Comment by mrzool
6 years ago
That’s maybe the reason why also the linked article almost has no content. It’s just a series of allegations and diversions into how much Microsoft sucks. There’s not even anecdotal evidence mentioned. As much as I sympathize with the view, you need to back it up. I didn’t get any value from the article, and that’s disappointing cause I’m sure there’s a real story to be told here.
I'm not sure that was the point. It's clearly stated in the article that the move back to Windows had no technical merit with regard to operations of the FOSS supplicants. The HN crowd is well aware of all of the default telemetry and "spyware" that is the current generation of desktop Windows.
Personally, it feels like the beginning of the turning of a tide. Large organizations are finally starting to wear on the idea of "subscriptions" as a default base for lock-in and data collection. "Our service runs in the cloud for your benefit!" they say. "It's a subscription that delivers customer value!" they say. None of it's true. The angle is investor value. Everyone at Microsoft size is building products for the bottom line, not the consumer. Microsoft doesn't get a pass because the article doesn't drill on point by point how Microsoft has marginalized and abused OSS since they took the first pot shots at Linux.
I still don't understand how organizations rationalize Windows as a core OS their business runs on. Primarily Microsoft environments fuel the majority of the security industry today and so it appears to be one big cyclical money laundering scheme. Microsoft continues to build on a platform that's always rife with security flaws, the Enterprise security vendors "solve" this and it's a fantastic circle of POs for everyone, including Microsoft.
While you may not have gotten "value" from the article the continued solicitation of the punches Microsoft has pulled to continually remind people of that is worth it enough to publish it. Burying what they've done and continue to do brings nobody value.