7 ms·

What does a trustworthy Microsoft look like to you?

sam_lowry_ 7y ago
Divided into a handful of independent companies, maybe?
hajile 7y ago
Chapter 7 Bankruptcy where they get acquired by a newly-reformed Sun Microsystems (where no stock is owned by Oracle or Oracle shareholders). EDIT: I'm mostly kidding, but you can't really expect true change of morals when the vast majority of the upper management is the same under the new CEO as under the old one.
- ChuckMcM 7y ago
  As a former Sun employee I love this comment, but in all fairness Sun did have its own level of sleaze in the C suite (neither Eric Schmidt nor Scott McNealy would really do well as ethical leader exemplars) That said, I'm thinking Moon Microsystems :-) Not as big or as hot as Sun. (ok that is a bad punalogy) I did get the domain though, it was available and I couldn't resist.
  - 205guy 7y ago
    Under certain conditions, can eclipse the the Sun. "Eclipse" ... now there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. But can you make a cool logo out of "Moon"?
    - ChuckMcM 7y ago
      > But can you make a cool logo out of "Moon"? No, but with minor butchery you can re-use the Sun logo with the letters MMS (Moon Micro Systems) :-)
- CSSer 7y ago
  At the risk of sounding somewhat naive, I think people do have the capacity to grow over time. Perhaps part of the reason why Microsoft has seemingly turned over a new leaf in recent years is that upper management has learned from their past mistakes? I do see your point though, and I think it's stuck in the back of a lot of our minds.
  - FooBarWidget 7y ago
    Not to mention that upper management doesn't consist of the same people as 15 years ago.
    - adventured 7y ago
      Most of Microsoft's anti-trust related behavior was in the 1990s. Closer to 25 years ago. Merely a quarter of a century. There's something hilariously farcical about holding a grudge toward Microsoft for a quarter of a century.
      - yebyen 7y ago
        It's not so much a grudge as a reaction, call it an immuno-type response. I shed my MS-OS Windows Desktop addiction over 20 years ago to become a desktop Linux user and I still see my co-workers struggling every day with many of the same issues I haven't had to cope with anymore since then. Ever since I have been able to get the Microsoft out of my systems, I find myself naturally predisposed to keep it out. I am not against Microsoft, I really am a fan of a lot of the open and developer-focused things they are doing, certainly not least of which is their support for Kubernetes through Azure, but this does not make me more receptive to going back to living in a Microsoft OS-flavored ecosystem today, it just is not happening for me and it's nothing to do with holding a grudge or similar. I use a Mac now because it was provided by work, if they offer me a trade for a Windows machine I would probably consider it because of the progress made by WSL2, but our group policy lags somewhat behind and certainly not on insider ring, so none of my coworkers have been able to try WSL2 on their work-provided Windows machines, or likely will for some time, and that makes me seriously think twice about it. My natural inclination is that I would much rather install Linux as the host OS so I have control over things like when updates get applied, or whether a reboot needs to take place immediately, in spite of the struggle that sometimes comes with that, it is really much better to have the source and keep the capability to control your own hardware. And then only run Windows in a VM whenever it is really needed. (In other words, to be able to occasionally run Windows apps in a similar way as I do when I have to use them on a Mac.)
- prepend 7y ago
  I think Sun was worse than MS. Your scenario would terrify me. Sun’s hardware was expensive although their software was nice. Their handling of Java put me off them and led to this current state with Oracle. They had many positives, but I’d rather have old Microsoft than old Sun if I had to pick only one to eat everything. Definitely prefer new Microsoft.
nixpulvis 7y ago
I don't really distrust Microsoft per se. I just find it tragic that the only way GitHub could survive (I guess) was to be BOUGHT. Like why couldn't they stay smaller, focus on what they were good at, and standardize with the community all the integrations in an orderly manner? Although, Microsoft has shown they care more about the developer community than Apple as of late. So for that, I can at least say my trust is rising. But it's a bit too late for me, I'm happily running Linux for most of my daily life.
- Kuinox 7y ago
  Microsoft always took care of the developers.
- sylens 7y ago
  Microsoft's stance lately is that it's great if you want to run Linux - they want to provide tools for you to use there as well.
smolder 7y ago
To me it looks like water that isn't wet. PR (propaganda) and time will improve their reputation, but the "commodify your compliment" strategy, the intent to dominate markets through anticompetitive behavior... Those things aren't gone. Big tech companies (like most big business) don't prioritize public good over profit, so they really don't deserve anyone's trust apart from trusting them to seek profit.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  Maybe. But until someone comes up with a competitive alternative, that is a mood point.
  - smolder 7y ago
    It's "moot"
irrational 7y ago
I’ve been a developer for nearly 25 years. I’m not sure if there is anything MS could ever do to regain my trust. Unfortunately this seems to be the way of large tech companies. At one time I thought Google was the best thing ever (don’t be evil). Now I find that I view Google in much the same way as I do MS. A huge corrupt behemoth that needs to be broken up.
- dcgudeman 7y ago
  Well you certainly picked a username that reflects your views.
  - irrational 7y ago
    What do irrational numbers like phi have to do with the lack of ethics of large corporations?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- pgt 7y ago
  This is the curse of globalist behemoths. Small companies is where it's at. Localism.
  - crispinb 7y ago
    Nonsense. There is hardly a local government in Australia not hopelessly corrupted by local real estate interests. In many nations local corruption is endemic right down to every neighbourhood police station. Size isn't the question: money's corruption of power operates at all scales.
    - pgt 7y ago
      Size is absolutely the question. There is always corruption, but in small municipalities at least the scale of corruption is contained. In a sufficiently local area the corrupt has to brush shoulders with his unwilling benefactors and be shamed.
jacquesm 7y ago
Dead & gone.
zibfuddle 7y ago
It would be interesting if they ended up with Brendan Burns (creator of k8s when he was at google) in charge of github at some point and made him like the OSS champion. He's running all the containers and linux stuff on Azure, so it seems like it would be a natural fit.
squarefoot 7y ago
"What does a trustworthy Microsoft look like to you?" An oxymoron?
cmroanirgo 7y ago
Sightly off topic, but relevant to your question. Recently I installed win10 pro and was appalled at the way I had you jump through hoops to NOT have a m$ account, not to mention the blatant adware. And this was win10 professional. It certainly reminded me that m$ is a long long way away from where it was in the 90s and early naughties. So, a good start would be a stable and private os without all the adware and telemetry. PS: I use gitea instead of GitHub these days. Nor do I use vscode, but sublime text, for the same reasons: too much telemetry that cant be disabled permanently.
- RMPR 7y ago
  You can use vscodium, which is basically vscode without telemetry
loudmax 7y ago
For most businesses, Microsoft still holds a monopoly position on desktop OSs. For a lot of smaller IT departments, this bleeds into back-end servers as well. Microsoft has the Windows Subsystem for Linux, allowing Linux binaries to run on Windows. How about the reverse? Get WINE to the point where Linux (or FreeBSD or some fully source OS) can reliably run Windows binaries. Along the same line, provide portable libraries to allow other office suites to reliably edit MS Office files (docx, pptx, etc). Maybe Adobe or someone will come up with a commercial competitor, instead of just LibreOffice. Make Windows and MS Office a choice, rather than a tax businesses have to pay to be compatible with everyone else. That would go a long way to establishing trust.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  Microsoft is arguably working on it: They offered up exFAT support to Linux, and it's been added to the kernel. SQL Server being supported on Linux is huge. Probably the absolute biggest selling point to Windows-based infrastructure remains Active Directory, and if you're cool with being cloud-based (I'm not, FWIW), they offer that through Azure now. Windows is like three decades of legacy systems, but I would argue many of Microsoft's recent decisions have been at the cost of their Windows division.
cycloptic 7y ago
A trustworthy Microsoft is one that has open sourced one or more of their core products. Anything less is just retaining their classic hostility towards outside engineers.
craftyguy 7y ago
Break up, and cease to exist.
caoilte 7y ago
Small enough to drown in a bathtub.
rch 7y ago
Three product companies (Enterprise, Consumer, and Media), an open source company (Research, Engineering, and Collaboration), and a foundation owning all of the patents and other licensed IP.
swebs 7y ago
One broken down into smaller companies through antitrust rules.

Divided into a handful of independent companies, maybe?

Chapter 7 Bankruptcy where they get acquired by a newly-reformed Sun Microsystems (where no stock is owned by Oracle or Oracle shareholders). EDIT: I'm mostly kidding, but you can't really expect true change of morals when the vast majority of the upper management is the same under the new CEO as under the old one.

ChuckMcM 7y ago
As a former Sun employee I love this comment, but in all fairness Sun did have its own level of sleaze in the C suite (neither Eric Schmidt nor Scott McNealy would really do well as ethical leader exemplars) That said, I'm thinking Moon Microsystems :-) Not as big or as hot as Sun. (ok that is a bad punalogy) I did get the domain though, it was available and I couldn't resist.
- 205guy 7y ago
  Under certain conditions, can eclipse the the Sun. "Eclipse" ... now there is a name I haven't heard in a long time. But can you make a cool logo out of "Moon"?
  - ChuckMcM 7y ago
    > But can you make a cool logo out of "Moon"? No, but with minor butchery you can re-use the Sun logo with the letters MMS (Moon Micro Systems) :-)
CSSer 7y ago
At the risk of sounding somewhat naive, I think people do have the capacity to grow over time. Perhaps part of the reason why Microsoft has seemingly turned over a new leaf in recent years is that upper management has learned from their past mistakes? I do see your point though, and I think it's stuck in the back of a lot of our minds.
- FooBarWidget 7y ago
  Not to mention that upper management doesn't consist of the same people as 15 years ago.
  - adventured 7y ago
    Most of Microsoft's anti-trust related behavior was in the 1990s. Closer to 25 years ago. Merely a quarter of a century. There's something hilariously farcical about holding a grudge toward Microsoft for a quarter of a century.
    - yebyen 7y ago
      It's not so much a grudge as a reaction, call it an immuno-type response. I shed my MS-OS Windows Desktop addiction over 20 years ago to become a desktop Linux user and I still see my co-workers struggling every day with many of the same issues I haven't had to cope with anymore since then. Ever since I have been able to get the Microsoft out of my systems, I find myself naturally predisposed to keep it out. I am not against Microsoft, I really am a fan of a lot of the open and developer-focused things they are doing, certainly not least of which is their support for Kubernetes through Azure, but this does not make me more receptive to going back to living in a Microsoft OS-flavored ecosystem today, it just is not happening for me and it's nothing to do with holding a grudge or similar. I use a Mac now because it was provided by work, if they offer me a trade for a Windows machine I would probably consider it because of the progress made by WSL2, but our group policy lags somewhat behind and certainly not on insider ring, so none of my coworkers have been able to try WSL2 on their work-provided Windows machines, or likely will for some time, and that makes me seriously think twice about it. My natural inclination is that I would much rather install Linux as the host OS so I have control over things like when updates get applied, or whether a reboot needs to take place immediately, in spite of the struggle that sometimes comes with that, it is really much better to have the source and keep the capability to control your own hardware. And then only run Windows in a VM whenever it is really needed. (In other words, to be able to occasionally run Windows apps in a similar way as I do when I have to use them on a Mac.)
prepend 7y ago
I think Sun was worse than MS. Your scenario would terrify me. Sun’s hardware was expensive although their software was nice. Their handling of Java put me off them and led to this current state with Oracle. They had many positives, but I’d rather have old Microsoft than old Sun if I had to pick only one to eat everything. Definitely prefer new Microsoft.

nixpulvis 7y ago

I don't really distrust Microsoft per se. I just find it tragic that the only way GitHub could survive (I guess) was to be BOUGHT. Like why couldn't they stay smaller, focus on what they were good at, and standardize with the community all the integrations in an orderly manner? Although, Microsoft has shown they care more about the developer community than Apple as of late. So for that, I can at least say my trust is rising. But it's a bit too late for me, I'm happily running Linux for most of my daily life.

Kuinox 7y ago
Microsoft always took care of the developers.
sylens 7y ago
Microsoft's stance lately is that it's great if you want to run Linux - they want to provide tools for you to use there as well.

smolder 7y ago

To me it looks like water that isn't wet. PR (propaganda) and time will improve their reputation, but the "commodify your compliment" strategy, the intent to dominate markets through anticompetitive behavior... Those things aren't gone. Big tech companies (like most big business) don't prioritize public good over profit, so they really don't deserve anyone's trust apart from trusting them to seek profit.

FooBarWidget 7y ago
Maybe. But until someone comes up with a competitive alternative, that is a mood point.
- smolder 7y ago
  It's "moot"

irrational 7y ago

I’ve been a developer for nearly 25 years. I’m not sure if there is anything MS could ever do to regain my trust. Unfortunately this seems to be the way of large tech companies. At one time I thought Google was the best thing ever (don’t be evil). Now I find that I view Google in much the same way as I do MS. A huge corrupt behemoth that needs to be broken up.

dcgudeman 7y ago
Well you certainly picked a username that reflects your views.
- irrational 7y ago
  What do irrational numbers like phi have to do with the lack of ethics of large corporations?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
pgt 7y ago
This is the curse of globalist behemoths. Small companies is where it's at. Localism.
- crispinb 7y ago
  Nonsense. There is hardly a local government in Australia not hopelessly corrupted by local real estate interests. In many nations local corruption is endemic right down to every neighbourhood police station. Size isn't the question: money's corruption of power operates at all scales.
  - pgt 7y ago
    Size is absolutely the question. There is always corruption, but in small municipalities at least the scale of corruption is contained. In a sufficiently local area the corrupt has to brush shoulders with his unwilling benefactors and be shamed.

jacquesm 7y ago

Dead & gone.

zibfuddle 7y ago

It would be interesting if they ended up with Brendan Burns (creator of k8s when he was at google) in charge of github at some point and made him like the OSS champion. He's running all the containers and linux stuff on Azure, so it seems like it would be a natural fit.

squarefoot 7y ago

"What does a trustworthy Microsoft look like to you?" An oxymoron?

cmroanirgo 7y ago

Sightly off topic, but relevant to your question. Recently I installed win10 pro and was appalled at the way I had you jump through hoops to NOT have a m$ account, not to mention the blatant adware. And this was win10 professional. It certainly reminded me that m$ is a long long way away from where it was in the 90s and early naughties. So, a good start would be a stable and private os without all the adware and telemetry. PS: I use gitea instead of GitHub these days. Nor do I use vscode, but sublime text, for the same reasons: too much telemetry that cant be disabled permanently.

RMPR 7y ago
You can use vscodium, which is basically vscode without telemetry

loudmax 7y ago

For most businesses, Microsoft still holds a monopoly position on desktop OSs. For a lot of smaller IT departments, this bleeds into back-end servers as well. Microsoft has the Windows Subsystem for Linux, allowing Linux binaries to run on Windows. How about the reverse? Get WINE to the point where Linux (or FreeBSD or some fully source OS) can reliably run Windows binaries. Along the same line, provide portable libraries to allow other office suites to reliably edit MS Office files (docx, pptx, etc). Maybe Adobe or someone will come up with a commercial competitor, instead of just LibreOffice. Make Windows and MS Office a choice, rather than a tax businesses have to pay to be compatible with everyone else. That would go a long way to establishing trust.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 7y ago
Microsoft is arguably working on it: They offered up exFAT support to Linux, and it's been added to the kernel. SQL Server being supported on Linux is huge. Probably the absolute biggest selling point to Windows-based infrastructure remains Active Directory, and if you're cool with being cloud-based (I'm not, FWIW), they offer that through Azure now. Windows is like three decades of legacy systems, but I would argue many of Microsoft's recent decisions have been at the cost of their Windows division.

cycloptic 7y ago

A trustworthy Microsoft is one that has open sourced one or more of their core products. Anything less is just retaining their classic hostility towards outside engineers.

craftyguy 7y ago

Break up, and cease to exist.

caoilte 7y ago

Small enough to drown in a bathtub.

rch 7y ago

Three product companies (Enterprise, Consumer, and Media), an open source company (Research, Engineering, and Collaboration), and a foundation owning all of the patents and other licensed IP.

swebs 7y ago

One broken down into smaller companies through antitrust rules.