4 ms·

Yeah, I think this is an example of addressing a mistake that other companies should take note of. I don’t trust Microsoft-sized corporations as a matter of pri

by _zzaw 5y ago

Yeah, I think this is an example of addressing a mistake that other companies should take note of. I don’t trust Microsoft-sized corporations as a matter of principle, and I don’t typically give them the benefit of the doubt, but when one of their own engineers explains in human-readable terms what specifically happened—on a holiday, no less—I’m impressed enough to believe him. Some PR flack showing up with vague boilerplate about how Microsoft values the open-source community and they’ll look into it would only have encouraged more outrage. I always appreciate communication that acknowledges I’m a person, not a data point or a customer. I wish more companies ditched the greasy PR approach and allowed folks like Jeff to do their talking for them.

victorvscn 5y ago
- itzprime 5y ago
  How has Microsoft reformed? Windows 11 is more intrusive than ever, it changes default programms more frequently to their desired programms and it is so annyoing to switch browser. THey still are the same old.
Debug_Overload 5y ago
- laserbeam 5y ago
  Alright... What is a proper response to an honest mistake in your book? We have links to a bug, explanation of what happened, a clear response (that they will check to see if this happened on other forks), they reversed the change... Unsure why the bar would need to be higher. This is all reasonable given the circumstances.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  An engineer who can write straightforwardly is worth 100 PR people in situations like this. They're not paid like that, but they are worth that.
  - _zzaw 5y ago
    Fully agreed. And yeah, when it comes to my expectations as far as how large companies respond to embarrassments, the bar is about as low as it gets. A tone-deaf non-apology that sounds like a robot wrote it is what I expect to hear, and I’m almost invariably right. And that offends me. The idea that someone thinks I’d be convinced by such a response—that I’d find it persuasive and acceptable—is fucking insulting. So when the guy who’s actually responsible for the mistake—and not some polished corporate drone—actually shows up in the comments section, explains what happened, and talks to me the way one of my colleagues would: yeah, that is above and beyond by most standards, certainly the ones I have for evil empires like FAAN(M)G companies, and I give major credit for that.
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      Agreed. It's mostly I think because the press can only really do bikeshedding, and so the form of what people say is all they can comment on and amplify, and so we need professional spokespeople to keep up with the rules of what's okay to say, rather than more people to make better products.
novok 5y ago
I think a key reason that corps do try to avoid admitting fault, is because in a lawsuit that can be used as evidence for a guilty verdict in a civil lawsuit in some of the most slam dunk ways. If we remove this feature of common law legal systems, I think you will get far more admissions of fault like this one. If you hurt people, organizations, etc for admitting their mistakes, they're going to stop doing it.
- jdsully 5y ago
  The key take away is that apologizing and admitting fault doesn't absolve one of liability. There are a number of "amnesty" laws on the books where admitting fault can server to limit or reduce your sentence - especially with tax issues. I'm not sure how desirable such a thing would be in civil law among private parties. Especially in cases where a tort is minor to one party but a big deal to the other because of disparate wealth. E.g. if Microsoft burned your house down would an apology and explanation be enough to settle the matter? How could we encode this principle into law for minor things but not large things?
  - _zzaw 5y ago
    I don’t think accidentally removing credits from a software license is exactly on the level of burning someone’s house down. In general, I wouldn’t say that causing someone harm should be dismissible with an apology, but in a situation where the harm seems pretty limited, easily reversible, and unintentional—and the apology seems genuine and even informative—I don’t see a particular benefit to causing hardship to someone who made a mistake. The communal reaction as it is should give Microsoft/Google/etc an idea of what the blowback would be if this sort of thing was a deliberate corporate practice.
    - jdsully 5y ago
      The harm is depriving the author of their moral rights, and the name recognition from their work. Depending on how popular the library becomes this could deprive the author of substantial business opportunities.

by _zzaw 5y ago

victorvscn 5y ago

itzprime 5y ago
How has Microsoft reformed? Windows 11 is more intrusive than ever, it changes default programms more frequently to their desired programms and it is so annyoing to switch browser. THey still are the same old.

Debug_Overload 5y ago

laserbeam 5y ago
Alright... What is a proper response to an honest mistake in your book? We have links to a bug, explanation of what happened, a clear response (that they will check to see if this happened on other forks), they reversed the change... Unsure why the bar would need to be higher. This is all reasonable given the circumstances.
robertlagrant 5y ago
An engineer who can write straightforwardly is worth 100 PR people in situations like this. They're not paid like that, but they are worth that.
- _zzaw 5y ago
  Fully agreed. And yeah, when it comes to my expectations as far as how large companies respond to embarrassments, the bar is about as low as it gets. A tone-deaf non-apology that sounds like a robot wrote it is what I expect to hear, and I’m almost invariably right. And that offends me. The idea that someone thinks I’d be convinced by such a response—that I’d find it persuasive and acceptable—is fucking insulting. So when the guy who’s actually responsible for the mistake—and not some polished corporate drone—actually shows up in the comments section, explains what happened, and talks to me the way one of my colleagues would: yeah, that is above and beyond by most standards, certainly the ones I have for evil empires like FAAN(M)G companies, and I give major credit for that.
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    Agreed. It's mostly I think because the press can only really do bikeshedding, and so the form of what people say is all they can comment on and amplify, and so we need professional spokespeople to keep up with the rules of what's okay to say, rather than more people to make better products.

novok 5y ago

I think a key reason that corps do try to avoid admitting fault, is because in a lawsuit that can be used as evidence for a guilty verdict in a civil lawsuit in some of the most slam dunk ways. If we remove this feature of common law legal systems, I think you will get far more admissions of fault like this one. If you hurt people, organizations, etc for admitting their mistakes, they're going to stop doing it.

jdsully 5y ago
The key take away is that apologizing and admitting fault doesn't absolve one of liability. There are a number of "amnesty" laws on the books where admitting fault can server to limit or reduce your sentence - especially with tax issues. I'm not sure how desirable such a thing would be in civil law among private parties. Especially in cases where a tort is minor to one party but a big deal to the other because of disparate wealth. E.g. if Microsoft burned your house down would an apology and explanation be enough to settle the matter? How could we encode this principle into law for minor things but not large things?
- _zzaw 5y ago
  I don’t think accidentally removing credits from a software license is exactly on the level of burning someone’s house down. In general, I wouldn’t say that causing someone harm should be dismissible with an apology, but in a situation where the harm seems pretty limited, easily reversible, and unintentional—and the apology seems genuine and even informative—I don’t see a particular benefit to causing hardship to someone who made a mistake. The communal reaction as it is should give Microsoft/Google/etc an idea of what the blowback would be if this sort of thing was a deliberate corporate practice.
  - jdsully 5y ago
    The harm is depriving the author of their moral rights, and the name recognition from their work. Depending on how popular the library becomes this could deprive the author of substantial business opportunities.