I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?
As a shareholder (which I’m not), it’s absolutely amazing.
As a human being though… it’s simple to look at the history of the company, from its inception based on nepotism and locking-down was hitherto the common good, to going from one place of monopoly (OS, app, cloud) to another (extending to whatever is trendy at the moment e.g XR with HoloLens, AI with OpenAI, etc).
It’s IMHO one of the very worst thing that could have happened to humanity in terms of cognitive empowerment. Apple is not far behind but in terms of locking up an entire ecosystem but Microsoft, sadly, is doing it better.
To clarify what I mean is that Microsoft is the business embodiment of learned helplessness. Most people would shrug at the quality of software they provide, the price, etc ONLY because they are convinced, wrongfully so, that they are is no legitimate alternative. If users were actually able to chose, not being coerced into but properly chose, by experiencing alternatives, the World would be totally different. Instead of having computer users who feel an adversarial relationship to their devices, we would have a much stronger relation of “this is MY device” the same way a lot (not all) of people have a repair toolbox at home. They know they can try to fix something in THEIR home, even improve it. Most people understand it won’t be easy, they might mess it up, but it’s possible to try. Not in software, and that’s entirely Microsoft “success”. Maybe in an alternative reality others, like Apple, would have made that happen to, but in our reality I blame Microsoft, Bill Gates upbringing from his legal mindset father and well connected mother.
We could have a world were users own their devices, have a challenging yet empowering relationship to technology, starting with software, and instead we have exploitative learning helplnessness. So yes, Microsoft is that bad.
Is this the circlejerk community of lemmy?
Yep. Come join in.
Average Reddit comment.
- Attempts to roast everyone in the thread and dreail the thread itself by attempting to be “funny”.
- Contributes nothing to the discussion.
- Is the reason why circle jerk threads begin at all.
You: 🤡
Yes
What is the point of your comment? The person asked what the Linux community thinks about Microsoft and you come with this idiotic CiRcLeJerk bs? You didn’t add anything to the thread.
I’ve learnt a bunch of horrible practices done by MS that I wasn’t aware of so thank you everybody else.
If you have been on lemmy for any amount of time, “Microsoft bad” is posted almost daily. I’m not disagreeing, yes they are bad. It’s super circle jerky to post a whole thread literally asking something that is posted in comments/other posts literally daily. It’s fine I just find it funny lol
Instance really
Undoubtedly
Yes. During the entire history of MSDOS, Windows and Internet Explorer, there are so many things you can pick why Microsoft is bad. Now they even integrate Recall into Windows. I want to say that I always disconnected Xbox from Microsoft; and I’m not entirely sure why.
The question of this post is a bit misleading, because it implies that someone could answer with “no”. Better question (in my opinion) is “How bad is Microsoft?”.
my favorite bit was how no one at microsoft actually understood their own licensing pricing. for decades, you could call microsoft for pricing and get different answer from people in cubicles next to each other or even from your own rep.
it was as if they were making it up as needed.
It used to be pretty bad, back when it was using all the dirty tricks it could invent to build its monopoly. By now though it’s just obsolete.
Obsolete? Hardly. The Surface, GamePass, Xbox, GitHub, Skype and just general market dominance says otherwise. They only lost their effective monopoly due to antitrust lawsuits.
Currently, there’s lots of better options out there, true, but it’s far from obsolete.
Is Skype still a thing? I thought it died soon after MS bought it!
It’s a phone service and business communications. I have to use it for work
Huh, didn’t realise they were still bothering to sell it
It’s Teams, now.
Ugh, Teams. I can’t believe Skype and MSN died for this!
Sure enough, it’s up there with Facebook and Saudi Aramco.
I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft
Basically two teams:
Pro microsoft, pro systemd, pro bsod, pro administrator, pro “security” (privsec.dev pro microsoft edge), pro ms office, pro wine, anti apple/mac, anti (a)gpl, pro .net, pro powershell, …
anti microsoft, anti windows culture, anti systemd, anti msedge, anti powershell & cmd, anti conio.h, anti bsd/mit/isc, anti company sponsorship …
Team 3: BSD: receive donation from every entities and work on their clean operating system; FreeBSD has been looked down by the anti-company anti-apple guys (laugh them!)
Expressed by Theo de Raadt (OpenBSD): “Linux people do what they do because they hate Microsoft. We do what we do because we love Unix.”
Please join team 3!
I don’t fit in an of these teams, and neither do literally all Linux users I know. Should we have identity crises, or could this be a giant oversimplification?
Congratulations for not being in any team!
I’ve written more clearly that you must be a writer to join team 1 or 2. Keep going on your project, and ignore those who are fanatical and like to meddle in other people’s affairs, like the guys who want a project to refuse donations and contributions from some specific or all company.
does it matter how bad it is? does it matter how much shit is in a shit sandwich?
I’m not having it however little there is.
There is a possibility of having 0.01% shit in the sandwitch from water used in it due to some leakage from a toilet tank. Would you not eat it?
Also yeah who known houseflys sit on shit and land on sandwitch at some point in time
Tap for spoiler
jk i agree with your point tho
weeell you kinda misrepresented the stated point, creating what’s commonly referred to as a strawman.
the subject isn’t a random sandwich that might or might not have contaminates in it; the subject is a shit sandwich. therefore it’s pointless to argue exactly how much shit is in a shit sandwich, as its essence and genesis preclude it from being considered nourishment.
now there’s copious propaganda out there convincing you it isn’t that bad, lotsa people do it, memba the sandwich from decades ago you loved… but we’re in the wrong community for that.
This thread teaches me that generally, most Linux people are looking at windows. Meanwhile Microsoft only thinks Windows is 16% of its business.
Basically, it seems, most Linux users do not think hard about Microsoft.
IIRC, Azure represents the largest slice of Microsoft’s revenue… And ironically, a fair chunk of that is run on Linux
You’re right. Both cloud services (like Microsoft 365 measured by licensing) and azure each individually are about double Windows. They together make over half of Microsoft’s earnings while Windows is like 16%. Then you’ve got games and linkedin and others filling up the smaller %.
Microsoft doesn’t need Windows, you can run your office 365 off Mac or Linux for all they care. Just host all your virtual workloads on azure regardless of OS if it’s not serverless, and they’re fine with taking that money.
Why did you link to the Microsoft website?
In case people didn’t know what company he was referring to. /s
I’m just hearing about them now. Do they make really tiny software or something?
Buggy and laggy. I work with it and its a daily pain for my soul and mental health.
I don’t think about Microsoft at all mostly. I supported their stuff professionally in the past and friends/family but otherwise total avoidance. They own some big game studios so I probably use some of their products like Minecraft but I haven’t used their operating systems or applications for decades and I dislike and distrust cloud services and theirs is no exception. All big companies tend to be the same. Try not to depend on any of them.
They coined the term Embrace, Extend, Extinguish and they haven’t stopped enforcing it. I haz not much faith on WSL and similar.
They tried to destroy linux and free/libre software, and when that didn’t work, they started cornering the market and pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.” They also support SaaS model, and have made it next to impossible to get a new computer without their mediocre OS. On top of that, their OS is full of spyware, and is starting to become adware too.
But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you do not own your own OS: you can run Microsoft’s OS, but you can’t modify it or share it.
Oh, and this falls more in the realm of personal preference, but the deliberate lack of customizability is a real pain in the ass.
4/10 OS, only slightly better at disguising its capitalist greed than Apple.
You left out that they refuse to let end users control updates on the system unless they resort to hacky bullshit (and even that doesn’t work consistently). As far as I know (and have experienced on Windows Server) this extends to enterprise as well.
pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.”
Can you explain more? Is that related to the clown gpl guys criticizing BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh on FreeBSD for letting Apple to do whatever I can’t remember?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc. This doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
It’s getting more and more common that, even in cases where code is open source, only part of the codebase is actually available. This is something that Microsoft (and other wealthy tech companies) loves to do to show that it’s “transparent.”
Thanks.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
GPL as an example.
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc
If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:
Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”
Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).
Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.
(A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.
How does it restrict modifying the software?
It requires any modifications to be under GPL.
And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.
And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.
How it harms the end user are described.
Did you mean
Is that related to the gpl advocates who criticize BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh at FreeBSD for letting Apple do something (I can’t remember what)?
I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly and not putting words in your mouth.
Afaik, BSD and MIT licenses qualify as Free Software licenses. I could be wrong; I am not a lawyer, nor am I Richard Stallman.
As for your first question:
Can you explain more?
@rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com did a good summary of the distinction, so I will expand on m$'s role:
By most Free Software advocates’ accounts, the rise of the term “Open Source” was a deliberate move to make proprietary software less of a bitter pill for us radical digital anarchists: “look, our code is Open and Transparent (but you still can’t reproduce or modify it, even if you buy a license).” At the same time, Open Source advocates argued that this was the “Shoe-In-The-Door” for Free Software into the corporate/capitalist landscape—it’s not, because it doesn’t actually advocate any of Free Software’s Four Essential Freedoms (Five, if you consider Copyleft to be essential, as I do).
So basically the corporate world took the concept of Free Software, which was starting to be a threat to their businesses, sanitized it of any actual freedom, and sold it back to devs and users as some kind of magnanimous gesture that they were letting us look (but not touch) the code they wrote. Open Source.
M$ has been essential in this shift. Perusing their github, they make it clear that they’re willing to toss projects onto the pile, but make sure as hell to keep the Freedom from infecting any of their larger, popular software (e.g. Office, Visual Studio, Windows). And in return, they get access to whatever code you host on their service, assuming they can interpret vague phrasing in their Privacy Policy loosely enough.
Thank you.
How bad are we that M$ still has 75% market share on operation systems and office suites?
The majority are simpletons which (also) love simple stuff. That’s why.
You mean had the education system teach them their tools specifically?
What’s your point? At one moment in history everybody would buy leaded fuel. That’s my strawmen reply to your strawmen.
