Hacker News Reader

> No we are not cool. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731 is not cool, still not cool. I won't repeat the horrific things that happened there, read it for yourself, but no, just saying "we are cool" about it goes a little too far.

I think you've missed the point. You can't blame a Japanese child for the sins of his grandfather. The same goes for a German child whose family has a Nazi past or an American whose ancestors slaughtered native American women and children like they were animals.

No I didn't miss it, it was just a bad original point. Microsoft is not a child, it is a little too cute of a metaphor. Microsoft is a bureaucratic organization. Just like Google and also governments. Most important, it is effectively the same entity. Japan is still Japan. US is still US. Google is still Google, and Microsoft still Microsoft.

Yes, nothing ever changes. What a sad world.

If you lived in Europe you'd see an obvious truth : people are blamed for what their grandparents did, if it's about WWII and nazis. Forget about joining the military, politics, judicial system or police. Well police is a special case. There's a few regions where you won't be able to enter the police if you're not a nazi (despite everything they still exist), but the vast majority the reverse is true. Anything reeking faintly of nazism, like a wrong last name, and you're locked out. It also definitely affects your job prospects in the private sector.

Yes I am aware of that, I lived in Europe for a long time.

The difference, and I pointed out, is between an individual that inherited a last name from another individual (their parent) and a large entity like a company or country.

Microsoft is still Microsoft, US is still US. Unless Microsoft was bought or acquired somehow and assimilated, it is still itself.

Because mind you, German government is still paying restitution back to its victims. US still prosecutes and kicks out those 90 year old concentration camp guards.

My point was that equating Microsoft to a child is a little too much. It was a bad analogy to start with.

In summary, I do not support discriminating again children based on their last name. That is not right. But I do support not forgetting what companies and countries did. Especially if they haven't made amends or taken steps to distance themselves and remediate the past wrongs.

He says, 'Microsoft is aware of perceptions' and then they go and join Oracle in their attempt at having API's copyrightable, seriously?

Overall I can just ignore Microsoft because they no longer impact me as a developer, but if they and Oracle manage to make API's copyrightable it will have a huge negative effect on software development, in particular interoperability, the fact that they are aiding Oracle in this crap shows me that they are not changing their tune at all.

> "So, true, there isn't as much reason to hate anymore. But there is a lot of reasons to not forget as well."

Hate is perhaps a strong word, but I'd say being acutely aware of whom you're dealing with is still in order.

Microsoft never ceased to be hostile. I can point to 3 specific things in recent memory to illustrate that:

- 2008: Corrupting a standardization process

- 2010, ongoing: extracting royalties from people who don't use their technology (Android royalties)

- 2012: Throwing a monkey wrench at Linux install fests (by more or less goading laptop manufacturers into this SecureBoot thing).

Here's hoping that Nadella is a more level-headed guy than Ballmer was, and this trend stops.

Google is not open-sourcing software core to their business. None of it. So your request to open-source Windows and pointing to Google as an example to follow is ridiculous at least.

> Google is not open-sourcing software core to their business. None of it. So your request to open-source Windows and pointing to Google as an example to follow is ridiculous at least.

Android's core is open source.

So MS would have no problem releasing their source to Bing ?

> Android's core is open source.

> So MS would have no problem releasing their source to Bing ?

What is the line from Android to Bing? Does google open source google? gmail?

Asking for open sourcing WinCE or NT kernel would be a valid point. Both are products that date from ~20 years ago so it's probably not gonna happen.

EDIT: also Android is based on Linux code. It would be illegal to distribute it without source

Android is based on the Linux kernel. User-land is not required to be open-source. Dalvik, Android's SDK, all user-land libraries, the whole of open-source Android is not required to be open-source. You may notice that the license is Apache 2.0, a license that's incompatible with GPL v.2 ;-)

> What is the line from Android to Bing? Does google open source google? gmail?

The line is that Bing is not core to Microsoft, but complementary, so why not open-source the technology behind it?

In fact, Bing is even less important for Microsoft, than Android is to Google, because Android for Google is their insurance that they'll stay relevant in this mobiles connected world. Without Android, Google would be at the mercy of the various walled gardens that popped into existence, a trend started by Apple ... quick question, can you set Google as your search provider on Windows Phone? Maybe you can, but I can't do it on my Nokia Lumia. There is no way to make that search button open Google and the option in IExplorer doesn't work.

Open-sourcing Bing would be great for everybody, including Microsoft, just like when Yahoo open-sourced Hadoop. Yet, they won't do it - because they are the same bastards, that's why.

> The line is that Bing is not core to Microsoft, but complementary, so why not open-source the technology behind it?

Fair enough. It is a server software, though. How much server software do companies usually opensource?

The point that Android as a whole doesn't have to be open source is true. But how much linux- (or other opensource) based software does MS distribute where it open sources only the needed parts? None, AFAIK. So none of its products are in a similar position. It does distribute sources with plenty of their proprietary software, though. Admittedly, for many it does it only because it has to to stay relevant. People want to fiddle with the sources of their web stack.

In short, yes, they are bastards, just as any other for profit company.

Oh and for the search you have to jail break WP7, in WP8 it is possible http://www.nokia.com/gb-en/support/faq/?action=singleTopic&t...

> the option in IExplorer doesn't work.

That's very odd, just tested on my lumia with Google set as default and it searched using google in IE. Not being able to set the search provider for the search button does annoy me a bit though.

It may be a bug on my phone, because the option is there.

> also Android is based on Linux code. It would be illegal to distribute it without source

*BSD systems are not based on Linux code. It wouldn't be illegal to not distribute it. It wasn't like Google was caught by surprised. Besides, they still do not have to open source anything running on top of it. But they did.

> What is the line from Android to Bing? Does google open source google? gmail?

Original claim -- Google is not open sourcing their core software. (Let's assume Android is not their core software). So Microsoft should have no problem open sourcing Bing.

Google uses Linux on the bulk of their machines and actively contributes to the Linux kernel.

I said core business. Don't know why is it so difficult to read the whole comment, it wasn't long. If Google wanted to, they could migrate to FreeBSD quite quickly and you would not notice too much.

Google's core products are: Plus, Hangouts, Chrome, Search, Docs, Mail, and all these products on Android. They're the same to Google as Windows is to Microsoft. Yes, Android is open source, the rest aren't. And what consumers call Android is not free/libre either. I have no problem with that, and I'm not criticizing Google, just saying, that companies very rarely open source their core business stuff.

Presumably those big online services expect to be run on top of Google's backends rather than my garden variety VPS, so what it would mean to package them for open source release isn't clear.

Chromium is open source (and Chrome is just Chromium tied into Google services).

Your point is valid though.