6 ms·

Exactly. I think people are too eager to claim Microsoft as one of the "good" guys. Microsoft has been around since the 70's and has not been "good" through al

Exactly. I think people are too eager to claim Microsoft as one of the "good" guys. Microsoft has been around since the 70's and has not been "good" through almost that entire period. So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior? ExxonMobil has been investing heavily in renewable energy lately; would you tell an environmentalist that they're wrong to dislike Exxon now? Microsoft changed because they had to. That must be the context in which they are evaluated in. Joining a couple organizations, and open sourcing a couple projects doesn't negate the fact that they were forced into this position because they were losing mindshare, developer prestige, and can no longer force everyone into their playground.

_wmd 8y ago
FWIW I hadn't intended to suggest Microsoft was somehow 'good', just not 'particularly bad' compared to any other company. The readers of this thread are polarized into two camps, neither of which match reality, and Microsoft discussions always end up like this. People have no problem with nuance and "on balance" regarding other huge companies (perhaps except Oracle), but when it comes to Redmond, the same tired old noise is regurgitated every single time.
- mulmen 8y ago
  Microsoft and Oracle are both deservedly hated for the same reasons.
  - ta2987 8y ago
    Microsoft is to Oracle like a Scooby Doo villan is to Adolf Hitler. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this obvious false equivalence.
- em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
  In addition, Apple, Amazon, and even Google aren't completely open source friendly. In the case of Google, pretty much all their webservices are closed source, and they make more and more components of Android become part of the closed source Google Play Framework. I realize Google is the best major corp for open source. But somewhat cynically, I view the ultimate purpose of their open tools to be for running proprietary code.
  - TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
    > I realize Google is the best major corp for open source. It's not. I'd say Red Hat is the friendliest open source company. They truly embrace the open source ethos.
ausjke 8y ago
Exactly to the point, Microsoft did it because it has absolutely no other choice, it was forced to embrace OSS these days. After so many years there is no way I can trust Microsoft in any way. And yes I use Linux as my Desktop since 10+ years ago, and did my best to have nothing to do with Microsoft's ecosystem(.Net, C#, Azure, whatever). The only exception is vscode, in which case I also have geany, vim and pycharm etc in parallel for daily coding, just in case.
- stevenjohns 8y ago
  > it was forced to embrace OSS these days And they're still not really doing it. Skype for Business on Linux? Not happening. Good luck trying to install Linux on Surface Books/Laptops and the like without lots of screwing around as well -- and it probably still won't properly work.
  - askl56 8y ago
    To be fair that is not unique to surface books depending on which distro you are referring to
  - tracker1 8y ago
    How does MS Teams work on Linux... I'm using osx and windows with UIs and Linux mostly without a UI, so not sure. Also, the web version of Skype is relatively good now... not really excusing what MS has done, however may be better options.
    - jhasse 8y ago
      Skype for Business is different than the normal Skype.
      - tracker1 8y ago
        I'm well aware of that... I also know that the MS Teams client uses the same connection channels (you can answer calls on either skype for business or in teams, for example)... I was suggesting that MS Teams (electron app) might be a useful alternative.
scarface74 8y ago
So which company is one of the "good guys"?
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  RedHat :-)
hcurtiss 8y ago
Right, well, apart from "a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way)" -- what have the Romans done for us?!
- yellowapple 8y ago
  MICROSOFTES EVNT DOMVS
mandeepj 8y ago
> has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way) Can you elaborate on this - specially your 'nonsense' claim?
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  I'd say this refers to stuff that's just thrown over the wall, without much explaining of how to build it, why would you use it etc.
  - keithnoizu 8y ago
    Yeah but thats how most of the projects look inside of microsoft as well.
    - robofd 8y ago
      lmao
phs318u 8y ago
I'm sorry but you inadvertantly made me laugh out loud. I read: > So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior? And what I heard was, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" > Microsoft changed because they had to That's most humans, and just about every corporation ever. The alternative is to die. In the case of Microsoft what it indicates is that the environment has changed sufficiently such that companies that don't start "playing nice with OS" lose out. That's a good thing right? I also believe that the "cult of personality" era of IT companies is dying - for good or ill. In Microsoft's case, that fact that Gates and Ballmer are gone has ended up net-improving the company. In Oracle's case, the fact that Ellison is still around is like a huge millstone around their corporate neck. Finally - people can be "good guys" or "evildoers", not companies. Companies are machines akin to ouija boards. Lot's of humans have a hand, yet somehow they act as if they have a mind of their own. BTW, that's why directors of companies should be criminally liable for the actions of their companies IMHO. You wanna direct? Start directing!
- cududa 8y ago
  Right? As I was getting ear the end of that paragraph I was expecting some sort of punchline
Fnoord 8y ago
They recently open sourced a component of Minecraft which was less than 1% of the total source code. Wintel was successful because it was affordable. The alternatives (e.g. our lovely UNIX) were very expensive, fractured, and lacked a good GUI (the fact IRIX was known for its user-friendly GUI says a lot). That Wintel dominance is coming to an end for a myriad of reasons (the desktop is far less relevant these days because its 'finished' and the innovation lies in other fields such as mobile). Microsoft had market adoption in mobile with Windows Mobile; but it lost that marketshare and its successors (Windows Phone or whatever) didn't catch on. So Microsoft ends up using Android as their target development platform, they end up cloud (Office 365, Azure) and made Xbox cross-platform. Now Microsoft needs goodwill due to what I mentioned above; they hired a bunch of Linux developers, open sourced a bunch of stuff. It is OK to applaud the actions of your (former) opponent when you agree with these actions as long as you also still hold them accountable for the actions you don't agree with.
yitchelle 8y ago
I guess Microsoft is are showing the right signs of being one of the "good" guys. If the signs get stronger, bigger and more of it for the next 15 to 20 years, they can officially be a good guy. Can we look into the history and observed companies with similar behavioral trend? For example, many German companies worked with Nazi party, helping them and facilitating the war. This is evil. Today, those companies are now considered as not evil any longer (exception might be VW and their dieselgate saga). Perhaps Microsoft could follow a similar trend.

_wmd 8y ago

FWIW I hadn't intended to suggest Microsoft was somehow 'good', just not 'particularly bad' compared to any other company. The readers of this thread are polarized into two camps, neither of which match reality, and Microsoft discussions always end up like this. People have no problem with nuance and "on balance" regarding other huge companies (perhaps except Oracle), but when it comes to Redmond, the same tired old noise is regurgitated every single time.

mulmen 8y ago
Microsoft and Oracle are both deservedly hated for the same reasons.
- ta2987 8y ago
  Microsoft is to Oracle like a Scooby Doo villan is to Adolf Hitler. You should be ashamed of yourself for promoting this obvious false equivalence.
em3rgent0rdr 8y ago
In addition, Apple, Amazon, and even Google aren't completely open source friendly. In the case of Google, pretty much all their webservices are closed source, and they make more and more components of Android become part of the closed source Google Play Framework. I realize Google is the best major corp for open source. But somewhat cynically, I view the ultimate purpose of their open tools to be for running proprietary code.
- TheAceOfHearts 8y ago
  > I realize Google is the best major corp for open source. It's not. I'd say Red Hat is the friendliest open source company. They truly embrace the open source ethos.

ausjke 8y ago

Exactly to the point, Microsoft did it because it has absolutely no other choice, it was forced to embrace OSS these days. After so many years there is no way I can trust Microsoft in any way. And yes I use Linux as my Desktop since 10+ years ago, and did my best to have nothing to do with Microsoft's ecosystem(.Net, C#, Azure, whatever). The only exception is vscode, in which case I also have geany, vim and pycharm etc in parallel for daily coding, just in case.

stevenjohns 8y ago
> it was forced to embrace OSS these days And they're still not really doing it. Skype for Business on Linux? Not happening. Good luck trying to install Linux on Surface Books/Laptops and the like without lots of screwing around as well -- and it probably still won't properly work.
- askl56 8y ago
  To be fair that is not unique to surface books depending on which distro you are referring to
- tracker1 8y ago
  How does MS Teams work on Linux... I'm using osx and windows with UIs and Linux mostly without a UI, so not sure. Also, the web version of Skype is relatively good now... not really excusing what MS has done, however may be better options.
  - jhasse 8y ago
    Skype for Business is different than the normal Skype.
    - tracker1 8y ago
      I'm well aware of that... I also know that the MS Teams client uses the same connection channels (you can answer calls on either skype for business or in teams, for example)... I was suggesting that MS Teams (electron app) might be a useful alternative.

scarface74 8y ago

So which company is one of the "good guys"?

AsyncAwait 8y ago
RedHat :-)

hcurtiss 8y ago

Right, well, apart from "a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way)" -- what have the Romans done for us?!

yellowapple 8y ago
MICROSOFTES EVNT DOMVS

mandeepj 8y ago

> has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way) Can you elaborate on this - specially your 'nonsense' claim?

AsyncAwait 8y ago
I'd say this refers to stuff that's just thrown over the wall, without much explaining of how to build it, why would you use it etc.
- keithnoizu 8y ago
  Yeah but thats how most of the projects look inside of microsoft as well.
  - robofd 8y ago
    lmao

phs318u 8y ago

I'm sorry but you inadvertantly made me laugh out loud. I read: > So, Microsoft releases a (nice) text editor, releases a Linux subsystem, partially open sources .NET, releases an open source JavaScript framework, has an active GitHub account (filled mostly with nonsense by the way), and we're supposed to forget the 40 years prior? And what I heard was, "What have the Romans ever done for us?" > Microsoft changed because they had to That's most humans, and just about every corporation ever. The alternative is to die. In the case of Microsoft what it indicates is that the environment has changed sufficiently such that companies that don't start "playing nice with OS" lose out. That's a good thing right? I also believe that the "cult of personality" era of IT companies is dying - for good or ill. In Microsoft's case, that fact that Gates and Ballmer are gone has ended up net-improving the company. In Oracle's case, the fact that Ellison is still around is like a huge millstone around their corporate neck. Finally - people can be "good guys" or "evildoers", not companies. Companies are machines akin to ouija boards. Lot's of humans have a hand, yet somehow they act as if they have a mind of their own. BTW, that's why directors of companies should be criminally liable for the actions of their companies IMHO. You wanna direct? Start directing!

cududa 8y ago
Right? As I was getting ear the end of that paragraph I was expecting some sort of punchline

Fnoord 8y ago

They recently open sourced a component of Minecraft which was less than 1% of the total source code. Wintel was successful because it was affordable. The alternatives (e.g. our lovely UNIX) were very expensive, fractured, and lacked a good GUI (the fact IRIX was known for its user-friendly GUI says a lot). That Wintel dominance is coming to an end for a myriad of reasons (the desktop is far less relevant these days because its 'finished' and the innovation lies in other fields such as mobile). Microsoft had market adoption in mobile with Windows Mobile; but it lost that marketshare and its successors (Windows Phone or whatever) didn't catch on. So Microsoft ends up using Android as their target development platform, they end up cloud (Office 365, Azure) and made Xbox cross-platform. Now Microsoft needs goodwill due to what I mentioned above; they hired a bunch of Linux developers, open sourced a bunch of stuff. It is OK to applaud the actions of your (former) opponent when you agree with these actions as long as you also still hold them accountable for the actions you don't agree with.

yitchelle 8y ago

I guess Microsoft is are showing the right signs of being one of the "good" guys. If the signs get stronger, bigger and more of it for the next 15 to 20 years, they can officially be a good guy. Can we look into the history and observed companies with similar behavioral trend? For example, many German companies worked with Nazi party, helping them and facilitating the war. This is evil. Today, those companies are now considered as not evil any longer (exception might be VW and their dieselgate saga). Perhaps Microsoft could follow a similar trend.