You're missing the point Ed. Any form of compensation is a conflict of interest. Period.
I made an off-hand reference that it is too bad that Microsoft continually changes core functionality like the operation of URL's and shortcuts and got a bunch of sarcasm and static back about hating Microsoft and Microsoft is evil. I fail to see how that makes me a jerk, but then again, I do not really care about people's perceptions in that regard. The discussion is not being advanced in any regard. The view that I have is that the IT industry's focus on vendors and tools will keep the IT industry from becoming a profession. And, accepting any form of compensation is a fundamental conflict of interest. In all of the posts, nothing refutes theses points. The term "hate all vendors equally" is a just that, a term. It means that I do not accept anything from vendors and call things like I see them regardless of consequences. It is not my fault that Microsoft, like every other software vendor out there, does so many things wrong. Microsoft has a whole raft of advocates and a billion dollar marketing budget to promote their story. How is it that pointing out their flaws could possibly put a dent in any of that? It doesn't, but people should be made aware of those flaws. People should get the bad with the good, always. I could sit down and author a thousand emails on what Microsoft does right, but how would that do anything to fix all of the things they do wrong? If you do certain things right, that's great, now, let's talk about what you do wrong and fix it. Seems like a better way to go. What is the converse of changing how URL's and shortcuts function without providing backwards compatibility? Reference the printer example. How is this a good thing that software vendors can provide abysmal backwards compatibility? Where is the argument against providing backwards compatibility? Other vendors in this space do it without sacrificing functionality. This is a core failing of Microsoft, they simply expect people to continue to upgrade and upgrade and upgrade and shoulder the cost of poor backwards compatiblity without thought to the costs that they are forcing their customers. Microsoft is so blind to it that they cannot understand the industry's facination with Linux and Microsoft alternatives. I will state for the record that this is the source of much of the hard feelings towards Microsoft in the IT industry. It is the root cause of much of these feelings. We are big, you rely on our products and we can make your lives miserable but you still need us so deal with it. I'm not saying these are my views, but I am not blind to it and I can see the point. Novell, as a whole, does an much better job of backwards compatibility. This is not an endorsement, but it explains why many Novell people are very loyal. Novell has made their lives easier by bending over backwards at times to supply backwards compatibility. I have done GroupWise upgrades and I have done Notes upgrades and I have done Exchange upgrades. As a whole, GroupWise versions are much better at backwards compatibility and that translates through to many of Novell's products. I understand that I will get back a torrent of specific examples with regards to where Novell failed in this, but I am talking in terms of Novell and Microsoft as a whole, not specific examples. Why can't people openly discuss these issues intelligently without being branded a Microsoft basher, getting static or receiving sarcasm? > My comment is a reflection of how I perceive your posts. It's a > perception that hasn't changed much in the seven-odd years I've read > your posts. Again, verbatim, my post was: > > I think I get his point, and you don't, so I'll explain it to you. It's > that every time you perceive that something doesn't work, Greg, you > paint it as a giant Microsoft crusade to ruin your life. > > Nowhere did I suggest that you prostrate yourself or kiss Bill Gates' > ring. > > Greg, a very high percentage of your posts take this attitude. Your > comment, and this is a direct quote, "I hate all vendors of software > tools equally," proves my point. Just about every post you make to this > forum displays that you have an axe to grind. Frankly, I find that > attitude to be tiresome. Perhaps you should see a professional about > that. Or, at least, adopt an attitude that you'll lighten up. (Listen > to Sheryl Crow's "Soak Up the Sun" a hundered times, why not?) At the > least, it might make you a tiny bit less insufferable. > > As to "direct compensation", please allow me this opportunity to make a > few things clear. > > 1. Every single post I make to this forum (except on rare occasions > where my autosignature doesn't work) I "fess up" that I am an MVP. Look > down. > > 2. I did not apply to be an MVP. It was something that Microsoft > bestowed upon me as a small recognition that I help people in a forum > such as this one. As far as I know, the only thing I have to do to stay > an MVP is to sign the NDA and continue to help people. > > 3. You would be silly to assert that MVPs feel that they aren't free to > criticize Microsoft's products. Chris Scharff is an MVP. You haven't > read my posts on clusters? > > 4. Any "direct compensation" I get is in the form of gifts, some of > which are tokens, some of which are significant (although personally the > nicest gift is one I could pretty much get through my employer anyway), > and all of which are appreciated. I have received not one penny in cash > "compensation" directly from Microsoft. I certainly have made a nice > several-year career out of working with Microsoft's products, but the > same could be said for all MVPs, and for most subscribers to this forum > for that matter. I would continue to participate in these forums with > or without such recognition from Microsoft. I started my participation > before I was recognized, and I participated for quite a while before I > ever even knew about the MVP program at all. So it is pure silliness to > suggest that I or any other MVP has been bought and paid for by > Microsoft. Speaking for myself, my price is far higher than what I get > from Microsoft. > > 5. Nowhere in my NDA, by the way, does it say that the stuff Microsoft > gives us is secret. I believe it is published that we get stuff in the > MVP web pages (http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/). But wouldn't it be > silly for me to add "Microsoft gives me some stuff" in my autosignature? > > 6. As to villification, prove your point. I am aware that those who > use the unoriginal "M$" are "villified" to the extent that they are > cautioned that there are some people on this list that might find that > to be offensive. Personally, I don't believe that I've personally ever > cautioned people in that way, nor have I taken offense. In this > particular case, I commented to you because of your personal attitude. > If you recall, you asked what Chris was saying, so I felt it was > appropriate to explain it to you. It's not because you're > anti-Microsoft, anti-software-vendor, or paranoid, but because you have > a particularly tiresome attitude. Greg, the problem is not that people > can't criticize Microsoft's products, it's because your posts make you > look like a jerk. Look in the mirror. It's YOU. Not me or other MVPs > or others on this list. > > I'm happy for you that you feel proud to have declined Micosoft's offer > to be an MVP. I chose to accept it and am proud that I was nominated. > I'm sorry that you feel that because it would have made you feel like a > whore, that the rest of us are whores because we accepted it. > > Not everyone thinks like you do. And this community, and the world, is > certainly better off because of that. > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > Tech Consultant > hp Services > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Greg Deckler > Sent: Friday, February 07, 2003 6:05 AM > To: Exchange Discussions > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > > My point is that it serves no useful purpose to cast aspersions as to > people's attitudes and motivations because everyone is biased in one way > or another. > > I believe that this is really systemic with regards to the problems of > the IT industry as a whole. The entire industry is vendor and tool > focused and that is a huge problem in IT. It tends to polarize people > such that everyone is grouped into two categories, people that hate a > particular vendor or tool and people that love a particular vendor or > tool. This is just plain stupid. > > The IT industry has some fundamental problems. Microsoft, as part of > that industry suffers from some of the same problems as well as some of > their own unique deficiencies. Novell has their own unique issues, so > does IBM and so does every other vendor in this space. But it seems that > you cannot point out these deficiencies without people categorizing and > stereotyping you in one way or another. I reject that. > > I hate all vendors of software tools equally. I find this an absolute > requirement to provide true, unbiased consulting services. If you were > to follow my posts on a GroupWise board or a Notes board, you would see > me make similar arguments regarding the deficiencies of their products > and company. However, since I make most of my revenue from Microsoft > products and Exchange, I tend to be more active in that area. > > And the other thing that REALLY chaps me is people that cast aspersions > on others without fessing up to their own biases. MVP's are the worst of > this lot. They secretly get direct compensation from Microsoft and then > try to pass themselves off as unbiased. But you look at their posts and > it is obvious that they are simply paid advocates for Microsoft and part > of their responsibility is to vilify anyone that says anything negative > with regards to Microsoft. And these are the same people that list every > last certification and other acronym that they can paste onto the end of > their sig, but you never see Microsoft MVP. I wonder why? Microsoft > asked me to become an MVP and I told them to go jump in a lake. More > people need to take this approach and be true consultants, not > advocates. > > > Are you saying that your own interpretation of your own attitude is > > unbiased? Or that your own evaluation of whether or not your paranioa > > about how Microsoft are out to get you is unbiased? > > > > Rob > > Also an MVP by the way. > > Want to throw some mud at me too? > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Greg Deckler [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=20 > > > Sent: 07 February 2003 11:43 > > > To: Exchange Discussions > > > Subject: RE: Shortcuts to Outlook objects > > >=20 > > >=20 > > > And Ed, if I am not mistaken, you are also a Microsoft MVP,=20 so > > >whose interpretation is unbiased, mine or yours? =20 > > > > I continue to believe my interpretation of your attitude is > > > >more=20 accurate than your defense thereof. =20 > > > > Ed Crowley MCSE+Internet MVP kcCC+I > > > > Tech Consultant > > > > hp Services > > > > Protecting the world from PSTs and Bricked Backups! > > > >=20 > > > >=20 > > _________________________________________________________________ > List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ List posting FAQ: http://www.swinc.com/resource/exch_faq.htm Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Exchange List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
