Hacker News Reader

Comment by burnte | Hacker News Reader

Yes, this is the exact thing they did to Stacker years ago. License the tech, get the source, create a new product, destroy Stacker, pay out a pittance and then buy the corpse. I was always amazed they couldn't pull that off with Citrix.

View on HN

Another example: Microsoft SQL Server is a fork of Sybase SQL Server. Microsoft was helping port Sybase SQL Server to OS/2 and somehow negotiated exclusive rights to all versions of SQL Server written for Microsoft operating systems. Sybase later changed the name of its product to Adaptive Server Enterprise to avoid confusion with "Microsoft's" SQL Server.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_SQL_Serve...

Given the sensitivity of data handled over Citrix connections (pretty much all hospitals), I'm fairly sure Microsoft just doesn't want the headaches. My general experience is that service providers would rather be seen handling nuclear weapons data than healthcare data.

Makes sense given their deal with the DoD a year or so ago

https://www.geekwire.com/2022/pentagon-splits-giant-cloud-co...

> Citrix [...] hospitals

My stomach just turned.

Yeah it's bad. But it's also why Microsoft can't really roll them over. They actually do something and get payed for it, as horrible as it is.

As someone who is VP of IT in healthcare, I can understand that sentiment. At least fewer people need access to nuclear secrets, while medical records are simultaneously highly confidential AND needed by many people. It's never dull. :D

Reply on news.ycombinator.com