4 ms·

Microsoft has a history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code

skissane 10y ago
You are talking about something Microsoft did in the early 1990s. It is very likely that most or even all of the people involved don't work for Microsoft any more. No company is ever going to be perfect, but I honestly believe that today's Microsoft is a much better corporate citizen than 1990s Microsoft was. (And, with the AARD code, while they shipped it turned on in the beta, it was disabled in the final release – which suggests to me that someone in charge at Microsoft had second thoughts about this even back then.) If 1990s Microsoft did something seemingly anti-competitive, it probably was intentionally anti-competitive. If 2010s Microsoft does something seemingly anti-competitive, while it still might be by intention, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it is the unintentional side effect of an innocent (even if misguided) decision.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > If 1990s Microsoft did something seemingly anti-competitive, it probably was intentionally anti-competitive. Ok > If 2010s Microsoft does something seemingly anti-competitive, while it still might be by intention, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it is the unintentional side effect of an innocent (even if misguided) decision. That's fine with me. But the degree to which MS has abused its monopoly position in the past, the degree to which they have been found guilty of bribery (in very recent times) in order to push MS products where Linux would have been a viable (and more sensible) alternative (for instance: http://www.intellinews.com/former-romanian-minister-admits-taking-4mn-bribe-in-microsoft-case-500447431/?archive=bne http://www.intellinews.com/former-romanian-minister-admits-t... , there are plenty of other examples), the Windows 10 privacy violations, the crippling of Skype on Linux and so on make me believe that there are still at least some parts of MS that have not changed all that much.
  - vedranm 10y ago
    Fully agree. Replied in a different place, same arguments apply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13955241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13955241
- hinkley 10y ago
  Steve Ballmer was in charge of Microsoft a little over three years ago. Do you think he's the only executive left over from the 90's? It takes a long time for a company to recover from a toxic management team even after they are gone. Some never do.
- fdupoo 10y ago
  U should modify your language to sound like less of an apologist. Apologists are less effective when they are easily spotted as such. ;-)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- fnord123 10y ago
  You are within your rights to give the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft is also within their rights to get in front of this and show that "Microsoft Loves Linux" on the client side as well as the server side by addressing the issue instead of saying "well, just use Windows and it will work".
- ted_dunning 10y ago
  It was something that Microsoft did in the early 1990's. And they did nearly identical things in the late 1990's. And they did more of them in the early 2000's. Their fall from the heights since then has allowed me to ignore whatever malfeasance they committed in the late 2000's or early 2010's, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And for what it is worth, what they did to companies I worked for in the late 90's and early 2000's consisted of lying, cheating and stealing. It consisted of blatantly dishonest and illegal behavior. And it was completely institutionalized so that the default behavior was dishonest and malicious. You can be wonderfully forgiving and credulous, but I personally find it very hard to do so.
hinkley 10y ago
And that is merely one of the most documented cases. From former employees, I know that the culture at that time and into the late 90's was that Microsoft employees were a better class of human being than non-employees. Knowing that, it's not surprising to see the amount of Us vs Them behavior that showed up as anything from active antagonism to malicious neglect. The kids don't remember that time frame, and wonder why the old farts malign Microsoft. It's because they went out of their way to make malice look like incompetence. That sort of malignancy deserves not to be forgotten. It's as if your kids only know Uncle Phil as a Born-Again Christian but you still remember him as a raging alcoholic and how Aunt Sue always had a black eye, or as the guy who molested you when you were a kid. Are you just supposed to forget that ever happened? You accept his apology (except MICROSOFT NEVER EVEN APOLOGIZED), enjoy him while you can but you still have to be on guard in case he falls off the wagon.
- vedranm 10y ago
  You are being very naive at best. There is at least a couple of problems with current Microsoft: 1) Windows is still closed source, their OpenDocument support is broken, and Secure Boot gives them an amount of power incomparable to anyone else in the industry: https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the-new-open-source-friendly-microsoft-bullshit/ https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the... 2) DirectX 12 is Windows Store exclusive and it will never be possible to use DX12 apps on e.g. Wine: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft-monopolise-pc-games-development-epic-games-gears-of-war https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft... 3) Patents: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/microsoft-loves-open-source-only-when-its-convenient.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m... http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-software/microsoft-attacks-open-source-linux.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-softwar... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13890580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13890580 Of course, all of these things are legal.

You are talking about something Microsoft did in the early 1990s. It is very likely that most or even all of the people involved don't work for Microsoft any more. No company is ever going to be perfect, but I honestly believe that today's Microsoft is a much better corporate citizen than 1990s Microsoft was. (And, with the AARD code, while they shipped it turned on in the beta, it was disabled in the final release – which suggests to me that someone in charge at Microsoft had second thoughts about this even back then.) If 1990s Microsoft did something seemingly anti-competitive, it probably was intentionally anti-competitive. If 2010s Microsoft does something seemingly anti-competitive, while it still might be by intention, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it is the unintentional side effect of an innocent (even if misguided) decision.

jacquesm 10y ago
> If 1990s Microsoft did something seemingly anti-competitive, it probably was intentionally anti-competitive. Ok > If 2010s Microsoft does something seemingly anti-competitive, while it still might be by intention, I'm more inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and presume it is the unintentional side effect of an innocent (even if misguided) decision. That's fine with me. But the degree to which MS has abused its monopoly position in the past, the degree to which they have been found guilty of bribery (in very recent times) in order to push MS products where Linux would have been a viable (and more sensible) alternative (for instance: http://www.intellinews.com/former-romanian-minister-admits-taking-4mn-bribe-in-microsoft-case-500447431/?archive=bne http://www.intellinews.com/former-romanian-minister-admits-t... , there are plenty of other examples), the Windows 10 privacy violations, the crippling of Skype on Linux and so on make me believe that there are still at least some parts of MS that have not changed all that much.
- vedranm 10y ago
  Fully agree. Replied in a different place, same arguments apply here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13955241 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13955241
hinkley 10y ago
Steve Ballmer was in charge of Microsoft a little over three years ago. Do you think he's the only executive left over from the 90's? It takes a long time for a company to recover from a toxic management team even after they are gone. Some never do.
fdupoo 10y ago
U should modify your language to sound like less of an apologist. Apologists are less effective when they are easily spotted as such. ;-)
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
fnord123 10y ago
You are within your rights to give the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft is also within their rights to get in front of this and show that "Microsoft Loves Linux" on the client side as well as the server side by addressing the issue instead of saying "well, just use Windows and it will work".
ted_dunning 10y ago
It was something that Microsoft did in the early 1990's. And they did nearly identical things in the late 1990's. And they did more of them in the early 2000's. Their fall from the heights since then has allowed me to ignore whatever malfeasance they committed in the late 2000's or early 2010's, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen. And for what it is worth, what they did to companies I worked for in the late 90's and early 2000's consisted of lying, cheating and stealing. It consisted of blatantly dishonest and illegal behavior. And it was completely institutionalized so that the default behavior was dishonest and malicious. You can be wonderfully forgiving and credulous, but I personally find it very hard to do so.

hinkley 10y ago

And that is merely one of the most documented cases. From former employees, I know that the culture at that time and into the late 90's was that Microsoft employees were a better class of human being than non-employees. Knowing that, it's not surprising to see the amount of Us vs Them behavior that showed up as anything from active antagonism to malicious neglect. The kids don't remember that time frame, and wonder why the old farts malign Microsoft. It's because they went out of their way to make malice look like incompetence. That sort of malignancy deserves not to be forgotten. It's as if your kids only know Uncle Phil as a Born-Again Christian but you still remember him as a raging alcoholic and how Aunt Sue always had a black eye, or as the guy who molested you when you were a kid. Are you just supposed to forget that ever happened? You accept his apology (except MICROSOFT NEVER EVEN APOLOGIZED), enjoy him while you can but you still have to be on guard in case he falls off the wagon.

vedranm 10y ago
You are being very naive at best. There is at least a couple of problems with current Microsoft: 1) Windows is still closed source, their OpenDocument support is broken, and Secure Boot gives them an amount of power incomparable to anyone else in the industry: https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the-new-open-source-friendly-microsoft-bullshit/ https://nudgedelastic.band/2016/01/i-am-still-not-buying-the... 2) DirectX 12 is Windows Store exclusive and it will never be possible to use DX12 apps on e.g. Wine: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft-monopolise-pc-games-development-epic-games-gears-of-war https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/mar/04/microsoft... 3) Patents: http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/microsoft-loves-open-source-only-when-its-convenient.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/3042699/open-source-tools/m... http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-software/microsoft-attacks-open-source-linux.html http://www.infoworld.com/article/2841412/open-source-softwar... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13890580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13890580 Of course, all of these things are legal.