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

The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

techrepublic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 112 posts

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#91

Post by sinxoveretothex »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #76
pjc50 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think of the Steam work on this? IMO they're doing it as a means of keeping their options open against the day when Microsoft decides not to allow a third-party app store on Windows and cuts off their air supply.

That's definitely why they're doing it, and it's a good idea for a business to hedge it's bets this way. (Zynga would be sunk if Facebook ever blocked them, being dependent on one platform is a huge risk.) But the likelihood that Microsoft would ever fully disallow third party install on Windows is nonexistent.

> But the likelihood that Microsoft would ever fully disallow third party install on Windows is nonexistent.

Unless you can predict the future for as long as Microsoft exists, you can't say that.

I'm pretty sure that before the iPhone there were people saying Nokia was too big to fail, same for IBM before Windows probably.

I'm still on the fence about car companies. I sure have heard people very convincingly say that oil is a risk-free investment, that there never will be a time when oil isn't needed anymore. I have good reasons to disagree with that today.

Then again, Nokia still exists today, so I suppose a pedant could get technical about oil still filling a much diminished market in the future.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#92

Post by Delmania »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #87
Delmania wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, the whole GNU/Linux "debate" is nothing more than RMS's ideology getting in the way. Linux refers to a class of operating systems that are mostly POSIX compliant. The fact that the GNU project has implemented a lot of the tools used in most distribution does not mean is has the right to lay claim to the title anymore than the Apache Foundation or Python Software Foundation. Second, the GNU project will never g…

> The fact that the GNU project has implemented a lot of the tools used in most distribution does not mean is has the right to lay claim to the title anymore than the Apache Foundation or Python Software Foundation. GNU is a fully free Unix replacement---an operating system; it is more than a bunch of GNU software: https://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

This is where there is a division between the way the FSF presents itself, and the way the software is used. Without a kernel, the claims that GNU is a replacement for UNIX is disingenuous. GNU Hurd is not production ready. It is a series of tools, some of where adhere (mostly) to the POSIX standard, and some of which provide other functionality.

If we're going to start naming systems based on the tools, then I use a ZSH/MS/VIM/PSF/Linux distro. There are other providers than GNU.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#93

Post by Delmania »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #89
Delmania wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> many people support this distinction Really? Maybe I travel in the wrong circles, but most of the time this comes up most people just roll their eyes. Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works.

> Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works. These users do not value freedom. And that's their right, however much we disagree with it. It doesn't make those statements false, and doesn't change the situation. I wrote tha…

I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people.

The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter the claims, when the term free is applied to a product (or product class) like software, the immediate implication that the price is free. The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a product. Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

Telling people that Windows takes away their right to view and modify the source code will at best give lukewarm response, because most people have other concerns.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#94

Post by bryanrasmussen »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #33
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well the thing is - Microsoft isn't a person, it's a company - as a general rule it is reasonable to assume that companies don't do anything out of the goodness of their hearts, when you also have a good deal of bad behavior in the past ( and 20 years ago can be the recent past for a company) it might make sense to keep an increase sense of skepticism.

Twenty years ago isn't "recent history" for anything in the tech industry. People who were at Microsoft back when they were "really evil" in the 90s have since WORKED AT GOOGLE (or any number of other companies you might be a fan of), and even left Google, since then. Very few people who made decisions you may be holding over them today, actually work at Microsoft today. You can legitimately hold a decision against a…

I'm not a fan of any company. But a company is an amalgamation of its employees, and employees when they come in absorb the company culture ( that's why everyone says the culture is important) and that's why you don't change the company culture unless a significant number of high level employees all leave at once.

and my second point is - Steve Ballmer left in 2014.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#95

Post by swsieber »

_lce0 wrote: post #62
swsieber wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, the reason I like OS X over a random linux distribution is the sane keyboard shortcut defaults - CMD+C and CMD+V just work everywhere, as well as things like CMD+W. Well, almost everywhere. And CTRL+F is still a little wonky depending on the app you're in.

For me it's the other way. In Linux there's a clear separation of CTRL for sending messages to the app --ALT for commands-- and SUPER for messaging the OS. I found OSX very confusing trying to mix everything into a single key.

Oh, that's an insight I've never thought about. It never occurred to me that they had different purposes.

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#96

Post by hollerith »

pessimizer wrote: post #59
swsieber wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, the reason I like OS X over a random linux distribution is the sane keyboard shortcut defaults - CMD+C and CMD+V just work everywhere, as well as things like CMD+W. Well, almost everywhere. And CTRL+F is still a little wonky depending on the app you're in.

Where on Linux do Ctrl-c, v, and x not work? I haven't had a problem with them anywhere in a decade. I have largely stuck to Gnome2, MATE, and XFCE, though.

Ctrl-v doesn't work in lxterminal.

("Paste" is on the right-click menu though.)

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#97

Post by mikegerwitz »

Delmania wrote: post #93
mikegerwitz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also, that blog post is terrible, and highlights why the FSF fails so miserably at it's mission. Referring to Windows as "freedom-denying, user-controlling, surveillance system" ignores the fact that most people don't care because it works. These users do not value freedom. And that's their right, however much we disagree with it. It doesn't make those statements false, and doesn't change the situation. I wrote tha…

I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people. The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter t…

> I suspect those users do care about freedom.

I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear.

> The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people.

There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential.

> The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well because speech is not a product

I don't follow.

By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

> Also, Windows doesn't exactly stop me from doing questionable activities, like authoring documents that would be considered subversive.

You're not setting a very high bar there ;)

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#98

Post by mikegerwitz »

Delmania wrote: post #92
mikegerwitz wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that the GNU project has implemented a lot of the tools used in most distribution does not mean is has the right to lay claim to the title anymore than the Apache Foundation or Python Software Foundation. GNU is a fully free Unix replacement---an operating system; it is more than a bunch of GNU software: https://gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html

This is where there is a division between the way the FSF presents itself, and the way the software is used. Without a kernel, the claims that GNU is a replacement for UNIX is disingenuous. GNU Hurd is not production ready. It is a series of tools, some of where adhere (mostly) to the POSIX standard, and some of which provide other functionality. If we're going to start naming systems based on the tools, then I use a…

> Without a kernel, the claims that GNU is a replacement for UNIX is disingenuous.

GNU/Linux has a kernel---Linux. It forms a fully free operating system.

No free replacement for Unix existed until GNU provided one---that involves much more than just writing utilities. I encourage you to read about the history of the project to understand why:

Summary: https://gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

More detailed: https://gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#99

Post by badsock »

vblord wrote: post #55
dbgm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do I keep rolling my eyes everytime I go on hacker news? Microsoft providing more free tools in their suite is nothing but nice. It certainly won't do any harm to OSS.

I can't believe you don't see the evil. Open your eyes. Just because a company pays 400 million for Xamarin and then open sources the Xamarin SDKs for Android, iOS, and Mac shouldn't fool you. People everywhere... revolt! If you can't tell, I am being sarcastic. I love Microsoft. People just believe what they want to believe. I'm sure they will never change.

Sometimes it's a virtue to hold a grudge.

If people and companies are forgiven the instant they stop being abusive, then what's the disincentive to being abusive again? Microsoft did what they did because they had a monopoly position; they've changed now that they've lost it. There's absolutely nothing to say that they won't go right back to the way they were if they get a monopoly again.

If someone has been hitting you with a stick for years, and then all the sudden shows up with a big smile because they've lost their stick and they think you could help them get it back, what kind of fool would help them?

Re: The truth comes out: Microsoft needs Linux

#100

Post by rmsrmsrms »

mikegerwitz wrote: post #97
Delmania wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect those users do care about freedom. The issue is that most people view a computer as just a tool to do work, not a political statement. The concept of software freedom make little sense to most people, and for good reason. The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people. The other issue is the concept of "free software". No matter t…

> I suspect those users do care about freedom. I meant software freedom in this context; I should have been more clear. > The FSF would do well to focus less on the ideology, and more on providing a better user experience for non technical people. There are plenty of organizations that do that. The FSF exists for very specific reasons---ideology is essential. > The "free as in free speech" doesn't work too well becau…

> By "free as in free speech" we mean the same thing as when we say "free as in freedom".

If it's freedom, why does the GPL need copyright law?

Post reply on HN