Hacker News Reader

Comment by xtrapolate | Hacker News Reader

This thread is yet another example of "you can't please all the people all of the time". This tool is a useful addition to the Linux toolbox, made freely available by Microsoft, in what would be yet another step towards embracing and supporting OSS - yet for many in this thread, that's just not good enough.

View on HN

Microsoft skeptics fail to realize that most of the mid- and upper-level executives increasingly spent their entire career using, creating, and contributing to F/OSS software. Many of them were involved with early MSFT OSS efforts back in 2008-2010, and many came from deep Linux/OSS community via acquisition (Nat Friedman). Hell, the creator of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza, someone who bears the scars of the Microsoft War on OSS, now resides happily at Microsoft now.

For whatever faults MSFT has today, any sort of antipathy or guile towards OSS or Linux is not one among them. Credit where credit is due. Too many are stuck reliving past glories.

If you want an actual OSS bogeyman, you need only direct your attention to Oracle. Too many transferred their goodwill towards Sun to a company has, among other things, tried to claim Java’s APIs as their own intellectual property. That’s a company that still merits this kind of hand-wringing.

Some Microsoft skeptics are more thoughtful than you concede. For an example, I strongly suggest you to watch the "Linux Sucks. Forever" talk by Bryan Lunduke [1] (who worked at MS some ~5 years).

If you don't have the time, the most interesting part starts at 7:29 [2] with a tour of the many ways Microsoft attacked Linux in the past, while from 13:55 [3] on he goes into how he thinks Microsoft (and others) are hurting Linux today.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVHcdgrqbHE

[2] https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=449

[3] https://youtu.be/TVHcdgrqbHE?t=829

Actually, the only two well-known OSS guys that work for MS are the ones you mentioned. Their reputation is far from flawless, in fact for a long time they were considered to be a negative influence on OSS because of their MS-focus.

Seeing you present them as champions is kinda funny...

Microsoft got a bit smarter since their anti-trust days. They saw that giving away OSS kept everyone off Google's back and allowed them to focus on building an immense spying machine.

Now they're applying the same recipe with some success (software people are suckers for OSS trinkets), but they started from such a poor image that it will take a while for all the dirt to wash off.

I'd be really impressed if MS made Windows open source. Maybe that way someone could finally disable that pesky telemetry spyware.

Oracle is all about money and it's obvious to everyone that they're not good guys. The ones to watch out for are the insidious ones like Google or MS.

Microsoft is in the Linux camp now because the Windows camp is dead for serious enterprise uses. Windows objectively failed to keep pace with the cutting edge. To Microsoft's credit, their leadership sees this and is working to build a viable replacement business model through the combination of Azure and data harvesting.

Reality is that the raw technical reality has forced MS to the open-source table. The fight played out and Windows lost -- Microsoft lives on.

Perhaps neither camp is happy with the situation, but if we're being honest, there's probably not anything that anyone can do about it.

People who remember the Microsoft from the 90's and early 00's are justifiably wary of them "embracing" things they like. When we used that word it was generally followed by two others, none of which was "supporting".

And it's not like present day Microsoft is without issues. As a user as far as I'm concerned every new version of Windows is worst that the last for instance. Ads everywhere, dark patterns in the UI etc... There are reasons to be cautious when we see them setting foot in FLOSS world, there's history here and it's not like MS suddenly turned into a non-profit open-source advocacy organization.

For the people who weren't around back then:

"Embrace, extend, extinguish" was one of Microsoft's key strategies.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...

The people who weren't around back then still hear it being shouted every time "Microsoft" and "open" are seen in the same headline, so we know.

Even if Microsoft wished it still had the power to EEE Linux, everybody crying "Embrace, extend, extinguish!!" seem to not realize that the Linux ownership of the data center ship sailed a very long time ago and it's not coming back. Regardless of whether the perception of the Microsoft's current leadership is more forward thinking with a desire to be good corporate citizens, the reality is Microsoft is making these kind of moves towards OSS because it's good business.

As a note: Microsoft was still under US Federal oversight until 2011 for their past behavior.

Also, Steve Ballmer left Microsoft just four years ago and Bill Gates still works there. No, he did not retire or leave.

> and Bill Gates still works there

That's a good thing, right?

That depends. Microsoft was evil under Gates, but they could also be competent. Under Ballmer, they were evil, but more incompetent. Under Nadella, they are less evil, but still incompetent. If Gates could help with the competence, but ease up on the evil, that would be good.

For the people that are still against Microsoft's involvement in mainstream technology, I don't think there will ever be a time where they'll accept Microsoft.

That's not to say that their criticisms are unfounded. The main criticism today is around advertising and telemetry in Windows 10, and that's absolutely a problem for a professional device. There are many scummy practices still going on at Microsoft, and the disjointed nature between their divisions is plain to see.

I don't mind it, because I think criticism is required to keep people/companies honest, and to drive improvement, but at this point I think a lot of people in tech will always find something to complain about in regards to Microsoft.

Since quite some evil tactics have been employed by MS against the FLOSS community, it is also good if an official apology would be issued. I really believe such a thing can "clear the air". They are supporting Linux now, and contributing in FLOSS: so we know they do not thing that open source licenses are "evil". Yet they have advocated for them evil in the past. So make a public apology and move on, now it's like they simply hope every one forgets.

It would be a nice gesture, but I still don't believe people will forgive Microsoft.

Microsoft are a different company to the one that tried to damage FLOSS. Those people want an apology from a strong Microsoft, not one they refuse to acknowledge as a top-tier tech company in 2018.

IMO, it's not the attack on FLOSS that people hate. It's the impact on the tech landscape during their time in tech, and no apology will repair that history. All we can hope for is that Microsoft continue to fight the good fight, and focus on creating good products and services. As I said before, criticism keeps a company honest, and hopefully that hate will balance out the praise and make Microsoft into an honest voice in tech.

> Microsoft are a different company to the one that tried to damage FLOSS.

Sure, "the river is never the same" :) But it's also the same shop and should be up front about this type of change in attitude, right?

> IMO, it's not the attack on FLOSS that people hate. It's the impact on the tech landscape during their time in tech, and no apology will repair that history.

I do think they still suffer from their sneaky behavior. That kind of impact on tech is to be expected of any capitalist outfit. Fixing that would be gov't's job.

Who is supposed to issue this apology?

The person writing the press release for such an apology didn't do anything, so there's nothing for them to apologize for. The people responsible for Microsoft's anti-OSS stance are minimally involved in 2018, if at all.

There are plenty of people and companies who apologize without putting action behind it. Apologies are a nice gesture on a personal level, but they don't mean anything without action, and they don't mean anything at all at a company level. Microsoft is, at a minimum, showing it wants people to think it's changed. People unwilling to give them a chance are not going to be persuaded by a press release with apology in the title.

> Who is supposed to issue this apology?

Who was involved in the decision to fund SCO in their lawsuit against IBM over copyrights in Linux? I could stand to start with those people.

Next, round up all the people who paid for (and probably ghost-wrote) articles, in all the trade press, to persuade corporate America that Linux was a copyright-absorbing cancer?

I'll believe Microsoft "LOVES LINUX" when they announce Office365 for Ubuntu, and not a day before.

Yes, I'm bitter. I was very active in trying to get Linux more-widely accepted at my Fortune 250 in the 90's, and a bad-faith manager used the lawsuit, and the coverage of it, to stifle my efforts.

What lawsuit happened in the '90s? All I see on the Wikipedia page started in 2003. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes#Tim...

Are you sure it was a lawsuit and not the state of the still very new Linux in the '90s? From what I recall, Linux didn't have a good reputation before 2.6.

They've apologized in many ways over the years, and especially in many of their PRs about their open source efforts, but also in casual moments and jokes in their conferences. Ballmer himself admitted he was too harsh on open source in a magazine article somewhat recently.

I doubt they simply hope every one forgets, they probably hope every one forgives eventually.

Thanks. I did not know they apologized for stiffling the FLOSS effort.

I've never seen such PR, but I will trust you on it.

Issuing an apology will do squat.

The people that oppose Microsoft aren't asking for one, they're asking for changes to other things so the apology is moot. Microsoft is far from perfect, but they're possibly the only one of the big 4 that is at least trending in the right direction.

I have problems with Microsoft, but I'm also annoyed the amount of praise some devs give Microsoft for doing anything related to open source. Some devs just fawn over every little thing Microsoft does, while also expecting Microsoft skeptics to forget most of their history just because of the past five or so years.

You can't just appreciate them for being reportedly the biggest commercial open source contributor, while still hating them for everything else? There surely is some nice, open source tools from Facebook and Google, that I use on a daily basis, but I trust those companies only as far as I can see them, too (which isn't all that far).

I don't care at all about Microsoft being the largest open source contributor. It doesn't change my opinion about them one bit. In fact, I use it against them because they constantly talk about it as if it were a big deal.

Microsoft and Microsoft fans just can't let their actions speak for themselves and allow opinions to change naturally. They just have to force themselves on developers and say "wow you don't love me, OKAY, I'll just buy the platforms and services you love so you'll have to love me". I know why they do this though - it's because Microsoft's history is akin to Sauron, Darth Vader, or Lord Voldemort. Microsoft's history is just comically evil and the only reason they've changed is because the landscape shifted in such a manner where Microsoft was FORCED to change. They aren't doing this from to bottom of their hearts and they don't deeply believe in the open source idea and spirit; they are only doing it because, by the grace of God, the internet became the place to do business and not the desktop.

Microsoft would still demand its pound of flesh from all of us if they could; and they'd still be a closed source firm that looked down upon people who believed that free, high quality open source tools were a win for society in general, and they sure as hell wouldn't have let go of Balmer. Microsoft and .NET developers with stockholm syndrome need to stop treating us as if we're dumb for not bending the knee before Redmond.

Trust is important. It's a filter that allows us to efficiently interact with the world around us.

The company produces and ships spyware and adware.

For better or worse, that influences how all of their actions are seen.

That's because people have weirdly unrealistic expectations when you put 'Microsoft' and 'Linux' in the same sentence. The biggest thread on this post seems to be about the prospect that Microsoft should/must/will (circle as applies) completely abandon Windows in favour of Linux, based on very little evidence, almost certainly because people don't know what to make of … well, any of it. Microsoft have been contributing to open source projects, the Linux environment, and so on for years (at least since Ballmer's left), and yet people are still coming to terms with it because it still messes with their world view — and quite rightly, too; forty-odd years of precedent in the other direction is hard to scrub from one's mind.

"Microsoft Linux" would be the most EEE thing they could do and I don't think anyone here expects that. However, it would be nice if there has been a bit less fuss about Microsoft going open-source. They should do just what everyone else does: extract useful software from your software stack, release it as free software and make the community a bit greater in doing that. Get your praise from the software you release, not from the fact that you do.

(To be fair, I think Microsoft engineers are actually staying low-key and just release stuff, while the management, marketing and fan groups are talking about how great Microsoft has become for FLOSS)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com