The-Source.com

In recent comments to ITWire, Mark Shuttleworth said:

But I’m not here to punish Microsoft, or hate them, I’m here to build a better way, if I can. It will be hard, but we can. And in the cases where we have common cause, I am happy to work with Microsoft. That may be a hard concept for people who think that life is easier to understand if you have an enemy to make your own cause right, but I find that attitude leads to bigotry and bad results, and makes it impossible to get past the wrongs of the past.

A small request

I just have one small request: can someone please give a detailed example of a case where Microsoft and “we” have “common cause”?

Assuming that the “we” here refers to Ubuntu users, and further assuming that Ubuntu users subscribe to the Ubuntu Philosophy, I’m not sure what “common cause” Microsoft shares with the belief that “every computer user should have the freedom to download, run, copy, distribute, study, share, change and improve their software for any purpose, without paying licensing fees“?

It seems to me that Microsoft vigourously opposes this “core philosophical ideal” of Ubuntu. I fail to see how you can have a “common cause” with an entity that is diametrically opposed with your core philosophical principles.

This is why I am always disappointed when people attempt to frame opposition to Microsoft as “hate” – because that falsely implies the difference is irrational and emotional instead of the philosophical difference it is. I appreciate my freedom and want to increase my freedom. Microsoft appreciates controlling me and wants to increase its control. There’s not much room for “common cause” there, and it’s not because I hate Microsoft or Microsoft hates me – it’s a fundamental difference of philosophy and goals.

I’m certainly not going to compromise my philosophy to accomodate Microsoft’s profit margin.

Condemnation

I’m also quite disappointed to see Mr. Shuttleworth break out this:

I think it is as wrong to demonise the people who work at a company as it is to demonise people of a particular colour, nationality or other demographic

Excepting the very top-level executives – people who are personally responsible for Microsoft’s actions -  I question the premise that anyone is demonising people who simply work at Microsoft. Criticism of Microsoft as an entity is most certainly not demonising its workers.

I draw special attention to this point because it is a 2-for-1 fallacy: not only is the premise incorrect, but if it were true the converse would be true – yet the converse is never acknowledged.

That is: it is just as wrong to condemn the worker for the company and it is to pardon the company for the worker. Yet, one often hears the “Microsoft has lots of good workers” line as it is some sort of defense for Microsoft. If it were a valid defense, then it would be valid to personally condemn those same workers when Microsoft committed an offense.

But it’s not. And so, the converse is not true either. Judge Microsoft the company on Microsoft the company’s actions. Period.

Building a Better Way

Mr. Shuttleworth states that he is “here to build a better way”. I applaud that sentiment. I also think that building a better way, by definition, means rejecting and avoiding the worse way.

It doesn’t mean “hating” and “demonising” Microsoft, because rejecting and avoiding Microsoft isn’t a matter of hatred or demonisation – it’s simply the most effective and rational action to take based on a factual and historical review of Microsoft’s actions.