Comment by someonebaggy

11 hours ago

Wow, then there we go: don't hate the player, hate the game. You're telling me even Bill Gates wasn't evil until the system forced him to either become evil or get shut down.

19 comments

someonebaggy

Reply
bayindirh  11 hours ago

No, he just say he's inexperienced.

Bill Gates published that infamous open letter about copying software, and both Bill Gates and Brad Smith said that Microsoft's core pillar is IP: "Microsoft is built upon the idea of having IP and protecting and using it" (paraphrased by me).

The quotes I can find by digging the net:

> Microsoft was founded on the premise that software is valuable intellectual property that people should pay for. --Bill Gates

> Microsoft was founded on intellectual property. Intellectual property is the foundation of our business. --Brad Smith (This is the quote I remember in the first place)

So, Microsoft never wanted to be an open company. They were the epitome of the closed source, behemoth software company, where you get the goods, get to use it, and pay them for the privilege.

  • someonebaggy  11 hours ago

    Closed source software is a reality, not an explicit evil. It is the same reason I don't have schematics for my bedframe. I've worked at software companies - have you? - it takes extra effort to release source code, causes a lot of risk, and provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever so it is simply irrational to do it.

    • JacobKfromIRC  9 hours ago

      Reality vs explicit evil is a false dichotomy.

      Microsoft doesn't just choose not to release source code; they send takedown notices to projects that redistribute Microsoft's proprietary software (e.g. Ninjutsu OS). They also put clauses in the EULA for Windows to disallow reverse engineering and certain kinds of remote access (something related to if you change who has access too frequently).

      Microsoft takes extra effort to prevent people from sharing or modifying Microsoft software, in order to make more money.

      3 replies →

    • squarefoot  9 hours ago

      Closed source was perfectly acceptable when planned obsolescence and government mandated kill switches/backdoors weren't a thing.

    • bayindirh  10 hours ago

      I'm not an opponent/critic of closed source software or enemy of it. I pay for quite a few high quality closed source software packages, and I like them as much as the Free Software counterparts which I use every day.

      I also understand that we need to eat and have bills to pay, and there are many ways to achieve that, incl. Free or Closed Source software.

      What I'm against is weaponization of closed source software beyond reasonable point. To EEE, to deprecate otherwise capable and functional hardware in the market, to limit user freedom or to extort money.

      I hope I made my point clear.

      Furthermore:

      > I've worked at software companies - have you?

      I didn't work at a software company per se, yet I develop open source software for the projects we work on, and I know what preparing a codebase for publishing entails. I also worked as a tech-lead of a Linux distribution, and a nation-wide one at that. I know what it entails, trust me.

      If we're talking about experience in terms of years, I'm doing this for ~20 years, using Linux for ~25 years, and using computers in a level I understand what programming them entails for ~30 years.

      So yeah, I'm not that newbie who have seen some Python and tied themselves to a knot of awe.

      > causes a lot of risk,

      Don't let's get into FUD territory of "Free Software is insecure", shall we? We see how Windows has been breached yesterday and today, and will see it more for years to come, as with other software.

      > and provides absolutely no benefit whatsoever so it is simply irrational to do it.

      Hmm, I'll agree to disagree here because 90% of the thing your digital stack is living on is Open Source and Free Software.

      I don't have time to flesh out the benefit and irrationality aspect of it, because I mean, it's plainly wrong when it's put that squarely. We can find some nuances maybe, but it's limited to certain scenarios.

      5 replies →

serf  5 hours ago

I think , probably, evil covers a wider spectrum than whether or not you're in bed with feds.