Microsoft's Evil Plan (was Re: GPG

[L. Adrian Griffis]

On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Jonathan Hutchins wrote:
> ---- Original Message -----
> From: "Jason Clinton" <clintonj at umkc.edu>
> 
> > Ok, this is the fourth person to ask so here's the explination once and
> > for all:
> 
> So you've had four people note that if you have anything interesting to say,
> we can't see it because of your arrogant attitude toward the most common
> mail software on the net, and your reply is pretty much that you don't give
> a hoot.
> 
> This has been said so many times some people seem to think it no longer
> needs saying, or to have simply forgotten it: IF YOU ARE POSTING TO A PUBLIC
> MAILING LIST, ASSUME THE LEAST COMMON DENOMINATOR FOR MAIL READING SOFTWARE,
> POST PLAIN, UNADORNED ASCII TEXT, DO NOT USE ELABORATE SIGNATURES, DO NOT
> INCLUDE BINARY ENHANCEMENTS OR ATTACHMENTS, AND USE THE COMMON LANGUAGE OF
> THE LIST (in this case American English).

I looked through Jason's original email and there is not a trace of
arrogance in it that I can find.  This accusation is, I think,
unwarranted.  At the same time, I really don't think any of us
Linux user should want to cause any of you Windoze users unnecessary
grief.

I'm writing this reply because I think many readers of this thread
are missing an essential point, and it may be that a lack of
understanding of this point is coloring your interpretation of
Jason's message.

The problem we Linux users often face is that MicroSoft really is
out to create an Internet that is hostile to any non-MicroSoft
users, and that includes us.  MicroSoft has a long history (that
has been documented in the courts) of deliberate anti-competitive
behavior.  There's every chance that MicroSoft is violating the
standards on purpose to make their users think of non-MicroSoft
software as non-standard junk that doesn't play well with other
software.  It is very likely that MicroSoft hopes its "LEAST
COMMON DENOMINATOR" users will pressure us back into the fold.

The problem you are having with Jason's email really is because
the software you use doesn't follow the standard.  You are asking
Jason to do something non-standard or to give up the benefits of
the standards because your Mail User Agent (MUA) does not follow
the standards.

Jonathan, you and the other users of MS MUAs who have this problem
are the victims of a criminal conspiracy to violate the Sherman
Act.  I must say that I am sympathetic, as I would be to any
victim of a crime.  But I fear that the only way that we can avoid
inconveniencing you is for us to become victims of this same
criminal conspiracy, and that's just not an acceptable answer.
How can we help you out with this problem without playing into
MicroSoft's hands?  Are we to give up the benefits of the
standards because MocroSoft has set out to subvert the standards
by making their software non-compliant?  The real problem is
that MicroSoft has no place for non-MS software in their picture
of an ideal world.

You are asking us to play into MicroSoft's Evil Plan (tm) and
we are saying "No".  This doesn't mean we think you are a bad
person.  I think your vendor (MS) has deliberately mislead you
about the nature of the problem.  Most victims of criminal
conspiracies dosen't want to hear that they are victims.  I'm
sympathetic, and I'm willing to help you find ways out of being
a victim if I can, but I am not willing to become a victim,
myself, just to help you out.  There's nothing "arrogant" about
this position.

You need to understand that MicroSoft really is quite capable
of and quite willing to manipulate you into helping them get
all us non-MS users back under their thumbs.  We non-MS users
face this kind of unwitting, 2nd hand manipulation all the
time.  Every time I deal with an internet service vendor by
email, and I ask them to send me information in plan text,
they start off by sending me a word document as an attachment.
When I explain again that I don't use MS software and I want
plain text, they send the info as an excel spreadsheet.  I
usually have to go through several iterations to get plain
text, and all the while, the person on the other end is having
to be patient with me for being such a non-conformist.
MicroSoft benefits tremendously from this endemic presumption
that all computer stuff is centered around MicroSoft.  MS
really does introduce intentional incompatibilities into
their software, and designs them so that the symptoms lead
their users to believe that the non-MS software is the problem.

So when you ask us to stop sending things that cause problems
for your software, we don't hate you for it, but it's hard
not to think to ourselves "Here we go again."  My own experience
has been that MicroSoft is really very clever about how they
design these incompatibilities, so it's hard not to start of
just a bit pessimistic about finding ways of making my software
compatible with yours without playing into MS's hands and
giving up some important benefits of the standards that my
software tries to follow.  We non-MS users constantly face
these problems (MS has been quite thorough), so it's tempting
to quote something we've said before rather than compose a new
reply to the same old problem yet again.

If MicroSoft were not actively trying to use these
incompatibilities to try to keep the world under their
collective thumbs, there would be more room for us to
accommodate the limitations of your MUA.  I want to have
answers for you other than, "Sorry, you are creating
your own problems by using bad software."  I agree that
most users don't understand all this and don't deserve
to be "punished" for their mistaken choices or for the
mistaken choices of the companies for which they work.
But your vendor has deliberately constructed this problem
for you, and has tried to make it look like its my fault.
You have no idea how much patience it takes to listen to
yet another person manipulated by MicroSoft into blaming
us for their artificially created problems, and to
calmly explain, in the face of knee-jerk accusations of
arrogance, exactly what's really going on.  I know you
are probably not a bad person, Jonathan.  You are caught
in the middle.  You really are the victim of criminal
behavior on the part of MicroSoft.  The really sad thing
is, even if you learn the right things from this thread,
it won't be long at all before the next innocent victim
of MS's criminal conduct bounces onto the list and tells
us, yet again, just how wrong we are for not using MicroSoft.
MicroSoft has been very clever about all this.

All I can say is, you are creating this problem for your
self by using bad software.  I don't like that answer, and
I think you deserve something better than that answer;  But
your vendor has left me with few answers to give you.

Adrian