131–140 of 166 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
s/principal/principle/g If they stop people making money from it, it's not open source any more.
If properly licensed, it’s still open source. Free as in speech, not as in beer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because giving something more to the customer would not cost them anything. There used to be this belief that things are worth as much as the cost to produce them + some margin for the maker. And things were made so they will benefit their consumers. Unfortunately more and more companies these days look for ways to get not what something is worth but to get from consumers as much as possible, to squeeze them like lem…
> Because giving something more to the customer would not cost them anything. Even if that were true, so what? Some customers are willing to trade less features for less money. It doesn't matter that other features are present but disabled. Those customers got exactly what they paid for. They're not getting cheaped out on.
The second part sounds kinda like “They don’t know they got screwed, so it’s completely fine”.
Well this article doesn't seem very good. Not least because the author seems perfectly willing to not actually explain the detail, and then jump to conclusions. Having read the actual detailed article what seems to be happening is that some customers buy "on-premises licenses" without mobility rights, and MSFT used to let them use those licenses on outsourced hardware. But people were using those licenses to just put…
You seem to think simply re-stating the facts is enough to dismiss the article. But you forgot to tell us WHY it is acceptable for Microsoft to charge their customers a premium for using their fully purchased licenses on a cloud provider of their choice rather than dedicated physical hardware. And why it is ok for Microsoft to create an artificial monopoly for these licenses via Azure Dedicated Host. Microsoft sold l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it not ok to disable some features on a device and sell it cheaper? How is this anti-competitive? How is this customer-unfriendly?
Because giving something more to the customer would not cost them anything. There used to be this belief that things are worth as much as the cost to produce them + some margin for the maker. And things were made so they will benefit their consumers. Unfortunately more and more companies these days look for ways to get not what something is worth but to get from consumers as much as possible, to squeeze them like lem…
As to what something is worth, surely the cost of production is not the sole factor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does apply to existing customers as soon as they need to scale out. Well, unless they decide to pay down their tech debt and get out ASAP.
Maybe they shouldn't have used an on- premise lisence in the cloud in the first place
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If properly licensed, it’s still open source. Free as in speech, not as in beer.
According to most peoples definitions if you can't do what you please with it or make a derivative product and do what you please with THAT I cannot imagine why you believe its free as in speech anymore.
Well this article doesn't seem very good. Not least because the author seems perfectly willing to not actually explain the detail, and then jump to conclusions. Having read the actual detailed article what seems to be happening is that some customers buy "on-premises licenses" without mobility rights, and MSFT used to let them use those licenses on outsourced hardware. But people were using those licenses to just put…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I genuinely believe that Microsoft is at least making an effort to not be the 'Microsoft of old'. Also, them open-sourcing a lot of their tools seems to back that effort up: VSCode TypeScript .NET Core Powershell Core Just to name a few.
When you realize their objective is the commoditization of software and software development to further increase your dependence on their ecosystem (it's not just Windows anymore, it's Azure and the IDE and their other tools), it seems a lot less benevolent. No company worth their salt does anything for free, there's always a reason.
They really don't stand to gain much by open-sourcing their tools, though, besides developer goodwill, which is something that they sorely needed to remain competitive in today's market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If properly licensed, it’s still open source. Free as in speech, not as in beer.
According to most peoples definitions if you can't do what you please with it or make a derivative product and do what you please with THAT I cannot imagine why you believe its free as in speech anymore.