4 ms·

Well, I don't know your age but a lot of us grew up during the 1990s and early 2000s and experienced Microsoft's bully behavior first hand while we were trying

by aerique 10y ago

Well, I don't know your age but a lot of us grew up during the 1990s and early 2000s and experienced Microsoft's bully behavior first hand while we were trying to make Linux[1], Free Software and Open Source more popular. That kind of trust is hard to win back. It may be childish but I've been enjoying Microsoft's fade into irrelevance the last decade. [1] Amongst other OSes.

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
I agree with your statement. I wouldn't trust MS to run FreeBSD on their hardware at all. What if they throttle the performance of FreeBSD without you ever knowing it? Embrace and extinguish has always been their motto.
- cjg_ 10y ago
  Hotmail ran on FreeBSD for a long time. Why would they treat it anyway than Linux?
  - l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
    MS has every incentive to ensure that their Operating systems get the best hardware and show they are the more stable and scalable. I wouldn't trust an operating system company that runs a "server farm" where they have their own OS and competitors. Why would Microsoft run their competition on their own hardware & data centers? If Azure breaks off from MS and becomes an independent company, OS agnostic, then maybe they can win my trust back. I like Azure & would only use it for MS based OS, DB etc. I would never run, nor would I recommend any other OS running on Azure, ever. There are other "server farm" vendors that I can choose from for non MS based cloud computing.
    - Sanddancer 10y ago
      Because it's a commoditized market. MS knows damn well that if Linux, etc were shown to be significantly slower on Hyper-V/Azure than on other platforms, they wouldn't get subscribers. Bang for the buck is an important factor in business decisions, and there are a ton of other providers out there to keep MS honest.
    - spdustin 10y ago
      I don't think there's a single blue badge (old colloquialism for "Microsoft employee") that believes BSD and nix are "competitors". Why wouldn't Azure run other OSes? It's not a virtualized Windows hosting service, it's a virtualized OS hosting service. Agreed on other points made on this thread regarding pricing, though.
- Someone1234 10y ago
  Microsoft has supported Linux on Azure for years now. Why would they treat FreeBSD worse than Linux? The only "evil" that I've experience with Linux is that Microsoft has price parity between Windows & SUSE Linux on Azure, which is competitive for Windows but a premium price for SUSE Linux (and an extra premium price for RedHat Enterprise). Linux without a support contract should always be cheaper than Windows because that's the reality with the license costs. Microsoft's competitors are far cheaper for Linux VMs, but if you're willing to pay the premium it runs fine on Azure, and performs better than Windows on the same hardware (although the gap is smaller if you run Windows headless, using Windows Core).
  - snuxoll 10y ago
    I mean, for SUSE or RHEL you can just build your own image and BYOL. There's no need to use the standard images. Anyway, if your infrastructure is static enough that the per hour licensing costs don't make sense then why are you even using Azure/AWS/whatever instead of running inside your own DC? Every time our IT Director talks about Azure I want to cringe, our infrastructure is relatively static and only grows - so it's straight up MORE expensive to put anything there (and this factors in power and cooling to the datacenter).
epoch1970 10y ago
How exactly has Microsoft "faded into irrelevance"? Various versions of Windows are used on probably 90% or more of desktops and laptops, in both home and business settings. It still sees widespread server use. Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook are widely used. SQL Server is quite common within many enterprises. Azure is a major player, and is seeing more and more adoption. The porting of .NET to Linux and OS X is making Microsoft's development technologies available to a wider audience. The Xbox brand of consoles is quite popular. Microsoft has numerous offerings, across a range of sectors, that have huge uptake and are quite successful. I don't think that "irrelevance" is the way to describe Microsoft or their products.
- toxican 10y ago
  I get that some of the developers and enthusiasts that were around professionally during that period would be untrusting of MS (rightfully so), but to say they've been fading into irrelevance when they still hold the vast majority of the marketshare in desktop/laptop OS? To me, that just sounds like whining of a bitter fanboy.
  - broodbucket 10y ago
    It's far from irrelevance, but you can't deny they've lost a lot from where they were. Their dominance over the desktop/laptop OS market is still real, but the market is shrinking in favor of other form factors. In their other markets, they're attacked from every side.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- aerique 10y ago
  Since I seem to have ruffled some feathers with my statement: compared to how dominant Microsoft used to be, they're now just one of the companies offering a certain product in many markets. This is a good thing. "Irrelevance" was perhaps hyperbole but if you compare it to their past, well... I'd say the only product they have left where one doesn't have much of a choice (in business mostly) but to use it is the Office line and even that is debatable nowadays. So while many businesses would trade with Microsoft's position in a blink, they are not the unavoidable powerhouse they used to be.
ZoF 10y ago
>Microsoft's fade into irrelevance Come on now...
znpy 10y ago
I am 24 and have experienced people complaining about this. And don't get me wrong: I understand the struggle. I share the point of view. But let's just not live in the past :)
- dagaci 10y ago
  Could you expand on what the struggle is? Thanks
outside1234 10y ago
Nearly all of those people have left Microsoft, more often than not for Amazon and Google when they've stayed in industry, so if you are unhappy with that behavior, then you know the right firms to take it out on.

by aerique 10y ago

l3m0ndr0p 10y ago

I agree with your statement. I wouldn't trust MS to run FreeBSD on their hardware at all. What if they throttle the performance of FreeBSD without you ever knowing it? Embrace and extinguish has always been their motto.

cjg_ 10y ago
Hotmail ran on FreeBSD for a long time. Why would they treat it anyway than Linux?
- l3m0ndr0p 10y ago
  MS has every incentive to ensure that their Operating systems get the best hardware and show they are the more stable and scalable. I wouldn't trust an operating system company that runs a "server farm" where they have their own OS and competitors. Why would Microsoft run their competition on their own hardware & data centers? If Azure breaks off from MS and becomes an independent company, OS agnostic, then maybe they can win my trust back. I like Azure & would only use it for MS based OS, DB etc. I would never run, nor would I recommend any other OS running on Azure, ever. There are other "server farm" vendors that I can choose from for non MS based cloud computing.
  - Sanddancer 10y ago
    Because it's a commoditized market. MS knows damn well that if Linux, etc were shown to be significantly slower on Hyper-V/Azure than on other platforms, they wouldn't get subscribers. Bang for the buck is an important factor in business decisions, and there are a ton of other providers out there to keep MS honest.
  - spdustin 10y ago
    I don't think there's a single blue badge (old colloquialism for "Microsoft employee") that believes BSD and nix are "competitors". Why wouldn't Azure run other OSes? It's not a virtualized Windows hosting service, it's a virtualized OS hosting service. Agreed on other points made on this thread regarding pricing, though.
Someone1234 10y ago
Microsoft has supported Linux on Azure for years now. Why would they treat FreeBSD worse than Linux? The only "evil" that I've experience with Linux is that Microsoft has price parity between Windows & SUSE Linux on Azure, which is competitive for Windows but a premium price for SUSE Linux (and an extra premium price for RedHat Enterprise). Linux without a support contract should always be cheaper than Windows because that's the reality with the license costs. Microsoft's competitors are far cheaper for Linux VMs, but if you're willing to pay the premium it runs fine on Azure, and performs better than Windows on the same hardware (although the gap is smaller if you run Windows headless, using Windows Core).
- snuxoll 10y ago
  I mean, for SUSE or RHEL you can just build your own image and BYOL. There's no need to use the standard images. Anyway, if your infrastructure is static enough that the per hour licensing costs don't make sense then why are you even using Azure/AWS/whatever instead of running inside your own DC? Every time our IT Director talks about Azure I want to cringe, our infrastructure is relatively static and only grows - so it's straight up MORE expensive to put anything there (and this factors in power and cooling to the datacenter).

epoch1970 10y ago

How exactly has Microsoft "faded into irrelevance"? Various versions of Windows are used on probably 90% or more of desktops and laptops, in both home and business settings. It still sees widespread server use. Word, Excel, PowerPoint and Outlook are widely used. SQL Server is quite common within many enterprises. Azure is a major player, and is seeing more and more adoption. The porting of .NET to Linux and OS X is making Microsoft's development technologies available to a wider audience. The Xbox brand of consoles is quite popular. Microsoft has numerous offerings, across a range of sectors, that have huge uptake and are quite successful. I don't think that "irrelevance" is the way to describe Microsoft or their products.

toxican 10y ago
I get that some of the developers and enthusiasts that were around professionally during that period would be untrusting of MS (rightfully so), but to say they've been fading into irrelevance when they still hold the vast majority of the marketshare in desktop/laptop OS? To me, that just sounds like whining of a bitter fanboy.
- broodbucket 10y ago
  It's far from irrelevance, but you can't deny they've lost a lot from where they were. Their dominance over the desktop/laptop OS market is still real, but the market is shrinking in favor of other form factors. In their other markets, they're attacked from every side.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
aerique 10y ago
Since I seem to have ruffled some feathers with my statement: compared to how dominant Microsoft used to be, they're now just one of the companies offering a certain product in many markets. This is a good thing. "Irrelevance" was perhaps hyperbole but if you compare it to their past, well... I'd say the only product they have left where one doesn't have much of a choice (in business mostly) but to use it is the Office line and even that is debatable nowadays. So while many businesses would trade with Microsoft's position in a blink, they are not the unavoidable powerhouse they used to be.

ZoF 10y ago

>Microsoft's fade into irrelevance Come on now...

znpy 10y ago

I am 24 and have experienced people complaining about this. And don't get me wrong: I understand the struggle. I share the point of view. But let's just not live in the past :)

dagaci 10y ago
Could you expand on what the struggle is? Thanks

outside1234 10y ago

Nearly all of those people have left Microsoft, more often than not for Amazon and Google when they've stayed in industry, so if you are unhappy with that behavior, then you know the right firms to take it out on.