4 ms·

I remember when Microsoft bought Github, they flooded open source-related sub-reddits with astroturfers who kept posting slight variants of the the same talkpoi

I remember when Microsoft bought Github, they flooded open source-related sub-reddits with astroturfers who kept posting slight variants of the the same talkpoints, the funniest and most persistent of which was, "You have to admit that Microsoft has changed in the last four years", as if that was common knowledge that people were not willing to accept, as opposed to a slogan that they came up with in some meeting in Redmond.

amyjess 7y ago
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're being paid off by people you don't like. That's an egregious and unreasonable assumption of bad faith.
- westmeal 7y ago
  I used to think this way but I don't know any more. Disinformation is so easy to spread.
- mikestew 7y ago
  Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're being paid off by people you don't like. Though in the case of companies that have a track record of just that[0], it's not outlandish to jump to that conclusion. [0] The reader is free to look up "Microsoft munchkins" as an exercise.
  - tw2019060383544 7y ago
    Since we're on the topic of OS/2 wrapped up in a discussion about Microsoft's messaging versus actions in open source: OS/2 could be open source. There was a push for this a little over 10 years ago. IBM actually took notice and issued a statement. They were willing to make OS/2 open source, to the extent that their interests in the IP allowed them to, but that alone wouldn't be sufficient. So the reason that it's not open source, right now, today, is because of Microsoft. If MS really is this new and changed philanthropic messiah of free and open source software, then let's see it. Open source OS/2. I'm not saying "open source Win10". I'm not even saying "open source XP". We're talking about friggin' OS/2—a product that barely fared higher than DOA status at its height on the market.
- ionised 7y ago
  It's a reasonable and measured assumption given Microsoft's history of shady and coercive practices.
- LyndsySimon 7y ago
  I agree with you that assuming that they are "paid off" is illogical and damaging to the common discourse - but it does happen at times. I was interviewed on this topic specifically and quoted in an article. It made me somewhat nervous, because the author wanted to source the quote with my full name, title, and employer - understandable, but my feelings on the issue were somewhat nuanced. As a result I had to place more than a little trust in the journalist writing the piece. We spoke for quite a while and I'm 100% certain that she could have quoted me out of context to make it sound like I held whatever viewpoint she thought sounded most controversial. She represented my statements accurately and clearly, and I'm glad I worked with her. Here's the article: https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-github-acquisition/539629/ https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-git... I referenced MS's history of "embrace, extend, extinguish" several times and basically said that while it appears that they've turned a new leaf and are not the same leviathan they once were, their reputation for hostility toward F/OSS was not built overnight and they will not lose it overnight. I'm more than happy to give credit where credit is due - Microsoft is doing great things right now for F/OSS. They've built much of the Azure platform around it, and continue to promote the use of F/OSS alongside or even in preference to their own offerings. If this continues, they could be the next Red Hat... but if it doesn't, and a few years from now we look back and find that they were still the "devil we knew", then they have the potential to cause a lot of damage. I don't think it's at all unfair to be cognizant of that fact and to be hesitant to trust them fully.
frou_dh 7y ago
I was also scratching my head after reading the phrase "The New Microsoft" ad nauseam in comment sections for months on end.

amyjess 7y ago

Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're being paid off by people you don't like. That's an egregious and unreasonable assumption of bad faith.

westmeal 7y ago
I used to think this way but I don't know any more. Disinformation is so easy to spread.
mikestew 7y ago
Just because people disagree with you doesn't mean they're being paid off by people you don't like. Though in the case of companies that have a track record of just that[0], it's not outlandish to jump to that conclusion. [0] The reader is free to look up "Microsoft munchkins" as an exercise.
- tw2019060383544 7y ago
  Since we're on the topic of OS/2 wrapped up in a discussion about Microsoft's messaging versus actions in open source: OS/2 could be open source. There was a push for this a little over 10 years ago. IBM actually took notice and issued a statement. They were willing to make OS/2 open source, to the extent that their interests in the IP allowed them to, but that alone wouldn't be sufficient. So the reason that it's not open source, right now, today, is because of Microsoft. If MS really is this new and changed philanthropic messiah of free and open source software, then let's see it. Open source OS/2. I'm not saying "open source Win10". I'm not even saying "open source XP". We're talking about friggin' OS/2—a product that barely fared higher than DOA status at its height on the market.
ionised 7y ago
It's a reasonable and measured assumption given Microsoft's history of shady and coercive practices.
LyndsySimon 7y ago
I agree with you that assuming that they are "paid off" is illogical and damaging to the common discourse - but it does happen at times. I was interviewed on this topic specifically and quoted in an article. It made me somewhat nervous, because the author wanted to source the quote with my full name, title, and employer - understandable, but my feelings on the issue were somewhat nuanced. As a result I had to place more than a little trust in the journalist writing the piece. We spoke for quite a while and I'm 100% certain that she could have quoted me out of context to make it sound like I held whatever viewpoint she thought sounded most controversial. She represented my statements accurately and clearly, and I'm glad I worked with her. Here's the article: https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-github-acquisition/539629/ https://www.ciodive.com/news/deal-of-the-year-microsofts-git... I referenced MS's history of "embrace, extend, extinguish" several times and basically said that while it appears that they've turned a new leaf and are not the same leviathan they once were, their reputation for hostility toward F/OSS was not built overnight and they will not lose it overnight. I'm more than happy to give credit where credit is due - Microsoft is doing great things right now for F/OSS. They've built much of the Azure platform around it, and continue to promote the use of F/OSS alongside or even in preference to their own offerings. If this continues, they could be the next Red Hat... but if it doesn't, and a few years from now we look back and find that they were still the "devil we knew", then they have the potential to cause a lot of damage. I don't think it's at all unfair to be cognizant of that fact and to be hesitant to trust them fully.

frou_dh 7y ago

I was also scratching my head after reading the phrase "The New Microsoft" ad nauseam in comment sections for months on end.