4 ms·

I'll answer your statement ending with a question mark with a question: Given that Microsoft is in the business of sustaining itself as a business and making pr

I'll answer your statement ending with a question mark with a question: Given that Microsoft is in the business of sustaining itself as a business and making profit, what logical motive does it have for its recent moves?

colejohnson66 6y ago
That argument could be used against any company. Cases in point: Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat with Fedora, etc. Those are companies with profit motives and they sustain open source, but no one questions their motives like they do Microsoft. Maybe Microsoft is transitioning from a software company to one that provides support for enterprise software, and open source is just a byproduct? Who knows? Maybe I’m the crazy one thinking that the culture of a company can radically change over the course of two decades?
- kalium-xyz 6y ago
  >That argument could be used against any company. No, counter to the basic definition of a company stands that human nature is not so simple. >Cases in point: Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat with Fedora, etc. Those are companies with profit motives and they sustain open source, but no one questions their motives like they do Microsoft. Canonical got heavily scrutinized and is still called spyware by some because they sold search metadata from their OS to amazon (iirc). It doesn't take much effort to find similar sentiment on Red Hat (which is now IBM, which famously gets even more flank than MS). Keep in mind that Microsoft is simply a bigger company thus gets more attention as a much smaller company would. >Maybe Microsoft is transitioning from a software company to one that provides support for enterprise software, and open source is just a byproduct? Who knows? Is Microsoft moving away from software? >Maybe I’m the crazy one thinking that the culture of a company can radically change over the course of two decades? Sure it can, it would be stupid though its system clearly works and there is nothing wrong with applying strategy and clear thinking, doing anything other than that would be a failure to their employees and other people they are protecting and serving. I hold huge personal respect for large cooperation that manage to sustain over time as Microsoft does. And think there is nothing wrong or evil about applying strategies in a competitive market as long as it remains a competitive market. Even the old directors joke about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_xuFA18m4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_xuFA18m4

colejohnson66 6y ago

That argument could be used against any company. Cases in point: Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat with Fedora, etc. Those are companies with profit motives and they sustain open source, but no one questions their motives like they do Microsoft. Maybe Microsoft is transitioning from a software company to one that provides support for enterprise software, and open source is just a byproduct? Who knows? Maybe I’m the crazy one thinking that the culture of a company can radically change over the course of two decades?

kalium-xyz 6y ago
>That argument could be used against any company. No, counter to the basic definition of a company stands that human nature is not so simple. >Cases in point: Canonical with Ubuntu, Red Hat with Fedora, etc. Those are companies with profit motives and they sustain open source, but no one questions their motives like they do Microsoft. Canonical got heavily scrutinized and is still called spyware by some because they sold search metadata from their OS to amazon (iirc). It doesn't take much effort to find similar sentiment on Red Hat (which is now IBM, which famously gets even more flank than MS). Keep in mind that Microsoft is simply a bigger company thus gets more attention as a much smaller company would. >Maybe Microsoft is transitioning from a software company to one that provides support for enterprise software, and open source is just a byproduct? Who knows? Is Microsoft moving away from software? >Maybe I’m the crazy one thinking that the culture of a company can radically change over the course of two decades? Sure it can, it would be stupid though its system clearly works and there is nothing wrong with applying strategy and clear thinking, doing anything other than that would be a failure to their employees and other people they are protecting and serving. I hold huge personal respect for large cooperation that manage to sustain over time as Microsoft does. And think there is nothing wrong or evil about applying strategies in a competitive market as long as it remains a competitive market. Even the old directors joke about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_xuFA18m4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI_xuFA18m4