5 ms·

I remember when Microsoft seemed unassailable. I remember Get The Facts. I remember the arguments that "free" software must not be any good. That nobody stoo

I remember when Microsoft seemed unassailable. I remember Get The Facts. I remember the arguments that "free" software must not be any good. That nobody stood behind it. That is was only free if your time was worth nothing. And on and on. Now Microsoft's best days are behind it. Microsoft is openly embracing Linux. Who would have ever believed SQL Server would run on Linux. Or that Microsoft would create a Linux personality on Windows called "Windows Subsystem for Linux". Microsoft even admitted (sorry I don't have a link) that the reason for this embrace was to bring developers back. Linux is now in everything that is not a desktop PC. From wristwatches to mainframes and everything in between. To the point: This now seems to be happening with open source RISC hardware.

pmarreck 8y ago
Apple used to mock Microsoft. Maybe people should finally figure out that if you have to mock your perceived competitor, you should probably take them seriously instead.
- pwinnski 8y ago
  Apple mocked Microsoft as an underdog ("I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC"), and it worked. They don't mock Microsoft now.
jakear 8y ago
Why does that put Microsoft’s best days behind it? A less cynical person might look at what you’ve just said and say Microsoft’s best days are ahead.
- tw04 8y ago
  Exactly this. There are only two ways I can find to read that: 1. You think that Microsoft is dying, and embraced open source as a last ditch effort to right the ship. If this is your opinion (OP) - you must just be an MS hater. They are CRUSHING it, and I haven't seen this much goodwill from their enterprise customers since the dot-bomb of the early 2000s. People are actually proud and excited to use their products again. 2. You think that embracing open source is going to kill them. In which case you just argued against your own premise. Either way, I don't see how their "best days are behind them".
  - cstejerean 8y ago
    I think best days was referring to being an unassailable monopolist. Microsoft is doing fine now but they are no longer the juggernaut they once were.
    - carapace 8y ago
      Yeah, exactly. They must be young. MS isn't going away any time soon, and I like what they've been doing recently, but uh... The was a time not so long ago when Microsoft meant computer and the Macintosh was only used by architects and wealthy artists. A time when Bill Gates was the only computer nerd most people could name, and [everyone knew] he was the richest man in the world. Even though he couldn't get a good haircut. Google? A silly name for 10e100. Amazon? A river in South America. Facebook? What the hell are you talking about? Here, have another AOL coaster, I just got five more in the mail... Interesting times.
    - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
      http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html The idea isn't that Microsoft is dead as a company that makes wheelbarrows full of money. Microsoft is dead as a company that controls the direction of the tech industry. It's dead as a company that everyone is afraid of. Now they're just a company that competes, does it very well, and makes a lot of money.
      - romwell 8y ago
        > It's dead as a company that everyone is afraid of. Now they're just a company that competes, does it very well, and makes a lot of money. A win-win for everyone, then.
  - qplex 8y ago
    >haven't seen this much goodwill... What the.. ? Windows 10 is still an absolute nightmare with all the assorted spyware and mandatory telemetry. >People are actually proud and excited to use their products again. No. People don't understand or care what is going on behind the curtains as long as their computer seems to work. In my opinion there is no excuse for the shit Microsoft is pulling. Goodwill my ass.
3pt14159 8y ago
What I don't get is why didn't Microsoft open source at least some of their toolset even if they didn't make it free? I remember coding in the 90s. It was a nightmare. You were never sure if you hit a bug in the programming language, the operating system, or the database. All three were closed off. It was maddening.
- FussyZeus 8y ago
  Pretty much anything from the days of yore that was done stupidly by Microsoft can be laid at Ballmer's feet, either directly, or in-directly via the company culture he fostered. He was the reason they missed out on open source, missed out on mobile, and missed out on a ton of other stuff as he counted his money while the market slipped ahead without them. They're better now but I don't think they'll ever be the player they were in the 2000's (and that's probably a good thing for everyone).
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    "[Stomping] Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" He wasn't entirely wrong, but even so, Nadella is a bazillion percent better as the CEO. ...Actually, make that a gazillion percent better.
- amaranth 8y ago
  I've seen suggestions from ex-Microsoft employees that the only reason they were even charging money for Visual C++ and the rest of their toolchain was to avoid killing off the third-party market. They wanted to be as developer friendly as possible and that meant having a variety of choices so everyone could use what they liked most. Now that MinGW and LLVM have made it easy to get free and open source toolchains for Windows (and even MSVC compatible ones from LLVM) they do just give away most of their developer tools. They can't open source the compiler though because they don't write the C++ frontend parser/lexer, that comes from a third party.
  - ammar2 8y ago
    >because they don't write the C++ frontend parser/lexer This is a common story with a lot of MS stuff, especially in the more legacy products. There are so many open tickets about rewriting 3rd party licensed components but they usually get pushed down for business needs.

pmarreck 8y ago

Apple used to mock Microsoft. Maybe people should finally figure out that if you have to mock your perceived competitor, you should probably take them seriously instead.

pwinnski 8y ago
Apple mocked Microsoft as an underdog ("I'm a Mac, and I'm a PC"), and it worked. They don't mock Microsoft now.

jakear 8y ago

Why does that put Microsoft’s best days behind it? A less cynical person might look at what you’ve just said and say Microsoft’s best days are ahead.

tw04 8y ago
Exactly this. There are only two ways I can find to read that: 1. You think that Microsoft is dying, and embraced open source as a last ditch effort to right the ship. If this is your opinion (OP) - you must just be an MS hater. They are CRUSHING it, and I haven't seen this much goodwill from their enterprise customers since the dot-bomb of the early 2000s. People are actually proud and excited to use their products again. 2. You think that embracing open source is going to kill them. In which case you just argued against your own premise. Either way, I don't see how their "best days are behind them".
- cstejerean 8y ago
  I think best days was referring to being an unassailable monopolist. Microsoft is doing fine now but they are no longer the juggernaut they once were.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Yeah, exactly. They must be young. MS isn't going away any time soon, and I like what they've been doing recently, but uh... The was a time not so long ago when Microsoft meant computer and the Macintosh was only used by architects and wealthy artists. A time when Bill Gates was the only computer nerd most people could name, and [everyone knew] he was the richest man in the world. Even though he couldn't get a good haircut. Google? A silly name for 10e100. Amazon? A river in South America. Facebook? What the hell are you talking about? Here, have another AOL coaster, I just got five more in the mail... Interesting times.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html The idea isn't that Microsoft is dead as a company that makes wheelbarrows full of money. Microsoft is dead as a company that controls the direction of the tech industry. It's dead as a company that everyone is afraid of. Now they're just a company that competes, does it very well, and makes a lot of money.
    - romwell 8y ago
      > It's dead as a company that everyone is afraid of. Now they're just a company that competes, does it very well, and makes a lot of money. A win-win for everyone, then.
- qplex 8y ago
  >haven't seen this much goodwill... What the.. ? Windows 10 is still an absolute nightmare with all the assorted spyware and mandatory telemetry. >People are actually proud and excited to use their products again. No. People don't understand or care what is going on behind the curtains as long as their computer seems to work. In my opinion there is no excuse for the shit Microsoft is pulling. Goodwill my ass.

3pt14159 8y ago

What I don't get is why didn't Microsoft open source at least some of their toolset even if they didn't make it free? I remember coding in the 90s. It was a nightmare. You were never sure if you hit a bug in the programming language, the operating system, or the database. All three were closed off. It was maddening.

FussyZeus 8y ago
Pretty much anything from the days of yore that was done stupidly by Microsoft can be laid at Ballmer's feet, either directly, or in-directly via the company culture he fostered. He was the reason they missed out on open source, missed out on mobile, and missed out on a ton of other stuff as he counted his money while the market slipped ahead without them. They're better now but I don't think they'll ever be the player they were in the 2000's (and that's probably a good thing for everyone).
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  "[Stomping] Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!" He wasn't entirely wrong, but even so, Nadella is a bazillion percent better as the CEO. ...Actually, make that a gazillion percent better.
amaranth 8y ago
I've seen suggestions from ex-Microsoft employees that the only reason they were even charging money for Visual C++ and the rest of their toolchain was to avoid killing off the third-party market. They wanted to be as developer friendly as possible and that meant having a variety of choices so everyone could use what they liked most. Now that MinGW and LLVM have made it easy to get free and open source toolchains for Windows (and even MSVC compatible ones from LLVM) they do just give away most of their developer tools. They can't open source the compiler though because they don't write the C++ frontend parser/lexer, that comes from a third party.
- ammar2 8y ago
  >because they don't write the C++ frontend parser/lexer This is a common story with a lot of MS stuff, especially in the more legacy products. There are so many open tickets about rewriting 3rd party licensed components but they usually get pushed down for business needs.