I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?
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?!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Do you like having bullshit forced on you? Paying a $150 license to have ads in your operating system? Don't care at all about privacy? Then Windows is for you!
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.
Working there is apparently pretty nice. Microsoft on the inside is not Microsoft on the outside.
But regardless, terrible company with terrible products. Even if they didn't do anything shady, they still aren't great.
As a shareholder (which I'm not), it's absolutely amazing.
As a human being though... it's simple to look at the history of the company, from its inception based on nepotism and locking-down was hitherto the common good, to going from one place of monopoly (OS, app, cloud) to another (extending to whatever is trendy at the moment e.g XR with HoloLens, AI with OpenAI, etc).
It's IMHO one of the very worst thing that could have happened to humanity in terms of cognitive empowerment. Apple is not far behind but in terms of locking up an entire ecosystem but Microsoft, sadly, is doing it better.
To clarify what I mean is that Microsoft is the business embodiment of learned helplessness. Most people would shrug at the quality of software they provide, the price, etc ONLY because they are convinced, wrongfully so, that they are is no legitimate alternative. If users were actually able to chose, not being coerced into but properly chose, by experiencing alternatives, the World would be totally different. Instead of having computer users who feel an adversarial relationship to their devices, we would have a much stronger relation of "this is MY device" the same way a lot (not all) of people have a repair toolbox at home. They know they can try to fix something in THEIR home, even improve it. Most people understand it won't be easy, they might mess it up, but it's possible to try. Not in software, and that's entirely Microsoft "success". Maybe in an alternative reality others, like Apple, would have made that happen to, but in our reality I blame Microsoft, Bill Gates upbringing from his legal mindset father and well connected mother.
We could have a world were users own their devices, have a challenging yet empowering relationship to technology, starting with software, and instead we have exploitative learning helplnessness. So yes, Microsoft is that bad.
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.
does it matter how bad it is? does it matter how much shit is in a shit sandwich?
I'm not having it however little there is.
There is a possibility of having 0.01% shit in the sandwitch from water used in it due to some leakage from a toilet tank. Would you not eat it?
Also yeah who known houseflys sit on shit and land on sandwitch at some point in time
Tap for spoiler
jk i agree with your point tho
weeell you kinda misrepresented the stated point, creating what's commonly referred to as a strawman.
the subject isn't a random sandwich that might or might not have contaminates in it; the subject is a shit sandwich. therefore it's pointless to argue exactly how much shit is in a shit sandwich, as its essence and genesis preclude it from being considered nourishment.
now there's copious propaganda out there convincing you it isn't that bad, lotsa people do it, memba the sandwich from decades ago you loved... but we're in the wrong community for that.
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.
"Rinse and repeat"
Lets talk about THEIR carbon footprint while creating "equality" and new "bussiness opportunities"
There is a lot out there on why from a lot of sources, so definitely not hard to do research on this. Definitely research the history of this company regarding anti-competition, Bill Gate's letter to hobbyists regarding intellectual property and markets (which touches on the whole proprietary vs FOSS suff). You can also just use their products for a while and see for yourself, note what you like and what you don't like (for me the latter is more likely), and make your own judgement.
One pet peeve of mine is how in Windows 10 switching between virtual desktops was flawless, and somehow in Windows 11 they fucked it up. At first it had no animation when switching, the taskbar kind of glitches. Now it has an animation but it's kind of delayed and the taskbar still kind of glitches, it seems to reload or something. Kinda crazy honestly
