I don't do Windows

Why I don't support Microsoft Windows

I do support Fair and Open Competition, Freedom of (product) Choice, Checks and Balances, Open Standards, Freedom of Speech, Security and Individualism.

I don't support discrimination, ethnic cleansing or tyranny.

Fair and Open Competition

Fair and Open Competition is where any company or individual has an equal opportunity for success. This allows the best products or services to be compensated with higher incomes. It also encourages innovation and improved products that benefit both the customer and producer. Fair and Open Competition is also the fundamental reason why capitalism works. Without it capitalism would result in a single person owning everything.

Unfortunately, when one company gains a monopoly that gives them an economic advantage it becomes very difficult for anyone else to compete. A football game with Microsoft in it would not be very exciting because they would make all the rules and dominate the game.

I would also note that the free availability of OpenOffice and its variants caused Microsoft to drastically reduce there prices for Microsoft Office. It also caused them to provide "free" versions to universities and schools where lower cost alternatives would be welcomed.

Freedom of Choice

I know when hunting for an automobile it can become a challenge to decide which one to buy. It is however nice that you have a choice, because you are different than anybody else. You can chose a car that fits you. You can chose by appearance, performance, capacity, environmental friendliness, comfort, prestige, cost or any other factor. The main thing is that you have an unhindered choice to choose what you like and can afford.

Checks and Balances

“Power tends to corrupt,Absolute power corrupts absolutely.” is as true today as it was in 1887 when written by Lord Acton. I define corruption as when someone obtains undeserved benefits through dishonest means. It seams obvious to me that Microsoft used dishonest means to gain a monopoly in operating systems, extend that to office suites and continually try to take over the web. I still feel that Microsoft had a hand in writing the specifications for the Air Forces desktop 1 contract which gave them control of the US DoD which they later used to dominate office suites. I witnessed when the Air Force made it acceptable to require a specific brand (Microsoft Office) for contract proposals, reports, and billing. The domination of Microsoft over our lives and commerce will surely result in further corruption.

Open Standards

A brand cannot be a standard. I once heard that Microsoft was a de facto standard, which is false. Microsoft is a monopoly. When a brand is substituted for a standard, true standards have little chance to develop. True open standards are very important for communications. The vast number of different languages and alphabets in the world do indeed make it harder to communicate effectively, but things like dictionaries that standardize the definition of words are very helpful. While OfficeOpenXML is a step in the right direction and it may eventually open up communications, it would not have been developed were it not for the Open Document Standard.

Microsoft also has a history of disrupting standards by providing "features" that break compatibility and using these "features" by default. Typically these "features" appear as though they could easily be implemented within standards or are essentially useless.

One of the key tenants of Linux is to be a Standards Based Operating System. Deviations from standards require some justification. Most deviations are true feature additions to standardized software packages and do not break the standards.

Freedom of Speech

I am delighted that the world wide web has largely been free of Microsoft dominance. This has clearly allowed for some competition to bring devices like smart phones, tablets, smart thermostats, home security and a host of other technologies to help us. We can thank the US Department of Justice Law Suite for slowing Microsoft dominance of all communications. Had Internet Explorer gained the dominance Microsoft is after, we would not have many of the conveniences of today. It is critical that network connected devices remain free of the brand name restrictions we have seen in desktop computers.

Security

We all know Linux and BSD have good track records for lack of viruses. Privacy, freedom, and ease of use all have their security conflicts. Windows was originally developed as stand alone, single user systems with automatic features. These automatic features are where a lot of the insecurity comes from. By being Open Source a Linux system can be locked down and customized for specific task. Also, the code transparency prevents vendors from putting hidden ports into your computer.

Individualism

I have seen nothing that supports individualism better than Linux. With Linux you can choose how your personal computer looks and works. The choices in desktop alone are many. If you want high performance, many options, light weight, simple configuration, desktop widgets, multifunction, clean, small, networked or desktop; the choice is yours. Since all use the same underlying technology they all work reasonably well, without having to customize applications. You can also chose from a wide array or hardware devices from high performance RISC chips to modern cell phone chips. Linux works on largest supercomputers to the tiniest computers. With Microsoft and Apple it is a one size fits all.

Discrimination

The common practice of checking the brand of web browser and denying access to a web site is pure discrimination. All browsers can function at least partially for any well formed standards based web pages. There are alternate means of viewing content if troubles arise. The US government is especially bad for promoting Internet Explorer and MS Office in this way. I used Konqueror because it allowed the user to say it was a different browser for these sites.

Equal rights for minorities ( not special rights ) is a goal of any advanced society. By discriminating against minorities, advancement and success of the whole society is reduced. An advanced society makes accommodations for individuals with handicaps. Microsoft tends to create handicaps for competitors to maintain their dominance.

Tyranny

The computer (lack of) support or IT (Institutional Tyranny) department is the main inhibitor to freedom. The continual, refusal to help if you use other than Microsoft Computers is appalling. A gas service station that only gives gas to a single brand of car would not be acceptable. Support or service stations should perform most basic services to all brands. The common practice of forcing users ( the people you are supposed to support ) to buy a particular brand of product is clearly unethical.

These days it is easy to write cross platform applications, so I don't understand why software companies and support departments continue to support Microsoft so strongly. Microsoft has already made their hundreds of billions of dollars by deceiving business managers. When can it stop?

Conclusion

What it all boils down to is that I support freedom. By using windows you support tyranny. It is not really Microsoft I object to as much as it is lack of freedom of choice. You should be freely able to choose what you want to use. For this reason I often purchase number 2 or 3, to provide incentive for competition.