
Microsoft killed my Pappy - donniefitz2
http://www.hanselman.com/blog/MicrosoftKilledMyPappy.aspx
======
ephemeralgomi
There is a big difference between "We stopped being evil at some point" and
"we stopped being successful enough to pull off the evil shit that we really,
really wanted to do". The DRM[0] that Microsoft were trying to bundle with the
Xbox One just scant months ago is the same Microsoft I remember - and they
thought that they could pull it off because they were the market leader last
console generation. If Microsoft gets any headway with any other of their
products, I know exactly what they're going to use it for, whether good-
hearted programmers working there support it or not.

For me, it's really not a matter of hatred, I've gotten over it. It's just
straightforward ROI. I'd need a really compelling reason to consider Microsoft
technology, to offset the expected amount of integration pain, license
cajoling, oh-but-it-really-only-works-if-you're-using-a-full-MS-stack bait and
switchery that I've experienced in the past. There's more than enough
fantastic tech out there to keep me busy that doesn't have that baggage
attached. Sorry, guys.

[0][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_one#Initial_used_games_and...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox_one#Initial_used_games_and_Internet_verification_policies)

------
mik3y
This was a great point:

    
    
        That's 20 years ago.  And for bundling a browser
        in the operating system that couldn't be uninstalled
        or easily replaced? Sure, no operating systems do that
        in 2014. I wonder if I can swap out Chrome from Chrome
        OS or Mobile Safari in iOS. Point is, it's common now.
    

I lived through this time "hating" Microsoft for some of the stuff it was
doing then, and it's probably well past time to bury those hatchets.

But they still do rather icky things: Rockstar Bidco lawsuits and the
"Scroogled" campaign come to mind. I'm biased, but they've got to can it with
these things (and just innovate) until I'll look at them as a pleasant
company.

~~~
bluthru
Google and Apple actually update their browsers, though. I don't think there
would be as much concern if IE8 on XP automatically updated to IE11.

~~~
dragontamer
I'd like to see a PPC iMac update to Safari.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G5](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_G5)

I mean, dear god. WindowsXP is _OLDER_ than PowerPC iMacs. And people _expect_
Microsoft to support it for free? Where the hell is my iMac G5 support?

Oh yeah, thats right. Its in the trash. When Apple declared the PowerPC (or
was it Mortorola?) dead, and switched over to x86 Machines.

~~~
DrewRWx
Actually, Apple transitioned from Motorola 68k to PowerPC in the mid-90s and
the 2000s transition from PowerPC to x86 was their second successful
transition.

------
charleslmunger
When you stop shaking down your competitors with software patents, let me
know. Until then, your talk about openness is just talk. Extracting
settlements from android OEMs over FAT patents is contrary to all the values
you've mentioned in this post.

~~~
shanselman
I agree. I don't know anything about that part of the company, though. I work
on the web.

~~~
charleslmunger
Unfortunately, that part of the company is still part of your company. And
it's a big, visible part. Because of MS's transgressions in the past, you
don't get the benefit of the doubt from younger devs. Because you're still
behaving like jerks with patents, younger devs know that the company hasn't
changed.

Microsoft is still extracting software patent royalties from android OEMs this
very minute - that's not anyone's pappy, and it's not a vendor overreaching.
It's a calculated, evil decision by the highest levels of management.

~~~
IBM
No it really isn't. They need to pay for a license or not infringe on the
patents.

~~~
charleslmunger
You nearly had me, until I saw your username. Well played.

------
epistasis
Every time I have to suffer through the archaic UI of Word and enjoy late
1990s performance in the mid 2010s, I am reminded that my Pappy is still dead,
even though MS could have made amends. They haven't. And in addition to my
Pappy there's a whole other cast of characters that are dead, and they've
saddled the entire world with mediocre-to-bad computing experiences. No amends
for that either. Perhaps can't make amends, because they are themselves too
stuck in the past, unwilling to fix their ways or legacy programs.

The world of computing could have been and would be today a better place if
they hadn't dominated through business practices, but instead dominated with
products.

~~~
dragontamer
Yes. Microsoft Word killed your pappy. Best argument ever.

That is absolutely weak man. If you don't like Word, then don't use it. There
are plenty of alternatives. TeX, LaTeX, Abiword, Open Office, Wordpress...

I kid you not, I submitted _every single_ college paper manually typeset in
TeX / LaTeX document, created using Vim + Makefiles I hand crafted. Graphs
were generated in GnuPlot, maybe R if it were statistics related. Gnumeric was
my spreadsheets program, and occasionally I'd use Abiword for times when I
needed a more classic "double-spaced 500-word" homework assignment.

~~~
einhverfr
Exactly. I use LaTeX for almost everything that most people use Word or
Powerpoint for. Yes, with vim and makefiles. There is no matching my
productivity there in a word processor.

And I use Gnumeric (and assume you do too) because of the latex export
function.

If Microsoft wants my business back, having really good LaTeX export from
every MS Office program would be the place to start, along with native Linux
clients.

What? They won't do that?

~~~
dragontamer
I use Gnumeric because its one of the most reliable spreadsheet programs on
Linux. Its simply a high quality piece of work, and I've had no issues with
it.

MS Word however, will forever be incompatible with the notions of LaTeX. It
solves a different problem than LaTeX anyway. An export tool would be nice
though.

~~~
einhverfr
> It solves a different problem than LaTeX anyway.

There's a fair bit of overlap though. I know people who typeset books with
Word :-(

------
bad_user
He's not mentioning Microsoft's patents related attacks on Android, their
involvement in SCO's war on Linux, their refusal to implement web standards
that compete with their own homegrown solutions, or the Nokia partership that
basically killed Nokia.

I really like Hanselman and his blog and I even like some of the stuff
Microsoft has been doing, but this is a distasteful marketing piece.

And BTW, in society trust is a fragile thing and many people don't forget so
easily. Other companies should pay attention to this fact. Fool me once shame
on you and all that.

~~~
d0
This is plainly rubbish.

1\. Android patents is part of an all our war between all vendors. Everyone is
shitting on everyone's lawn. Apple, Google, Samsung are all just as bad. The
whole mobile market is lawyer driven.

2\. SCO is gone, dead. They went after Microsoft as well for Xenix. They
weren't involved other than to cheaply get them to go away.

3\. Web standards. There were no web standards. There are barely web standards
now and IE10/11 do a pretty good job with supporting them.

4\. Nokia yadda yadda. Nokia was dying and knew what was going to happen.
Nokia is a big company and handsets were a dead end for them so it made sense
to lose them cheaply to Microsoft. The Nokia board made a killing.

All companies are assholes but facts are facts.

~~~
bad_user
1\. Bullshit. Out of all companies you enumerated, Microsoft is the only leech
I'm seeing. Plus that's not a good enough excuse, because I couldn't give a
shit about how things work in a certain market as long as it has a negative
impact on me as a user or developer or on the industry as a whole.

2\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversie...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_controversies#Microsoft_funding_of_SCO_controversy)

3\. IExplorer 11 is lagging behind all other popular browsers:
[http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html](http://html5test.com/results/desktop.html)

4\. Nokia's fate was sealed the minute it signed that agreement with
Microsoft.

Did you know that Nokia N9, the last MeeGo/Maemo phone they released as a
limited edition, was a success with raving reviews? Do you realize that almost
everybody that has held a Nokia Lumia in their hand thinks that the models are
awesome, including the cheaper ones, too bad it isn't on Android? And besides
the phones it produced, Nokia was huge and as a result had amongst the best
distribution networks and brand recognition - it wasn't too late for them to
turn around, they could have been bigger than Samsung. But ALAS, that
Microsoft shill had to become their CEO - and Nokia's board I'm sure got
bonuses, but what about the shareholders? Not happy ...

[http://thenextweb.com/eu/2012/05/04/nokia-and-execs-hit-
with...](http://thenextweb.com/eu/2012/05/04/nokia-and-execs-hit-with-lawsuit-
alleging-fraud-over-meager-lumia-sales-failed-turnaround/#!wP5V6)

~~~
d0
1\. What negative impact? I assume you understand the purpose of patents. Also
the patents licensed for the fee are not disclosed. I had a windows touch
screen phone 5 years before the iPhone and way before Google even existed.
Microsoft was first out of the door there so it's understandable they want
patent revenue from prior inventions. I think that's perfectly fair. Just
because it costs your favourite company some money doesn't mean it isn't
right.

2\. Still bollocks. Caldera/SCO owned patents. Microsoft had Xenix and SFU out
in production and wanted to avoid litigation as well. This was a pay off. The
whole capital arrangement was similar to how most corporations bet on capital
funds for pay offs. Granted it looked bad on paper. I'd understand if you
listed the "get the facts" campaign which was nasty. SCO and their litigators
and the legal teams were the only bad actors here.

3\. They can't pump out browsers as quick as the other vendors. They're the
only browser vendor that can offer a support lifecycle and paid up support.
Google don't give a shit about support. Mozilla close anything that isn't easy
to fix. I can phone up MS and get a paid fix in under a week. Not only that,
most of these browsers are pushing broken shit out half the time and trying to
get one over on the competition.

The whole browser market is a complete mess.

4\. Typing this on a Nokia handset (Lumia 820). They have market
differentiation with Windows Phone. They have a reliable stable platform, no
fragmentation and a backer with more cash than you can imagine. Its sensible.
Shareholders and staff for screwed yes, but what do you expect from a
corporation. Just because they're a brand you trust, doesn't mean they aren't
populated by money grabbing assholes.

And Android is a royal mess. A fine example of fragmentation and a rave to the
bottom. Google have really poorly managed the platform resulting in a rotting
mess. We've shot 200 Android handsets from our company because they're
constant trouble (various including Nexus, HTC, Samsung). Over to iPhones and
WP8 devices.

I know the prevailing opinion amongst the tech culture is that Microsoft are a
bag of shite, but you need to look deeper. The whole industry is horrible.

At the end of the day, all I get from people is childish tribalism rather than
facts and a fair process. It's like Slashdot in 2001.

I'm sitting here with a Windows phone, a MacBook Pro, ssh'ed into a FreeBSD
machine with VS2013 running in parallels.

Please everyone just grow the fuck up.

~~~
Decade
1\. Software patents are a horribly harmful idea. The Federal Circuit Court of
Appeals should never have allowed them.

2\. WTF? Xenix and SFU were in no way central to Microsoft's business, and I
don't see how Microsoft arranging other banks to invest in SCO's scam had
anything to do with licensing. Besides, the SCO case was about copyright, not
patent, and Microsoft funds other companies to attack open source.

3\. Microsoft actually disbanded the IE team after IE 6. Nobody can develop
more slowly than not at all. I'm still not comfortable with modern IE, because
Microsoft is trying to standardize DRM.

4\. Fragmentation was never a problem for Nokia before, and Microsoft is still
on the hook for S40 dumbphones. It doesn't help to differentiate by
standardizing on an OS that (almost) nobody wants, or else Think Penguin would
have a huge market. Nokia was a horribly mismanaged company, but Microsoft was
not without fault for its rapid collapse.

Microsoft was never fair to us. It's still not a fair company.

Society works well when we have diversity. Most people "grow up" and become
jaded and don't change anything. But society depends on people keeping their
ideals and trying to change things for the better. One way is by reminding
people that what we have actually is pretty awful compared to what we could
have. So, it's instructive to remind people that Microsoft is still evil.

------
jmduke
This is a shockingly honest and open assessment of Microsoft's PR from someone
who actually works at the company. I think the underlying notion is spot-on,
and -- as someone who doesn't bear any particular ill will towards Microsoft
besides the travesty that is Excel for Mac -- its interesting to see the seeds
being sown of irrational Google hatred.

------
andrewflnr
Even if I concede all that, in the meantime, we've had the "Secure boot"
fiasco and some other things I don't remember distinctly. I just remember
constantly trying to fight the instinct to hate, to give MS the benefit of the
doubt, but I just can't do it.

When discussing past wrongs of an institution, the question to ask is not "how
long ago did they do it?" but "has the institution changed since?". In
Microsoft's case, the answer seems to me to be "not enough".

~~~
jongalloway2
In what way has the "secure boot fiasco" actually impacted you? I read a lot
about it a few years ago, but in my experience that was nothing but FUD.

~~~
dTal
Give it time.

So far the worst effect has "merely" been to introduce needless hassle and
obstacles when installing non-Microsoft operating systems [1]. Microsoft's
current hardware certification spec (that manufacturers tend to implement so
they can put "Certified for Windows 8" on the box) requires that the user be
able to switch off Secure Boot (generally taking the entirety of UEFI with it)
as long as they are not on an ARM system. They could change this at any point,
and unification of ARM and "PC" is a current trend at Microsoft of which the
move to Secure Boot on both platforms is already a part. Forgive me, but I'm
not ready to accept Microsoft having me by the balls just because they haven't
clenched their fist yet.

Secure Boot's purported threat model is a solution looking for a problem
("boot sector viruses" in 2014?). It doesn't really make much sense to make
the boot process entirely unmodifiable on the grounds that "malware might
modify it". Malware might modify anything else on your system too, and you are
pwned either way. So it's probably safe to assume Microsoft had a different
motive. I don't think it's wise to think of it as over-and-done-with.

[1]
[http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308](http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/9844.html?thread=328308)

------
rdtsc
> Do I hate Japan for World War II? [...] I said, "No, we're cool with Japan.
> We've done some good stuff together." And he was like, "Cool."

No we are not cool.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)
is not cool, still not cool. I won't repeat the horrific things that happened
there, read it for yourself, but no, just saying "we are cool" about it goes a
little too far.

> Is Microsoft circa 2014 worse than Google, Apple, or Facebook? We're not
> nearly as organized as we'd need to be to be as evil as you might think we
> are.

Microsoft has been, as most people perceive today, de-fanged. It was a scary
monopoly, it was pushing crappy APIs, not following standards, perverting
them. That legacy crap is still there. It is still maintained. Someone deals
with it. So it wasn't just about browser wars. Imagine perhaps Facebook
merging with Google so now everything you do online or anywhere on your
computer is controlled by one company. That was kind of how Microsoft was
viewed.

So, true, there isn't as much reason to hate anymore. But there is a lot of
reasons to not forget as well.

What does that mean in practical terms? It means I won't be jumping on or
using any Microsoft technologies if I have a choice. F# looks awesome, but
nope, I am not touching it. Maybe Visual Studio 2014 is going to be really
great, but I won't even try it. If it is tied with .net anything, not touching
it.

> Moreover, I think that Microsoft is very aware of perceptions and is
> actively trying to counter them by actually being open.

Too late. Open source Windows if you want to be open. Open source your browser
if you want to be open. Go back and fix your broken APIs and start following
standards. Google as much as many don't like it (and I am in that camp too,
when it comes to privacy), has to be commended for being open and contributing
to Open Source. So use Google as your example in that respect.

~~~
junto
> No we are not cool.
> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731)
> is not cool, still not cool. I won't repeat the horrific things that
> happened there, read it for yourself, but no, just saying "we are cool"
> about it goes a little too far.

I think you've missed the point. You can't blame a Japanese child for the sins
of his grandfather. The same goes for a German child whose family has a Nazi
past or an American whose ancestors slaughtered native American women and
children like they were animals.

~~~
rdtsc
No I didn't miss it, it was just a bad original point. Microsoft is not a
child, it is a little too cute of a metaphor. Microsoft is a bureaucratic
organization. Just like Google and also governments. Most important, it is
effectively the same entity. Japan is still Japan. US is still US. Google is
still Google, and Microsoft still Microsoft.

~~~
gtirloni
Yes, nothing ever changes. What a sad world.

------
chaostheory
Past behavior is a great predictor of the future, and winning back trust is
both hard and slow. This post would be more believable if MS isn't still
exhorting companies with their large patent portfolio.

Maybe Nadella can change the culture but I have my doubts.

Scott, actions are much louder than words.

EDIT: I'm not saying other companies are much better. However I think it's
more productive to have an internal company awareness campaign and mission of
"Don't be an asshole", instead of publicly whining about people who still
remember past misdeeds or current ones.

[http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-
opera...](http://www.zdnet.com/microsofts-most-profitable-mobile-operating-
system-android-7000015094/)

------
arjie
It's been a while since I've acted the angry young man, but it hasn't been all
that long since Microsoft found itself happily embroiled in controversies
regarding the OOXML ISO vote, notably the Sweden situation.

It isn't enough to fail at being evil. Trying to do so loses you points.

I'm ambivalent towards MS today. I'd like to see good stuff from them, but I
treat their stuff with caution.

~~~
camillomiller
Ambivalent is the keyword here. It has to be said, though, that Microsoft's
evil methods have usually been administered in foreign, often developing,
countries. [The telegraph's
article]([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-
crime/10260730/...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financial-
crime/10260730/Microsoft-faces-US-scrutiny-over-bribery-allegations.html))

I always thought that Windows kinda spoiled the digital culture of a
generation And therefore I always supported Linux for professional usage and
Apple for personal usage. But that's an opinion based on a range of products;
sticking a sentiment like hate to a company that makes tools you still can
decide to buy or not to buy, is always pretty stupid.

Unless they're Nestlé or Monsanto, of course.

------
Aoyagi
Ah, the great question of modern times: Should I more hate Microsoft or
Google? Personally I'll go with Microsoft, because contrary to what the blog
says, I feel that Google is far more open, though that still won't make me buy
and Android device. At least not without instantly "flashing" it with some
custom ROM that's stripped of as much Google things as possible. Would any
Windows version allow me to do this? Of course not, WP doesn't even allow me
to access the file system. As for Microsoft being aware of anything, it's
aware of sales and automated feedback. That's all. Considering Lumia 520 makes
up a third of all Windows Phone sales, I assume there will be a lot of cheap
phones in the future and little expensive innovation. Both companies are
effectively forcing things on people, so talking about "being open" is, in
general, out of the question. And with the "cloud and mobile foremost"
direction of Microsoft, I don't think I'll have to look for "new" reason to
hate Microsoft the same as or more than Google.

------
lignuist
> Is Microsoft circa 2014 worse than Google, Apple, or Facebook? We're not
> nearly as organized as we'd need to be to be as evil as you might think we
> are.

Microsoft is not any worse than the other companies. They are all at the same
terrible level.

But Microsoft became a bit better over the last years, I would say.

~~~
mercurial
I usually think of a business model whereby a company goes around and tells
others "pay me for patent X or I'll sue you" as extortion. And shockingly
enough, that's part of the modern, saintly Microsoft business model. Not to
mention the suspicious fast-tracking of the word document standard.

Another thing is trust. Why would you trust an organization which still had at
least a famous C-level executive which executed a number of business
strategies you have a problem with? Why would you trust an organization run by
Steve Ballmer? Now, maybe new management will turn Microsoft around, but it
has done enough dodgy things over the years that yes, it will have to "bend
over backwards" for a long time before I trust it again.

~~~
mercurial
I'll add that on the other hand, I have the utmost respect for Microsoft
Research, which keeps churning out amazing results. I just wish it was called
something else. I think I'd like the idea of a chartered research
establishment, like the BBC, with a secure amount of public EU money, focusing
on the future of computing, and not scrounging for grants.

------
rtfeldman
I can't speak for anyone else, but as a Web developer, I hate Microsoft
because of their current and recent handling of Internet Explorer -
specifically that it doesn't auto-update.

I love my job, but in my job, Internet Explorer 8-9 is pain. It's why we can't
have nice things. I checked out a Windows Phone in a store once, and thought
it was pretty sweet until I saw the IE logo and physically recoiled. There was
no way I was going to own something where I'd have to hit that logo every day
to browse the Internet.

That's not ancient history, that's present-day reality.

~~~
adamnemecek
> specifically that it doesn't auto-update

you might want to do a double check on that

~~~
shanselman
Ya, IE8 sucks but my Windows 7 machine auto-updated from IE9 to IE10 and just
updated to IE11 just last week.

------
dragontamer
[http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/c...](http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/community-
promise/covered-specifications/default.aspx)

In many ways, Microsoft's Open Specification Promise is quite a bit stronger
of a promise than most people might expect.

------
jadeddrag
For many of us, the Microsoft hate has been displaced with complete
indifference. I don't think there are more than two people in our 250+ mobile
engineering company who even think about microsoft. Even the gamers are moving
onto better platforms. For my ease of family IT matters, I've upgraded
everybody to Ubuntu. Sorry Microsoft, the war is over. You are now irrelevant.

------
raphinou
Ms has not changed a lot, the OOXML standardisation process showed this. And
putting the actions of 20 years ago in today s context is irrelevant as ms
doesn t have the power anymore it enjoyed at that time.

A lot of devs are also still pissed because of the countless hours , ie lost
evenings and nights, they had to spend to make their app compatible with IE.

This isnt a defense of apple or google btw, any market controlling company is
harming progress imo.

------
Mikeb85
It's true, Microsoft is quite different, but not different enough.

For entirely pragmatic reasons, I'd rather use Chrome, Linux, Android, Gmail,
Google search and Google Docs.

Typescript looks nice, I might use Babylon.js, and I still use Skype from time
to time, but I'll still never use Windows, IE, Hotmail, etc...

~~~
dragontamer
Linux, yes. Unfortunately, Android seems to be stepping away from "Linux"
proper and is becoming its own beast. (OpenBSD and FreeBSD are closer in form
and function than Debian Linux and Android).

Chrome? Gmail? Maybe. Google however is pushing far more than Microsoft has as
far as dropping my anonymity from Youtube, pushing me into their Google+
features and making me share sign-in information across Chrome sessions. I'd
say its a Tie between Microsoft / Google here, both want me in their cloud
services.

Although, Outlook.com works a hell of a lot better on Android than Gmail /
Google Calendar works on Windows8. So from a usability point of view, Google
is beginning to lose it in their anti-microsoft wars. I don't like getting
caught up in the middle of their politics. So that's my tiebreaker:
Microsoft's calendar platform is supported in more platforms than Google
Calendar.

Google Docs vs Microsoft Office? That one is easy. One of them runs on my
computer, and the other one is untrustworthy, in the cloud. Do I really trust
Google's servers over my own computer? Will Google protect the privacy of my
documents from prying eyes?

Nothing beats cold storage on my own computer, Microsoft Office gives me that.
Open Office vs Microsoft Office is another story of course... but Open Office
is pretty terrible IMO.

Open Office is pretty bad in my experience. Instead... its about Abiword and
Gnumeric. Unfortunately, there is no adequate replacement for OneNote and
Powerpoint, so I'll keep using those.

~~~
einhverfr
Am I alone in thinking that Android needs some real, community developed
competition that isn't primarily sponsored by an adware company?

~~~
vetinari
Yes, you are alone in that.

All android needs are sync adapters for your own mail/calendar/whatever
service running on your own hardware. There is no need to discard entire
platform just because you don't like Google cloud services.

Most people won't bother running their own servers though.

------
gonvaled
Microsoft killed (or at least delayed, so much that they are not yet here)
Linux laptops. I _am_ using a Linux laptop (no M$ tax), but it was not easy to
find. And it is not state of the art (HP 635).

Microsoft has forced me to continuously deal with my providers for sending me
invoices in a non-standard format (.doc). Because they fought, and are
fighting open standards for office documents (I am exclusively using open
office / libre office, but that is not a 100% working solution)

Microsoft is one of the biggest extorters using the patent system to tax us
all.

I would say that MS is still one of the biggest drags on the world economy:
not because their products do not increase productivity (they do!), but
because we could be in __much __better place if they wouldn 't have fought
open standards.

The damage done is not reversible in a generation: I would say that the
economic consequences are more lasting than the ones caused by both World
Wars, since those proprietary products have a huge lifespan and have full
world penetration, in all economic areas.

So no, I am not about to forget what they have done (and are doing).

------
greggman
I don't hate Microsoft for 20 year old reasons. I hate them for 2.5 year old
reasons

[http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-
microsoft-...](http://games.greggman.com/game/webgl-security-and-microsoft-
bullshit/)

I'm sure others can list more recent FUD and lies put out by Microsoft.

If in another 5-10 years there's no more incidents of that kind of stuff maybe
I'll like them again?

...

Actually I can't really say I hate them now. But I think it's important to
point out they are still a pretty shitty company in many ways. I hope they
stop that crap.

An x-coworker at my last job had previous worked at Microsoft. His parting
message to everyone was how happy he was that at this job the company always
tried to do the right thing whereas at his previous job at MS the company
always tried to see how much they could get away with.

Of course that's just one anecdote but if true I hope MS can change that
attitude to something positive and that we'll see the results for the next few
years.

~~~
com2kid
> I'm sure others can list more recent FUD and lies put out by Microsoft.

Really? I had a PC on which Firefox and certain WebGL content would hard crash
my machine thanks to what I resume are video card driver bugs. (Upgrading
video card drivers resolved that particular instance of that problem)

Given that, it is by no means unreasonable to assume that WebGL content might
be able to hit security holes in video card drivers. What that entails, who
knows. Presumably going right away and saying "sure, we'll just add a hole to
let people stream code directly from the web right into your video card"
sounded like a horrible idea.

And since IE is shipped with the OS, level component, it has to be supported
to customers for-bloody-ever. (Or so it seems at least!) So there is a higher
bar, and all of a sudden releasing patches isn't an "auto-update the world and
hopefully don't break anyone" sort of thing like it is with Chrome or Firefox,
but now it becomes a "well have to test this patch across an almost
unimaginable number of test scenarios and machine configs because we don't
want to break functionality that any one of our large customers rely on".

At that point, adding a new feature, which even sorta smells like it could
open up a whole new can of worms, becomes, for good reason, somewhat less
desirable!

(Disclaimer: I work for MS, but in a completely unrelated area, opinions are
my own, those of an overly paranoid-for-the-customers software engineer.)

~~~
greggman
And yet MS is now shipping WebGL so it seems like your point is moot. MS
doesn't believe the WebGL is insecure else they wouldn't have shipped it.

~~~
throwawaykf05
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282162)

Cmd-F WebGL

~~~
greggman
You do realize MS continued to bash WebGL long after the CORS issue was
resolved. The point is there's still reason to hate MS. They are still a bad
company that does arguably bad things.

I'm all for them switching to sweetness and light but the OP is suggesting
their evil ways were 20 years ago. They're not. Their evil ways are still
recent.

~~~
throwawaykf05
(Edited to add: I am not aware of any statements on WebGL from MS beyond that
blog post, but I don't follow those circles, so I'll accept your word that
they continued bashing it after CORS was introduced. However, people I'd trust
more than either Google or Microsoft employees, like Carmack and various
security researchers on HN like Daeken, agreed that WebGl is a security risk,
so I disagree that counts as bad behavior on MS's part.)

So why did Microsoft go ahead and include WebGL? Why, because they had to
respond to Google who did exactly the same thing that Microsoft was lambasted
for doing with IE: pushing proprietary, unsafe technology before it became
standardized and forcing other browsers to catch up. But since you work for
Google, I am sure you consider Google's actions to be perfectly not "evil"...

[http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-
fundamen...](http://www.extremetech.com/computing/87696-webgl-is-
fundamentally-flawed/2)

 _> But there’s more! Not only is WebGL inherently flawed, but Google — one of
WebGL’s strongest proponents — even knew about the DoS and cross-domain image
vulnerabilities months before they were thrust into the limelight by Context’s
report. Not deterred by these flaws in the WebGL spec or its implementation,
Google pushed ahead and turned on WebGL by default in February 2011, in Chrome
9.

> As terrifying as that is, we now have to wonder why Google rushed the
> deployment of a nascent, dangerous technology..._

Note that it was enabled before the v1 of the specification was even released.
But worse, when I follow the embedded links in the top para, why I do believe
they show that you ("you" as in not Google, "you" as in _you specifically_ )
were aware of these security flaws before anyone else reported it, and yet you
(as in Google) went ahead and enabled WebGL in Chrome by default. And then you
accuse Microsoft behaving badly! Really?!

 _> They are still a bad company that does arguably bad things_

I'd like examples of Microsoft "behaving badly", preferably:

1) stuff that isn't religious fanaticism;

2) stuff that isn't driven by vested interests that are not in everybody
else's interests;

3) and stuff that I haven't already covered in my linked comment
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282162](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7282162)).
I hope you do better than the other replies in that subthread.

~~~
greggman
Except for the CORS issue have you seen an exploit related to WebGL? As
detailed in my post it's unlikely there are any. In fact it's far more likely
there are bugs in JavaScript implementations or JPEG decoders or video
decoders or font renderers than WebGL.

As for the CORS issue, MS shipped CSS first and CSS had the same issue. Namely
that you could change the :visited property to something heavy and then
through timing divine a user's web history. Once that was discovered it was
fixed. I suspect it was similar to WebGL where someone was like

"hey, you know, it might be possible to use timing to figure out some stuff"

"yea, but that seems pretty unlikely"

a few months later someone shows a working timing attack.

"oh shit, let's fix that"

As for DOSing, as detailed in my post, we (or I) didn't see that as the same
level of important because there's no incentive to do it. Sure we worked on
fixing it (and that's why WebGL is now enabled by default on several Android
devices who's drivers can deal with the issue). But even on devices that can't
deal with the issue there's no incentive to DOS someone's machine because they
aren't going to visit your website a 2nd or 3rd time if you do that and you
weren't able to do accomplish anything else except to get them stop visiting
your website. Awesome. I'm going to go make a site right now that people
actively avoid visiting. Yea!

You also realize that Mozilla started the WebGL spec, not Google and that
Mozilla also released WebGL long before v1. Opera was also involved and MS was
welcome to join but never bothered. WebGL is not proprietary. Never has been.
So claiming Google is copying Microsoft by pushing proprietary standards is
pretty disingenuous.

Want some MS evil evidence? Just Bing it

[http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+fud+2013](http://www.bing.com/search?q=microsoft+fud+2013)

~~~
throwawaykf05
_> Except for the CORS issue have you seen an exploit related to WebGL? _

And as far as I can tell, that was the issue MS needed fixed before going
ahead with WebGL, but then again I haven't been following their actions in
this area. On the other hand, another Microsoft employee seemed to agree with
Mozilla and Google:
[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/webgl_/](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/20/webgl_/)

"And, frankly, if Microsoft has taken a formal position against WebGL, no one
I know got the memo.”

So maybe it was only the MS Security team being paranoid, as they are supposed
to be?

 _> As for the CORS issue, MS shipped CSS first and CSS had the same issue. _

Wouldn't that indicate that they have more reason to be wary of things like
this?

 _> You also realize that Mozilla started the WebGL spec, not Google and that
Mozilla also released WebGL long before v1. Opera was also involved and MS was
welcome to join but never bothered. WebGL is not proprietary. Never has been.
So claiming Google is copying Microsoft by pushing proprietary standards is
pretty disingenuous._

Mozilla doesn't have clean hands in this either. It may not be proprietary,
but releasing an implementation with known vulnerabilities? Enabling something
widely used connected to the Internet without sufficient hardening is exactly
what MS did with Win95/WinXP/ActiveX, and it created a decade of malware-
infested Internet. They also got widely excoriated for that. I wouldn't blame
them for being cautious going forward.

 _> Want some MS evil evidence? Just Bing it_

So negative advertising is "evil"? I knew F/OSS folks thought MS's publicity
against their religion was "evil", because, well it offends their personal
beliefs... but so is negative advertising against your employer? Sorry, but
Google engages in a lot of that itself, it's just that people in this echo
chamber uncritically accept it as fact because it confirms their biases.

~~~
greggman
A company that has objections to a spec discusses those objections with
others. A company that is trying to spread FUD hires a 3rd party company to
dig up dirt.

Microsoft did the latter.

I'm sorry you can't see it but Microsoft was clearly not showing concern for
WebGL's security. As pointed out before, if they had they would have also have
brought up Silverlight and Flash 11, which both provide the same features as
WebGL.

------
MaysonL
Dismissing Microsoft's anti-competetive practices and culture as "bundling a
browser in the operating system" is more than somewhat disingenuous.

------
motters
Unlike perhaps a decade ago I don't really care about Microsoft today. They're
irrelevant to my life, and I don't use any of their software. If anyone
recommended using a proprietary Microsoft system I'd respect their choice but
strongly advise against it.

You might say that stuff that happened a decade ago is done and gone, but the
thing to really consider is whether the people running Microsoft has changed
significantly and whether their overall approach/philosophy has changed. I
think the answer to that is not much.

~~~
jongalloway2
90% of them have retired or been fired, just like at any tech company after 10
years.

------
jamesaguilar
In which someone doesn't understand the difference between doing a thing when
you do have a monopoly, and doing it when you don't. I say this as a pretty
heavy windows user, but chrome on chromeos and safari on iOS are simply not
comparable to ie on windows in the early-mid 2000s.

~~~
dragontamer
Ahem. You mean Opera and Netscape Communicator were not comparable to IE5 and
IE6.

Microsoft IE stagnated at that point, as Netscape morphed into Mozilla
Communicator, and then was rewritten into Mozilla Firefox. But IE reigned
supreme only after it defeated Netscape Communicator (which was supported by
the internet monopoly AOL)

~~~
jamesaguilar
No, I meant what I said. What are you talking about?

------
pjscott
Nope! Being a hatchet-burier weakens my current hatchets.

I'm still boycotting GoDaddy, for example, even though I forgot why.
Presumably I had a good reason. And when I've forgotten why I was mad at the
companies who wrong me today, I'll still avoid them. This is an incentive for
them to be nice _now_ instead of later.

------
Oletros
Yap, Fairsearch actions tells a lot about how Microsoft has changed, amicus
brief in support of API copyrightability tells a lot about how Microsoft has
changed

------
nhebb
> I said, find a new reason to hate Microsoft.

OK. I'm pissed that they dropped the deployment tools from Visual Studio. [1]

People keep saying that the desktop is dying, but PC makers still managed to
sell over 300M units last year. But if the desktop market ever does truly die,
I think Microsoft can be said to have had a part in that.

[1] I'm not actually pissed. I moved on to WiX, but since you asked I felt
pressured to come up with something.

~~~
jongalloway2
Which development tools?

~~~
nhebb
They dropped the setup project ( _deployment_ ). If they had dropped the
development tools from VS, I'm not not sure what would be left. [edited
(twice) for clarity]

~~~
jongalloway2
Sorry, misread. Which deployment tools are you missing?

~~~
junto
Setup deployment projects went wayward in VS2012. The 3rd party incumbent
company suggested by MS is charging for an underwhelming product as an
alternative replacement.

------
wyager
Google, Apple etc. make sweet products and contribute a lot of FOSS tech back
to the community. I'm not a fan of MS products, and they contribute back very
little.

------
ig1
Microsoft on putting a backdoor on encryption in Hotmail/Outlook.com: "When we
upgrade or update products we aren't absolved from the need to comply with
existing or future lawful demands."

[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-
nsa-c...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/11/microsoft-nsa-
collaboration-user-data)

------
dhoulb
I don't _hate_ Microsoft. But I don't exactly _like_ them either.

They've made some pretty piss poor decisions over the last 10 years that have
had some huge impacts. IE6 was bad, but I can forgive their ignorance on that
— no-one knew any better at the time.

What I can't forgive is IE8, and the years since then that they've CONTINUED
to make major-versioned browsers. If IE6 was a one off problem, it'd be fine.
But with IE7, IE8, IE9, IE10, IE11, and new ones being released all the time,
it just seems like MS don't realise it's a problem. No-one should be making
browsers that don't silently auto-update at least once a month. It's
physically harmful to the web ecosystem.

I don't care how good IE11 is now, whether they've caught up or not, I care
about them putting a system in place that ensures everyone always has the
latest web technology. Don't tell me it's not possible. Google and Mozilla
have had it sussed for years now. (Apple could do with sorting themselves out
on this too. Could also see them go in this direction since Blink split off.)

I can't help but think the version numbers are political? Some group in
Microsoft trying to prove its worth by making a big deal about version numbers
every year? "Look how much we care about the web, look at our new shiny
browser. It goes to 11..."

The web would be way further ahead if Microsoft had stopped making browsers
years ago. Millions of hours are wasted every year testing websites in dead
browsers. Microsoft created this situation, and they've still not adequately
addressed it.

Put your latest browser on everything you've ever made, stop calling out the
major version numbers, release every month or so. That's how you'll get people
to like you.

------
ZeroGravitas
New rule: if you don't even understand what the Microsoft antitrust case was
about, you're not allowed to tell us that it wasn't a big deal.

Doubly so if you work for Microsoft who are currently making similar arguments
against Google in Europe.

Nevermind Microsoft, I'm barely three paragraphs in and I'm forming a strong
dislike of the writer due to his breezy dismissive style.

------
calanya
Microsoft's approach to Web development is not in favor of openness, despite
of all of Scott's efforts. They are still pushing the closed, proprietary
Silverlight over HTML5.

~~~
clemensv
The Silverlight developer community has been up in arms for 2+ years claiming
the exact opposite, i.e. that they got completely abandoned in favor of HTML5.
Part of that is motivated exactly by the Windows OS group having been pushing
HTML5+JS as the primary programming model for apps much harder than they have
pushed XAML/WPF/Silverlight ever since Windows 8's new app model got first
presented. In server/cloud it's all about HTML5/JS and open standards to the
point that Azure Mobile Services only now (yesterday, actually) added .NET
support after being exclusively Javascript/Node.js only for well over a year.
Recent (<18 months) evidence of Microsoft pushing SL over HTML5 would be
greatly appreciated.

------
gojomo
Some of the animus is also related to regional/cultural tribalisms.

It's the free-wheeling multifaceted Bay Area – or more generally California –
against a monolithic empire to the North, whose offerings are most popular
among the crass bean-counters of the East.

Even those far away from these regions can be swept up in the same thematic
framing.

------
troels
It's not about right or wrong. It's about trust. And MS burned that in the
nineties. It would take a tremendous effort to rebuild it.

------
throwawaykf05
expected, a post about irrational hatred generates even more irrational
hatred. But that's what you get when open source is your religion of choice.
Since HN does not let me comment too frequently, I'll just address these
points in a single post:

1\. "Open source Bing/Windows": Yes, please, give away the things that took
thousands of engineers and billions of dollars and decades to build. Look, I
like open source and use entirely open source stuff at my day job and hobby
projects, and even have open sourced my piddly crap that nobody uses on
Github... but nobody is entitled to somebody else's work for free. And damning
somebody else for not espousing _your_ beliefs is simply being a religious
fanatic.

2\. "Antitrust/Monopoly": They were dinged by the US and the EU for
essentially trying to turn their OS into a browser while having an OS desktop
monopoly. They were trying to be ChromeOS before Google even existed. They
were accused of leveraging their monopoly to enter another market but, as is
obvious now, is that the desktop and browser market were one and the same. And
then people insist that they "missed the web"! And after almost being
dismantled by the US government for going that route, people are angry that
they let IE stagnate!

3\. "Android patent trolling" \- They have an impressive patent portfolio
(well, by the standards of most patents out there) and have every right to
monetize it, which is how things typically happen in all industries. And as an
early incumbent in mobile OSs, they did do a lot of work that modern
smartphones still use, so it's not like Android isn't standing on the
shoulders of WinMobile in addition to iOS.

4\. "API copyrightability": It's not so much that Microsoft and Oracle are
right on this, it's Google that's wrong. Google's arguments as to why why APIs
should not be copyrightable, taken to their logical conclusion, mean _no code
ever_ can be copyrightable. My take is they would be found copyrightable, but
Google may probably prevail on fair use.

5\. "Scroogled": It's based on surveys that shows people are not aware that
gmail scans their email contents, and when told of this, most of them
disapprove. And if the surveys don't convince you, the class action "wiretap"
lawsuits recently filed against Google are a clear indication that there are
those who don't like this. It's perfectly fine to make consumers aware of
their product choices, especially if it's also in your business interests.

6\. "WebGL": There were _actual_ security holes (DOS was just one hole -- the
screencap exploit was much worse), and what Microsoft had said then was "WebGL
_in its current form_ is not safe". However, as the standard was redesigned to
address such issues ([http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/why-
micr...](http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/why-microsoft-
decided-to-put-webgl-into-internet-explorer-1167110), search for "CORS"), MS
has gone ahead and included it in IE 11.

~~~
Oletros
Not sure if serious or just a copy paste from a Microsoft PR.

~~~
throwawaykf05
Allow me to rebut your arguments point-by-point:

~~~
Oletros
Yap, more less those are all of your arguments, FUD and lies

