5 ms·

It's not FUD. It's the Microsoft's never-changing strategy. I don't know how many times people need to experience it to remember this.

cycloptic 6y ago
That strategy has also failed them numerous times and resulted in complete flops. Sorry I am just really sick of the senseless Microsoft bashing that tends to pervade Linux communities. If you have some real reason to criticize them based on current behavior then let's hear that. Anything else is speculation.
- rightbyte 6y ago
  There is no MS lovehate anymore from Linux community in my experience since the rise of the greater evils went under the radar as hipp. Sadly MS is on the course joining the Google and Facebook in this regard.
whereistimbo 6y ago
Whatever Embrace Extend Extinguish is Microsoft doing, all the patch were open source and licensed under GPL. If VMWare's patch to make Linux run in VMWare closed source hypervisor getting mainlined, why not this one?
thsowers 6y ago
I think it is uncharitable to assert that a company that is 45 years old has a strategy that is "never-changing". There is no denying that Microsoft has been hostile to Linux and open source efforts before, but it doesn't mean that this would never change. Last I checked, Microsoft was the largest contributor to open source projects, and Satya Nadella seems to embrace FOSS
- fartcannon 6y ago
  I don't see what they've done to earn your trust. You just want to believe theyre different, just like the parent wants to believe theyre not. The truth is probably in the middle.
derefr 6y ago
To be clear, the GP wasn’t making a claim about Microsoft’s strategy; what they’re claiming is that Linux is robust against such threats. Linux is constantly “Embraced” and “Extended” by all sorts of people, but it’s far too large a tent at this point for any entity, no matter how large, to gain the control necessary to “Extinguish” it. (In this specific case, it’s because Linux has many in-kernel hypervisor systems, not just Microsoft’s. And at no point would they get rid of any of them, even if Microsoft’s is “better” in some sense. That’s not how Linux works: those systems are there to allow various groups to scratch their own itches, not as some central ideologically-driven top-down design. Microsoft can certainly add to Linux—anyone can—but nobody can force Linux to take away alternatives until it becomes dependent in some way on their particular code.)
ncallaway 6y ago
> Everyone should be afraid of this > It's not FUD. I'm sorry, but the sentence "every should be afraid of this" is literally Fear. Yes, Microsoft has a history and yes, we should be cautious. But that's very different than calling for every person to be afraid.
jhawk28 6y ago
How are you seeing this perceived strategy in LinkedIn, GitHub, Azure, .NET Core, Docker, Surface, etc? These are all things that Microsoft is either owner or a strong participant. They aren't the same company as they used to be. They don't have one single product (Windows) that everything revolves around. They were losing too much (things like Mobile) to keep that strategy.

cycloptic 6y ago

That strategy has also failed them numerous times and resulted in complete flops. Sorry I am just really sick of the senseless Microsoft bashing that tends to pervade Linux communities. If you have some real reason to criticize them based on current behavior then let's hear that. Anything else is speculation.

rightbyte 6y ago
There is no MS lovehate anymore from Linux community in my experience since the rise of the greater evils went under the radar as hipp. Sadly MS is on the course joining the Google and Facebook in this regard.

whereistimbo 6y ago

Whatever Embrace Extend Extinguish is Microsoft doing, all the patch were open source and licensed under GPL. If VMWare's patch to make Linux run in VMWare closed source hypervisor getting mainlined, why not this one?

thsowers 6y ago

I think it is uncharitable to assert that a company that is 45 years old has a strategy that is "never-changing". There is no denying that Microsoft has been hostile to Linux and open source efforts before, but it doesn't mean that this would never change. Last I checked, Microsoft was the largest contributor to open source projects, and Satya Nadella seems to embrace FOSS

fartcannon 6y ago
I don't see what they've done to earn your trust. You just want to believe theyre different, just like the parent wants to believe theyre not. The truth is probably in the middle.

derefr 6y ago

To be clear, the GP wasn’t making a claim about Microsoft’s strategy; what they’re claiming is that Linux is robust against such threats. Linux is constantly “Embraced” and “Extended” by all sorts of people, but it’s far too large a tent at this point for any entity, no matter how large, to gain the control necessary to “Extinguish” it. (In this specific case, it’s because Linux has many in-kernel hypervisor systems, not just Microsoft’s. And at no point would they get rid of any of them, even if Microsoft’s is “better” in some sense. That’s not how Linux works: those systems are there to allow various groups to scratch their own itches, not as some central ideologically-driven top-down design. Microsoft can certainly add to Linux—anyone can—but nobody can force Linux to take away alternatives until it becomes dependent in some way on their particular code.)

ncallaway 6y ago

> Everyone should be afraid of this > It's not FUD. I'm sorry, but the sentence "every should be afraid of this" is literally Fear. Yes, Microsoft has a history and yes, we should be cautious. But that's very different than calling for every person to be afraid.

jhawk28 6y ago

How are you seeing this perceived strategy in LinkedIn, GitHub, Azure, .NET Core, Docker, Surface, etc? These are all things that Microsoft is either owner or a strong participant. They aren't the same company as they used to be. They don't have one single product (Windows) that everything revolves around. They were losing too much (things like Mobile) to keep that strategy.