4 ms·

I learned that you can change your public image to suit your current needs in whatever way you want and people will soon forget the past. Soon, Microsoft will

I learned that you can change your public image to suit your current needs in whatever way you want and people will soon forget the past. Soon, Microsoft will have always been a big supporter of open source in the minds of most people.

johnday 7y ago
Why does it matter what they were? They have changed their public image (and, in point of fact, their actions) and they are being rewarded for it. We should reward companies which make positive changes and condemn those which make hostile ones. Hanging onto the image of how they used to behave will only slow down the positive feedback loop.
- raymondh 7y ago
  I concur. Microsoft is now an important and helpful part of the open source ecosystem. For the most part, they've been generous and engaging with the community. Also, the commercial products seem to be living in harmony with their open source counterparts. We're living in a future better than most of us could have imagined twenty years ago. We should embrace it.
mc32 7y ago
It works the other way too. Many people still believe in Google’s abandoned motto; but that motto has been dead for quite some time.
- std_throwaway 7y ago
  Yes, there's basically no integrity. Only the appearance of it. A company isn't this way or that way they just do whatever is most promising in that moment.
- llampx 7y ago
  This is 100% correct. Too many otherwise rational people make emotional decisions, like trusting Google and thinking that Apple hardware is still the most reliable.
crazygringo 7y ago
A company isn't a person. What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect. In this case "forgetting the past" is perfectly fine if you're making decisions about how to interact with Microsoft now. It doesn't make any sense to judge current employees and leadership by mistakes made by an entirely different set of people as far back as a couple of decades ago. If Microsoft is a supporter of open source now, then let's just embrace that and be grateful for it. What's the use in dwelling on a past that no longer matters?
- bubble_talk 7y ago
  The problem is that MS did quite a lot to try and discredit open source when Linux was in its infancy. This is a bit like breaking someone's knee, and then handing them a cane to hobble on, and then patting yourself on the back for being a major supporter of the person with the broken knee. >>What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect. Are you sure about this? I personally know plenty of folks who used to talk about the "cancer of open-source", who are still there and now happily counting the money in their bank accounts. Are you imagining that these folks decided to just "up and leave" once Microsoft started supporting this so-called "cancer"?
  - kerng 7y ago
    Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google? The majority of people that once did good and wanted "no evil" have left the company since 2000s. Will Google now forever remain that no evil company in your eyes? I think companies change, especially over the course of 20 years and if the change is positive, why not support it?
    - bubble_talk 7y ago
      >>Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google? Yes. The entire big tech policy is basically a no-holds-barred power grab at the moment, which is definitely not "no evil". >>if the change is positive, why not support it? You are supposing something did change. But anyone who has actually been acquainted with any of the folks at these companies knows that this is not true. There isn't any "standing behind the courage of your convictions" going on here. It is just "let's do what is best for the bottom line, and then make up a story which suits our recent views". Generally, this is just what politicians do. So I suppose we can now group politicians and MS Employees together into the same weasel group. E.g. Even as MSFT was supposedly going through an embrace of open source, they were showing perma-nag popups inside Windows 7 to get everyone to upgrade (against their wish) to Windows 10. "Don't like it? Too bad. You don't have a choice in this matter". Now this is all fine - a company can do whatever it wants with its product yada yada - but then simultaneously people were talking about this "new Microsoft". Same goes with Microsoft's attempts to get a $5 tax on every Android which was sold. So yeah, in my view, nothing's actually changed.

johnday 7y ago

Why does it matter what they were? They have changed their public image (and, in point of fact, their actions) and they are being rewarded for it. We should reward companies which make positive changes and condemn those which make hostile ones. Hanging onto the image of how they used to behave will only slow down the positive feedback loop.

raymondh 7y ago
I concur. Microsoft is now an important and helpful part of the open source ecosystem. For the most part, they've been generous and engaging with the community. Also, the commercial products seem to be living in harmony with their open source counterparts. We're living in a future better than most of us could have imagined twenty years ago. We should embrace it.

mc32 7y ago

It works the other way too. Many people still believe in Google’s abandoned motto; but that motto has been dead for quite some time.

std_throwaway 7y ago
Yes, there's basically no integrity. Only the appearance of it. A company isn't this way or that way they just do whatever is most promising in that moment.
llampx 7y ago
This is 100% correct. Too many otherwise rational people make emotional decisions, like trusting Google and thinking that Apple hardware is still the most reliable.

crazygringo 7y ago

A company isn't a person. What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect. In this case "forgetting the past" is perfectly fine if you're making decisions about how to interact with Microsoft now. It doesn't make any sense to judge current employees and leadership by mistakes made by an entirely different set of people as far back as a couple of decades ago. If Microsoft is a supporter of open source now, then let's just embrace that and be grateful for it. What's the use in dwelling on a past that no longer matters?

bubble_talk 7y ago
The problem is that MS did quite a lot to try and discredit open source when Linux was in its infancy. This is a bit like breaking someone's knee, and then handing them a cane to hobble on, and then patting yourself on the back for being a major supporter of the person with the broken knee. >>What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect. Are you sure about this? I personally know plenty of folks who used to talk about the "cancer of open-source", who are still there and now happily counting the money in their bank accounts. Are you imagining that these folks decided to just "up and leave" once Microsoft started supporting this so-called "cancer"?
- kerng 7y ago
  Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google? The majority of people that once did good and wanted "no evil" have left the company since 2000s. Will Google now forever remain that no evil company in your eyes? I think companies change, especially over the course of 20 years and if the change is positive, why not support it?
  - bubble_talk 7y ago
    >>Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google? Yes. The entire big tech policy is basically a no-holds-barred power grab at the moment, which is definitely not "no evil". >>if the change is positive, why not support it? You are supposing something did change. But anyone who has actually been acquainted with any of the folks at these companies knows that this is not true. There isn't any "standing behind the courage of your convictions" going on here. It is just "let's do what is best for the bottom line, and then make up a story which suits our recent views". Generally, this is just what politicians do. So I suppose we can now group politicians and MS Employees together into the same weasel group. E.g. Even as MSFT was supposedly going through an embrace of open source, they were showing perma-nag popups inside Windows 7 to get everyone to upgrade (against their wish) to Windows 10. "Don't like it? Too bad. You don't have a choice in this matter". Now this is all fine - a company can do whatever it wants with its product yada yada - but then simultaneously people were talking about this "new Microsoft". Same goes with Microsoft's attempts to get a $5 tax on every Android which was sold. So yeah, in my view, nothing's actually changed.