5 ms·

They've always been acting as a strong monopolistic corporation with a "fuck you" attitude. Here's a summary of Microsoft attitude these part 5 years: - rebran

They've always been acting as a strong monopolistic corporation with a "fuck you" attitude. Here's a summary of Microsoft attitude these part 5 years: - rebrand as open-source friendly, only open-source whatever narrow side-projects they barely care about but could be run on other systems (VSCode, Powershell); distribute official packages with spyware - monopolize the education system by offering bribes including gratis hardware devices to whoever in State education will work with them to pretend Microsoft loves kids and kids need computers (with Microsoft software, obviously) to learn anything in the 21st century - force manufacturers to deploy "TPM v2.0" on their new machines so they can run Windows 11, continuing the push so that people have 0 understanding and control over the machines they own (instead are controlled by the machines), and don't have a choice of system because "SecureBoot" [0] - love Linux! let them integrate all your POSIX/Linux APIs in a VM on their system, so that you never have to use anything else than Windows ever again (embrace...) ; it's just like reverse-Wine (execute Windows program on free systems) except they have an army of developers with $$$$ and don't have to waste time reverse-engineering anything because they have the source code to both systems... how convenient! - viruses are such a huge problem, if only we had some sort of digital signatures for software, and trustworthy places to get it from?! sure let's have a Microsoft market where you can buy adware/spyware signed by Microsoft, with two key advantages: 1) it's super faster because signed software is not inspected real-time by Windows defender 2) noone else can make their own "appstore" repository with their own signature keys (like we do with Flatpak/APT/nix/guix) ; very soon they can start to hide how to run programs unapproved by Microsoft like Android or MacOS [1] have been doing... and it's all for security, right? because app-store monopoly has definitely stopped malware (oooh that's a nice flashlight app you got there Google Play) without harming FLOSS/hobbyist devs (yeah sure) It's just *washing (openwashing here) straight out of marketing textbooks. If you know/learn anything about capitalism and public relations, you won't be tricked next time! [0] Briefly touched upon in this bigger article about how Microsoft is still evil, why Secure Boot has nothing to do with security, and why hardware manufacturers happily play along: https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/mmu_man/2021-10-04_ok_lenovo_we_need_to_talk/ https://www.haiku-os.org/blog/mmu_man/2021-10-04_ok_lenovo_w... [1] There was even this worrying story at some point that MacOS would refuse to open applications (whether signed or not) because their centralized server could not be reached: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25074959 <-- Soon coming to your Windows setup

pas 5y ago
Ah, I don't really care about telemetry, but their amazing outlook.com SMTP service rejects mail from small senders, and there's no way to successfully appeal. Yeey, brave new megacorp world!
- op00to 5y ago
  What’s the difference between a small sender and a spam host?
  - southerntofu 5y ago
    The difference is decided by decent spam filters: - is the exact same message being sent to many users? - does it look like previous spam? - are messages from this host being reported as spam by users? We have plenty of techniques to filter out spam (those above and technical ones like DKIM to enable host reputation systems) and they mostly work great. What Google/Microsoft are doing is just monopolistic attitude and has nothing to do with spam filtering. Spam from big email servers is still common, but legit emails from smaller servers will not reach intended recipients, and will not produce any indication of that on either side of the communication. It's just silently going in the trash. If there was at least a decent way to get allowlisted on their side, we could give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that email ecosystem has turned to an opt-in federation model. But the way they do it and prevent recourse is a clear abuse of dominant position to crush the competition.
  - Lex-2008 5y ago
    do you mean you never received spam from @gmail.com? Lucky you!
    - oynqr 5y ago
      With a proper rspamd setup, gmail is the only source of delivered spam for me.
  - roblabla 5y ago
    What's similar between them? A spam host will likely be high volume of similar-looking email sent to users who will never reply and most probably trash/spam-categorize the email. A small, single-user sender will likely be *very* low volume of fairly different-looking email sent to users who will likely answer and otherwise interact with the mail. They have literally nothing in common. Before I moved to fastmail, my email was consistently getting nullrouted by microsoft. Everything was setup correctly (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, ARC, etc...), and every other mail host I tried would receive my mail correctly. I send out a very low amount of email (3-4 per month?).

pas 5y ago

Ah, I don't really care about telemetry, but their amazing outlook.com SMTP service rejects mail from small senders, and there's no way to successfully appeal. Yeey, brave new megacorp world!

op00to 5y ago
What’s the difference between a small sender and a spam host?
- southerntofu 5y ago
  The difference is decided by decent spam filters: - is the exact same message being sent to many users? - does it look like previous spam? - are messages from this host being reported as spam by users? We have plenty of techniques to filter out spam (those above and technical ones like DKIM to enable host reputation systems) and they mostly work great. What Google/Microsoft are doing is just monopolistic attitude and has nothing to do with spam filtering. Spam from big email servers is still common, but legit emails from smaller servers will not reach intended recipients, and will not produce any indication of that on either side of the communication. It's just silently going in the trash. If there was at least a decent way to get allowlisted on their side, we could give them the benefit of the doubt and accept that email ecosystem has turned to an opt-in federation model. But the way they do it and prevent recourse is a clear abuse of dominant position to crush the competition.
- Lex-2008 5y ago
  do you mean you never received spam from @gmail.com? Lucky you!
  - oynqr 5y ago
    With a proper rspamd setup, gmail is the only source of delivered spam for me.
- roblabla 5y ago
  What's similar between them? A spam host will likely be high volume of similar-looking email sent to users who will never reply and most probably trash/spam-categorize the email. A small, single-user sender will likely be *very* low volume of fairly different-looking email sent to users who will likely answer and otherwise interact with the mail. They have literally nothing in common. Before I moved to fastmail, my email was consistently getting nullrouted by microsoft. Everything was setup correctly (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, ARC, etc...), and every other mail host I tried would receive my mail correctly. I send out a very low amount of email (3-4 per month?).