5 ms·

Let the past be the past. The new MS is making some good moves. However, this is not MS's fault. When you operate in an OEM type environment, you will run into

by electic 11y ago

Let the past be the past. The new MS is making some good moves. However, this is not MS's fault. When you operate in an OEM type environment, you will run into situations like this. For example, if OSX was an OEM offering, companies would disable services and make unsavory modifications. The reality, is like Lenovo, we have a bad vendor here and probably think twice before buying PCs from Samsung.

crdoconnor 11y ago
Their new PR line is they've changed and they are sorry, but they have certainly NOT changed and they are NOT sorry: http://techrights.org/2015/05/29/microsoft-vs-india/ http://techrights.org/2015/05/29/microsoft-vs-india/ Their recent "good moves" (open sourcing .NET, etc.) are simply an attempt to maintain relevance in the face of declining market share. If it results in regained market-share, they will likely bait and switch, and of course, they might as well get some good PR out of it.
- Aloha 11y ago
  First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing? Second, Why is Microsoft lobbying for non-restrictive purchasing standards bad? It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS - and more to do if the competition can only be indian made software. Buy $country First laws have long been recognized as anti-competitive, protectionist and generally a cause of increasing acquisition costs. FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete?
  - tormeh 11y ago
    >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? Because people generally don't choose the superior product?
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    >First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing? I wouldn't expect Microsoft to not lobby because I don't believe their PR that says that they've "changed" and are now "pro open source". >It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS So which part of the Indian policy that (briefly) favored open source was not about favoring open source software? >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? This should be made policy because this is a long-term strategy to prevent lock in, and because it's much harder to bribe a high level official than it is a low level official.
    - chc 11y ago
      It doesn't seem fair to say that Microsoft is attacking open-source software here. They're just asking not to be shut out. I think any of us would be asking the same if someone were trying to categorically exclude something we'd made.
  - Malstrond 11y ago
    >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? If proprietary software is more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law (Intellectual property, reverse engineering forbidden by EULAs) to help it compete?
    - serge2k 11y ago
      FOSS, in the form of the GPL, aggressively uses IP rights (copyright) to further their goals.
    - chc 11y ago
      What would the phrase "proprietary software" mean if it weren't possible for software to be proprietary?
simoncion 11y ago
> The new MS is making some good moves. The old New MSFT made some good moves too. Then they went back to being the Bad MSFT. I hope that the company has figured out how to break the cycle of abuse, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.
embik 11y ago
Honestly, it's hard to embrace the "new MS" when there are things like this still happening: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-faces-claims-it-threatened-mps-with-job-cuts-in-constituencies http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-... I'm aware that Microsoft is a giant corporation and there are many different people employed. The amount of people who support Open Source most likely increased in the last years. But as long as they're doing the public "we love Linux and Open Source" and try to lobby Open Source away in the background, I have no reason to trust them.
- reacweb 11y ago
  I do not like microsoft because I think it has slow down the progress of computer science (MHO). In this case microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has given Samsung the right to sign executable because people would hate if microsoft was the only one able to sign executables. In his case, samsung is the only culprit. I think microsoft has make many good moves recently because the public interest and its business interest are converging. Microsoft is in a hard fight to avoid becoming irrelevant. It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation).
  - embik 11y ago
    Yes, I agree that this isn't related to Microsoft at all. I was merely responding to the aspect of "hey guys, look, Microsoft got better". > It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation). Well, that's the very problem for me. As long as it is only PR to catch devs, I don't care. Opening .NET was great, but honestly I'm accustomed to open languages (or open compilers), such as Go, Rust and C (including the whole GObject ecosystem). It didn't make .NET better, it made it equal to things I'm used to. And in contrast to .NET, these languages are truly governed / developed by a multitude of developers. To me it's more important to stop ambushing Open Source / Free Software (like the blackmailing I linked above). If Microsoft's products are better, they won't have to fear Open Source at all. Fair play is all I want.

by electic 11y ago

crdoconnor 11y ago

Their new PR line is they've changed and they are sorry, but they have certainly NOT changed and they are NOT sorry: http://techrights.org/2015/05/29/microsoft-vs-india/ http://techrights.org/2015/05/29/microsoft-vs-india/ Their recent "good moves" (open sourcing .NET, etc.) are simply an attempt to maintain relevance in the face of declining market share. If it results in regained market-share, they will likely bait and switch, and of course, they might as well get some good PR out of it.

Aloha 11y ago
First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing? Second, Why is Microsoft lobbying for non-restrictive purchasing standards bad? It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS - and more to do if the competition can only be indian made software. Buy $country First laws have long been recognized as anti-competitive, protectionist and generally a cause of increasing acquisition costs. FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete?
- tormeh 11y ago
  >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? Because people generally don't choose the superior product?
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  >First, why would you expect Microsoft to not lobby against laws that prevent it from effectively competing? I wouldn't expect Microsoft to not lobby because I don't believe their PR that says that they've "changed" and are now "pro open source". >It's very clear to me that this has little to do with weather the competition is FOSS So which part of the Indian policy that (briefly) favored open source was not about favoring open source software? >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? This should be made policy because this is a long-term strategy to prevent lock in, and because it's much harder to bribe a high level official than it is a low level official.
  - chc 11y ago
    It doesn't seem fair to say that Microsoft is attacking open-source software here. They're just asking not to be shut out. I think any of us would be asking the same if someone were trying to categorically exclude something we'd made.
- Malstrond 11y ago
  >FOSS of more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law to help it compete? If proprietary software is more often then not superior on its merits alone, why does it need a protectionist anti-competitive law (Intellectual property, reverse engineering forbidden by EULAs) to help it compete?
  - serge2k 11y ago
    FOSS, in the form of the GPL, aggressively uses IP rights (copyright) to further their goals.
  - chc 11y ago
    What would the phrase "proprietary software" mean if it weren't possible for software to be proprietary?

simoncion 11y ago

> The new MS is making some good moves. The old New MSFT made some good moves too. Then they went back to being the Bad MSFT. I hope that the company has figured out how to break the cycle of abuse, but I'm not going to be holding my breath.

embik 11y ago

Honestly, it's hard to embrace the "new MS" when there are things like this still happening: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-faces-claims-it-threatened-mps-with-job-cuts-in-constituencies http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft-... I'm aware that Microsoft is a giant corporation and there are many different people employed. The amount of people who support Open Source most likely increased in the last years. But as long as they're doing the public "we love Linux and Open Source" and try to lobby Open Source away in the background, I have no reason to trust them.

reacweb 11y ago
I do not like microsoft because I think it has slow down the progress of computer science (MHO). In this case microsoft has done nothing wrong. It has given Samsung the right to sign executable because people would hate if microsoft was the only one able to sign executables. In his case, samsung is the only culprit. I think microsoft has make many good moves recently because the public interest and its business interest are converging. Microsoft is in a hard fight to avoid becoming irrelevant. It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation).
- embik 11y ago
  Yes, I agree that this isn't related to Microsoft at all. I was merely responding to the aspect of "hey guys, look, Microsoft got better". > It has to lobby governments for commercial interests and at the same time, it has to seduce developpers by open sourcing (and leading technical innovation). Well, that's the very problem for me. As long as it is only PR to catch devs, I don't care. Opening .NET was great, but honestly I'm accustomed to open languages (or open compilers), such as Go, Rust and C (including the whole GObject ecosystem). It didn't make .NET better, it made it equal to things I'm used to. And in contrast to .NET, these languages are truly governed / developed by a multitude of developers. To me it's more important to stop ambushing Open Source / Free Software (like the blackmailing I linked above). If Microsoft's products are better, they won't have to fear Open Source at all. Fair play is all I want.