- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- privacy@lemmy.ml
I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?
You must log in or # to comment.
Embrace, extend, extinguish
Came here to say this. They wrote the playbook that has spelled the end or at least shitification of so many standards, open-source or otherwise(but usually still free-to-use or at least cheap).
They also wrote the book on user-hostile everything
And set the bar super low for other tech companies
IIRC It’s on their Wikipedia
Microsoft is definitely the corpoest of them all.
Probably not the worst corpo, likely even, but out of the corpos, they are the most corpo corpo of any corpo.
- They own LinkedIn, and I could just stop this list here.
- They’re the founding fathers of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
- They are the vanguard of videogame studio consolidation, after buying Activision and Bethesda.
- AI
- Everything they do is soggy bread: you can eat it, it’s probably mostly healthy, I think, but if a product is not the minimum viable product then it will be; take the Halo franchise as a reference for blandness, Windows for end user tolerance - both are controversial yet functional and popular software that people complain (and do nothing) about. Halo took quite a hit in popularity, but still…
- Remember when a software company got in trouble for monopolistic practices? That was a thing that happened at some point, and it was Microsoft. Not that it will ever happen again, nowadays all the cool kids have some slice of the tech landscape on a chokehold.
Ok but look on the bright side of things! you get great futures with this big tech concentration and control of the market. For instance, who else doesn’t want a operating system hotkey to Linkedin, baked into their settings? How did I use a computer without that before?!
Worse than Apple?
Apple is highly restrictive on their OS and over priced. They are extremely pro consumerism with heavy marketing and engineered obsolescence to ensure you are always pressured to buy their new tech, and they are historically very strongly anti-right-to-repair.
Microsoft is bad. But at least they are primarily a software monopoly.
Apple is from the walled garden of Eden.
Fortunately I have a ladder
I’m not sure, at least the unrepairable mess made by Microsoft is software rather than hardware - you can reinstall a janky OS but you can’t unexplode a phone that disassembled itself when you sneezed in its general direction.
There’s no fine line between the two companies.
Edit: they continuously fucked up Halo in unexcusable ways, fuck them, they’re worse than Apple. Forgot about that.
Yes. Microsoft is the king of “good enough” software. DOS was good enough (and had a free C compiler!). Windows gets the job done 95% of the time when it’s not freezing up or needing rebooting. Office is okay - and nothing else is 100% compatible so you get a bonus of vendor lock-in. New features are few and far between, as are bug fixes for non-critical issues.
They tried to destroy linux and free/libre software, and when that didn’t work, they started cornering the market and pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.” They also support SaaS model, and have made it next to impossible to get a new computer without their mediocre OS. On top of that, their OS is full of spyware, and is starting to become adware too.
But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you do not own your own OS: you can run Microsoft’s OS, but you can’t modify it or share it.
Oh, and this falls more in the realm of personal preference, but the deliberate lack of customizability is a real pain in the ass.
4/10 OS, only slightly better at disguising its capitalist greed than Apple.
You left out that they refuse to let end users control updates on the system unless they resort to hacky bullshit (and even that doesn’t work consistently). As far as I know (and have experienced on Windows Server) this extends to enterprise as well.
pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.”
Can you explain more? Is that related to the clown gpl guys criticizing BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh on FreeBSD for letting Apple to do whatever I can’t remember?
deleted by creator
Thanks.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
GPL as an example.
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc
If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:
Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”
Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).
Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.
(A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.
How does it restrict modifying the software?
It requires any modifications to be under GPL.
And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.
And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.
How it harms the end user are described.
Did you mean
Is that related to the gpl advocates who criticize BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh at FreeBSD for letting Apple do something (I can’t remember what)?
I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly and not putting words in your mouth.
Afaik, BSD and MIT licenses qualify as Free Software licenses. I could be wrong; I am not a lawyer, nor am I Richard Stallman.
As for your first question:
Can you explain more?
@rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com did a good summary of the distinction, so I will expand on m$'s role:
By most Free Software advocates’ accounts, the rise of the term “Open Source” was a deliberate move to make proprietary software less of a bitter pill for us radical digital anarchists: “look, our code is Open and Transparent (but you still can’t reproduce or modify it, even if you buy a license).” At the same time, Open Source advocates argued that this was the “Shoe-In-The-Door” for Free Software into the corporate/capitalist landscape—it’s not, because it doesn’t actually advocate any of Free Software’s Four Essential Freedoms (Five, if you consider Copyleft to be essential, as I do).
So basically the corporate world took the concept of Free Software, which was starting to be a threat to their businesses, sanitized it of any actual freedom, and sold it back to devs and users as some kind of magnanimous gesture that they were letting us look (but not touch) the code they wrote. Open Source.
M$ has been essential in this shift. Perusing their github, they make it clear that they’re willing to toss projects onto the pile, but make sure as hell to keep the Freedom from infecting any of their larger, popular software (e.g. Office, Visual Studio, Windows). And in return, they get access to whatever code you host on their service, assuming they can interpret vague phrasing in their Privacy Policy loosely enough.
Thank you.
deleted by creator
You people are paying for Windows licenses?
deleted by creator
my favorite bit was how no one at microsoft actually understood their own licensing pricing. for decades, you could call microsoft for pricing and get different answer from people in cubicles next to each other or even from your own rep.
it was as if they were making it up as needed.
Microsoft has been building the O365 platform to lock out competitors and locking users into an ecosystem that is difficult to leave. They systematically eliminate competition and have pushed to create laws that make competition harder. In embrace extend extinguish, they are in phase 3, which is a massive red flag. They also started putting out spyware and malware into their software and have proven they can’t maintain security; making them a bad actor in a position of power. Scale is debatable, but Microsoft is undeniably evil in 2024.
A coworker recently sent me a Word document with edits and comments they had added. When I downloaded & opened it (in Word on Windows!) it told me that it had the edits/comments but it wouldn’t let me see them unless I log in to my Microsoft account and then view it online in the web version of Word. What the actual fuck?
Fuck that. I responded to my coworker and asked them to just send me the edits via email in plain text. I’m not winning popularity contests at work, but what the fuck Microsoft?
This ☝️
pretty much.
If you need a point for developers: all public code repositories hosted on GitHub are harvested, at least in 2021, and used to train copilot regardless of their license. Furthermore, GitHub is OWNED by Microsoft now.
Don’t forget they own npm too
Windows is the worst thing that ever happened to computer science.
And I don’t exaclly mean the product itself, but the mindset and habits that came with it.
The worst thing is, that Windows (and DOS) is the only main operating system that is not POSIX compatible, or Unix like. Besides not being open source…
As someone who primarily uses Unix-like systems and develops cross platform software, having windows as a weird outlier is probably best for the long term. Windows is weird and dumb but it forces us to consider platform differences more explicitly. In the future if a new operating system becomes popular, all the checks that were implemented for windows will make it a bit easier to port to newer systems.
Xbox controller is the worst thing to happen to emulation
I don’t agree.(Edit: Read the replies, he is actually right.)Using Xbox controller since 360, now the One and Series S controllers as my preferred gamepad for modern emulation systems (meaning I have a Snes like pad for older systems). I have no idea why you think that a Xbox controller is bad for emulation.
Oh they’re very good controllers! The problem is that they took Nintendo’s button names (ABXY) and transposed their positions. It’s utter chaos, and very hard for me at least to remember that A is B and B is A.
Playstation, by contrast, came up with entirely new button symbols, so it’s much less confusing that O -> A.
The APIs for gamepad interfacing are a total mess now, with some based on button names and some on position (south/east/west/north).
I’m from the 80s and totally understand what you mean. That’s a valid point, yes, its a total mess, especially for emulation where the button names collide. This was actually an “objectively” bad choice by Microsoft.
I agree with you, but Xbox just took the Dreamcast’s layout, which means SEGA is the original culprit
:O I had I idea!!
How so? It’s just a controller that is just the most standard for PC because Microsoft fully implemented the drivers in Windows.
See the other comment.
The problem is that they took Nintendo’s button names (ABXY) and transposed their positions. It’s utter chaos, and very hard for me at least to remember that A is B and B is A.
Almost every emulator lets you remap buttons on your controller. There is nothing that stops you from mapping the buttons based on position instead of what the face button says. There are also plenty of controllers you can use on PCs that have the Nintendo layout.
Yes, I know I can remap, but I’m just too stupid to be able to remember that the confirm/cancel buttons are swapped so I’m constantly messing that up. It’s especially a problem on the steam deck, which has Microsoft’s layout.
Somehow, when I’m holding an xbox controller, my brain just knows that the A button has to be the south button.
How bad is Microsoft?
Yes
Microsoft abuses their de facto monopoly to engage in gross invasion of their users’ privacy, and continues to try to wrest their users’ control of their system from them by altering system settings after updates, and making some settings nearly impossible to change. And that’s to say nothing of MS’s attempts to turn their operating system into and advertising platform.
Why did you link to the Microsoft website?
In case people didn’t know what company he was referring to. /s
I’m just hearing about them now. Do they make really tiny software or something?
How bad is Microsoft?
Bad enough to be stay away from
Microsoft is about as bad as any other proprietary software company. They do some good things for the open source economy, but they also mistreat their users.
I think it’s a mistake to look at the free software movement as being a reaction against Microsoft or Google. It’s against the proprietary software world in general.
Maybe I’m going crazy but I feel like I’ve been seeing this post or an identical one for many days, maybe even a week, yet the age is still one day.
Still, fuck MS and all.
First they tried to destroy FOSS, then they realized that they can make money and gain control using open source software, so now they pretend to support it. Microsoft is a monopolistic piece of garbage that I’m staying away from at all costs.
I don’t think they’re pretending. Open source software is a valuable resource for basically all major tech companies, and a lot of it is driven by major tech companies. Some kind of combination of open source and proprietary software will always be a thing for them. This isn’t some major contradiction, they use either model based on the specific needs of the project.
This is why some think “Open Source” is too permissive since they see it as free/cheap labor to be exploited by huge corporations.
I’m not sure that I see it that way, but I can see their point.
If as soon as it’s more profitable for it to not be they stop supporting it, then yes they were pretending.
It’s not as if they are holding themselves up as supporting Free Software philosophies (as opposed to Open Source), so where’s the pretense?
If somehow it ever makes strategic sense for them to stop making use of the open source model, yeah, they’ll stop. That doesn’t mean they were pretending.
Extinguish, fail, extend, embrace, extinguish again!
“Rinse and repeat”
Lets talk about THEIR carbon footprint while creating “equality” and new “bussiness opportunities”
They do this because we pay them to.
