And the talks done about the internal adoption,
And the author from C++/WinRT is now working on Rust/WinRT.
So lets wait a bit before going to the castle with the pitchforks and torches.
It almost makes me wonder how they/we can work around that sentiment now. Either hope for generational shift to eventually kill it, or perhaps have them make a point of landing projects outside of MS and hoping nobody notices(GitHub R++ or whatever).
Tips on how others approach these discussions with Microsoft haters greatly appreciated!
I try to be objective as much as possible, but having witnessed almost all of Microsoft’s behavior through history, we have been fooled 100s if not 1000s of times. How many times do you let the fox back into the hen house?
The only thing I think when I read recent “Microsoft is so great” comments is that the person is either too young to have any real knowledge, or they have simply not been paying attention for the past few decades.
For anyone who has seen what they have done through all of history, it will take decades to believe they have truly changed.
I don't think your opinion is objective at all. It's based on treating a collective as a single mind.
Microsoft didn't change out of charity or ethics. They were forced by the direction industry was heading as a whole. Cloud, opensource software, Google, AWS started making Microsoft irrelevant unless they changed.
The telemetry scandal which has been reported on everywhere proves that Microsoft just changed into another Google. They're still collecting telemetry today, in spite of all the protests. A few hours isn't a long time in our line of work...
Are you referring to this?
The telemetry in windows is ongoing so I’m just wondering if I missed something new
Not really trying to protect Microsoft here but them companies are all the same, just different degree of "success".
The argument is that if a language is developed/mainly contributed by a single company there is an inherent risk of that language being suddenly discountinued or lacking features that are needed by other people/companies.
At least that's how I understand the critics against microsoft in this case.
Funny how nobody seems to give pile on Google for how it handles Go here...
The OOXML Office format they used to continue pushing Office lock-in is very recent: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice_OOXML
They tried their best to keep the list of their Android patents secret, so that they could not be worked around, and they abused their patent on the FAT filesystem as recently as 2012: https://www.howtogeek.com/183766/why-microsoft-makes-5-to-15...
They also still lobby against open standards: https://www.computerweekly.com/blog/Public-Sector-IT/Microso... https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/may/22/microsoft...
And lets not forget all the spying in Windows 10.
MS is as hostile as ever - it's a fantastic success of propaganda to make people think it's limited to "decades old issues".
Windows 10 telemetry is a child's game compared how much Google and FB spy on people's lives, yet most MS haters just jump of joy to use any tech that comes out from them.
Legions of US parents just put their kids under Google surveillance getting them Chromebooks.
The OS is also theoretically able to watch what you do in other services by monitoring keystrokes etc, where Facebook merely dreams of such things
As for your question - Cloudfront springs to mind - they're pretty loud about going after patent trolls, which implies they might not use patents aggressively. I'm sure there are many others, but a company not using patents to extract payment isn't something you hear about, so it's hard to tell. That said, despite filing for many patents, I haven't heard of Facebook actually using them against others. Which isn't to say they haven't done so (and possibly, like MS, kept the agreement confidential), and of course Facebook is hardly ethical itself.
Another poster says Microsoft joined the Open Invention Network, so perhaps in that area, they've reformed. Though they could still be lobbying for patents, which does much more damage to user freedom.
"Microsoft is killing it. Revenue is up. Stock is up. Industry stature is up. The places where Microsoft finds itself thriving all have one thing in common: key made-men were pushed aside for better people."
The original argument was: "Microsoft still has the elements of its previous bad behaviour in its DNA." The counter claim was: "No one from Microsoft during that time is still in the company". The article clearly supports the first claim and shows the second claim is at its face false. I encourage everyone to read the article and not to take speculations and misleading quotes as support for false ideas.
The article demonstrates that Microsoft is a complex organization with both good and bad and is changing for the better even if it has a way to go.
Supporting the good and praising Microsoft for what they're doing well is going to make Microsoft better. Crapping on what they're doing well because of actions from 20 years is not rational or helpful.
That does not change the fact that Microsoft is a risk. Google is a risk since they have a habit of shutting down projects. Oracle is a risk due to their insane licensing and consulting fees. Open Source is a risk since the contributors can just decided to drop support. Everything has elements of risk. I guess I just won't back down from someone claiming there is no risk in Microsoft because all the bad people are gone. That is an absurd claim that also happens to be false.
As demonstrated, people working during the time periods he referenced are still working for Microsoft, contrary to this claim. This also addresses why someone should consider the risk of "decades old issues" when making decisions today.
From my perspective, the issue ultimately is - why? What do I gain from using Microsoft software?
I worked at a Microsoft shop for a short period. All of the 'new MS' stuff I've personally worked with has certainly been Windows first.
Take C#. It might work on Linux, sure, but you have stuff like the .NET runtime taking forever to start, the reliance on Visual Studio, .NET Framework isn't open source because.... why?
Or perhaps you have Microsoft Teams - for which, despite it effectively being a web app - there is no Linux client and in Firefox half the features are disabled. Even on Windows it's literally a shit version of Slack which presumably exists solely because it's bundled with other Microsoft stuff or because the name has appeal to some PHBs.
For the most part from what I can tell it's all still either Windows first, or a crap version of something else, or both. There might be some minor researchy fun bits, but anything that seems to actually see wide use is all Windows stack.
What's the point? I read the article, and it pretty much feels like they want to Windowsify Rust. Why should I care about that?
Literally everything I read about Microsoft seems to be from people who want an excuse to use Windows, or something. I want Windows to burn and die in a fire; so what is there for me?
OCaml cannot do that. I say this as someone who currently is finishing a year of F# study with plans to study Rust in 2020 and OCaml in 2021.