Microsoft's Ethical Guidelines 271
hankwang writes "Did you know that Microsoft has ethical guidelines? It's good to know that 'Microsoft did not make any payments to foreign government officials' while lobbying for OOXML, and that 'Microsoft conducts its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition' every time they suppressed competitors. In their Corporate Citizenship section, they discuss how the customer-focused approach creates products that work well with those of competitors and open-source solutions. So all the reverse-engineering by Samba and OpenOffice.org developers wasn't really necessary."
All your base are belong to us... (Score:5, Funny)
a shocking statement. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:All your base are belong to us... (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry, I'm lost with this. What has this to do with Microsoft's ethics ?
It was written with the same degree of sincerity.
Unsurprising (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft has really lost it when it comes to evil these days. Apple's evil is just ridiculously better [today.com]. Microsoft's evil was damn fine in the 1990s, but these days it's just ... sorta lame. I mean, Vista - what dismally poorly executed evil! And the Zune, oh dear.
So trying to be good is all that's left to them. Can they go straight? Or will it be straight back to crime?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Microsoft did not make any payments to foreign government officials"
Well, they were probably foreign business men, now weren't they.
"Microsoft conducts its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition"
Of course they do. If they don't they get slapped with huge fines.
Also: "the customer-focused approach creates products that work well with those of competitors and open-source solutions"
Well
Microsoft is just misunderstood. (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is just misunderstood. People think that Microsoft is a software company, but it isn't. Microsoft is an abuse company that sells software as a way of delivering abuse. Microsoft's evil is not a side-effect of their management philosophy, Microsoft's evil is their business model.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sounds about right.
I heard that the next major version of windows will have a SQL-based file system.
And General Protection Fault / Illegal operation has occured is being enhanced.
Not only will windows now kill applications at random, but will corrupt files you were working on at random.
And the newest enhancement is corrupting files you weren't working on at random.
Because the documents you weren't working on will be stored on disk within the same binary blob.
Windows explorer will transparently
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
now who names their file '; delete from files ;
?
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the most accurate and funny comment about M$ ever made!
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Funny)
"You're not quite evil enough. You're semi-evil. You're quasi-evil. You're the margarine of evil. You're the Diet Coke of evil, just one calorie, not evil enough."
-- Dr. Evil
Re:Unsurprising (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft isn't evil. It simply spends a lot of it's time exploring the boundaries of the law around the world. And when you explore boarders, half the time you're on one side and the rest on the other side.
All in an effort to help the children (new corporations).
So they will know "You can go this far without getting into trouble. You can go this much further, and pay a small fine after doing it for 10 years. You can go twice as far, but then the fine will be 10 times higher, but you will only have to pay it 50 years later." And so on...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.
Which makes it no different from any other public or private corporation in the world.
If you can name an enterprise that operates on a global scale, rakes in $60 billion a year in revenues, and has never had its own encounters with the law, you are welcome to do so - now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At the about-to-explode rate of inflation and the ever increasing costs of ipods for "quality", you're going to need more than a few years :D
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You know that if you backdated this a month or two, you could afford fifteen iPod Touch (32GB) units, two MacBook Pros (the kind released tomorrow), an Apple TV, Time Capsule and a partridge in a... no, I mean a few iTunes gift cards.
And tomorrow Apple release new machines. Get ready to buy half a dozen Mac Pro towers, preloaded with 32GB RAM and 2x30" Apple Cinema displays.
Re: (Score:2)
You should read the book version. It's just the scripts, written up in novel format - but somehow it's ten times better.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly it was just stupid. It was Microsoft snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: really pretty good hardware, but with mediocre firmware and terrible, terrible on-PC software. If they'd just left the thing hackable, every Leengux weenie in the world would have bought one to Rockbox it. But nooo, control took precedence over making some actual money.
Another example is the Xbox 360 - a great console with great games, they were even going to make a profit from it ... until they cut corners so badly that
A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Interesting)
"....Microsoft provides a broad range of policies, programs, and products that are focused on our commitment to responsible and ethical business practices that promote user choice, industry opportunity, interoperability, and transparency....."
Last I checked Microsoft's Exchange Server works well only with IE. Unlike Gmail or Yahoo mail. Exchange is lousy with Firefox, Opera or Safari. Where is the choice?
And Exchange Server 2008 I belive even screws up the IMAP support, so Thunderbird users get the bird as well... So much for interoperability and transparency.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Funny)
> Where is the choice?
You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Insightful)
You can pick any browser you want from these alternatives: IE6, IE7, IE8
Not always. You can't pick IE6 AND Vista. Many sites work well only with IE6.
Recent versions of Exchange Server work well only with IE7 or later. So in a Corporate setting with Win2K systems running IE6 for the Corporate Intranet, things get very clunky and unmanagable. Add multiple versions of SharePoint, Office, Active Directory... and pretty soon, you realise even Microsoft's products do not work well between and amnongst themselves. Unless you upgrade all of them, all at once. Which is pretty much impractical and terribly expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually I've tried firefox just yesterday on my exchange webmail account. It certainly works.
Of course my company probably hasn't got the newest version of exchange webmail (? what's it called ?), but it works.
The VPN is the problem, really.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It works, but if you tried it on IE you'd notice that you get nicer stuff like fancy context sensitive right click menus.
It was the same with hotmail for a while. They've sorted the right click menus in Firefox now, but you still can't change the ratio of inbox to reading pane.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> Many sites work well only with IE6.
Yes, but you shouldn't use those sites as it means they're totally obsolete and haven't been updated in the last two years since IE7 was released.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
> why the heck should a company spend the time and money to "update" them to IE 7?
What, apart from the obvious?!
IE 6 is about 7-8 years old and is CRAP. If you're happy to continue using that browser so that your intranet works, then feel free, but don't complain on here when you can't use the rest of the Internet when web developers stop supporting IE6 (as many have already done).
> like making money for *us* instead of for MS.
How, exactly does updating your intranet site so it works on IE7 (you know
Re: (Score:2)
Not Slashdot. Not any more.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Funny)
Thank God.
Re: (Score:2)
Win2K ? But we're in 2008! Your scenario is not credible. It is not healthy to stay with outdated systems!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ummm. To promote user choice within Microsoft's product line of course.
Take standards. You participate in standards in order to increase the size of the market for your goods. Then you try to capture as much as that market as possible buy creating a "superior" implementation of that standard. The fact that this locks in the customer doesn't mean the customer didn't have a choice. Anybody who has thought about vendor lock in realizes that the element of buyer choice is critical in making it possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Name me one site that works in IE 7/8 but not IE6. Seriously, pick any.
Slashdot?
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, Exchange works just fine on any browser you want. Some features aren't supported (like sending rich-text emails), but 95% is.
But then, there's still a bunch of stuff you can't do on web-access for any browser, so this is hardly a show-stopper. Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
works fine but not everything works.
What's been implemented is standards compliant. No, not 100% of Exchange web functionality available in IE is available to non IE browsers, but the 95% common functionality there is between the 2 implementations will work on any major browser - see http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx [msexchangeteam.com] for a brief rundown of what won't work on non-IE browsers.
Finally, if you're looking for a web only email solution, don't use Exchange; that's not what it's designed for.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Almost. it's the mobile sex change team.
m-sex-change-team.com
For use only on windows mobile :-)
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no way to search your messages from any browser except IE... that is a broken email program!
I don't expect it to be as feature-rich as Outlook, and I don't even care if IE has more features... but SEARCH? As a result, I forward all of my mail to a gmail account. Yeah, yeah, yeah, what if my gmail is compromised. Cry me a river.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Funny)
Sarah Palin? Is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
LOL! Well, I'm not running for office and I'm not trying to fire some distant relative :)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exchange was never meant to be an Internet mail server at all - this is why it is so bad at it e.g. email outside the system is very limited in comparison with internal messages
It was designed to be (and still is) a corporate messaging and collaboration system, internet email was bolted on and is still (apparently) an afterthought
Webmail is only to be used if you cannot connect to the network and use a proper client (Outlook), it is a stopgap and is not intended to be the normal interface
Re: (Score:2)
Try using outlook web access using ff3 on linux. It mostly of works, but you simply can't login without clicking thru a huge fucking screen telling you to upgrade your browser.
arseholes
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Exchange was never meant to be just a web-mail server believe it or not.
So what is Microsoft's solution for users trying to access their email while travelling?
Exchange. It was designed to support web mail, but it isn't the primary purpose.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm, Exchange 2003 at least certainly works with FireFox - I use it daily. It may not be as rich as the environment you get with IE, but it certainly is perfectly usable.
But why? It looks like it's been specifically engineered that way, not anything technologically lacking in Firefox or Opera. Try replying to a neat HTML email in Firefox and it reverts to basic text, and looks terribly ugly. Also a simple plain vanilla email from Firefox is rendered in a miniscule size font when read with IE.
Mere meaningl
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:4, Funny)
Why? How about because Firefox wasn't there when Exchange 2003 was released? Because Netscape didn't have an XMLHTTP facility; Ajax came from IE and Outlook Web access.
But no, really it's a conspiracy that MS didn't have a soothsayer on the Exchange team so they could plan from a browser that wouldn't be created for another year, and when there wasn't a standard way of accessing what was, at the time, an IE only extension. Damn them. DAMN THEM TO HELL.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Interesting)
From http://msexchangeteam.com/archive/2006/09/13/428901.aspx [msexchangeteam.com]
Why doesn't Premium work on Firefox?
Before I wrap up, I'd like to address the question we often receive about why OWA Premium doesn't work in non IE browsers. The following is heavily plagiarized from others who have answered this question as well (thanks Kristian!), and if after reading this you are still unclear as to why Premium doesn't work on Firefox, please feel free to post your questions here and I'll do my best to answer them.
Shockingly, the decision to make OWA Premium only work on IE6+ has nothing to do with forcing people to use other Microsoft products (sorry to have to dispel the conspiracy, and just when Oliver Stone and Kevin Costner were starting pre-production on "OWA: The Movie "). The decision was made, simply enough, due to costs, time, and customer need.
The browser support we have for OWA Premium and OWA Light is due to usage share among our customers, and the development and test investment it takes to support additional browsers/versions. This doesn't mean the browser statistics for "browsers hitting OWA", which would be skewed based on our previous browser support. We look at the browser statistics for "browsers used on the Internet" and "browsers used within our customer organizations", as well as listening to what customers are asking for, since statistics, surveys, site logs, and research firms never tell the full story. The browser matrix of OWA is about where we allocate our investments, and the need of additional browser support as compared to the need for all the other OWA features our customers want. We have limited resources, limited time, and a very large set of potential features.
I understand it would be a PITA for them to add in support for 'premium' features in every browser, but FireFox has shown to be pretty popular in general. It's kind of a self fulfilling prophecy to say "we don't add in these features for other browsers because nobody is using those browsers for OWA". If they added in support for those features in firefox they'd probably find the percentage of users using firefox for OWA increases a lot. I know I used to fire up IE just to use OWA.
Re: (Score:2)
All you really need for explanation is that it uses ActiveX. They'd have to do a total rewrite in order to support other browsers.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, OWA for Exchange 2003 doesn't ask to install any ActiveX components so I'm not so sure. Perhaps 2007 does use ActiveX. From later on in the same page the guy continued his excuses by talking about having lots of premium features that would need tweaked for them to work in other browsers, so I had thought it was more of a DOM issue.
Re:A string of meaningless words!! (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, OWA for Exchange 2003 doesn't ask to install any ActiveX components so I'm not so sure.
I wouldn't put it past Microsoft to have hard-coded into IE something like "hey, this is the OWA ActiveX...it's cool...install it without asking the user regardless of the security settings they have".
Re: (Score:2)
that'd be one very bad vector for an attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Last I checked Microsoft's Exchange Server works well only with IE. Unlike Gmail or Yahoo mail. Exchange is lousy with Firefox, Opera or Safari. Where is the choice?
Well that's easy, you get to choose whether or not you want it to work correctly!
I hope that clears things up and you can see how committed Microsoft truly is!
Clippy here! (Score:5, Funny)
It looks like you're trying to write some ethical conduct guidelines.
Would you prefer:
* Vague platitudes and general statements of the obvious
* Poetic idealism interspersed with wishful thinking
* A statement that boils down to "We do what we can get away with, no more no less. If it was wrong it would be illegal, wouldn't it?"
Re: (Score:2)
The IE experience is enchanced due to active X, which I don't care for. The FF experience itself is fine though.
Ethics (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Ethics (Score:5, Informative)
Whats funny is that at least what is posted is not MS ethics. Those are Federal laws. They can call them ethics if they want, but not paying off foreign officials is not an ethical question. Its a legal one.
Anything to do with gaining favor from a foreign government is strictly illegal. (except for attempts to speed up what is the natural process)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Looking for ethics (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure they have some ethics around somewhere? ...somewhere... ...still looking...
Aha! ActiveEthics(TM).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
http://blogs.msdn.com/ukschools/archive/2008/04/01/east-sussex-harnessing-whole-school-technology-conference.aspx [msdn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Before the bashing silliness begins (Score:4, Insightful)
Having said that, Microsoft?? Ethics??? hahahahaha LET THE BASHING BEGIN! Couldn't happen to a more deserving bunch of assholes!
What is a code of conduct for? (Score:5, Insightful)
There really do seem to be people who believe that a Code of Conduct is there to limit what a company can do. Nothing could be further from the truth.
First and foremost, a Code of Conduct is an integral part of the company's PR effort. Every self-respecting company has to have one. It's cool to have one, and you look stupid and unsophisticated if you don't. Besides, there is no need to be without. There are templates with good-sounding Codes of Conduct that are guaranteed to leave everyone a comfortably free hand.
Secondly: damage limitation. A Code of Conduct is there to be able to shield a company from legal consequences of unethical conduct by it's employees on its behalf. If an employee is caught red-handed, it really helps if a company is able to state (truthfully) that this action contravenes their official Code of Conduct. This can really limit the damage.
Re:What is a code of conduct for? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What is a code of conduct for? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What is a code of conduct for? (Score:5, Interesting)
Co-Ops - or Workers' Cooperative. One of the largest retailers in the UK [johnlewisp...ship.co.uk] is a Co-Op.
If you work there as a janitor - you own part of the company and thus get a vote. It's working well for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worker_cooperative [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
My employer's senior VPs got caught bribing middle eastern royals some years ago in a very public scandal. To atone for their sins, the corporation must implement a 23-point ethics recovery plan contrived by outside consultants. What really pisses off the rank and file employees of this multinational is that we're the ones being forced to watch to a never-ending stream of training videos (like the VD films of past eras) when it's the Rolex and pinkie ring crowd that should get the Clockwork Orange treatment
Re: (Score:2)
not sure if I'd prefer him to be shafted or sacked... maybe both ?
No bribes for OOXML, but (Score:5, Interesting)
'Microsoft did not make any payments to foreign government officials' while lobbying for OOXML
But obviously they pay bribes to squash the Open Source Software Law in Peru [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, but Microsoft's public 'donations' are never without strings. They should be more appropriately be thought of as deep discounts on their products in order to foster lock-in.
So when those deep discounts are being given to governments, especially when those governments are contemplating the sovereignty issues inherent in being locked-in to a single vendor, you have to start wondering whether or not the word 'bribe' isn't more appropriate. Microsoft is basically using economic inducements to entice gover
repetitio est mater studiorum (Score:2, Insightful)
Ethics? (Score:5, Funny)
I suspect that if I looked up Ethics in MS Encarta it would probably say
"Ethics - A county to the east of London"
---------
Essex for non-uk readers
"Do Some Evil" (Score:4, Funny)
"We find the word 'no' to be a bit strong, and not in the best interest of the company or some of its stock holders. For this reason, 'some' evil is allowed if it increases long term growth or profits. Or if Steve Ballmer wishes it. Please keep this in mind in your dealings as we do not want employees to become confused that they are working for Google."
Actual ethics section from the manual (Score:5, Funny)
*** This page intentionally left blank ***
Microsoft has surrendered to Samba now... (Score:2, Troll)
After the Vista debacle and how easy it was for Samba to implement the new CIFS, Microsoft has surrendered to the inevitable now.
They've now built and operate an interoperability testing laboratory for the Samba team to use to improve integration with Samba.
Weasel words (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
What's more depressing is that they thought it was required to put this in their ethical guidelines.
When you have to actively point out that your employees shouldn't knowingly break the law, something must be wrong.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More importantly - why bother to write that you'll do something that is a legal obligation anyway (debates about whether MS broke it are irrelevant). If they wrote "Microsoft will not conduct its business in compliance with laws designed to promote fair competition", then they'd be showing intention of breaking the law - there is no other interpretation.
So what they've stated is basically a statutory requirement of them anyway. This is the sort of things that should warn you off a company - that they "agr
Re: (Score:2)
That's what struck me. Many of the items boil down to "we obey the relevant laws". That's not ethics.
Why are you surprised ? (Score:2)
Guidelines? (Score:2, Funny)
Not evil (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft is not evil, they have merely raised incompetence to a level that's indistinguishable from malice. Redmond is not capable of the consistency of purpose and execution that really good evil requires.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft is to software what the Corleone family was to olive oil imports.
(It may be what they do, but it's not how they make their money.)
At least they know that they aren't ''great'' (Score:2)
We could have told him that all along :-)
Ethics (Score:3, Insightful)
Nigeria (Score:3, Funny)
Didn't the Nigerian government expose how Microsoft was bribing them to move away from Linux on Classmate PCs?
A history of Microsoft's code of ethics (Score:3, Informative)
so? (Score:3, Informative)
Pretty much every big corporation has a code of ethics.
Few abide by it.
So what's the fuzz?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to the kdawsonfud tags?
The problem with tags like these is that they get overused so that every story by kdawson ends up with one. One might argue that this might be entirely warranted due to constant bias, but it still looks like a knee-jerk reaction to any post. It dilutes the term when used too much.
In this case: yes, it does seem unfair to associate these ethical guidelines with the reverse-engineering that went on prior to the guidelines being published. The work on Samba started over a decade before the Microsoft document w
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm surprised at your reaction to this.
MS bashing has been happening since Windows 95, and has since then become part of geek culture. It's all but automatic now, and just for fun. Like Chuck Norris jokes and the like. And you do know that this is /. right?
In the nineties a friend of mine also used to get angry when I bashed MS (again just for fun), and it really confounded me that he would get so angry. Perhaps you can enlighten me?
Re: (Score:2)
Categorisation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're completely correct. Only their past actions make MS seem evil. A document about their ethics is mere window dressing.
(I kid, I kid! Not on this, but on other things, I kid, I kid! I mean, which other company has destroyed the competition in such a way? Outside munitions manufacturers, that is? But hey, they've got good ideas about ethics these days. It's just a shame their management can't take time out of their vital puppy-strangling projects to read them! Try
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Slashdot is like midnight basketball leagues for nerds. It keeps them off the streets where they might get into trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the word you're looking for is 'drivel'.
Tried this? (Score:2, Informative)
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/928233 [microsoft.com]
There's some other registry tweaks that may apply and you can google for them. The above referenced MS article makes it sound as if all those DHCP servers are implemented incorrectly but then when Vista is the only client having trouble.........
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, both sides are at fault in the spirit if not in the letter of the RFC.
The broadcast flag is included as a work around for a nasty catch 22 situation that some network interfaces might suffer from, namely not being able to receive unicast IP packets until they have been configured with an IP address. This means that such an interface cannot receive its own IP address in an IP packet which is what the DHCP server would normally use.
Acording to the DHCP RFC ( http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc1541.html [faqs.org] )
"
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently you haven't used KDE 4 in a while. It works just fine. I recommend the openSUSE packages especially since they backport so many fixes and features.