361–370 of 840 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the difference is between 'constructive' and 'destructive' for-profit companies.
Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies on the planet because it is destructive? What’s that even mean?
Meanwhile, they basically invented the "buy your competitor and tank their business" strategy. That's probably what this person is referring to.
Friendly reminder: this is the same Microsoft that "empowered" skype and once called open source a cancer. Its the same Microsoft that ruined open document standards and started the browser wars. I wouldnt be surprised to see next years release of "Github Pro Platinum with Minecraft 3D and Windows Store integration" For those looking to move, https://gitlab.com is an excellent open source alternative that can easily…
Also the company that was responsible for killing the Limux project[0]. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiMux
> Reasons cited were adoption and users being unhappy with the lack of software available for Linux.
> A report commissioned by Munich and undertaken by Accenture found the most important issues were organizational.
> In 2018, journalistic group Investigate Europe released a video documentary via German public television network ARD, wherein it is claimed that the majority of city workers were satisfied with the operating system, with council members insinuating that the reversal was a personally motivated decision by lord mayor Dieter Reiter.
> Reiter denied that he had initiated the reversal in gratitude for Microsoft moving its German headquarters from Unterschleißheim back to Munich.
It's not as clear-cut as you're painting it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is one of the most valuable companies on the planet because it is destructive? What’s that even mean?
There are two ways you create value for your employer: 1) creating value for their customers 2) maintaining the moat that prevents other people from creating value for their customers The former is constructive, the latter is destructive. They both contribute revenue. I haven’t done a full scale analysis of Microsoft, but the argument I would entertain is that Microsoft primarily sells tools for companies and individ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Corporations aren't people. If you change the leadership and change employee incentives, it might as well be a different company. Sure there's cultural inertia... but incentives trump culture every time.
It may sound like a harsh statement, but exactly because corporations are not like people, they seem to be harder to change, in my opinion. I'm not saying Microsoft can't change, but it's easy to forget that the main goal of any corporation is profit, specially when it's so big.
As soon as a company realizes it can make more $$$ with new strategy B than their original strategy A, then boom -- changed. (Sometimes you have to get rid of the old believers, but that already happened at Microsoft.)
If you look at MSFT's stock price, it's ~tripled since Satya became CEO, after being stagnant for years. He seems incredibly committed to open-source -- because in the long run it will ultimately be more profitable for Microsoft, no?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP gave you a very good reason why this is different than historical Microsoft EEE[0]: > Github doesn't have the vendor lock-in that other companies have There's not much about Github that can't be easily replaced; it uses git at its core. Comments, issues, and wikis are convenient, but relatively simple to implement. The main value in Github is the de facto community status it has, which it earned by being an open c…
It's not like anything about github is open source. Maybe that will change.
> And Microsoft is all-in on open source. We have been on a journey with open source, and today we are active in the open source ecosystem, we contribute to open source projects, and some of our most vibrant developer tools and frameworks are open source. When it comes to our commitment to open source, judge us by the actions we have taken in the recent past, our actions today, and in the future. It’s a fair point bu…
I can understand those concerns, but what can they do to convince you they have changed?
People keep mentioning how "Microsoft changed" due to VS Code, the Linux subsystem, .NET Core. I say that they are the same company, only with different cash cows. Haven't they spied on Windows 10 users? Do they not engage in patents racketeering? Haven't they killed Nokia and ruined Skype? " But Mom, some of the other companies are doing it too ", well yeah, but some of us don't have double standards, in spite of wh…
Microsoft hasn't changed at all. Here is one recent incident I read: https://twitter.com/jamiebuilds/status/1002696910266773505
Furthermore, I'd see Microsoft's reply:
> I'm not aware of any deliberate copying of the Lerna code, but let me dig into it now and call all the devs on the team to be sure. If there is, we should definitely give correct attribution, so I want to investigate. [...] I checked with the devs, and nobody's aware of any code coming from Lerna. If we inadvertently used something without credit, I really would like to know so that I can fix it.
I still see Microsoft's predictable behavior in 2018. I have a friend who owns a Surface, and I was thinking it would be useful to put Linux on it (it was older ARM hardware). Well you can't, it's a Surface RT and Microsoft not only locks the bootloader but it also only runs Microsoft approved apps. That's their endgame whenever possible. Apparently people didn't like having fully locked down computers and they disco…