. for the PC, and it was an exciting ecosystem.
When Apple became more popular, especially with the introduction of the Macintoy, MS seemed to really start paying attention to what Apple was getting away with. Apple was doing things that, for decades, raised the attention of agencies concerned with anticompetitive behavior. Where IBM as royally slapped down earlier for requiring customers to only use IBM punchcards, Apple was getting away with far more and far worse anticompetitive tying. Not only that, but, as I like to cite with my favorite example, Data General’s refusal to license RDOS for use in other hardware was ruled illegal… while Apple has been given carte blanche in tying Apple’s OS to overpriced/underchoiced offerings.