Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 584 posts

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#541

Post by tanzam75 »

geophile wrote: post #510
tanzam75 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I agree that google doc products are inferior to MS Office. (I find that Libre Office is good enough for me.) It's a funny argument to bring up though. Ignoring the cheaper, inferior alternative is exactly what led to Microsoft's dominance over IBM. But Microsoft is not ignoring Google Docs. The Office web apps are also free, have more features than Google Docs, and have better compatibility with Office files. Micr…

I have some kool-aid I'd like to sell you. Desktop versions are close irrelevant to this discussion. Office web apps are completely irrelevant, I think. I've never met anyone who has ever used them. 100% of people I know who use web apps use Google's.

No, thanks, I prefer to drink water. Sounds like you bought too much Kool-Aid. You must be tired of drinking it. I recommend that you return it to the store.

Office 365 (not 360) already generates over a billion dollars in annual revenues -- and that includes the desktop versions of Office. Even the consumer version of Office 365 Office has already sold about 2 million subscriptions.

And there are 50 million users of the Office web apps. If you don't know any of them, then perhaps you should think about whether your own experiences are skewed, and unrepresentative of what's actually happening out in the marketplace.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#542

Post by bduerst »

gress wrote: post #443
skalkin wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Without Bing, GOOG would pretty much print money and pour money on whatever futuristic projects they feel like. " You say it like Google's futuristic projects are bad things; if anything, we need more of them!

They are bad things if they empower an ever more powerful monopoly.

Nitpick: Not all monopolies are bad (utilities, transportation, etc.)

The term you're thinking of is conglomerate, because Google has at least one competitor in every one of it's markets, which isn't a monopoly.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#543

Post by gress »

bduerst wrote: post #542
gress wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are bad things if they empower an ever more powerful monopoly.

Nitpick: Not all monopolies are bad (utilities, transportation, etc.) The term you're thinking of is conglomerate, because Google has at least one competitor in every one of it's markets, which isn't a monopoly.

Nitpick: legally a monopoly doesn't require zero competitors.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#544

Post by hifier »

Touche wrote: post #509
jhh wrote: post #507

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because this would allow these millions of people to continue using this fork of XP rather than eventually buying a MS operating system.

But this is the attitude Microsoft needs to eliminate. The days of making money on operating systems is rapidly fading away. They already gave away Windows 8.1 as a free upgrade, so they're aware of it. An open source XP would get many hackers interested in Windows, something they desperately need.

Umm, I don't buy Apple computers for their backlit keyboards...

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#545

Post by fredgrott »

cookiecaper wrote: post #536
anoncow wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing idea. I am sure there is a way to charge for licenses for completely open source software. Will Satya do this? Can he do this?

It's pretty hard to do it with a conventional OSI certified license. Anyone can rebuild your product and resell it or give it away. Red Hat tried something similar but CentOS still existed. Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" by Stallman's definitions (ignoring here the people who've attempted to make these terms synonymous), which would allow people to change…

a FSF licensed product is not unsellable..RMS sold copies of GNU software for years to pay for his living expense

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#546

Post by amaks »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #465
adamcanady wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain?

Let's just say that comparing Windows to the linux kernel would be a mistake. Hosting the windows source would be a challenge for any source control system out there. Git / github is not exactly optimized for projects of that size.

Apparently you don't know what you're talking about. Source Depot at Microsoft (rebranded Perforce) can do it, while TFS cannot, therefore half of Microsoft stores its source code in TFS and half in SD. Git scales really well, at least well enough for the Linux kernel which is not much less than Windows kernel.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#547

Post by snambi »

fredgrott wrote: post #545
cookiecaper wrote: post #536

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's pretty hard to do it with a conventional OSI certified license. Anyone can rebuild your product and resell it or give it away. Red Hat tried something similar but CentOS still existed. Microsoft could come up with their own license that was "open source" but not "free software" by Stallman's definitions (ignoring here the people who've attempted to make these terms synonymous), which would allow people to change…

a FSF licensed product is not unsellable..RMS sold copies of GNU software for years to pay for his living expense

He still does. GO to one of his meetings in berkeley, he sells emacs, linux CDs. RMS is not against selling software. He just doesn't like restrictions that all. btw, who likes restrictions?

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#548

Post by marshray »

shmerl wrote: post #239
glhaynes wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never want to see a Microsoft monopoly over "desktop computing" (hah, what an aged term!) again, but I'd definitely like to see their talent get to assert itself further than it currently is able to. Microsoft started as a development tools company and they're still pretty damn good at it. I hope the next decade allows that group to flourish at the very least.

> Microsoft started as a development tools company and they're still pretty damn good at it. Why are they so behind in C++11 support in their tools then? I think they are falling behind in their tools advantages already. With emergence of OpenGL debugger from Valve that will only escalate (at least on the gaming scene).

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2013/12/02/c-11-14-co... C++11 support is getting mostly there now and some C++14 is starting to come on line.

Disclosure: Microsoft employee, but not in Visual Studio group.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#549

Post by hnisnotreddit »

heartbreak wrote: post #144
Udo wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I apologize if my comments seem belittling, I assure you they're not meant that way. In fact, condescension is the main impression I got from your first reply. At the same time I feel your tone has taken on a personal and aggressive quality that is not acceptable. I was merely trying to rectify what I thought was a miscommunication or maybe a misunderstanding of my original post. Now I see that's not likely to be pro…

You're writing like I did when I was ~15 and trying to sound smart. Did this whole thread accomplish anything?

it got you to post in it for no good reason.

Re: Satya Nadella – Microsoft's CEO

#550

Post by marshray »

amaks wrote: post #372
brianmcdonough wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Microsoft tried to create a closed system, but they were prevented by governments worried about them consolidating their power forever. Now, we are faced with two closed systems fighting for power, ios and android. Companies like facebook talk about their "mobile moment" the time when their presences on closed systems eclipsed their presence on an open system, the Internet. I long for a time when data flowed…

How can we be certain that a stronger, with a strong developer engagement, Microsoft will not start creating proprietary closed systems and protocols again, siloing open systems into a closed ones (by using its embrace and extend tactics)?

Disclosure: developer at Microsoft.

Microsoft is a big place. I predict we're going to continue to create and ship new stuff, and it will vary in all degrees of 'open'. But in my experience as a 3rd party outside developer, it's pretty rare that stronger engagement leads to things being more closed.

Post reply on HN