4 ms·

Does the fact that some Microsoft employees, even those in positions of influence, remain from that time matter? Does the fact that there are new successful em

Does the fact that some Microsoft employees, even those in positions of influence, remain from that time matter? Does the fact that there are new successful employees, with entirely new ideas about products and management, matter? The article demonstrates that Microsoft is a complex organization with both good and bad and is changing for the better even if it has a way to go. Supporting the good and praising Microsoft for what they're doing well is going to make Microsoft better. Crapping on what they're doing well because of actions from 20 years is not rational or helpful.

reggieband 7y ago
If you are asking: "Should Microsoft get some credit for the positive things it has done" then the answer is clearly yes. Even during the time periods where Microsoft was universally (and legally) perceived to be engaged in unfair business practices my own feeling is that their overall contribution to IT was a net positive. That does not change the fact that Microsoft is a risk. Google is a risk since they have a habit of shutting down projects. Oracle is a risk due to their insane licensing and consulting fees. Open Source is a risk since the contributors can just decided to drop support. Everything has elements of risk. I guess I just won't back down from someone claiming there is no risk in Microsoft because all the bad people are gone. That is an absurd claim that also happens to be false.
- wvenable 7y ago
  That's arguing against a straw man. Nobody is claiming all the bad people are gone. But the claim that Microsoft is all bad was the source of this whole thread.
  - reggieband 7y ago
    I am not claiming you are making that argument. I'm responding to the original poster, relevant part quoted here: "I think it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing, so I don’t know why you would consider decades old issues to be relevant today." As demonstrated, people working during the time periods he referenced are still working for Microsoft, contrary to this claim. This also addresses why someone should consider the risk of "decades old issues" when making decisions today.

reggieband 7y ago

If you are asking: "Should Microsoft get some credit for the positive things it has done" then the answer is clearly yes. Even during the time periods where Microsoft was universally (and legally) perceived to be engaged in unfair business practices my own feeling is that their overall contribution to IT was a net positive. That does not change the fact that Microsoft is a risk. Google is a risk since they have a habit of shutting down projects. Oracle is a risk due to their insane licensing and consulting fees. Open Source is a risk since the contributors can just decided to drop support. Everything has elements of risk. I guess I just won't back down from someone claiming there is no risk in Microsoft because all the bad people are gone. That is an absurd claim that also happens to be false.

wvenable 7y ago
That's arguing against a straw man. Nobody is claiming all the bad people are gone. But the claim that Microsoft is all bad was the source of this whole thread.
- reggieband 7y ago
  I am not claiming you are making that argument. I'm responding to the original poster, relevant part quoted here: "I think it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing, so I don’t know why you would consider decades old issues to be relevant today." As demonstrated, people working during the time periods he referenced are still working for Microsoft, contrary to this claim. This also addresses why someone should consider the risk of "decades old issues" when making decisions today.