6 ms·

schadenfreude for all! Everyone hated Microsoft for selling software. Everyone hated Microsoft for requiring the world value software monetarily. The world tho

schadenfreude for all! Everyone hated Microsoft for selling software. Everyone hated Microsoft for requiring the world value software monetarily. The world thought programmers were just a bunch of nerds to be taken advantage of. Microsoft said no. The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system. The nerds got their way. They got free everything. And now the OSS worls is a convoluted mess. It costs way more to make Ruby on Rails work than just installing IIS and writing some C#. Now those who said Microsoft was bullying them are the bullies. OSS has become more expensive than the Microsoft equivalent. No one wants to pay for code at all anymore. Why couldn't you all see this coming? It was so obvious.

anon1m0us 8y ago
What? You downvote because it wasn't obvious to you?
- coldtea 8y ago
  No, because it's random and mostly wrong ramblings. > Everyone hated Microsoft for selling software. Not really. They hated it for abusing their monopoly, and for selling a crappy (at the time at least) desktop OS. > Everyone hated Microsoft for requiring the world value software monetarily. Not really. Some believed software must be free as in beer and speech, most didn't care. They certainly didn't hate MS for it. >The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system. Not really. They hated MS for monopoly abuse, a bad OS, too many viruses and security holes, few ways to look under the hood, and fucking forever with IE 6. >The nerds got their way. They got free everything. They just got the server. And a lot of the enterprise server is still MS. The desktop is still 90% MS and 10% macOS (with some insignificant Linux percentage). As for mobile it's 40% iOS and 60% Android, which technically it's still OSS, but not in any sense that matters besides the license (nobody cares much, and it's not developed by some community bazaar style, Google calls all the shots, and the good stuff -google apps- are not Open Source). >And now the OSS worlds is a convoluted mess. Not really. >It costs way more to make Ruby on Rails work than just installing IIS and writing some C#. Yeah, no. If anything RoR is famous for its ease of development. And it costs nothing (besides programmers, which you need in any case), which is why cash-strapped startups prefer RoR and other FOSS solutions over MS. >Now those who said Microsoft was bullying them are the bullies. Non sequitur. >OSS has become more expensive than the Microsoft equivalent. Non sequitur. OSS is as free as ever (and better than ever). >No one wants to pay for code at all anymore. Less want to pay for code, though billions still buy software and pay for services.
  - lowercased 8y ago
    > OSS has become more expensive than the Microsoft equivalent. I watched an MS-supporter at a MS 'dev camp' day conference give a lecture on web hosting. His position - restated multiple times - was that hosting with IIS was cheaper than with Apache/Linux, but hosting companies were in cahoots to artificially inflate the cost of IIS hosting, because it let them justify paying linux admins more. Something about you could programmatically script IIS much faster/easier than Linux, and it was cheaper to integrate with Active Directory, but hosting companies wanted to make MS look bad so they charged more (and made a bigger profit) on MS hosting. Honestly, even typing it out doesn't make much sense. I tried to get him to clarify the position some at the time (this was... probably 2010-2012 time frame) and... I got some nonsense answer. It was truly nonsensical. But he was passionate. I half-expected the word 'illuminati' to pop up in his presentation. Linux/Apache is "more expensive" for hosting, but companies charge more for Windows because the Linux people at those companies want to drive people away from Microsoft. I think that was the gist of it...
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - solomatov 8y ago
    >and for selling a crappy (at the time at least) desktop OS. The GUI of their OS at that time is still superior to what linux desktop provides us with today.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      I wont disagree. But the OS was also full of holes (pre-XP: 95, 98, ME), programs would take down the whole system, updates required tons of restarts, and several other issues (BSOD, etc). People use to make memes against Windows, without even being Linux users: regular Windows users were frustrated. Linux desktop efforts never managed to get a coherent vision, as every 3-4 years somebody had the idea to remake everything and screw compatibility (Gnome 1 to 2, 2 to 3, KDE 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, etc, lots of critical desktop apps changing for no reason, others abandoned, etc. And don't get me started on the audio drivers situation back then, or how it took until 2019 and we still don't have a solid X replacement thats adopted by everybody).
quickthrower2 8y ago
Dispite the argument that it plays into the cloud providers hands, open source has been great for software. For example ASPNET MVC would probably not exist with Ruby on Rails.
incompatible 8y ago
The problem with that setup was that Microsoft wanted all the money to go to Microsoft, not to "nerds" in general.
hutzlibu 8y ago
"The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system." The nerds hated microsoft because microsoft was (and still is in many ways) mandatory. And they remained that by vendor deals, government contracts etc. So everybody learned in schools on windows computers and with microsoft office and so on and so on. Thats the reason, not because of money - it was allways easy to crack windows (I believe intentionally, rather a cracked Windows, contributing to the monopoly, than something else)

anon1m0us 8y ago

What? You downvote because it wasn't obvious to you?

coldtea 8y ago
No, because it's random and mostly wrong ramblings. > Everyone hated Microsoft for selling software. Not really. They hated it for abusing their monopoly, and for selling a crappy (at the time at least) desktop OS. > Everyone hated Microsoft for requiring the world value software monetarily. Not really. Some believed software must be free as in beer and speech, most didn't care. They certainly didn't hate MS for it. >The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system. Not really. They hated MS for monopoly abuse, a bad OS, too many viruses and security holes, few ways to look under the hood, and fucking forever with IE 6. >The nerds got their way. They got free everything. They just got the server. And a lot of the enterprise server is still MS. The desktop is still 90% MS and 10% macOS (with some insignificant Linux percentage). As for mobile it's 40% iOS and 60% Android, which technically it's still OSS, but not in any sense that matters besides the license (nobody cares much, and it's not developed by some community bazaar style, Google calls all the shots, and the good stuff -google apps- are not Open Source). >And now the OSS worlds is a convoluted mess. Not really. >It costs way more to make Ruby on Rails work than just installing IIS and writing some C#. Yeah, no. If anything RoR is famous for its ease of development. And it costs nothing (besides programmers, which you need in any case), which is why cash-strapped startups prefer RoR and other FOSS solutions over MS. >Now those who said Microsoft was bullying them are the bullies. Non sequitur. >OSS has become more expensive than the Microsoft equivalent. Non sequitur. OSS is as free as ever (and better than ever). >No one wants to pay for code at all anymore. Less want to pay for code, though billions still buy software and pay for services.
- lowercased 8y ago
  > OSS has become more expensive than the Microsoft equivalent. I watched an MS-supporter at a MS 'dev camp' day conference give a lecture on web hosting. His position - restated multiple times - was that hosting with IIS was cheaper than with Apache/Linux, but hosting companies were in cahoots to artificially inflate the cost of IIS hosting, because it let them justify paying linux admins more. Something about you could programmatically script IIS much faster/easier than Linux, and it was cheaper to integrate with Active Directory, but hosting companies wanted to make MS look bad so they charged more (and made a bigger profit) on MS hosting. Honestly, even typing it out doesn't make much sense. I tried to get him to clarify the position some at the time (this was... probably 2010-2012 time frame) and... I got some nonsense answer. It was truly nonsensical. But he was passionate. I half-expected the word 'illuminati' to pop up in his presentation. Linux/Apache is "more expensive" for hosting, but companies charge more for Windows because the Linux people at those companies want to drive people away from Microsoft. I think that was the gist of it...
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- solomatov 8y ago
  >and for selling a crappy (at the time at least) desktop OS. The GUI of their OS at that time is still superior to what linux desktop provides us with today.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    I wont disagree. But the OS was also full of holes (pre-XP: 95, 98, ME), programs would take down the whole system, updates required tons of restarts, and several other issues (BSOD, etc). People use to make memes against Windows, without even being Linux users: regular Windows users were frustrated. Linux desktop efforts never managed to get a coherent vision, as every 3-4 years somebody had the idea to remake everything and screw compatibility (Gnome 1 to 2, 2 to 3, KDE 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, etc, lots of critical desktop apps changing for no reason, others abandoned, etc. And don't get me started on the audio drivers situation back then, or how it took until 2019 and we still don't have a solid X replacement thats adopted by everybody).

quickthrower2 8y ago

Dispite the argument that it plays into the cloud providers hands, open source has been great for software. For example ASPNET MVC would probably not exist with Ruby on Rails.

incompatible 8y ago

The problem with that setup was that Microsoft wanted all the money to go to Microsoft, not to "nerds" in general.

hutzlibu 8y ago

"The nerds hated microsoft for making them pay for an operating system." The nerds hated microsoft because microsoft was (and still is in many ways) mandatory. And they remained that by vendor deals, government contracts etc. So everybody learned in schools on windows computers and with microsoft office and so on and so on. Thats the reason, not because of money - it was allways easy to crack windows (I believe intentionally, rather a cracked Windows, contributing to the monopoly, than something else)