6 ms·

Microsoft has been changing a lot. Embracing linux in their cloud offering, offering unix as a subsystem on Windows, open sourcing their work. Anyone who likens

Microsoft has been changing a lot. Embracing linux in their cloud offering, offering unix as a subsystem on Windows, open sourcing their work. Anyone who likens the current MSFT to anything resembling what it was in the 90s hasn't been paying attention to the current leadership.

umjames 8y ago
That's not to say they couldn't revert to their embrace, extend, and extinguish tactics of the 90s, even under future leadership. I feel that no big corporation should own GitHub, even if their investors feel differently.
- danso 8y ago
  I'm not enthused about the idea of Github being bought. But on what grounds do you suspect that the Microsoft of the 90s is just lurking, like a conscious spirit, to reveal itself after a decade? CEO Nadella started working at Microsoft in 1992, but the executives who coined and lived the EEE phrase are all out. Is Nadella a sleeper agent? If not, what entity at Microsoft will subvert his leadership?
  - amag 8y ago
    > what entity at Microsoft will subvert his leadership? I agree, it seems that both Gates and Ballmer have found new callings in life, which has left Nadella with pretty much control of the company. I remember almost feeling sorry for the guy when he took over, what freedom could he possibly have between those two? A lot, it seems in retrospect.
- giancarlostoro 8y ago
  I've mentioned this a number of times, some of Microsoft's open source tooling is under the very permissive MIT license. In the case of GitHub it just means competitors will rise up and replace GitHub. Remember when SourceForge was the GitHub of the day, and then it became bad, and finally it's acceptable with the new owner. People will outright ditch GitHub if evil is truly done to it, but Microsoft doesn't want that, they'll do everything they can to not screw up GitHub.
  - hellepardo 8y ago
    Whoa, hang on a second. SourceForge? Acceptable with new owners? Have you tried to download anything from the site recently? They may not be bundling crapware with downloads anymore but it's still an ad-laden slow-loading pile of trash unusable website. (I don't think I'm being hyperbolic there, to be honest!)
    - giancarlostoro 8y ago
      I usually get to a download page and it auto prompts for downloads. I mean why are you not using an ad-blocker?
philipov 8y ago
Windows 10's forced updates and telemetry say otherwise.
- gsich 8y ago
  Telemetry is bad, forced updates is not.
  - lev99 8y ago
    Forced updates are bad. 1. Updates can introduce breaking changes. 2. Windows will restart the computer to update, potentially interrupting processes. 3. Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates. My point of view is anyone willing to give up liberty for security will receive neither.
    - orf 8y ago
      There are literally billions of Windows users. Less than 5% understand why keeping your computer up to date is important. Forced updates may suck for you, but understand that it is you they suck for, not the vast, vast majority.
    - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
      > I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates I think this largely was only true of the period between the internet becoming a thing and the smartphone becoming a thing. Nowadays there's phones, tablets, and chromebooks that serve the needs of those people better and in a more convenient form factor. Desktops are for people who do work, create stuff, or are hobbiests. I think a lot of the reasons computers suck today is because of this idea that they need to cater to some strawman drooling moron of a user.
      - gsich 8y ago
        Those devices only take you so far. They are consuming devices only, similar to a television. People still have and use normal PCs and will do so in the future. (Notebooks included of course)

umjames 8y ago

That's not to say they couldn't revert to their embrace, extend, and extinguish tactics of the 90s, even under future leadership. I feel that no big corporation should own GitHub, even if their investors feel differently.

danso 8y ago
I'm not enthused about the idea of Github being bought. But on what grounds do you suspect that the Microsoft of the 90s is just lurking, like a conscious spirit, to reveal itself after a decade? CEO Nadella started working at Microsoft in 1992, but the executives who coined and lived the EEE phrase are all out. Is Nadella a sleeper agent? If not, what entity at Microsoft will subvert his leadership?
- amag 8y ago
  > what entity at Microsoft will subvert his leadership? I agree, it seems that both Gates and Ballmer have found new callings in life, which has left Nadella with pretty much control of the company. I remember almost feeling sorry for the guy when he took over, what freedom could he possibly have between those two? A lot, it seems in retrospect.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
I've mentioned this a number of times, some of Microsoft's open source tooling is under the very permissive MIT license. In the case of GitHub it just means competitors will rise up and replace GitHub. Remember when SourceForge was the GitHub of the day, and then it became bad, and finally it's acceptable with the new owner. People will outright ditch GitHub if evil is truly done to it, but Microsoft doesn't want that, they'll do everything they can to not screw up GitHub.
- hellepardo 8y ago
  Whoa, hang on a second. SourceForge? Acceptable with new owners? Have you tried to download anything from the site recently? They may not be bundling crapware with downloads anymore but it's still an ad-laden slow-loading pile of trash unusable website. (I don't think I'm being hyperbolic there, to be honest!)
  - giancarlostoro 8y ago
    I usually get to a download page and it auto prompts for downloads. I mean why are you not using an ad-blocker?

philipov 8y ago

Windows 10's forced updates and telemetry say otherwise.

gsich 8y ago
Telemetry is bad, forced updates is not.
- lev99 8y ago
  Forced updates are bad. 1. Updates can introduce breaking changes. 2. Windows will restart the computer to update, potentially interrupting processes. 3. Users should have freedom to use software in the way that they choose, and not have actions forced on them by the software. I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates. My point of view is anyone willing to give up liberty for security will receive neither.
  - orf 8y ago
    There are literally billions of Windows users. Less than 5% understand why keeping your computer up to date is important. Forced updates may suck for you, but understand that it is you they suck for, not the vast, vast majority.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y ago
    > I understand that many windows users are far from power users and the forced updates provide security updates I think this largely was only true of the period between the internet becoming a thing and the smartphone becoming a thing. Nowadays there's phones, tablets, and chromebooks that serve the needs of those people better and in a more convenient form factor. Desktops are for people who do work, create stuff, or are hobbiests. I think a lot of the reasons computers suck today is because of this idea that they need to cater to some strawman drooling moron of a user.
    - gsich 8y ago
      Those devices only take you so far. They are consuming devices only, similar to a television. People still have and use normal PCs and will do so in the future. (Notebooks included of course)