7 ms·

Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate. Show me a successful company who isn't gett

Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate. Show me a successful company who isn't getting sued by another one. P.S. I still can't dual boot android on my iPhone, so why is Apple any better? Apple is a closed system, more so than Microsoft. P.P.S. I love Apple and Microsoft.

mindcrime 14y ago
Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate. I wouldn't really say it's knee-jerk. Microsoft have earned my mistrust with their demonstrated pattern of past behavior. Believe me, I've been a Microsoft critic going back to the early/mid 90's, so this isn't a recent thing. And, regardless of whether that's true or not, they're still pitching proprietary, closed-source, locked-down crap that I, for one, have zero interest in. Given a choice between "stuff" that I can't open up, poke around in, take apart, modify, rebuild, etc., and "stuff" that I have complete control over, why would I want the former? P.S. I still can't dual boot android on my iPhone, so why is Apple any better? They're not. F%!# Apple, as far as I'm concerned. :-) Apple is a closed system, more so than Microsoft. Yes, and? F%!# Apple AND Microsoft, as far as I'm concerned.
- fennecfoxen 14y ago
  Apple is fast becoming the new Microsoft. Unfortunately, we still have the Microsoft being the old Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the MS employees that they get to use git instead of svn/perforce/whatev...
ajross 14y ago
You probably weren't around in the 90's and didn't see the damage done to the market by Microsoft. It's not about Microsoft "being sued" or making a "closed platform". It was their pushing IE4 as part of OS updates to kill Netscape. It was about cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser in the biggest ISP in the world. It was about shipping a mostly compliant Java 1.1 implementation and then refusing to update it, basically breaking Java in the browser by default (applets written for the Sun plugin would run and fail). And after achieving market dominance in browsers, it was about sitting on the technology for years, providing minimal updates and no standards work while competing browsers struggled vainly to move the technology forward (all done to try to kill off the "web" as a platform, of course). It's about releasing a completely worthless "XML" document format based on undocumented binary legacy stuff, and attempting to bribe and cajole multiple standards bodies into endorsing it. MS is not a nice company. But they've maneuvered themselves into a position where they are no longer dominant, and are having to compete on technology. So they certainly seem nice enough now (and they did in the early 80's too). But I don't trust them; the culture is broken and evil. (Edit, because some of the responses are conflating the issues: to be clear, I don't think Apple is a "nice company" either. But their position and dominance today isn't nearly as damaging as MS's was in the 90's. I worried for a while that it would be, maybe 2 years ago, but the truth is iOS has very robust competition, and is actually losing market share slowly. I'm not worried. Let Apple be evil as long as it's within their own universe and not affecting the market.)
- jstclair 14y ago
  You're not the only one who was there. And some of us discrete with your interpretation(s). When Microsoft included TCP/IP in Win3.11 for Workgroups, they killed a lot of proprietary, expensive products. Should that have triggered an anti-trust investigation, too?
  - ajross 14y ago
    Did Windows having TCP/IP break my ability to put my SunOS boxes on the internet? Because IE4's crushing dominance sure broke my ability to use a lot of the web from my Linux box in 2001. MS never would have gotten that market share for IE without leveraging their monopoly position in windows.
    - jstclair 14y ago
      I don't really want to rehearse that argument again; and this seems to be waaaaay outside the scope of the original post. And, incidentally, nice moving-the-goalposts - you avoided the question of whether putting Trumpet Winsock et al. out-of-business to incorporate what we all consider to be part of the OS should have also been considered illegal.
      - ajross 14y ago
        You're right that this is increasingly a digression. I thought my point was more important, but I'll play on your field: Trumpet Winsock was shipping the same BSD code that everyone else was using, and built a business around it only because MS didn't bother to. When MS took the same code for themeslves, the market for proprietary products evaporated. Where is the "harm to the market" in that? Users got compatible software at a better price. When Netscape was killed, Unix users lost the ability to use much of the web, because everyone started writing to IE only. And the reason that happened was because MS leveraged their windows monopoly illegally. I note you didn't have a reply to this bit. :)
- mmanfrin 14y ago
  A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) They refused to update Java -- Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. 'Pushing IE4 as a part of OS updates' -- wait, they're not supposed to promote their own software (notwithstanding the business with uninstalling Netscape, that was indeed evil). Trying to kill off the web? Okay, at this point you've lost it. Stop seeing things in purely black and white.
mistercow 14y ago
>Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate I'm really having trouble crying any tears of sympathy here. When you behave in a harmful and unacceptable manner, you have to be on your best behavior for a long time before people can trust you again. That's just how it works. >P.S. I still can't dual boot android on my iPhone, so why is Apple any better? Apple is a closed system, more so than Microsoft. Who said anything about Apple? Why do people always bring up Apple when anyone says something bad about Microsoft? Yes, Apple is hurting the software world with their practices. That has no bearing on whether Microsoft is too.
wavephorm 14y ago
No, Microsoft has made some extremely serious mistakes in the past (eg. like repeatedly leveraging their monopoly to destroy competitors). And pretty much anything do won't make up for it. Microsoft worked very hard to earn their hatred, and they absolutely deserve being shunned by the entire development community. I really wish this company would completely go away.

mindcrime 14y ago

Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate. I wouldn't really say it's knee-jerk. Microsoft have earned my mistrust with their demonstrated pattern of past behavior. Believe me, I've been a Microsoft critic going back to the early/mid 90's, so this isn't a recent thing. And, regardless of whether that's true or not, they're still pitching proprietary, closed-source, locked-down crap that I, for one, have zero interest in. Given a choice between "stuff" that I can't open up, poke around in, take apart, modify, rebuild, etc., and "stuff" that I have complete control over, why would I want the former? P.S. I still can't dual boot android on my iPhone, so why is Apple any better? They're not. F%!# Apple, as far as I'm concerned. :-) Apple is a closed system, more so than Microsoft. Yes, and? F%!# Apple AND Microsoft, as far as I'm concerned.

fennecfoxen 14y ago
Apple is fast becoming the new Microsoft. Unfortunately, we still have the Microsoft being the old Microsoft. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for the MS employees that they get to use git instead of svn/perforce/whatev...

ajross 14y ago

You probably weren't around in the 90's and didn't see the damage done to the market by Microsoft. It's not about Microsoft "being sued" or making a "closed platform". It was their pushing IE4 as part of OS updates to kill Netscape. It was about cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser in the biggest ISP in the world. It was about shipping a mostly compliant Java 1.1 implementation and then refusing to update it, basically breaking Java in the browser by default (applets written for the Sun plugin would run and fail). And after achieving market dominance in browsers, it was about sitting on the technology for years, providing minimal updates and no standards work while competing browsers struggled vainly to move the technology forward (all done to try to kill off the "web" as a platform, of course). It's about releasing a completely worthless "XML" document format based on undocumented binary legacy stuff, and attempting to bribe and cajole multiple standards bodies into endorsing it. MS is not a nice company. But they've maneuvered themselves into a position where they are no longer dominant, and are having to compete on technology. So they certainly seem nice enough now (and they did in the early 80's too). But I don't trust them; the culture is broken and evil. (Edit, because some of the responses are conflating the issues: to be clear, I don't think Apple is a "nice company" either. But their position and dominance today isn't nearly as damaging as MS's was in the 90's. I worried for a while that it would be, maybe 2 years ago, but the truth is iOS has very robust competition, and is actually losing market share slowly. I'm not worried. Let Apple be evil as long as it's within their own universe and not affecting the market.)

jstclair 14y ago
You're not the only one who was there. And some of us discrete with your interpretation(s). When Microsoft included TCP/IP in Win3.11 for Workgroups, they killed a lot of proprietary, expensive products. Should that have triggered an anti-trust investigation, too?
- ajross 14y ago
  Did Windows having TCP/IP break my ability to put my SunOS boxes on the internet? Because IE4's crushing dominance sure broke my ability to use a lot of the web from my Linux box in 2001. MS never would have gotten that market share for IE without leveraging their monopoly position in windows.
  - jstclair 14y ago
    I don't really want to rehearse that argument again; and this seems to be waaaaay outside the scope of the original post. And, incidentally, nice moving-the-goalposts - you avoided the question of whether putting Trumpet Winsock et al. out-of-business to incorporate what we all consider to be part of the OS should have also been considered illegal.
    - ajross 14y ago
      You're right that this is increasingly a digression. I thought my point was more important, but I'll play on your field: Trumpet Winsock was shipping the same BSD code that everyone else was using, and built a business around it only because MS didn't bother to. When MS took the same code for themeslves, the market for proprietary products evaporated. Where is the "harm to the market" in that? Users got compatible software at a better price. When Netscape was killed, Unix users lost the ability to use much of the web, because everyone started writing to IE only. And the reason that happened was because MS leveraged their windows monopoly illegally. I note you didn't have a reply to this bit. :)
mmanfrin 14y ago
A lot of your examples could be used against current darling companies. Cutting a sweetheart, loss-leader deal with AOL to replace the browser with their own? Isn't that pretty similar to what Google is doing with Firefox to the tune of a couple hundred million a year? (And something that Microsoft has been banned from doing with their own proprietary browser?) They refused to update Java -- Apple refuses to even allow Flash, which is elsewise standard on something like 97% of computers. 'Pushing IE4 as a part of OS updates' -- wait, they're not supposed to promote their own software (notwithstanding the business with uninstalling Netscape, that was indeed evil). Trying to kill off the web? Okay, at this point you've lost it. Stop seeing things in purely black and white.

mistercow 14y ago

>Really I just think this is a knee-jerk reaction. I think Microsoft is really trying and people are just gonna hate I'm really having trouble crying any tears of sympathy here. When you behave in a harmful and unacceptable manner, you have to be on your best behavior for a long time before people can trust you again. That's just how it works. >P.S. I still can't dual boot android on my iPhone, so why is Apple any better? Apple is a closed system, more so than Microsoft. Who said anything about Apple? Why do people always bring up Apple when anyone says something bad about Microsoft? Yes, Apple is hurting the software world with their practices. That has no bearing on whether Microsoft is too.

wavephorm 14y ago

No, Microsoft has made some extremely serious mistakes in the past (eg. like repeatedly leveraging their monopoly to destroy competitors). And pretty much anything do won't make up for it. Microsoft worked very hard to earn their hatred, and they absolutely deserve being shunned by the entire development community. I really wish this company would completely go away.