[Warning: the following link is to an article that is _anti-Microsoft_ you've been warned]
This article is a very interesting read. On one hand I feel bad for the dude that fell into the teeth of BSA, and I feel kinda happy that in return MS got the opposite of what they wanted - less profit and bad publicity. Why is that? because (and this is only based on what I've read there is only so much I know about this so I might be wrong) it looks like they did that man an injustice and it was unfair.
Hey, I love MS products but if I was in his position I don't know what I would do.
All that said, some of the things that man said on the interview make me wonder if I'd ever want to work for him myself:
"...The other thing is that if you look at productivity. If you put a bunch of stuff on people's desktops they don't need to do their job, chances are they're going to use it. I don't have that problem. If all you need is word processing, that's all you're going to have on your desktop, a word processor. It's not going to have Paint or PowerPoint. I tell you what, our hits to eBay went down greatly when not everybody had a Web browser. For somebody whose job is filling out forms all day, invoicing and exporting, why do they need a Web browser? The idea that if you have 2,000 terminals they all have to have a Web browser, that's crazy. It just creates distractions. "
Previous Topic
