I agree that it's not purely happenstance -- I think Microsoft the company is making a genuine bid to be relevant again.
It's a desperate bid, and I don't think it's in their DNA to succeed, but it'd be great if it happens. Personally I avoid using MS whenever possible; I still have to use Word and Excel to communicate with others, and some conferences still require a PPT file.
Even back when Microsoft was a big player I never found the Windows programming model technically appealing, but even if I had I would have stayed away because their anticompetitive approach was too risky and hostile for me to be willing to depend on. They became addicted to that instead of technical excellence, which is why I think this effort will fail, no matter how sincere the commitment is at the top.
But they do employ many smart people and surely it is good if we have more sources of good technology (where good is a combination of technical excellence & good policy). So why not encourage them in the hope they get their shit together?
I'm not so sure. I think their DNA is changing pretty rapidly these days. Office for iOS is better than Office for Windows RT. Windows Azure services are actually really good, with tons of documentation on how to use them across all platforms (iOS, Android, Javascript, Node.js, etc).
It feels as though the last few decades, every team has been beholden to the Windows/Office hegemony, whereas now teams have the direction to make a good product on their own terms. Without having to answer the question "how will this keep Windows/Office dominant", the massive amount of talent at Microsoft can finally start to shine, and I really think we're starting to see the genesis of that environment lately. It's too early to tell, but I'm pretty hopeful.
I'm a OS X / Linux person (my name's probably in your distro somewhere) and sometimes Microsoft does good stuff.
Yeah, the strawman that Microsoft can do no right is pretty easy to knock down, but has absolutely nothing to do with the context of this.
Again, a post on the second page (a ridiculous, extremely low quality post that had to be flagged off the front page) saw my benign comment get -11 within 60 seconds. I've never seen that before, much less for a completely moderate comment. I've seen this extremely pro-Microsoft moderation hit other threads hard, and it seems pretty obvious that it isn't by accident.
The part that 'nailer' is correcting is your statement that "There is absolutely and unequivocally either brigading Microsoft fans, or paid shills, hitting HN hard.". You accused him (and me, and others who voted up this story) of being either a "brigading Microsoft fan" or a "paid shill". Your comments are being downvoted because individual users think that they are rude and false, not because of an organized pro-Microsoft movement.
Sorry, but that's just false as far as I can tell. He cited those things as the reason for his other comment's moderation. Please quote the text from which you draw your conclusions of attribution.
engendered: Don't think it is purely happenstance. There is absolutely and unequivocally either brigading Microsoft fans, or paid shills, hitting HN hard.
My interpretation might be wrong, but I take jhou2's "positive press" to mean stories such as this one appearing on the front page. I interpret 'engendered' as saying that these stories would not appear on the front page if it were not for "brigading Microsoft fans" or "paid shills". Since the story is on the front page because of user upvote, and although there could be dispute about all vs most vs some, I read this to be accusing those who voted up the story as being one of these things.
In my read, he attributes the downvotes on his comments to the same faction, uses this as evidence that the faction exists, and thus can also be held responsible for elevating this and other Microsoft-positive stories to the front page. I think he's wrong, don't think the "brigading Microsoft fan" has much of an influence on HN, and doubt that Microsoft is paying anyone for getting things on the front page.
I'd happily consider evidence to the contrary, but I think the downvotes to engendered's comments are due to other factors, and that the pro-Microsoft stories are appearing more frequently on HN because they periodically act as a positive force. I don't know how prevalent my attitude is, but I find these stories interesting in a "Dog Bites Man" fashion. I am more likely to vote up a good deed done by Microsoft because I find it to be more noteworthy than a good deed done by others.
Thanks for that moment of intellectual honesty. The following two paragraphs strike me to be as much of a stretch as his theory.
I am more likely to vote up a good deed done by Microsoft because I find it to be more noteworthy than a good deed done by others.
Credit where credit is due is commendable.
In general any post that accuses other people of being a fanboy or a shill will attract rapid heavy downvotes, regardless of which company is criticised or which company is accused of shilling. This is probably a good thing.
There is plenty of anti-MS sentiment on HN that doesn't get downvoted.
And like sports teams, companies are constantly changing they are getting new employees and new management and new ideas. So the idea that any company is "good" or "bad" is unsupported on its face, all we can ever say is that "this action" or "this decision" was good or bad and criteria by which we have judged it.
Microsoft's decision to immediately cleanse this injector code as 'malware' was, in my opinion, a "good" decision. Based on the reasoning that it is better for the users and folks like my Dad who doesn't know how to get it off his system is helped by this.
Yelling "shill!" does nothing but decrease the site's SNR. It's not helpful in any way.
Of all the BigCos, MS seems the best to me right now, and I say that as a guy who's made a habit of buying a Lenovo laptop every year or so and immediately installing Linux on it.
I down-voted you for this and nothing else that further followed.
Because anyone that believes in a) absolute objective truth and b) that they posses that said truth, is a person that will generally be wrong in many ways on whatever follows (or at the least, if this was an out-of-the-character emotional response, it will lack the needed logic and reason based evidence to support the statement).
Also, starting out a discussion with kill terms that accuse and label anyone who does not agree with the given POV, is not cool.
But lately, things have changed. Apple is the new Google, loved by the tech world. Google is the new Microsoft, using their market power to do dumb stuff that no one really cares about, and Microsoft is the new Apple, the underdog who got left behind by changing technology and ego and is making a serious, determined effort to become and stay relevant, to put out good products, and to regain their position as a market leader (earned this time, and not strong-armed).
You can date many startups by first looking at their stack, and then checking when that stack was cool here.
2008 - So did you rewrite your PHP apps in Ruby?
2012 - So did you rewrite your Ruby apps in Node?
2015 - So did you rewrite your Node apps in Go?
"Benign?" You accused a dude of being a lying Microsoft shill because he said that a recent Android version ran slowly on his device.
This is simply not true, that comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9076549) included "HN has seen a HUGE influx of Microsoft shills, and it's getting disconcerting." You're also being inconsistent with whether the post was on the front page or the second.
Given that, I'm not inclined to believe that you actually got -11 in less than 60 seconds.
Has your check arrived this week?