181–190 of 195 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This isn't 2001. Most Microsoft shops in my area are now at least 25% Linux these days on Azure.
What does that have to do with their racketeering?
People confuse Steve Ballmer with present Microsoft. They don't do the patent wars anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I suspect that most of their code was probably version controlled in Git anyway, so it wouldn't take that much effort to simply upload it to Github. What really delays stuff is probably the approval process, which for some companies can be really slow.
I'd imagine most of their code was in TFS. However I'm sure they used a tool to move things over. None of these have the full history of the project
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How long do they have to pay for their past mistakes before they've done enough to placate people?
Long enough to earn trust. I still don't trust Sony after the RootKit fiasco, and it might be another decade before I do. Or Sprint after the IQ agent keylogger. There are simply too many other companies with similar products to ms, sony or sprint that have no public dishonesty on their record. I can just use someone else's product until they have been good corporate citizens long enough that I have forgotten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a quite decent improvement from the era when Or the era of "Linux is a cancer" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...
Well, to be fair, he was trying to refer to the fact that GPL is viral (turning other licenses into its own). That is a valid critique of GPL (it reduces developer freedom) and that is why it has been in steady decline compared to more liberal licenses (as a percent of FOSS licenses).
And it's an invaluable tool. For the indie dev that can't hire a team of lawyers copyleft can be a powerful legal strategy as relates to their IP. It has built entire communities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> limiting the developer's freedom (to close code down) Even with a more permissive license (MIT/BSD) the developer as a user never has the freedom to close down the original source code. Integrating that code into a proprietary offering does not close down the original code base. If there was only one copy of the code, then yes, integrating into proprietary software would close down that code. The original code can…
> Even with a more permissive license (MIT/BSD) the developer as a user You're trying to make it complex, but this is really simple. GPL maximises end user freedom. BSD/MIT maximises developer freedom. By conflating the two terms ("developer as a user") you are trying to make it seem like you can have it both ways at the same time. But obviously and rationally there's no way for that to be possible. When you as a use…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The GPL reduces developer freedom Does it?
Yes, it restricts you from integrating with proprietary software (and some others). Here is a breakdown of license compatibility: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility Note that more permissive licenses (MIT/BSD) allow more freedom for the developer.
Only an egomaniacal coddled baby with an exaggerated sense of self-importance would think that their shiy abandonware project is going to get 101 PR comments.
Wow, you are so out of touch with reality. Only an egomaniacal coddled baby with an exaggerated sense of self-importance would think that their shi y abandonware project is going to get 101 PR comments.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html
We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12511770 and marked it off-topic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Um, Microsoft has also been a steady producer of academic research papers. Just as an example: http://jeffhuang.com/best_paper_awards.html (Scroll to the bottom, and see that MS is #1, ahead of e.g. MIT, which is #3 on the list, and far ahead of Google which is #17 on the list)
Not to mention, they employ many stalwarts of CS, like Simon Peyton Jones and Leslie Lamport.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it restricts you from integrating with proprietary software (and some others). Here is a breakdown of license compatibility: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility Note that more permissive licenses (MIT/BSD) allow more freedom for the developer.
The GPL doesn't restrict integration with proprietary code. It requires any code you choose to integrate it with to be similarly licensed. That is the same choice you have every time you create code.