Microsoft and Katrina : Market-Share

It seems the most significant contribution of Microsoft to the victims of Katrina will be to ensure those filing claims online for assistance must experience all the glory that is Microsoft. Don't use IE? Sorry, screw you. Use IE but have ActiveX disabled for security reasons? Sorry, screw you. Use an alternate browser like Firefox or Opera? Too bad, so sad. And, heaven forfend you actually manage to go through the trouble of finding Internet access after your home has been destroyed and half your family gone missing and still don't use Microsoft's operating system at all. On a Mac, a Unix, or Linux system? See you in hell, you rotten, stinking rebel.

From FEMA's website, if you don't use IE: "In order to use this site, you must have JavaScript Enabled and Internet Explorer version 6. Download it from Microsoft or call 1-800-621-FEMA (3362) to register."

http://tinyurl.com/9ayuk

I'm afraid you don't know what you are talking about. Microsoft has made a major contribution in terms of time, resources, and money!



edited to add:
FEMA is the one who makes technology decisions for FEMA's website. Not Microsoft.

Let's see, MS donated its technological resources, based on its .NET framework thus ensuring that the systems developed will require the use of Miscrosoft products well past the time when they're done donating, to help with relief. And this is a good thing.

Okay.

So, when Haliburton gets the no-bid contract for rebuilding, will you hail them as well for all their effort?

'It seems the most significant contribution of Microsoft to the victims of Katrina will be to ensure those filing claims online for assistance must experience all the glory that is Microsoft.'

--> I call bullshit, did you read the fucking article I posted that talked about their VERY SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION they are making?

And, again, how is Microsoft responsible for FEMA's decision to use their and ONLY their technology? Please explain.

You give what you know how to give, and the employees with MS did that.

Your tone, however, doesn't lead me to want to take what you're saying at face value, however. If you want to have a discussion, fine, but take the "calling bullshit" to wherever you found it. That's the last I'll say on that subject. Here is my civil response.

The line in the article you posted that leaps at me is the following:

"Sawyer said KatrinaSafe started as a grassroots effort inside Microsoft, but is being supported by the "highest levels" of the company."

It's being supported at the "highest levels" of the company. Of course it is. Members of the company donated free labor and got other companies to donate their own resources in a project that will eventually make the company itself millions by establishing a pre-made monopoly. If I had employees working for me who on their own just decided to go out and build a machine for people that I could then patent and charge royalties for its continued use, I'd be happy also. Free R&D.

How is Microsoft responsible? As was pointed out in the article you say you read, the federal government, including FEMA, has been working with Microsoft exclusively in the past several years to develop information systems that *require* the use of Microsoft products. This genuinely good-hearted effort on the part of MS employees is an extension of work they were already doing that possibly violates federal law.

How does it relate to Haliburton? It's an analogy. Haliburton gets government contracts because the federal administration is in bed with them. Or more to the point, the government turns to Haliburton because they're already working with them. Same same with Microsoft.

As a related aside, a story floated among the technological circles a few months ago regarding various federal institutions wanting to switch to alternate operating systems and software platforms for development, information systems, database design, networking, etc. The reasons cited were security, as a top priority, but also cost, design, and related elements. These desires expressed by mid-level employees, i.e. the people actually responsible for developing and using this stuff, were soundly squashed by bureaucrats who then awarded MS several contracts for software that doesn't even exist yet.

and they busted their ass night and day to get that system running; that's why I didn't appreciate your blanket condemnation of all of MSFT. Sorry for the 'tude.

As far as the relationship between MSFT and/or H'burton & the feds, corporations are like sharks. It is in their nature to seek and gobble up profits as much as they can. If our government was protecting itself and us properly -- as it used to do -- it would acknowledge the fact and regulate these corporations better. The fact that we have an elected government who appoints incompetent profiteers like FEMA Brown (ok, I don't _know_ he's a profiteer but I suspect it) to positions of authority doesn't have much to do with the corporations, IMO -- they are simply doing what is in their nature, making profit. I don't blame Halliburton for profiting off the Iraq war (although I find it nauseating and horrible.) I blame the neocons who gave them the contracts and allow them to do so.

I can understand where you're coming from with that.

As mentioned in a different response, these are really two separate issues, even if they are related. My problem is with the Microsoft corporation and the hold it has on the marketplace. I have no problem with individual employees, particularly those who did the work with katrinasafe.com.

I work for a big corporation myself, and I know all about the difference between what you do as an individual and what you do as a company person. Obviously the people you describe were working as individuals using the talents and resources they had available. As I said, I applaud them for that. Unless Microsoft has dramatically changed its employment contract/agreement, everything they did, however, "belongs" to Microsoft, and what the company itself will likely do with this effort afterward irritates me. It should irritate the employees and probably does on some level. In my view, it is never a good thing for a company spokesperson to start issuing statements about the efforts of what employees do with their own time. In my experience this is usually a tactic used to cover the company's own failures. "Hey, the board of directors are all bastards, sure, but look at what these good people over here are doing. That means we're good people too."

The circumstances I mentioned, involving filing for FEMA assistance online requiring the use of Microsoft products, is an entirely different animal. It's not the product of individual employees working their butts off out of genuine kindness. It's one step in a project involving information management that has been underway for some time. It is part of a deliberate destruction of fair competition with government contracts and, more importantly to me, keeps thousands of talented people unemployed or underemployed simply because they do not work for that huge corporation with its nice, tidy ties to guaranteed government business. This is MS's typical mode of operation. They're like drug dealers. Give it away for free or nearly free, get you dependant on what they provide, then charge you out the wazoo for everything else.

The company I work for is dealing with this right now. Our entire network is built on MS based systems that are now so insecure and unreliable that the next generation of IT people are demanding a change. The problem is that it could now cost millions of dollars to do so, potentially hundreds of millions if problems were to develop that affected customer relations to the point the company began losing revenue and its customer base. So, we're stuck.

was flown in, paid, fed, housed, given workspace, and assigned exclusively to the project by MSFT. I don't think they would consider it working on their own time. And I hope MSFT _does_ make this system into a product with a stabilized code base. Apparently, in this modern world, something like this is needed. :(

And I still don't quite get how FEMA's bad tech decisionmaking gets MSFT blamed. I certainly don't think too highly of their software, but unfortunately technologists get overruled by business decision makers every day -- and those business decision makers sometimes have to face the consequences of their poor choices. (of course, the really _good_ bad decision makers are usually off to another company by then, but that's another story. :eyes: )

Getting back to my original point ...

The FEMA website that allows victims to file for benefits online requires the use of MS based applications. This website was developed in conjunction with contracts the federal government has with MS. As pointed out, developing the website so that it is cross-platform compatible is not difficult, is part of what any competent website developer would do unless he or she was intentionally attempting not to make it cross-platform compatible, and would provide the widest access to all those capable of using the site for their claims.

MS doesn't deserve any more or less blame that FEMA for these types of actions, but it deserves its share. As the article pointed out, this type of exclusionary cooperation in spite of federal laws against it is part of an on-going effort on the part of MS to wipe out alternative markets entirely.

You're focusing on Katrinasafe, and that's fine, but that's not where my primary complain rests.

I'd blame FEMA 80%, MSFT 20%. If a company has predatory pricing practices, they are dishonest and bad and deceptive, and I'll blame them for that, but I think the lion's share of the blame goes to the people at the agency who vetted the contract(s) and didn't read the fine print. Sales guys (most, anyway) are sharks and hos who will say anything to make a sale and anybody in the IT business who is not totally wet behind the ears should know that and protect themselves accordingly.

I'd alter the percentages somewhat because I do think blame is involved with predatory practices. It's unethical, and successful companies don't necessary have to operate that way.

But, percentages is a minor quibble on my part in the long run. I think we agree materially on the fundamental questions.

anyone who doesn't make a site work in all browsers, barring specialized market segments that rely on proprietary software, is either incompetent or devious

And in this case, it's the "devious" modifier I think is most appropriate.

Consider the third alternative. The technologists did what they were told to do. Now, who told them? You don't know who wrote that specification or why, and how that decision was made.

and please tell me how long you expect a people-finder and matching application to be required? this website and application will not be required after, what, six months (hopefully).

It's more an infrastructure thing than it is a web page. I've used Opera on sites that use .NET all the time.

I can understand some cynicism, but you have to figure that they're going to donate what they have available expertise in.

We're dicussing two related but different subjects here. I chose not to get into the intricacies since I was simply being called on my so-called bullshit.

The use of the .NET framework doesn't particularly bother me, viewed from the perspective of those doing what they know how to do.

The original subject was the website for filing claims for assistance, which does require the use of a MS product.

delay giving help until they get Firefox and Opera users on board or should they try and help as many people they can as quickly as possible?

Not defending MS, but it is still the most widely used platform.

In reality it would seem that those who need the help most don't have internet access anyway. Maybe the online help is for those who had no damage related to the hurricane to file claims like in Florida last year.

It takes more time to develop a site specifically for IE and its ActiveX than it does to develop one using standardized HTML.

The problem is that our government and Microsoft are in bed together and are intentionally developing technologies and modes of accessing information that require the use of a particular company's products to retrieve it.

I assume you'll feel the same when Halliburton or some similar corporation gets all the no-bid contracts for rebuilding the area.

It's the same thing. Cut everyone else out of the market so that those with close government ties, i.e. those who pay their enormous contributions to those in power just for these kinds of situations, get all the business.