5 ms·
This article veers into conspiracist territory as it goes on, with the idea that Microsoft is engaged in some grand, secret scheme to infiltrate open source and
by stupidcar 7y ago
This article veers into conspiracist territory as it goes on, with the idea that Microsoft is engaged in some grand, secret scheme to infiltrate open source and destroy it from the inside.
Microsoft will always have its share of bad actors, make mistakes, and act in unpleasant ways. Any large company or institution will do. The question is whether these occasions represent standard operating procedure or just the statistical expected baseline quantity of misbehaviour.
There's no doubt that, in the past, Microsoft had a culture that allowed and encouraged bad behaviour at an individual, tactical and strategic level. I'm not convinced that is the case anymore. However, the aforementioned baseline misbehaviour means you will always be able to cherry-pick a collection of individuals and incidents to support a pre-ordained narrative of evilness, if that fits your worldview.
- donaltroddyn 7y ago> This article veers into conspiracist territory as it goes on, with the idea that Microsoft is engaged in some grand, secret scheme to infiltrate open source and destroy it from the inside. I don't think that's an unfounded fear, given their history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
- Crinus 7y agoReminder that - as the wiki mentions - the extinguish part is not a direct action from Microsoft, but the outcome of the "extend" part with Microsoft's competitors being unable to keep up. For this to work you need an environment where "something" can be embraced and extended, having competitors that implement that "something" independently and finally them being able to keep up - thus making Microsoft the defacto owner of that "something", which also gives them control over continuing it or stopping it. If Microsoft is not able to exclusively control something, they cannot extinguish it, even if they embrace and extend it.
- AllegedAlec 7y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extinguish https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend_and_extingui... Damn, 'nathed.
- williamaadams 7y agoI've worked for MS for 20 years. I sat in one of those Steve Ballmer meetings where he decried OpenSource. But, more soberingly at the time was that he said "we won't sell on Linux because we simply don't know now", in answer to the question "when will SQL Server be available on Linux"? Times have changed. I mean look, we bought GitHub. That's not a move of someone that's trying to destroy from the inside. If it were, we would have immediately just slow rolled it, but we're actually making improvements. I don't think we're collectively smart enough (nor are most orgs) to pull off grand conspiracies. Just a bunch of humans trying to do what's right for the company and customers. So, I agree with your assessment. Lots of good, still bad actors, modern times have changed.
- letstrynvm 7y ago> I mean look, we bought GitHub. That's not a move of someone that's trying to destroy from the inside. lol
- williamaadams 7y agook, so it is exactly the move of someone trying to kill it all from the inside... But really, it's something easily judged over time. Everyone will be able to judge how our open source attitude is in coming years. And hay, look, there's more absorption of Linux into Windows... Is that embrace extend, or recognize reality? Or hold on for dear life? From my perspective, it's evolution, and nothing but good.
- krageon 7y agoOnce you as a company have a certain track record, I'd say it's not unreasonable for an outsider to shift from "just wait and see if it'll be terrible!" to a more proactive stance. In cases like this, past actions do model future behaviour.
- jaclaz 7y agoI don't know, personally I remain faithful to the classics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeo_Danaos_et_dona_ferentes and cautious about these kind of corporate mentality changes, it seems to have been proved a valid approach for the last 2 thousand years or so.