Hacker News Reader

Comment by ocdtrekkie | Hacker News Reader

Maybe it's just because yes, we all remember the 90s. But today is not necessarily the 90s. It was a lot more recent that Google was a relatively benevolent company, and we've all seen how that's changed.

And the thing about open source projects, is just that. They're open source. If the wider community takes hold of them, there's not much Microsoft can do. Because then you just see a fork.

You don't have to be a fan of Microsoft to simply appreciate the contribution to open software, as it is.

View on HN

Forced updates for Windows 10 burned all the credibility Microsoft was slowly regaining. Whatever might be going on in there, they still have enough of the old strongarm bullying monopolist in their collective corporate character that their good works really cannot be trusted over the long term.

What about forced updates makes them bullies? Or are you just generally angry?

I'm angry about the idea that forced updates might become a normal practice, because that could lead to a situation where it's difficult to find much software I am willing to use.

"Power to the people" has always been the whole point of personal computing, as far as I'm concerned. Give people control over their data, their processes, their lives; that's why we're doing this, isn't it?

That's why I'm doing it, at least.

Power to the user is one aspect of personal computing. But with the rise of mobile and now IoT, the user has also become (increasingly) a 'consumer', and thus the software and hardware are getting more and more locked down. Hardware and software manufacturers will sleep easier at night when their products cannot (or can only limitedly) be modified.

I think the writing is on the wall. Computing devices will split into two diverging branches: one tailored for limited configuration and aimed at media consumption and use by non-tech users, the other providing (hopefully) full freedom to modify, aimed at IT co. and interested hobbyists. It will be quite some achievement if mechanisms to increase vendor control aren't increasingly integrated even into the devices in the second segment, as things like Intel ME/UEFI Secure Boot show.

My Android has forced updates. I have to put my phone in airplane mode before each reboot and kill the process to prevent it. Chrome has forced updates. A lot of things have forced updates these days, and nobody bats an eye about it. Microsoft does it, everyone loses their minds.

And 'forced' is a stretch anyways, how to block it is well documented, and was months in advance. And you can revert, something Google and others will not let you do.

- Security update != version update.

- Paid OS != Free OS.

- OS update != software update.

I have an Android 4.4 phone, Verizon/Google is trying to force my phone to install Android 5.1, a full version update to a version widely regarded as a lemon.

I paid for my phone. I paid for my Windows license. I paid a lot more for my phone, which Android is trying to forcibly update without my consent to a version which will cripple my phone's functionality substantially.

Then you have the same problem and you should complain as much.

I sure bat an eye about it. I won't use Chrome.

I also deleted all the Google apps I could find on my Android phone, and I avoid storing any of my personal data on it, because Google seems to believe it's their machine, not mine. I'd use some other mobile OS if I had any choice in the matter.

pff.. they are "open source" just because they want to attract developers, because without developers writing apps for their platform, Microsoft will die (as any other platform). They are still just money-makers and nothing else, there is no any idea except money behind their movements to Open Source world, otherwise they wouldn't take revenues from Android.

Everything you say may (probably is) true.

Now why does anything in your post matter?

Because it's important to distinct intention to contribute to open-source world and intention to use this world to make money.

It's sad to see that despite open source (or free/libre..etc) software being around for so long, people still don't get it that money and freedom are not mutually exclusive. I would argue that contributing to open source for business reasons is perhaps even more beneficial for the software and community than just doing it for a hobby or some philosophy because companies pay people to even work on stuff that is not exciting / interesting.

sad to see that people still thinks "it's sad to see" that somebody can have different opinion.

Huh? I acknowledge that you have a different opinion and I'm saddened by that opinion.

I respect your right to have a different opinion. I don't have to respect the opinion itself. Hope you can see the difference.

As if these were orthogonal. My employer encourages me to contribute to open-source precisely because the open-source tools are the best for the job and thus allow us to make more money.

It's absolutely different case. Microsoft don't care if tools they use will be open-source or free - no. They only care if they can attract developers by playing role of "openSource company". It's not your case.

Because ocdtrekkie was using Microsoft's open source strategy to imply that Microsoft is no longer pursuing the same goals as before. EugeneOZ explained that Microsoft's strategy does not preclude their earlier goals.

last time I checked Microsoft was a company (not a platform) and like any other it has to make money to survive. Your saying is applicable to every other company releasing open source code

Approaches of Mozilla and Microsoft are quite different.

Yes they are... And believe it or not people / companies can change. And changing to a more open culture even if the reasons for doing this is because they will cease being competitive if they don't is still a good thing. Open source these days not only makes sense technically and ethically but also economically... And that's a good thing.

And I absolutely agree with it. Even happy about that. Companies should make money, developers should make money - it's all the right things. I love money too :)

The only thing I'm talking about is honesty - MS is trying to show they love open-source just because they are so awesome and hackers, but in reality it's just profitable mask and they are glad to wear it.

I submit that Microsoft is staffed and led, in part, by talented software developers, many of whom are invested themselves in open source philosophy. When ideas make it into the light of day that reflect this internal culture, I think it is a cause for happiness. Let's use care when claiming to understand the actual decision making process in any complex organization, particularly one formed from many intelligent, autonomous agents. Certainly skepticism is healthy in general, but in this case it doesn't seem to serve a positive purpose.

I appreciate your efforts to register this account just to write this reply. But as it's just common words (each huge software company have developers who are involved to open-source projects), nothing has changed in my opinion - I'm still sure they wave "open-source" flag just to not loose developers for their platform and any their new standard or new language is a tool for vendor-lock (platform-lock) as it was before for years.

Did you think they would suddenly start waving "information wants to be free" flags?

Did I give any reason to think so?

You are dismissive of "attracting developers" as motive. That has always been a marketing ploy of the open source camp as an alternative to a fully open philosophy i.e. information wants to be free.

Microsoft was still under US Federal oversight as of 2010. Two years ago, Ballmer was still CEO. It takes a long time to turn a big ship.

The only catch in that perspective is that the language specification is open source, while Microsoft's compiler implementation is not.

So, yes, we can edit those TeX documents they put on GitHub to our heart's delight.

https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-clang

https://github.com/Microsoft/checkedc-llvm

Doesn't that look like an open source implementation? Or did I misunderstand something?

However:

> The compiler is not far enough along for programmers to "kick the tires" on Checked C. We do not have a installable version clang available yet. If you are really interested, you can build your own copy of the compiler:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com