5 ms·

Wow, this is a really disappointing thread. There are very few substantive comments here. I came to the comments to dispute this claim from the article: >It's

Wow, this is a really disappointing thread. There are very few substantive comments here. I came to the comments to dispute this claim from the article: >It's the first time ever that Microsoft has made Linux part of a product offering. Microsoft has offered Linux distributions on Azure for a few years now, and has ported a fair bit of their software to Linux, including VSCode, MSSQL, Powershell, etc. But it looks like I also need to comment on all of the negativity in this thread. This change from Microsoft is a Good Thing. Microsoft has been making some serious strides towards being a better citizen of the technology community in the past few years, and this is something to be celebrated. If you think you can scorn Microsoft out of existence, you're delusional. Microsoft is here to stay. You can choose to respond to these promising changes with optimism, or you can respond to them with spite - which of these responses do you think is going to encourage Microsoft to continue in their course of positive change? By all means, we should continue to hold their feet to the fire for stupid crap like Windows 10 being spyware. But we can't just be angry at them all the time - we have to celebrate the things they do right, too. Microsoft is clearly making a sustained effort to improve. They've done positive things they can't turn back on, like releasing large amounts of open source software under OSI licenses. Be happy!

zeth___ 9y ago
Anyone who was alive in the 90/00's can't be happy with microsoft, anymore than anyone who was alive in the 70s/80s can be happy with big blue. Are they different companies now? Yes. But not by choice, the market beat them down and made both irrelevant compared to what they were. I am happy with a small Microsoft and small IBM. Microsoft however is still too big for my liking.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  The 90's ended almost 20 years ago! They are a different company and you're just being an old fogey. As I said: Microsoft is here to stay. You can choose to be a bitter old man about it, or you can choose to be grateful that they're moving in a better direction. But you can't make them go away.
  - beenBoutIT 9y ago
    They won't be the predominant OS forever. People younger than yourself share none of your enthusiasm for booting into a badly designed clutter-ridden desktop. Microsoft can't improve its aesthetic because no one with talent or vision will ever work for them for any amount of money.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
      Hah, I don't use Windows, far from it. But Microsoft is more than a single product. Few would argue that their desktop isn't dying, but they are diversifying for exactly that reason.
  - incompatible 9y ago
    As long as Microsoft is still shaking down other companies for royalties for questionable patents like for exFAT, it's hard to see that they've changed.
- 2trill2spill 9y ago
  > I am happy with a small Microsoft and small IBM. Microsoft however is still too big for my liking. So you judge companies on size, not behavior? Seriously we should celebrate companies when they contribute to opensource software, if only to encourage more contributions.
  - zeth___ 9y ago
    I believe in the free market. And the first assumption of a free market is that no single supplier is large enough to significantly affect the price in the market. The smaller the firms get, the better the products.
    - jodrellblank 9y ago
      Microsoft affected the price in the market competing against literally free. That takes more than just "being big".
      - zeth___ 9y ago
        Given that you're comparing two non-interchangeable products the above is wrong. If we had one firm control 90% of oil reserves and a free for all for coal that the fossil fuel market was free.
    - mdekkers 9y ago
      Microsoft however is still too big for my liking. and I believe in the free market. come across as difficult to combine statements in my mind.
      - zeth___ 9y ago
        The free market is a market where no producer or consumer can manipulate price. It needs as much regulation to run as any Soviet Bureaucracy. The reason why it's efficient is because the price computation is distributed.
pmoriarty 9y ago
"You can choose to respond to these promising changes with optimism, or you can respond to them with spite - which of these responses do you think is going to encourage Microsoft to continue in their course of positive change?" Neither. There's very little evidence that Microsoft cares one way or the other about opinions on tech forums. They care about doing what they think will maximize their profits, and no amount of screaming at them from the peanut gallery is going to change that. What might be effective is choosing or not choosing to do business with Microsoft, or with their competitors. Also, if you're an influential enough person and you come out in public with your opinion about Microsoft, they might take notice. But the average Joe's opinion on HN? Not likely to make any difference. People talk on here not because they're under any illusion that Microsoft will listen, but because they're talking to each other, and if anything, it's one another's opinions that they are trying to sway -- just like you yourself are doing.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  Microsoft employees probably read HN, and rumour has it that the cause to open source more stuff is driven by the engineers. HN readers probably have some influence into the technology decisions made by their employers. Maybe Microsoft as some therotical entity isn't reading HN but Microsofters and people who have opportunities to work with them or their products certainly do.
youdontknowtho 9y ago
Yep. Lot's of people refuse to take "yes" for an answer. Open Source won.
- jodrellblank 9y ago
  "Open Source" (as if it's a single movement) didn't win in creating desirable, accessible, commercial or beautiful software. It 'won' in the worst possible way - big companies like Amazon and Facebook took the work, hid it in their datacenters behind their paywalls, and use it to extract money from people. Nobody has any more freedom with their data and their computing because Facebook uses PHP, than they would have on a proprietary desktop OS. "you can have an open source OS and browser which connects you to a restrictive interface where your data is under someone else's control" is a lose for all of us.
gonvaled 9y ago
Somebody bears responsibility for past actions. That Somebody is M$. You say they are a better company now. We'll see. It is probably just a strategy. What they did had a huge cost: putting back computing science for decades, and probably closing a one-time chance of having an open source platform accross all market segments. Linux is a bad desktop platform? Blame M$! M$ actions have costed humankind trillions, and we have collectively lost millions of years. That is not brushed away with a questionable release of an IoT product.
- lobster_johnson 9y ago
  What? The responsibility for Linux being a "bad desktop platform" is entirely that of whoever made it. Between KDE, GNOME and the various alternatives, none of their issues were caused by Microsoft. Microsoft may have been plenty evil under Gates/Ballmer, but it's hard to argue that they did much actual damage of consequence. If anything, they energized the open source community, and lost developer mindshare as a result.
  - gonvaled 9y ago
    They FUDed the market out of existence. The workpower left was not enough to produce a competitive product. Linus on Desktop is improving, but the damage is done. It happened long ago, but tbe ripples will be felt for centuries. They bear a huge responsibility, and it will not be forgotten.
    - lobster_johnson 9y ago
      What market? What kind of progress did Microsoft kill, exactly? Not to mention that back in the late 90s and early 00s when Microsoft was actively FUDing Linux, it was the server market they were afraid of. The LAMP stack was threatening IIS; the whole Mindcraft debacle, for example, was about the supposed superior TCO of Windows NT Server. Linux on the desktop was not a threat to Windows then. Microsoft wasn't talking about how Word and Excel were better than OpenOffice or whatever. They didn't need to. Microsoft's business was IIS, Exchange, SQL Server and so on, and they needed to FUD Linux to avoid losing enterprise market share against an upstart that could run lots of powerful Unix stuff at a fraction of the cost.
xtanx 9y ago
> Microsoft has been making some serious strides towards being a better citizen of the technology community in the past few years OK, yes, at least they are not paying SCO to sue linux out of existence [1]. > Microsoft is clearly making a sustained effort to improve. Only a move that could potentially be disruptive for their revenue in favor of the common good would actually prove to me that they have changed. So, I will believe this when I see a version of office for linux or something similar. Until then, its all part of the embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...

zeth___ 9y ago

Anyone who was alive in the 90/00's can't be happy with microsoft, anymore than anyone who was alive in the 70s/80s can be happy with big blue. Are they different companies now? Yes. But not by choice, the market beat them down and made both irrelevant compared to what they were. I am happy with a small Microsoft and small IBM. Microsoft however is still too big for my liking.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
The 90's ended almost 20 years ago! They are a different company and you're just being an old fogey. As I said: Microsoft is here to stay. You can choose to be a bitter old man about it, or you can choose to be grateful that they're moving in a better direction. But you can't make them go away.
- beenBoutIT 9y ago
  They won't be the predominant OS forever. People younger than yourself share none of your enthusiasm for booting into a badly designed clutter-ridden desktop. Microsoft can't improve its aesthetic because no one with talent or vision will ever work for them for any amount of money.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    Hah, I don't use Windows, far from it. But Microsoft is more than a single product. Few would argue that their desktop isn't dying, but they are diversifying for exactly that reason.
- incompatible 9y ago
  As long as Microsoft is still shaking down other companies for royalties for questionable patents like for exFAT, it's hard to see that they've changed.
2trill2spill 9y ago
> I am happy with a small Microsoft and small IBM. Microsoft however is still too big for my liking. So you judge companies on size, not behavior? Seriously we should celebrate companies when they contribute to opensource software, if only to encourage more contributions.
- zeth___ 9y ago
  I believe in the free market. And the first assumption of a free market is that no single supplier is large enough to significantly affect the price in the market. The smaller the firms get, the better the products.
  - jodrellblank 9y ago
    Microsoft affected the price in the market competing against literally free. That takes more than just "being big".
    - zeth___ 9y ago
      Given that you're comparing two non-interchangeable products the above is wrong. If we had one firm control 90% of oil reserves and a free for all for coal that the fossil fuel market was free.
  - mdekkers 9y ago
    Microsoft however is still too big for my liking. and I believe in the free market. come across as difficult to combine statements in my mind.
    - zeth___ 9y ago
      The free market is a market where no producer or consumer can manipulate price. It needs as much regulation to run as any Soviet Bureaucracy. The reason why it's efficient is because the price computation is distributed.

pmoriarty 9y ago

"You can choose to respond to these promising changes with optimism, or you can respond to them with spite - which of these responses do you think is going to encourage Microsoft to continue in their course of positive change?" Neither. There's very little evidence that Microsoft cares one way or the other about opinions on tech forums. They care about doing what they think will maximize their profits, and no amount of screaming at them from the peanut gallery is going to change that. What might be effective is choosing or not choosing to do business with Microsoft, or with their competitors. Also, if you're an influential enough person and you come out in public with your opinion about Microsoft, they might take notice. But the average Joe's opinion on HN? Not likely to make any difference. People talk on here not because they're under any illusion that Microsoft will listen, but because they're talking to each other, and if anything, it's one another's opinions that they are trying to sway -- just like you yourself are doing.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
Microsoft employees probably read HN, and rumour has it that the cause to open source more stuff is driven by the engineers. HN readers probably have some influence into the technology decisions made by their employers. Maybe Microsoft as some therotical entity isn't reading HN but Microsofters and people who have opportunities to work with them or their products certainly do.

youdontknowtho 9y ago

Yep. Lot's of people refuse to take "yes" for an answer. Open Source won.

jodrellblank 9y ago
"Open Source" (as if it's a single movement) didn't win in creating desirable, accessible, commercial or beautiful software. It 'won' in the worst possible way - big companies like Amazon and Facebook took the work, hid it in their datacenters behind their paywalls, and use it to extract money from people. Nobody has any more freedom with their data and their computing because Facebook uses PHP, than they would have on a proprietary desktop OS. "you can have an open source OS and browser which connects you to a restrictive interface where your data is under someone else's control" is a lose for all of us.

gonvaled 9y ago

Somebody bears responsibility for past actions. That Somebody is M$. You say they are a better company now. We'll see. It is probably just a strategy. What they did had a huge cost: putting back computing science for decades, and probably closing a one-time chance of having an open source platform accross all market segments. Linux is a bad desktop platform? Blame M$! M$ actions have costed humankind trillions, and we have collectively lost millions of years. That is not brushed away with a questionable release of an IoT product.

lobster_johnson 9y ago
What? The responsibility for Linux being a "bad desktop platform" is entirely that of whoever made it. Between KDE, GNOME and the various alternatives, none of their issues were caused by Microsoft. Microsoft may have been plenty evil under Gates/Ballmer, but it's hard to argue that they did much actual damage of consequence. If anything, they energized the open source community, and lost developer mindshare as a result.
- gonvaled 9y ago
  They FUDed the market out of existence. The workpower left was not enough to produce a competitive product. Linus on Desktop is improving, but the damage is done. It happened long ago, but tbe ripples will be felt for centuries. They bear a huge responsibility, and it will not be forgotten.
  - lobster_johnson 9y ago
    What market? What kind of progress did Microsoft kill, exactly? Not to mention that back in the late 90s and early 00s when Microsoft was actively FUDing Linux, it was the server market they were afraid of. The LAMP stack was threatening IIS; the whole Mindcraft debacle, for example, was about the supposed superior TCO of Windows NT Server. Linux on the desktop was not a threat to Windows then. Microsoft wasn't talking about how Word and Excel were better than OpenOffice or whatever. They didn't need to. Microsoft's business was IIS, Exchange, SQL Server and so on, and they needed to FUD Linux to avoid losing enterprise market share against an upstart that could run lots of powerful Unix stuff at a fraction of the cost.

xtanx 9y ago

> Microsoft has been making some serious strides towards being a better citizen of the technology community in the past few years OK, yes, at least they are not paying SCO to sue linux out of existence [1]. > Microsoft is clearly making a sustained effort to improve. Only a move that could potentially be disruptive for their revenue in favor of the common good would actually prove to me that they have changed. So, I will believe this when I see a version of office for linux or something similar. Until then, its all part of the embrace, extend, extinguish strategy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Mic...