Hacker News Reader

Comment by varbhat | Hacker News Reader

Microsoft is company. It will do anything(ofc legal) for money.

They knew where the market exist,so embraced Linux. They wanted to prevent migration of windows users to MacOS/Linux ,so created WSL2 which lured many MacOS users.

It also added DirectX for WSL2 , which is proprietary extension. It based it's edge browser on chromium because they were lagging behind chromium wrt performance.

They want profit. So,they do these things. Some actions benefit floss while some don't. Problem of capitalist company. They care about capital more than us.

View on HN

I think the edge -> chromium move was more about compatability than performance. Edge was fine. They couldn't keep up with the evolving web standards. Also pre-chromium edge has friggin the WORST DEV TOOLS EVER.

You would get "generic js error" whenever you had a javascript error thrown. It was untenable as a developer.

Theyre releasing dX on linux so they can stay relevent in the gpu space. Being able to use a windows driver for your linux install is pretty clutch considering what a cluster that has been .

I'm generally giving them the benefit of the doubt because they really didn't have to do -any- of this, and still make money.

The whole point of a business is to become a money machine.

In the Anglosaxon model. E.g. the Rhineland model not only shareholders are regarded as stakeholders, and thus a company had a duty to its community, starting with its workers (worker council).

Problem? Thanks to Microsoft and other capitalist companies for revolutionizing the way we do computing today.

Microsoft didn't revolutionize anything, they've always just bought the competition (manufacturers, developers, etc) but had to adopt Linux when that stopped working and Linux was winning without having to pay people because the Linux community cares more about progress than profit.

What would have happened if Richard Stallman had decided to go work for a capitalist company and just worried about making money?

I think linux on the desktop would be been better story.

My point is without Microsoft we wouldn't be where we are today. We'd be lagging far behind. Apple being the only competition, would probably still be selling Apple 2.

Why is it that Linux is always playing catch-ups with device drivers, KDE, GNOME, wayland to be on par with Windows or Mac equivalent? Cause there are lack of resources, how many people want to invest their time for nothing in return? Very less.

You value your freedom very little, if you think that it means nothing.

Poor logic. I never said I don't value Linux or freedom. Last time I checked, nobody dictates what you use. I don't understand why making profits is shunned as such a problem? And takes away your freedom?

You are free to not use products from companies you don't like. Trust me I do value Linux, currently typing this from my Ubuntu machine. I hope it speeds up in development, but without the proper incentive, it simply is not happening. Only companies I see in the desktop space are valve at the moment who have vested interest on the gaming aspect. I don't think every developers are going to say kumbaya and develop for Linux without getting any kind of financial support. O.o

You said that people don't want to invest and get nothing in return. But you do get two things: 1. freedom, since you are developing free software, freedom for you and for others. 2. Maybe recognition. I figured that you didn't value those things, perhaps I am wrong. Of course there is nothing wrong with making a profit, the problem I have is doing so by artificially restricting what people can do with their computers.

It's not exactly lack of resources but a lot of effort duplication across the various distros and other unix-like operating systems.

If all unix-like OS devs or even just all Linux devs pooled their efforts in to one distro, they'd have beaten Windows long ago.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com