Memorandum on Microsoft’s strategy against Linux and Open Source software (1998)
catb.org
catb.org
I also like this post here[1] from reddit about some of the earlier evils of Microsoft's leadership.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/3aicvf/what_vill...
I know there is an open-source movement going on with MS, but I inherently don't trust them - they've got prior form and still have the power to shift the software landscape even more in their favour.
1998 was 20 years ago. Even if Microsoft somehow hadn't changed, the biggest concentrations of power reside elsewhere now. I don't understand the scepticism some people have for Microsoft and only Microsoft. It seems like living in the past.
What are we supposed to do, pretend their sociopathic history didn't happen?
Actions have consequences, and one of those consequences is that informed people try to remember the lessons of the past so that the mistakes of the past are not repeated.
We're not talking about some company with an untarnished history that should be given the benefit of the doubt. Microsoft has to earn back its trust. It's not going to be handed it on a silver platter by those of us with a memory.
Founders and CEOs of HN take note: This is what happens when you fuck the community in the ass.
Yep. And in today's world, those consequences seem to be all or nothing, death penalty forever with no forgiveness or forgetting, no matter what, or let them completely off the hook and pretend like you don't know anything at all.
The same people calling for everyone to always remember what Microsoft did 20 years ago log out of HN and go work on their Facebook React app with no apparent sense of irony.
So while you are reminding everyone of how terrible Microsoft was 20 years ago, you should probably be shutting down your Facebook, Instagram, and Google accounts, throwing away your Android phone, deleting any projects you have that use React.js, TypeScript, Angular, Go, Dart, and a lot more, and generally cleaning out everything that isn't completely FOSS from your life.
Bc if you aren't, then you really don't give a crap about Microsoft's behavior, you just care about looking cool by talking shit about Microsoft and everyone knowing how knowledgeable you are about their history from 20 years ago, even if you are willfully ignoring the same and worse behavior by many, many companies today.
This is a straw man. You're arguing against a group that is largely fictional.
> you should probably be shutting down your Facebook, Instagram, and Google accounts
Some of us learned from previous bad actors like Microsoft and never made accounts with the new generation fo bad actors.
> throwing away your Android phone
I've been trying to educate people about the dangers of carrying a tracking device for ~25 years. In the last ~year, some people have finally started to listen.
> deleting any projects you have that use React.js, TypeScript, Angular, Go, Dart
Do you really think we would depend on any remotely proprietary language/library/etc after spending years fighting Microsoft? There are numerous tools available without proprietary baggage.
Speak for yourself, that's a lot of false assumptions and gross over judging. I have no social media accounts (and this account on THN will likely last less than 6 months). The only thing above is that I do have an Android phone, which is using LineageOS with most of my apps coming from the F-Droid appstore. The only remaining non-FDroid app is Spotify which I'm migrating away from.
I use Linux exclusively. I do not do App development or any other FarmVille based development, I do open-source development. My organization is very pro open-source.
My only hypocracy comes from using Google Voice. I do not even use Google Search, Mail, etc and haven't for 5 years. If I want to use Javascript, I use Javascript (these frameworks are stupid and more complicated than plain-jane JS... every time I roll out a web application people don't understand how it's so "fast" and want to look at the code, then can't understand how I'm not using a framework... it's silly).
> even if you are willfully ignoring the same and worse behavior by many, many companies today.
Regardless of what people want to believe, the whataboutism here is ridiculous. It is 100% possible to dislike all of these corporations and their anti-competitive, anti-capitalistic mindsets.
Microsoft has to suck it up when they screw up like everyone else.
...they’ve just got a teack record of screwing it up (and screwing peopke over) which is longer and messier thansome other people.
Google would get the same reaction if they had done what microsoft has.
The point is: no free lunches.
You feel its unfair to microsoft? Well, cry me a fucking river for that billionity dollar corporation.
so the point is: no free lunches. apply criticism equally and without bias.
Or they acknowledge that, and just choose to live in the tech equivalent of a remote cabin in the woods.
You shouldn't be obliged to do business with one particular company if you want to contribute to open source software. It doesn't matter how benevolent the owner is.
Nothing has changed.
- Amazon has completely ruined my trust with their constant fake review issue and their counterfeit issue.
- Google does the "embrace, extend, extinguish" issue. Try running an Android phone without Google Play Services. Try using U2F on any site BUT Google (I have a Yubikey U2F that works on GitHub, Nextcloud, and a few other sites with Firefox, but mysteriously does not work on Google except for Chrome). That doesn't even mention their dark patterns when opting out of their data collection, or their horrible customer service if they lock you out of your Google account, or their tendency to kill off services seemingly at random.
- Apple has had a storied history of locking one into their ecosystem, and makes me skeptical to buy anything by them. I also find it even more troubling that they have no problem giving all PRC users data to the PRC government, just so they have access to that market.
- I won't bother to address Facebook here, as they have had so much recent (and continued) controversy.
- I admittedly have never used Alibaba, so I don't know enough to talk to that.
I think there are other people who have similar issues with those companies, and I have seen them discussed here.
The story concerns Microsoft. And I do.
Tech monopolies are bad, mkay?
I think the forced upgrades were a good thing. The security model on Windows 10 and continued support of updates to 10 is overall a Good Thing for the average Windows User. The majority of users on Windows run their systems in extremely non-secure ways and skip updates and upgrades completely. This is a danger to the internet as a whole.
To me it ultimately comes down to this: I can't force my older relatives to update their machines or even stop them from running ancient versions of Windows. On that front, Windows 10 made things better.
If one of my prod servers were forcefully updated - with no warning, therefore no chance to make backups - I'd be furious. If my main dev machine was bricked as a result of forceful updates, as I seem to recall it happened to some folk...
It feels like they disregard users in that sense, and it's sad.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but I really do believe they did the less-wrong thing in this case.
It would still be a problem, but less so.
That said, they should probably treat personal information sharing like they treat the modification of system settings. Notify the user that an app or service wants to share info, and get their permission to proceed.
With the GDPR stuff happening recently, I wouldn't be surprised if a future version of Windows 10 had a feature like this.
The replies are even better.
TL;DR - "Who cares if we rebooted the emergency phone system, who calls 911 at 3 AM anyway?"
Unless your older relative is on a metered internet connection that charges downloads by the MB, costing them hundreds of dollars[1] on a speculative download that the user did not ask for.
[1] http://stopthecap.com/2015/08/18/microsofts-windows-10-updat...
I agree that keeping on ancient Windows is a chore now, and keeping systems up to date is good for the users and the Net in general; but thanks to the WinX forced-upgrade and the unreliable updates, I've deployed some more Ubuntu clients. For some mysterious reason, those don't need to jump into your face with YOU WILL REBOOT NOW PUNY HUMAN.
(And really, I would love to have a system that has a good security model, even if that means Windows...but this is far outweighed by the abovementioned trampling of the user: whoops you turned your back for a few minutes, oh well, you didn't need to save or close that properly anyway)
Okay. Then stop messing with the operating system. Stop changing anything except as needed for security patches. If nothing changes except security improvements, the rate of updates and the probability of update breaking something will both dramatically decrease - which would be good not only for usability and reliability, but also security, because it would tilt the incentive much more in the direction of immediately accepting all updates.
No?
Okay. Now we've established that security is not in fact the highest priority after all. That, in short, the argument based on security being the highest priority was bullshit. So let's stop repeating it. If Microsoft behaves as though the highest priority were job security for individual Microsoft employees, then let's acknowledge that.
Nokia was on the path to obsolescence before Microsoft purchased the failing company. Nokia lost more than $3 billion dollars in 2012. You don't spend billions of dollars to purchase a failing company and then intentionally fail some more. Skype works the same as it always has for me and I pay them nothing. Are you upset that Skype hasn't moved forward at all? That seems like a valid criticism but hardly "evil".
The stuff they did in the 90's was true evil. They actively sabotaged competitive technology and companies. Making agreements in bad faith was part of their corporate culture. They considered open source a cancer they were trying to snuff out.
Originally, Skype was a P2P communications platform, even for calls. After Microsoft acquired it, it was pushed into a centralized model. This goes against some fundamental concepts of how the internet is supposed to work, and the main benefits are mostly for Microsoft and not necessarily for users. Data acquisition of random call monitoring (for "quality"), government snooping (PRISM), and to integrate Skype into things like Xbox.
We should be moving more in the direction of federated protocols, but instead we are moving towards more and more centralization in tech and as well as in our society. This also has security implications with data consolidation, data sharing, etc.
This was all around 2010 and after. Not in the 90s. So Nokia is just shorthand for how clueless they were in this space.
I used to pay them for a monthly subscription so that I could use skype phone hardware to maintain a -sort of- VOIP variant and be easy to reach, even while on the road. About two years ago, all of my phone hardware started to fail. Those phones are now collecting dust and I replaced them with proper VOIP hardware. Yes I should have done that before, but skype DID work great for this in the past.
If somebody calls me now on that line and my computer is off or suspended, I will never know as the call does not get registered. Besides that I might have turned down the volume on my computer for whatever reason and still miss the call.
Then there's the electron muckup which is really bad, removed a bunch of features and configuration options, is super laggy and uses a lot of resources.
Also the move from P2P to using microsoft servers is not exactly a security improvement.
Skype is a mess and I'm glad I moved away from it for any serious usage.
But is this really Microsoft's fault? Not directly, I guess ... but is it really plausible that Microsoft didn't have any underhanded influence on Nokia's board to put an obvious Microsoft stooge/idiot in charge of destroying the company?
That said, I think the lesson here is clear: we should never trust any corporation for much of anything. This memo strikes me as a nice summary of what any incumbent company will do when they feel threatened. I think it's unhelpful to think of this memo solely in terms of "Microsoft".
> OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
In practice this applies not just to server applications, but to anything where MS didn't fall behind competition yet. Where they are already behind, they aren't pushing lock-in anymore.
For someone living in that time, I can't imagine it being easy for them to forget.
I think skeptics are just (and rightfully so) waiting for the other shoe to drop.
Microsoft could release a free cure for cancer tomorrow and people would complain about it being EEE on humanity.