Comment by jdmoreira
9 years ago
When I was a script kiddie back in the mid nineties Microsoft was this evil corporate empire that all the linux kids hated.
Now I'm in my mid 30s and I respect them a lot and would definitely work for them.
I guess we both have changed.
I'm not sure what changed about them. Do you think that dumping some code on GitHub is enough? I disagree.
"Linux kids" hated Microsoft because of their dirty tactics, exemplified for example in the "Halloween documents" [1], which shows among other things how they sponsored the SCO lawsuits against Linux. "Linux kids" also hated Microsoft for how they always tried to subvert open standards, like for example the Open Document Format (ODF). "Linux kids" also hated how Microsoft tried to push people towards DRM and Trusted Computing.
If they changed, that would mean they no longer engage in such tactics, right?
Yet Microsoft constantly engages in racketeering practices against Android phone makers and against Linux, with their huge patents portfolio, turning into genuine patent trolls. They make more money from Android than from their Windows Phone. They are also coercing computer makers to install Windows on computers, threatening with patents that allegedly cover Linux. If you can't innovate, litigate, right? And on open standards Microsoft is still engaged in subverting ODF, forcing governments that want open formats to accept OOXML as an alternative. And on Trusted Computing, well, they weren't the ones popularizing it, Apple takes the credit for that one, but they surely benefit from it now ;-)
Oh, and the often cited article by Scott Hanselman, titled "Microsoft killed my Pappy", doesn't mention these problems. Convenient, but it feels like a slap in the face.
Yet indeed, Microsoft did change. The Microsoft I know would have never tricked users in giving away their privacy by dark patterns [2]. And I can recognize they now have a wonderful PR department, otherwise this "change" nonsense wouldn't have flied without one.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents
[2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/08/windows-10-microsoft-b...
You should be more worried about Google and Facebook tracking your spatial and temporal data than Microsoft racking fees from Android OEMs.
I'm not sure how that's relevant to the topic at hand. Do you think I'm not ranting on Google or Facebook's behavior? If you'll look at my history, I'm doing it all the time.
But this is some sort of fallacy. Does the existence of other companies that engage in bad behavior somehow exempt Microsoft or makes them less bad?
And in case you're not up to date, Microsoft is also collecting your data and they forced that upgrade on all Windows users, in addition to behaving like patents trolls. So what's your point?
Its possible that Google, Facebook, and Microsoft are all bad actors, all at the same time. The existence of problems at one of them does not preclude criticism of the others.
Meh. Linux would never have replaced Windows on desktop computers back then or ever. Anyway, the great majority of people never cared about Microsoft's behavior towards computer makers, Linux or Open Office. That's just politics.
If I boycotted every company who played hard-ball politics, I would be living alone and naked in the woods. Your priorities are out of whack if you're railing against Microsoft but still living on the grid.
Scott Hanselman's article is a whole 20 paragraphs long, it wasn't ever supposed to be a comprehensive coverage of every action Microsoft has ever taken.
Like most people, all I ever cared about was high quality software and Microsoft has it in spades...which is why almost every business desktop system on the planet is running Windows.
Anti-trust laws and governments exist for a reason: such that "the majority of people" don't have to concern themselves with matters that affect them but for which they've got no competency.
You've just made an appeal to popularity, an obvious fallacy.
Microsoft killed BeOS and almost killed Apple through anti-competitive behavior. Whether Windows was superior, that's irrelevant to our discussion, because they engaged in anti-competitive behavior, which hurts the market and consequently the people. And this is a fact, because Microsoft is a convicted monopoly and they got lucky with the Bush administration.
> If I boycotted every company who played hard-ball politics, I would be living alone and naked in the woods.
That's odd, given that consumers exercising choice is how capitalism is supposed to work. If you boycotted every company who played dirty, that's called "voting with your wallet" and it works surprisingly well ;-)
> Scott Hanselman's article is a whole 20 paragraphs long, it wasn't ever supposed to be a comprehensive coverage of every action Microsoft has ever taken.
My point is that Scott Hanselman's article is pure PR bullshit because he never addressed any important problems.
2 replies →
Nothing changed about Microsoft. Back then, MS's leadership was doing things that they thought would make them the most money and now MS's leadership are doing things that they think will make them the most money. Being "for" or "against" OSS or Linux or whatever doesn't even enter into the equation.
To be frank, when you are no longer the dominant player in a market, open source looks very appealing as a method of gathering additional market share. If you are the dominant player, there is little reason to give your opponents a tactical advantage by open sourcing your software.
Very few open source companies make money and even fewer companies make significant revenue as a consequence of releasing free/open software as their core business (FB/Google, for example, only open source ancillary services or services which devalue their competitors tactical advantages).