6 ms·

In reply to myself: The times are changing indeed. It seams that HN-ers started liking Microsoft. Whenever I post some concern, even if only mild, there is firs

In reply to myself: The times are changing indeed. It seams that HN-ers started liking Microsoft. Whenever I post some concern, even if only mild, there is first a few upvotes, and then a bunch of downvotes. Microsoft became the darling of the community, OR, in addition to embracing open source, they embraced voting ring tactics. These are two explanations I have, maybe there is another. Maybe my criticism really was obnoxious...

coldtea 10y ago
>Maybe my criticism really was obnoxious... Well, the "maybe in addition to embracing open source, they embraced voting ring tactics" part sure is.
ocdtrekkie 10y ago
Maybe it's just because yes, we all remember the 90s. But today is not necessarily the 90s. It was a lot more recent that Google was a relatively benevolent company, and we've all seen how that's changed. And the thing about open source projects, is just that. They're open source. If the wider community takes hold of them, there's not much Microsoft can do. Because then you just see a fork. You don't have to be a fan of Microsoft to simply appreciate the contribution to open software, as it is.
- dragandj 10y ago
  The only catch in that perspective is that the language specification is open source, while Microsoft's compiler implementation is not. So, yes, we can edit those TeX documents they put on GitHub to our heart's delight.
  - vardump 10y ago
    https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-llvm https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-llvm Doesn't that look like an open source implementation? Or did I misunderstand something? However: > The compiler is not far enough along for programmers to "kick the tires" on Checked C. We do not have a installable version clang available yet. If you are really interested, you can build your own copy of the compiler:
- EugeneOZ 10y ago
  pff.. they are "open source" just because they want to attract developers, because without developers writing apps for their platform, Microsoft will die (as any other platform). They are still just money-makers and nothing else, there is no any idea except money behind their movements to Open Source world, otherwise they wouldn't take revenues from Android.
  - dewiz 10y ago
    last time I checked Microsoft was a company (not a platform) and like any other it has to make money to survive. Your saying is applicable to every other company releasing open source code
    - EugeneOZ 10y ago
      Approaches of Mozilla and Microsoft are quite different.
      - devnonymous 10y ago
        Yes they are... And believe it or not people / companies can change. And changing to a more open culture even if the reasons for doing this is because they will cease being competitive if they don't is still a good thing. Open source these days not only makes sense technically and ethically but also economically... And that's a good thing.
        EugeneOZ 10y ago
        And I absolutely agree with it. Even happy about that. Companies should make money, developers should make money - it's all the right things. I love money too :) The only thing I'm talking about is honesty - MS is trying to show they love open-source just because they are so awesome and hackers, but in reality it's just profitable mask and they are glad to wear it.
        jknoepfler 10y ago
- marssaxman 10y ago
  Forced updates for Windows 10 burned all the credibility Microsoft was slowly regaining. Whatever might be going on in there, they still have enough of the old strongarm bullying monopolist in their collective corporate character that their good works really cannot be trusted over the long term.
  - trelltron 10y ago
    What about forced updates makes them bullies? Or are you just generally angry?
    - marssaxman 10y ago
      I'm angry about the idea that forced updates might become a normal practice, because that could lead to a situation where it's difficult to find much software I am willing to use. "Power to the people" has always been the whole point of personal computing, as far as I'm concerned. Give people control over their data, their processes, their lives; that's why we're doing this, isn't it? That's why I'm doing it, at least.
      - Santosh83 10y ago
        Power to the user is one aspect of personal computing. But with the rise of mobile and now IoT, the user has also become (increasingly) a 'consumer', and thus the software and hardware are getting more and more locked down. Hardware and software manufacturers will sleep easier at night when their products cannot (or can only limitedly) be modified. I think the writing is on the wall. Computing devices will split into two diverging branches: one tailored for limited configuration and aimed at media consumption and use by non-tech users, the other providing (hopefully) full freedom to modify, aimed at IT co. and interested hobbyists. It will be quite some achievement if mechanisms to increase vendor control aren't increasingly integrated even into the devices in the second segment, as things like Intel ME/UEFI Secure Boot show.
  - ocdtrekkie 10y ago
    My Android has forced updates. I have to put my phone in airplane mode before each reboot and kill the process to prevent it. Chrome has forced updates. A lot of things have forced updates these days, and nobody bats an eye about it. Microsoft does it, everyone loses their minds. And 'forced' is a stretch anyways, how to block it is well documented, and was months in advance. And you can revert, something Google and others will not let you do.
- toomanythings2 10y ago
  Microsoft was still under US Federal oversight as of 2010. Two years ago, Ballmer was still CEO. It takes a long time to turn a big ship.
_pmf_ 10y ago
> It seams that HN-ers started liking Microsoft. Or maybe we stopped categorically demonizing some technology because of its provenience and started evaluating it based on criteria like usefulness and applicability. You know, like if we actually take the "engineer" part of "software engineer" seriously instead of using it for everyone who once wrote a PHP page for his uncle.
- EugeneOZ 10y ago
  it's funny how you are demonizing PHP in your comment
  - jo909 10y ago
    He is "demonizing" some "typical PHP programmer". It's not the languages fault that it is allegedly often used by novices to start their first website project, and that by no fault of their own those novices do not have any appreciable CS education and thus build their programs like I build a sandcastle: keep trying random things until it does not fall over anymore. The argument is exactly to make this difference. There is the technical and somewhat objective aspect of the language and its implementation, and there are the people who created the language, who use the language etc. A bad language can have a great community, and vise versa.
  - jjnoakes 10y ago
    Right, but not because of who made it, but because of its merits. Which is how things should be demonized.
youdeserveit 10y ago
You deserve it. It was obnoxious.

coldtea 10y ago

>Maybe my criticism really was obnoxious... Well, the "maybe in addition to embracing open source, they embraced voting ring tactics" part sure is.

ocdtrekkie 10y ago

Maybe it's just because yes, we all remember the 90s. But today is not necessarily the 90s. It was a lot more recent that Google was a relatively benevolent company, and we've all seen how that's changed. And the thing about open source projects, is just that. They're open source. If the wider community takes hold of them, there's not much Microsoft can do. Because then you just see a fork. You don't have to be a fan of Microsoft to simply appreciate the contribution to open software, as it is.

dragandj 10y ago
The only catch in that perspective is that the language specification is open source, while Microsoft's compiler implementation is not. So, yes, we can edit those TeX documents they put on GitHub to our heart's delight.
- vardump 10y ago
  https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-llvm https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-llvm Doesn't that look like an open source implementation? Or did I misunderstand something? However: > The compiler is not far enough along for programmers to "kick the tires" on Checked C. We do not have a installable version clang available yet. If you are really interested, you can build your own copy of the compiler:
EugeneOZ 10y ago
pff.. they are "open source" just because they want to attract developers, because without developers writing apps for their platform, Microsoft will die (as any other platform). They are still just money-makers and nothing else, there is no any idea except money behind their movements to Open Source world, otherwise they wouldn't take revenues from Android.
- dewiz 10y ago
  last time I checked Microsoft was a company (not a platform) and like any other it has to make money to survive. Your saying is applicable to every other company releasing open source code
  - EugeneOZ 10y ago
    Approaches of Mozilla and Microsoft are quite different.
    - devnonymous 10y ago
      Yes they are... And believe it or not people / companies can change. And changing to a more open culture even if the reasons for doing this is because they will cease being competitive if they don't is still a good thing. Open source these days not only makes sense technically and ethically but also economically... And that's a good thing.
      - EugeneOZ 10y ago
        And I absolutely agree with it. Even happy about that. Companies should make money, developers should make money - it's all the right things. I love money too :) The only thing I'm talking about is honesty - MS is trying to show they love open-source just because they are so awesome and hackers, but in reality it's just profitable mask and they are glad to wear it.
        jknoepfler 10y ago
marssaxman 10y ago
Forced updates for Windows 10 burned all the credibility Microsoft was slowly regaining. Whatever might be going on in there, they still have enough of the old strongarm bullying monopolist in their collective corporate character that their good works really cannot be trusted over the long term.
- trelltron 10y ago
  What about forced updates makes them bullies? Or are you just generally angry?
  - marssaxman 10y ago
    I'm angry about the idea that forced updates might become a normal practice, because that could lead to a situation where it's difficult to find much software I am willing to use. "Power to the people" has always been the whole point of personal computing, as far as I'm concerned. Give people control over their data, their processes, their lives; that's why we're doing this, isn't it? That's why I'm doing it, at least.
    - Santosh83 10y ago
      Power to the user is one aspect of personal computing. But with the rise of mobile and now IoT, the user has also become (increasingly) a 'consumer', and thus the software and hardware are getting more and more locked down. Hardware and software manufacturers will sleep easier at night when their products cannot (or can only limitedly) be modified. I think the writing is on the wall. Computing devices will split into two diverging branches: one tailored for limited configuration and aimed at media consumption and use by non-tech users, the other providing (hopefully) full freedom to modify, aimed at IT co. and interested hobbyists. It will be quite some achievement if mechanisms to increase vendor control aren't increasingly integrated even into the devices in the second segment, as things like Intel ME/UEFI Secure Boot show.
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  My Android has forced updates. I have to put my phone in airplane mode before each reboot and kill the process to prevent it. Chrome has forced updates. A lot of things have forced updates these days, and nobody bats an eye about it. Microsoft does it, everyone loses their minds. And 'forced' is a stretch anyways, how to block it is well documented, and was months in advance. And you can revert, something Google and others will not let you do.
toomanythings2 10y ago
Microsoft was still under US Federal oversight as of 2010. Two years ago, Ballmer was still CEO. It takes a long time to turn a big ship.

_pmf_ 10y ago

> It seams that HN-ers started liking Microsoft. Or maybe we stopped categorically demonizing some technology because of its provenience and started evaluating it based on criteria like usefulness and applicability. You know, like if we actually take the "engineer" part of "software engineer" seriously instead of using it for everyone who once wrote a PHP page for his uncle.

EugeneOZ 10y ago
it's funny how you are demonizing PHP in your comment
- jo909 10y ago
  He is "demonizing" some "typical PHP programmer". It's not the languages fault that it is allegedly often used by novices to start their first website project, and that by no fault of their own those novices do not have any appreciable CS education and thus build their programs like I build a sandcastle: keep trying random things until it does not fall over anymore. The argument is exactly to make this difference. There is the technical and somewhat objective aspect of the language and its implementation, and there are the people who created the language, who use the language etc. A bad language can have a great community, and vise versa.
- jjnoakes 10y ago
  Right, but not because of who made it, but because of its merits. Which is how things should be demonized.

youdeserveit 10y ago

You deserve it. It was obnoxious.