On Jan 21, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Derek Neighbors wrote: > On Wed, 2004-01-21 at 12:55, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> On Jan 21, 2004, at 10:52 AM, Derek Neighbors wrote: >> >>> I think they do understand "preferred benefits". Ask them if they >>> would >>> like their vendors to be able to peek at their books anytime they >>> like >>> with out their permission. Ask them if they would like their vendors >>> to >>> have unlimited and unauthorized access to their customer lists >>> without >>> their consent? I suspect all of them would say HECK NO! They may >>> not >>> understand computers, but they understand what is "right". ;) >> >> Accept that I would have to genuinely believe that the EULA gives >> their >> vendors and I don't believe that. I have heard the argument that the >> Windows EULA conflicts with the duty of small organizations that I >> deal >> with to maintain the privacy of their clients, donors, and patients. >> They strike me as fanciful at best. I note that none of the lawyers >> associated with FOSS, folks like Eban Moglen, have even dignified this >> theory with a comment. >> >> None of my clients are foolish enough to rely on me for legal advice. >> One of them is reputed to have the best legal mind in Arizona. He runs >> his firm on Windows. He is considering a change but *not* for the >> reason you site. > > Okay I will humor your theory that I am indulging in pure fantasy. That' s very gracious. > Then > I will ask.. Ask your customers if they want to do business with > vendors > guilty of breaking federal laws that related unlawful business > practices? Ask them if they want to do business with vendors that if > they feel slighted by your payments to them, have no problem sending in > federal agents and shutting down your business for multiple days. Actually, many of my customers do feel that MS is sort of slimy. I think it has more to do with the fact that they made so much money selling such shoddy products than anything else. > > Just so you know. Microsoft has been convicted on Federal Antitrust > Laws[0]. As has IBM most of the petrochemical companies in town and, I believe, most of the national retail grocery chains. My two customers who probably feel most uncomfortable with MS don't mind so much that they engaged in anti-competitive practices as that they manipulated the political process to escape any meaningful consequences. > Also, there are a great number of stories from the Business > Software Alliance that prove they will use federal agents (as well as > local ones) to break down the doors of businesses. You can ask Ernie > Ball corporation (Sterling Ball to be specific) if you like. He would > be glad to tell you why he won't use proprietary software any > longer[1]. Of course, these are just all tales from a mad lunatic. I actually tend to believe MS when they say, and they have, that that was very bad business and they will never do it again. > Even if we didn't go to extremes. I am sure if you tried to explain to > them that the software they think has a shelf life of a few years could > well go belly up in a matter of days or even be unsupported in a year, > putting them in a position of uncertainity. Ask Peoplesoft customers > how they felt when they heard Oracle might buy and shelf the Peoplesoft > product[2]. Yes they were afraid. Seriously afraid. I know, I was in > the middle of a major Peoplesoft deal when the news broke. Unsupported > software? I know at least 10 counties that run accounting software > that > does what they need just perfectly. They don't have money for new > software. The vendor is end of life-ing the product they use. Forcing > them to upgrade (off the mainframe to x86 Machines) or buy another > package. Between the 10 counties this is between an 40 to 180 million > dollar problem. MS has historically done the exact opposite, setting EOL deadlines for their products and then pushing them back at the last minute. The whole issue of 'shelf life' is a can of worms though. On paper it looks much better for MS than for the major Linux distros.