5 ms·

If anyone trusts microsoft right now after the past year or two worth of things we've learned I highly doubt their dedication to a free and open source vision o

If anyone trusts microsoft right now after the past year or two worth of things we've learned I highly doubt their dedication to a free and open source vision of the future. I actually have a hard time beleiving some of these comments are even organic... (web and server devs are going to migrate to windows!). What world do these people live in? It's like people live in fantasy land and have forgotten the 90's truth of MS. Embrace. Extend. Extinguish. RMS was and is right. Either the user controls the program or the program controls the user. Microsoft has shown they are only interested in controlling the user, and not in giving the user control. I say this as a senior sysadmin who has dealt with every aspect of their OS's in production for a long time, and I'm fed up with it. Honestly I think Win8/10 was the final straw for me, for what it's worth. I've since moved completely off windows to gnu+linux, despite the rough points such as gaming. It's been a freeing experience I wish more people had the guts to be a part of. I'm also heavily considering refusing to support windows systems in general, something I think we should all consider.

oblio 9y ago
I don't trust Microsoft. But they're less evil than Apple, look at Apple is doing with its locked garden (no GPL, only one browser engine allowed, no JITing except for their Javascript engine, development only on their platform, etc., etc.). On top of this, Microsoft is a smaller fish these days. They've lost mobile, probably forever. They're behind in search, ads, cloud, etc. So they're, maybe not toothless, but definitely less harmful than they were in the 90's. For EEE they need to be able to extinguish. They can't extinguish Linux or OSS now, it's basically impossible.
- Sephr 9y ago
  > I don't trust Microsoft. But they're less evil than Apple, look at Apple is doing with its locked garden (no GPL, only one browser engine allowed, no JITing except for their Javascript engine, development only on their platform, etc., etc.). Hate to break it to you, but the Microsoft Store has the same limitations regarding browser engines as Apple's iOS App Store.
  - oblio 9y ago
    Nobody uses that and if they push it hard there's going to be major backlash, possibly even another anti-trust lawsuit. Keep in mind they already have a conviction for anti-competitive practices. A second strike would probably be at least in the low billions, especially in the EU.
zadjii 9y ago
Hey your opinion is cool and all. But there are a lot of people who put a lot of hard work into this project, because we're developers too, and we think the idea of being able to run a full linux userland on top of the NT kernel is fucking cool. This project has never been about EEE. It's not about controlling the user. It's the complete opposite. It's all about choice. I like a linux style development environment more than I like Windows style. In my free time I mostly write python applications and do webdev-y stuff, and WSL makes it really easy for me to do that. But then again, that's just my opinion.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  > being able to run a full linux userland on top of the NT kernel is fucking cool. I could do that before with virtualbox. What kind of benefits besides slight speed increases would we see using the posix WSL? >It's not about controlling the user. It's the complete opposite. It's all about choice. If I create a prison for you, but then let you choose your cell, do you consider that a valid choice? That's what this is, and I know what you mean but the reality is that windows is a walled garden prison for the user. >I like a linux style development environment more than I like Windows style. Then why not dev on GNU+linux? Also, notice the emphasis on GNU.
  - foxhill 9y ago
    come on, there's no need to be disingenuous here - having the linux userspace run atop the windows kernel is much closer to docker than virtualization.
    - arca_vorago 9y ago
      Fair point here, but in reality it changes none of my other arguments. If anything, replacing the linux kernel with the windows kernel and then giving the user half the userspace programs is still bad in my book.
  - rizalp 9y ago
    > Then why not dev on GNU+linux? So I can have sleep and wifi working properly and working 3D acceleration for Apps and Games.
Lazare 9y ago
Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices... ...that your comment is basically just FUD? I'm not saying your wrong! But your comment is, clearly, intended to make people feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft, the Windows platform, what MS may choose to do in the future, etc. And you don't have any particular factual claims to back it up (classic FUD tactic), just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") and some handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. I mean, I'm the oldest dev on my team, and I was a teenager when the Halloween Documents were published. We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft, and I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. And no, chanting "embrace, extend, extinguish" is not an explanation.
- arca_vorago 9y ago
  > Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices that your comment is basically just FUD? Apologies for not taking the time to sit down and list all the ways MS has been bad for the FOSS world and the user. For someone who references the halloween documents and the hn userbase in general I think most of this should be mostly obvious and not need specific hand-holding. As for your accusation of fud, fud by defnition is about false or disinformation in combination with the appeal to fear. I'm basing my comments off true information, and not using the fallacious appeal to fear but instead telling how proprietary systems do affect people. > just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") A key point to the appeal to authority issue is that it isn't inherently a fallacy, and only becomes one with used in an informal fallacy, which I did not. In rhetoric establishing authority is an important (but often overvalued) aspect of argument. As a senior sysadmin, this makes my propositions more likely, but not logically certain. Not a fallacy at all. > handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. What does the date of these actions have to do with the issue at hand? The four principles of software freedom are still not met by MS, and that's just as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. > We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? Where do I begin? First of all, we don't really live in such a different world. Fundamental principles of software freedom have been the same since the 80's when they were first brought up, (though they have been refined somewhat). Second, not only would MS abuse their power, but they already have and do! As for what power, I don't know how you can be serious and ask such a question. Instead of ranting I will just give you a good link to read. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html > At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft This is a logical fallacy. We aren't talking about FB. I'm concerned about it too, but to handwave away MS issues in this way is not conducive to honest intellectual conversation. > I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. We have, for years at that. See above gnu.org link for a start. > And how does WSL provide them an opening? You mean other than replacing a gplv2 kernel with a closed source proprietary one?

oblio 9y ago

I don't trust Microsoft. But they're less evil than Apple, look at Apple is doing with its locked garden (no GPL, only one browser engine allowed, no JITing except for their Javascript engine, development only on their platform, etc., etc.). On top of this, Microsoft is a smaller fish these days. They've lost mobile, probably forever. They're behind in search, ads, cloud, etc. So they're, maybe not toothless, but definitely less harmful than they were in the 90's. For EEE they need to be able to extinguish. They can't extinguish Linux or OSS now, it's basically impossible.

Sephr 9y ago
> I don't trust Microsoft. But they're less evil than Apple, look at Apple is doing with its locked garden (no GPL, only one browser engine allowed, no JITing except for their Javascript engine, development only on their platform, etc., etc.). Hate to break it to you, but the Microsoft Store has the same limitations regarding browser engines as Apple's iOS App Store.
- oblio 9y ago
  Nobody uses that and if they push it hard there's going to be major backlash, possibly even another anti-trust lawsuit. Keep in mind they already have a conviction for anti-competitive practices. A second strike would probably be at least in the low billions, especially in the EU.

zadjii 9y ago

Hey your opinion is cool and all. But there are a lot of people who put a lot of hard work into this project, because we're developers too, and we think the idea of being able to run a full linux userland on top of the NT kernel is fucking cool. This project has never been about EEE. It's not about controlling the user. It's the complete opposite. It's all about choice. I like a linux style development environment more than I like Windows style. In my free time I mostly write python applications and do webdev-y stuff, and WSL makes it really easy for me to do that. But then again, that's just my opinion.

arca_vorago 9y ago
> being able to run a full linux userland on top of the NT kernel is fucking cool. I could do that before with virtualbox. What kind of benefits besides slight speed increases would we see using the posix WSL? >It's not about controlling the user. It's the complete opposite. It's all about choice. If I create a prison for you, but then let you choose your cell, do you consider that a valid choice? That's what this is, and I know what you mean but the reality is that windows is a walled garden prison for the user. >I like a linux style development environment more than I like Windows style. Then why not dev on GNU+linux? Also, notice the emphasis on GNU.
- foxhill 9y ago
  come on, there's no need to be disingenuous here - having the linux userspace run atop the windows kernel is much closer to docker than virtualization.
  - arca_vorago 9y ago
    Fair point here, but in reality it changes none of my other arguments. If anything, replacing the linux kernel with the windows kernel and then giving the user half the userspace programs is still bad in my book.
- rizalp 9y ago
  > Then why not dev on GNU+linux? So I can have sleep and wifi working properly and working 3D acceleration for Apps and Games.

Lazare 9y ago

Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices... ...that your comment is basically just FUD? I'm not saying your wrong! But your comment is, clearly, intended to make people feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft, the Windows platform, what MS may choose to do in the future, etc. And you don't have any particular factual claims to back it up (classic FUD tactic), just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") and some handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. I mean, I'm the oldest dev on my team, and I was a teenager when the Halloween Documents were published. We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft, and I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. And no, chanting "embrace, extend, extinguish" is not an explanation.

arca_vorago 9y ago
> Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices that your comment is basically just FUD? Apologies for not taking the time to sit down and list all the ways MS has been bad for the FOSS world and the user. For someone who references the halloween documents and the hn userbase in general I think most of this should be mostly obvious and not need specific hand-holding. As for your accusation of fud, fud by defnition is about false or disinformation in combination with the appeal to fear. I'm basing my comments off true information, and not using the fallacious appeal to fear but instead telling how proprietary systems do affect people. > just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") A key point to the appeal to authority issue is that it isn't inherently a fallacy, and only becomes one with used in an informal fallacy, which I did not. In rhetoric establishing authority is an important (but often overvalued) aspect of argument. As a senior sysadmin, this makes my propositions more likely, but not logically certain. Not a fallacy at all. > handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. What does the date of these actions have to do with the issue at hand? The four principles of software freedom are still not met by MS, and that's just as relevant today as it was 20 years ago. > We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? Where do I begin? First of all, we don't really live in such a different world. Fundamental principles of software freedom have been the same since the 80's when they were first brought up, (though they have been refined somewhat). Second, not only would MS abuse their power, but they already have and do! As for what power, I don't know how you can be serious and ask such a question. Instead of ranting I will just give you a good link to read. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html > At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft This is a logical fallacy. We aren't talking about FB. I'm concerned about it too, but to handwave away MS issues in this way is not conducive to honest intellectual conversation. > I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. We have, for years at that. See above gnu.org link for a start. > And how does WSL provide them an opening? You mean other than replacing a gplv2 kernel with a closed source proprietary one?