Re: So Much hatred...........it leads to the dark side
" your stated belief is that all 100k+ employees of Microsoft are untrustworthy"
I never said that. I do believe that most Redmondians in key positions are untrustworthy. Those with the influence to have their voices heard and their decisions count. But, in my experience, most of the drone-level worker bees at the bottom of the pyramid are decent folk, many of whom even agree that their employer are untrustworthy. They're just doing their job and getting paid, however. Worrying about why their employer does what they do is beyond their pay pay grade. Please draw some distinction between a project manager and the poor bastard manning the support lines.
It also appears from your statements that you have already pre-judged me
Actually, your word usage and the precise ways you sidestep various issues that would weaken your position to focus on those things you think allow you to degrade the credibility of your opponent as an individual - and thus make the uncomfortable arguments they bring up seem as though they are unfounded - are incredibly reminiscent of a True Believer Microsoft salesbloke that inhabits these parts and I honestly suspect that you're him.
He absolutely isn't capable of an objective discussion about Microsoft, any more than someone busy burning witches or blowing up heathens is capable of having an objective discussion about interfaith morality and the validity of atheism. As a side note, he's actually pretty representative of the mid-to-upper tier Redmondian employees I've had the opportunity to interact with.
"I cannot have a balanced and fair conversation due to who pays my salary"
No, I don't think you can have a balanced and fair conversation based on what you've said and how. Look, I talk to people all the time about the good and bad of their employers. From support phone staff to product managers, VPs to CEOs. That's my actual job...and you'd be surprised how many of them are perfectly open to calm, rational discussion about what their employers (or, in the case of the CEOs, what their minions) do right and what they do wrong.
You, on the other hand, and pretty clearly coming at this from a completely different standpoint. I am prepared to have dispassionate, objective discussion with anyone who demonstrates the self-awareness that all organizations and individuals make mistakes, that we all have blinders, biases, prejudices, differing needs and both rational and irrational expectations. I don't see that from you.
What I see is a True Believer whose goal is to either convince others of the Unquestionable Truth of their employer's Perfect Vision, or, failing that, to humiliate the heathen critics, thus bringing everything they say into doubt. I emphatically do not see you as open minded. I see you as evangelical. And to be perfectly, 100% clear: I loathe evangelicals, of any faith.
"This leads me to conclude that you are intolerant of those views that may differ to yours"
I am perfectly tolerant of views that differ to mine. Understand that I love arguing. If the world agreed with me then I'd have nothing to do!
What I can't stand are people who seek to convert me. Who make conversion a moral quest. I can't stand people who relentlessly pursue my agreement when it is quite clear that I will never agree with them; usually because we have a philosophical difference at a very core level that informs all aspects of our belief systems.
Stepping away from technology, for example, let's approach this from another side. I am strongly left libertarian. I oppose the authoritarian right with every fiber of my being. Despite this, I can and do have friends who are strong believers in the authoritarian right.
We have glorious - oftentimes passionate, loud and emphatic - arguments everything in existence. They argue selfishness and the importance of the stick as the fundamental aspects of human. I argue compassion and the importance of the carrot. But at the end of the day, we happily disagree and go have a beer. It's a careful balance, hard to maintain, but one I enjoy.
The key is that - despite the arguing - we're not trying to convert one another. We are presenting evidence. We are advancing hypotheses and proposing experiments to prove our views, or debating how this new evidence might cause us to change our hypotheses. We don't expect to win. We expect to follow the evidence, even if we start from different assumptions.
To me, that's the highest form of human interaction. And conversion is the lowest.
I'll answer your question in the form of a separate sysadmin blog post, as it is worth it's own discussion.