Open Ballot: Is it time to start trusting Microsoft?
Few people reading this site will claim to be supporters of the Redmond behemoth, but arguably, Microsoft has changed in recent years. The poor reception of Windows Vista, the advancement of Linux in the server space, and the birth of Android and iOS have made Microsoft vulnerable. In many areas, they're the underdog now. And then we have the news that a Microsoft coder made the most changes to Linux 3.0, albeit primarily to support the company's Hyper-V virtualisation interface.
So as we roll up our sleeves for the next podcast, we want your opinions: can we start trusting Microsoft more? Has the company changed - is it competing more fairly than in the past? Or is the Redmond giant's heart still the same, and we should be cautious more than ever of embrace, extend and extinguish? Let us know if the comments below, and we'll read out the best in our podcast. Even if you happen to be Steve Ballmer.
You should follow us on Identi.ca or Twitter
Copyright 2012 Future Publishing Limited (company
registered number 2008885), a company registered
in England and Wales whose registered office is at
Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, BA1 2BW, UK
Your comments
No way!
kaaposc (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 11:16am
Remember, pigs still don't fly.
welcome contributions, but not trust
mcnalu - July 19, 2011 @ 11:21am
MS are a big corporation with a weakening desktop monopoly and shareholders to please. Hopefully they are now seeing that working with linux and other FOSS projects brings them a competitive advantage and helps them improve and gain adoption of their own products.
That's what is going on here and I think it's a good thing but no, I wouldn't trust microsoft. I'm sure the "stamp out linux" feeling still exists in some parts of the company.
Also, I think this contribution isn't as significant technically as has been suggested in most blogs.
Never...
Tobi - July 19, 2011 @ 11:22am
...and I don't mean that as a populist MS-Bashing. Microsoft is a big company that has the duty to further the shareholders' interests. If it is in their interest, they will support open source software, if not, they will let the hellhounds of their legal department loose on us because we dare to use patented methods like "starting an application by clicking on it" in Linux...
This is the same for other companies as well, and at the moment MS surely appears nicer than Apple or Oracle, but that could always change. And we should also not forget that MS is huge - while some engineers might enjoy playing with Linux in HyperV, there will be other departments that still believe in Ballmer's cancer analogy.
Many Headed Hydra
felimwhiteley - July 19, 2011 @ 11:26am
Having been to a few FLOSS/Tech events (LugRadio, OggCamp, GTUG.. etc.) I am always slightly irritated by how nice the MS people are... in a good way of course! They are always eloquent, friendly and happy to use company money to sponsor the beers etc.
We may disagree on certain areas but generally we are all techie folk who get along. The problem is MS the corporate entity with share holders, on a whim, can decide it's more cost effective to sue a particular FLOSS project out of the water.
The folk at MS, engineers etc. may be great, Mono seems to get on well with them as does the Samba team, but look at the Android tax. It's a company. The only thing it cares about is making money, so there can't really be trust in a situation like that no matter how nice certain teams are inside of it.
Nope
mfraser - July 19, 2011 @ 11:30am
Under no circumstances should we start trusting them, they are still trying to use their patent portfolio to extract money from companies making Android phones.
No where near yet
dazfuller - July 19, 2011 @ 11:33am
Microsoft have spent 10 years (there abouts) calling Linux a cancer, "dispelling" the Linux myth, embracing extending and extinguishing. So they've done a few good things recently, the way I see it, they've got about 10 years worth of good intention to give before we can start trusting them!
Remember, they ain't in it for the love
but of course
$$$$$$ (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 11:36am
One can always trust M$ to do what they think is best for their pockets. Just don't believe that they love you for your good looks, because if you do you will get your face smashed...
...shivers...
Nope, not yet
nEJC - July 19, 2011 @ 11:39am
A few good deeds doesn't show that company mentality has changed. I may reconsider the trust when they start using true GNU-type free source licenses in their "open source" projects and really start publishing open specifications to their products.
I don't think this will happen, so the answer will probably stay at NO ...
Android
Gavin (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 11:48am
As soon as Android started consuming the market, MS had their dogs out, sniffing around the code and looking for possible IP violations. Now their goons are seeking "protection money" from handset manufacturers using Android on their phones, not unlike a two-bit crime boss.
MS may be sniffing around Linux, but it is to further their own closed-source virtualisation products and no doubt to build a list of IP violations to strengthen their protection racket.
Do I trust MS? Not as far as I could throw Steve Ballmer.
trust microsoft ?
reup (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 12:03pm
wharfff wharfff wharfff !
cool, I needed a good laugh today ! thank you Tuxradar
No
nai - July 19, 2011 @ 12:37pm
I see no reason to trust any big corporation. But that doesn't mean I wont use their stuff when it is the best alternative to me at the given time. I don't trust Google to not give out my data, but I still use it. I don't trust Facebook(and apps) not to sell my data, but I use them. I don't trust Linux to get big enough to have high spec games ported to it, but I use it.
Never!
M$FT-$UCK$ (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 12:54pm
The word VACUUM and m$ft should be spelled the same way,
because they both SUCK!
Forgot to add
nai - July 19, 2011 @ 1:04pm
And as for the "They are only doing it for their own selfish reasons". So f'ing what? In case you haven't noticed everything done in open source is done with a selfish motive. Without them we would hardly see as much progress that has happened in the last 20 years.
Are people really so delusional that they think a company like Redhat patches something for the love of it? I promise you not even Linus himself patches something he doesn't use.
So if everyone only patches programs they use themselves, and only patch because something doesn't work to their liking how is it not selfish(don't get me wrong it is still a good thing)? So for the love of all that is holy pleas get of you're high horse and realize that everything that drives the world forward is the selfishness of someone who thinks something isn't good enough as it is.
You could argue that people involved in things like the Red cross or Save the Children do things just for helping people in need. You would still of course be wrong as nothing would ever happen if it didn't give the donor/volunteer that good feeling that they did something to better the world in the end of the day.
They can be trusted.... Sort of.
Vredfreak (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 1:17pm
Microsoft can be trusted to do one thing: whatever it takes to make money. For years they accomplished it by simply exercising its monopoly on the desktop space. There are too many avenues open for this to work anymore, so they have to find new strategies, mainly patent trolling and the appearance of integration and cooperation with competitors.
Its a mater of democracy not trust.
Ali Sarchami (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 1:46pm
In a society, those who have power if they try to make it exclusive it leads to dictatorship. This is the case of companies like Microsoft an Apple.
These companies are powerful and wealthy and they want to remain that way.
I don't Like Microsoft but some of its products are great. This is the area that Microsoft or other should focus on. They should try to win the users not destroy the competition.
Until They do something about their corporate mentality, They cannot be trusted.
Being are weak an miserable doesn't make them trust worthy.
A fable
Thameslink (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 1:54pm
The Scorpion and the Frog
A scorpion and a frog meet on the bank of a stream and the scorpion asks the frog to carry him across on its back. The frog asks, "How do I know you won't sting me?" The scorpion says, "Because if I do, I will die too."
The frog is satisfied, and they set out, but in midstream, the scorpion stings the frog. The frog feels the onset of paralysis and starts to sink, knowing they both will drown, but has just enough time to gasp "Why?"
Replies the scorpion: "Its my nature..."
The problem is not the company (sort of), it's the model
Aitor Pazos (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 1:55pm
The model of having a big monopoly is evil by itself. Every company that reaches that position doesn't deserve our trust. No company with over some thousand employees deserve no trust from our side for one simple reason: They won't trust you. They will limit your rights because they won't trust that you won't use their product in the way they meant to.
And if you are thinking in Google... I think we should be careful with them, I give them credit for being a friendly company until now, but from my point of view is that there hasn't been a real conflict between their business model and their users interests (apart from privacy concerns on GMail, Streetview, etc.). We'll see what happens then...
Who or What is Microsoft Now
Holzster (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 2:11pm
We all know the comments the Steve Ballmer has made, that is no secret. But what has he said lately that has been really bad? Yes he will "dog" Linux a little from time to time, as a CEO that is part of his job. Microsoft has NOT gone after Mono like all the Mono bashers said they would. They even put stuff in the Kernel last year (or was it the year before). Yes they put it in the Kernel for there benefit but is that not why we put stuff in the Kernel for our benefit?
I think we should all do as the old saying goes - forgive Microsoft but NEVER forget.
And no I do not use Windows or Mac.
Trust Microsoft? Not likely.
Ed Vim (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 2:16pm
There's very little cumulative evidence Microsoft has 'changed' in any significant way. Big business only focuses on monetary gain, with consumers being fodder for its own self interests. Microsoft is one of the alpha dogs when it comes to that kind of corporate ethic. Putting any trust in Microsoft is going down a dangerous path.
Depends on who you talk to
Dragonbite (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 2:19pm
The people that actually work on Microsoft technology are more likely to see the benefits and advantages of open source whether or not they agree with it. Chances are, they re not hostile (it is, after all, just technology and technology is good).
The managers are likely more opinionated and less likely to be swayed by anything they either don't understand, or feels is "against them". They are usually the biggest drinkers of kool-aid in a company (in part because they have more benefits and more to loose if they DON'T support the company).
Managers also have more influence to push their Philosophical beliefs (coupled with kool-aid drinking can be not a pretty site, but is just what the company wants).
The top level echelon (executive) partakes of the kool-aid on a regular basis ("Give me a double! On the rocks!!"). So I guess the higher up the ranks, the more is consumed. It's not necessarily a bad thing because who wants a top level executive becoming more focused on what some other company is doing to the point of if he/she doesn't get their way they immediately jump ship!?
Executives usually focus on the Philosophy of Business (what makes a return, positions itself in the market, counters competitors, raises stock prices (& options ;) ), etc.).
-> Microsoft, the company, is in it to make money. Nothing wrong with that. I'd rather invest in a company making money.
-> Executives have to lead the company towards this goal.
-> Managers have to do the dirty work for the Executives but has more time for their own agendas.
-> The Grunts do the work of Managers, but usually are the ones who actually LIKE technology (let alone understand it). Ultimately, though, they only have partial say to the direction and openness of the product.
no
spangwich (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 2:27pm
Microsoft's ideology is diametrically opposed to that embodied in the Free Software movement. One is about owning, controlling and profiteering from doing so, and the other is about sharing, collaborating and (using the word carefully) 'democratising'.
Regardless of current practises these two approaches have different and, to a great extent, mutually exclusive reasons for existing.
Its not that simple
Anonymous Ponguin (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 2:36pm
As many have pointed out, Microsoft is a big company. It is not really a single entity. Some parts will be more friendly than others. I don't think we need to trust them. We accept things they give and thank them for it. We praise them when they do good. We criticise the negative things they are still doing (Like collecting taxes on Android phones)...
They haven't got it.....
zingyyellow - July 19, 2011 @ 2:37pm
They don't get that people want good software yet, look we don't need another office yet until there's something new in it! don't release windows whatever until it's usable etc...
don't even think they're gonna jump to a Red Hat mentality almost overnight, it's just not going to happen...
...trusting them.... yeah as much as i would trust my 4 year old with a brush of gloss red in my living room.
they just don't understand and i can't see they ever will.
they're the dinosaur that doesn't understand the meteor just hit.
Trusting the cowards?
Doctor Mindwiped (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 3:39pm
I don't think so... they're not brave enough to go after Apple and their iOS... they're not brave enough to go after the MAKERS of Android, namely Google.
But they're sure brave enough to go after those making handsets that can run Android.
With a bit of hardware poking and code-sniffing, you can make Android run on an iPhone. Will MicroSoft send their lawyers against Apple then, for making an "Android compatible" handset?
For some reason I don't think so. And for some reason, I thus think the "Android tax" is illegal, and is only put into motion because the hardware manufacturers are too scared to refuse.
On the top of me head, I can't rememberis MS is going after Research in Motion (RIM, who makes the Blackberry phones), but I'm sure they're thinking about it if they don't already.
This alone, makes me think that I'ld rather trust a Taipan snake. At least you KNOW the taipan will lounge, and you KNOW it's deadly poisonous. But MS? No way.
Hahahahaha!
Huw - July 19, 2011 @ 3:50pm
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
MS to make more money off of Linux
SKF-ScotLAD (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 3:55pm
Microsoft's main goal is to make money. I don't think they can be trusted, they'll only do what profits them. They already make $15 per Android device.
RE Trusting the cowards?
Gavin (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 3:55pm
To add to Doctor Mindwiped's post, they're taking the same tactic that patent troll Lodsys is taking - going after the "little guy" rather than taking on the mother ship. With Lodsys it was the app developers, with MS it's the handset makers. Scumbags.
i trust them to act in there nature (unlike redhat/canonical/..)
passstab (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 4:11pm
Me, I'm dishonest. And a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're gonna do something incredibly stupid.
-jack sparrow
Some change is not enough change
avion - July 19, 2011 @ 4:48pm
Hell no! You're not supposed to let the donkey eat teh carrot.
I'd rather...
marines (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 5:03pm
...stop trusting Linux than start trusting MS. :P
WTF?
completely stunned (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 5:38pm
Is it April 1 already? Or has TuxRadar been hacked?
@completely stunned
Anonymous Penguin - July 19, 2011 @ 5:46pm
Hacked! By Microsoft.. The B*st*rds their even editing swear words out look.
Microsoft has a consistent history of NOT being trust-worthy
devnullbrain (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 6:00pm
Uhm TuxRadar, Microsoft has changed in recent years??? I find that incredibly hard to accept. Examples such as Vista's poor adoption or the prevalence of Linux in the server space are hardly a basis indicating MS is all that vulnerable. MS still dominates the consumer computer market and maintains a firm grip on the corporate tech infrastructure. The fact is, there are still billions and billions of dollars pouring into the accounting department at Redmond every year. Sales of Windows and MS Office continue on and on, the per unit licensing on Active Directory charges alone rivals most third-world nations' GDP. And while all this is going on, MS still continues it's under-the-table patent trolling and FUD propagation. I find any kind of pity-poor-Microsoft talk to be quite misleading.
GNU/Linux/Windows
Sultan_of_Swing - July 19, 2011 @ 6:24pm
I'd like to see Microsoft produce a GNU/Linux-based distro and release it under the GPL. If it's any good, then I think they deserve my attention, but trust is earned, not given or bought.
Given the various problems with Windows (viruses, defragged hard-drives) and the good stuff too (decent hardware drivers, games etc), maybe a version of Windows based on GNU/Linux base would be an interesting fusion.
The Enemy of my Enemy
Nick the American Penguin (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 6:35pm
Microsoft's recent retreat from attacking Linux is a direct result of their concern over Apple's break-neck growing pace. As an ally of freedom and choice, I would take Microsoft's heavy-handed monopolistic tactics over Apple's downright authoritarian rule any day of the week. Microsoft shouldn't be trusted to keep any interest but their own, but in this rare case our interests align in the form of a mutual anxiety over Apple, and whenever Microsoft manages to hurt Apple we should consider it a win for us as well.
Just asking the question suggests No
John (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 6:51pm
When people are trusted, the question doesn't have to be asked. I don't rule out a time when the behaviour of MS as a company may earn them trust but I don't see it happening in this decade, perhaps in the next if they have consistently demonstrated they can be trusted.
hmmm...trust Microsoft....hmmmm....
Ugly_spud (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 7:34pm
No.
If you want me to elaborate further, I say **** 'em
Trust Microsoft??
Honeypuck (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 7:57pm
I think you can trust no one, especially not a company like Microsoft (the same holds true for Facebook, Dropbox, Skype, Google, Apple, etc.) They screwed up in the past (and merrily continue at doing just that), so there is no reason to hope for any improvement. BTW: that guy's contribution to the kernel wasn't so disinterested after all, it improved interaction between the Linux kernel and Microsoft's own proprietary virtualization solution. That makes perfect business sense to me, doesn't it?
You didn't take cash to ask this did you?
GrillJack (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 9:12pm
I'm going to assume because you guys are Brits that your question here shows lack of understanding of this uniquely American crime syndicate we call Microsoft--and not outright bribery.
Besides their aggravating, broken products consuming the productivity of billions, Microsoft profit goes to supporting worldwide eugenics campaigns through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
So either wake the hell up or I guess take your meds and keep asking stupid questions.
Don't trust them but don't
Anonymous Penguin1 (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 9:15pm
Don't trust them but don't mindlessly bash them in every way possible.
Tread carefully
BrisPete - July 19, 2011 @ 10:04pm
The question is not really whether Microsoft can be trusted so much as whether Microsoft can be worked with.
It is true that Microsoft still dominates the desktop (and the laptop for that matter). However, the future is probably be going to be more about the smart phone and the tablet where Microsoft trails significantly.
If Microsoft are going to be genuine big players in the future they are going to have to work with Linux (the kernel, Android, Google Chrome OS, perhaps other distros too).
Things are going to be very different. Trust? Probably not. Work with? Certainly.
In one word...
Seetee - July 19, 2011 @ 10:36pm
No.
NO No No No No NOOOO!
Anonymous Duncan (not verified) - July 19, 2011 @ 11:18pm
I still haven't forgiven them for sending the trojan horse that is Stephen Elop to kill Meego!!!! ARGHHHH!!!
Trust is such a strong word...
spiffytech (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 3:39am
I don't think trust is warranted, in the same way we trust RedHat or Google to generally act in the community's best interests.
However, as more of the original Microsoft execs cycle out and get replaced by young blood, I think we'll increasingly see Microsoft acting like the Free Software community would like.
When you say Microsoft, you mean Klingons
haakin - July 20, 2011 @ 7:54am
Hi,
When I try to answer this question I feel like Kirk in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. During the events of the movie, the Klingons seemed to be changing, they stopped being enemies of the United Federation of Planets and started to be allies. But if you asked Captain Kirk, he would answer you that the only good Klingon is the dead Klingon. Too many years fighting klingons to accept easily that they are trustable.
I feel the same about Microsoft. The part of my brain that is Picard tells me that we have to hope the best, but the Kirk in me shouts "No way!".
Javier
Watch yer backs...
Untrusting Penguin (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 10:04am
Trust is earned, not bought with a few lines of code.
The bigger Linux gets the more companies the Micro$oft cartel will lean on for there extortion money.
I believe any business with
-Dave- - July 20, 2011 @ 12:19pm
I believe any business with as much power and influence as Microsoft has, can NOT be trusted. Skynet from Terminator? VIKI from I, Robot? I think I've made my point!
And I agree with Javier!
-Dave- - July 20, 2011 @ 12:21pm
And I agree with Javier!
There are benefits
Metasansana (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 2:07pm
The popular opinion here is pretty obvious, I personally would never trust M$ however the Linux platform has so much to benefit from M$ interest (and also lose). Think of all the hardware/software vendors that currently only support M$/Apple. If M$ invested more in Linux we might get more corporate contributions to projects like WINE etc.
However trusting someone != leaving yourself wide open to them. You can trust M$ to do certain things like kernel updates but not managing the entire project (They may steal it).
However I must say if I EVER see a M$ Office Linux edition I might die....
What is the matter with you
Vinicius Rezende (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 4:16pm
What is the matter with you people? they JUST took 20 years to make a "stable" O.S. and 15 years to make an acceptable browser.
Absolutely not
Larry Cafiero (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 5:02pm
Until Microsoft opens their code, there's no reason to trust them as far as Steve Ballmer can throw a chair.
Infantile...
Exasperated Penguin (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 6:12pm
This talk of 'trusting' Microsoft is so infantile.
It's not you mate who's asking you to lend him 20 quid. It's a for profit proprietary software company who's interests diverge radically from free software almost all of the time.
The only thing we should 'trust' it to do is to grab as much as the market as it can.
To quote Ronald Reagan-- Trust but Verify
Insightful Penguin (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 8:15pm
1. Gates and Ballmer still own a controling interest of MS voting stock. In other words all Gates and Ballmer have to do is snap their fingers and every open source advocate at MS is out. So the question is really "Is it time to trust G&B?" Is it?
2. For a long time the corporate culture at MS has been to utterly destroy abtny competition, even by violating the law. Corporate cultures are highly entrenched, but at MS they are really entrenched. Just ask Ray Ozzie.
3. Logitech, Stack, Lotus, Novell were companies that at one point said "it's time to trust MS". How did it work out for them? Those who say trust MS meet Ben Franklin's criteria for insanity: "Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result."
4. What part of "embrace" don't you understand?
5. Recent MS patent lawsuits against and the Nokia deal show exactly how much MS can be trusted.
6. The reason that MS has been one of the biggest contributors is that it's original code sucked and was not being integrated into the mainline kernel. MS has been submitting code patches like crazy to fix this problem. Aside from the question of accepting code that isn't written up to snuff in the first place, unlike other patchs which benefit users of the submitted package but also other users,this only benefits only MS users. MS shouldn't be faulted for donating code that onlyu benefits their users, but it shouldn't be credited either.
7. The recent version of MS we have seen is one that is under close scrutiny by the DoJ and US Courts. As scrutiny diminshes ( which it will as the consent decree expires ), you can't expect MS to be more well behaved.
Whatever overtures to Linux MS makes whould be welcomed, but treated the same way that the lion who sleeps with the lamb is. That is to say the lamb should always have one eye open and be ready to run at a moments notice.
NO. It is not time to start trusting Microsoft.
Anonymous Penguin - July 20, 2011 @ 10:54pm
Microsoft is only interested in owning as much progress as it can. To the detriment of every body apart from Microsoft share holders.
Never
Anonymous (not verified) - July 20, 2011 @ 11:30pm
Microsoft has, and will continue to do whatever it is they can to crush/extort Linux (patents are their weapons of choice their days. Well, patents and FUD). If they had their way Linux would no longer exist, along with all other Open Source/Free/Libre software. Any time a Microsoft booster says "Microsoft loves open source", tell them you'll believe it when Microsoft releases every single line of Windows code under the GPL (version 3, gotta be version 3). Just like that'll never happen, Microsoft will never be a friend to FLOSS. Those who have been foolish enough to think otherwise have paid the price (Novel is a recent enough example), so let's not forget what Microsoft is; an enemy, no matter how it chooses to pretend otherwise.
Trust - no. Use - Yes
Hank (not verified) - July 21, 2011 @ 3:58am
We only enhance our position when we are able to interface and better use MS systems. Most Penguins don't get that USERS want to USE their machine, not learn what makes it work. That is what sells software. We could care less how smart you are. We want reliability, and interoperability. Whoever gives it to us, we'll go there. Make up your mind. Want to have a toy, keep doing what you're doing and forget trying to kill MS. Realise that MS is out to kill all competitors - including you.
Wine
I'm using Anonymous Penguin! (not verified) - July 21, 2011 @ 9:42am
I'm sure the wine team would have something to say about this, what with the copious amount of guesswork I see on some of their bug reports.
NO The primary purpose of
JohnLang (not verified) - July 21, 2011 @ 11:21am
NO
The primary purpose of all commercial operations (including Microsoft) is to make a profit for their shareholders. Therefore they should not be trusted contributing to free software. If they do make contributions it will not be for altruistic reasons, but they can see some financial gain for themselves in the future.
Yes
MikeOS Developer (Joshua) (not verified) - July 21, 2011 @ 4:12pm
I think we should embrace the love in our heart and trust the good will of
Microsoft so we can all work to a happier future! :-)
Hyper-V-Support is their interest
Martin Wildam (not verified) - July 22, 2011 @ 10:24pm
In virtualization world Microsoft does not play a big role. For them there is no other option to adapt to what is already established.
On the other hand - whereever Microsoft has the biggest market share - they do everything to lock out the others.
I don't want to lock anybody out of my heart and want everybody to be happy, but it is hard for me to trust them (fully) when I suffer so much from their current market behavior.
There is the old saying "Fool me once, shame on you - fool me twice, shame on me"...
Trust Microsoft ?
Boxerdes (not verified) - July 22, 2011 @ 11:31pm
NOT NOW!NOT EVER! Microsoft has evolved in terms of PR to recently appear inclusive,cooperative and offer the appearance of an Organisation learning the usefulness of pooling expertise to mutual benefit.
It is however, Patently Clear that Microsoft will never empathise with the Profound ethos of Linux as to do so it would have to reinvent itself from its very beginnings.
The answer is obvious .....
Badwolf9 (not verified) - July 23, 2011 @ 9:20pm
Just ask the Wing Commander. He seems to have summed things up pretty well on another podcast coming out of the UK, so he probably could give you the benefit of his "experience" here too.
But if he is busy flying his toilet seat somewhere, I guess that as long as you keep in mind that Microsoft = company with shareholders who want even more money than they have already, you won't go far wrong.
There is probably quite a bit of it under the Bahnhofstrasse in Zürich, not to far from here......
kind regards aus der Mittleschweiz
Martin
Trust is such a strong word
Mark Dean (not verified) - July 24, 2011 @ 1:51am
As has been posted already, Microsoft is a commercial company that has as its mandate one thing: To make money. It is to provide a ROI for the investors. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. So that means when it comes time to do something that may be bad for FOSS in general, and Linux specifically, it's time to consider the source. That's why, for example, I'm glad both US and European governments stepped with the patents that Novell sold to the consortium that Microsoft is part of.
Maybe a better phrase (from the Cold War): Trust but Verify.
No
fraxinus (not verified) - July 25, 2011 @ 12:01pm
"And then we have the news that a Microsoft coder made the most changes to Linux 3.0"
I'm afraid this is a complete non-statistic used to support/talk up a non-story. They have only done this to support their own virtualisation technology, and it's not as if virtualisation is the most important element of their business anyway. If we were talking about office apps or about the desktop they would give their competitors nothing whatever. I'm no Google lover either, but the Android tax tells us the truth about MS.
Your "story" talks about the "poor reception of Windows Vista" - given the complete hegemony of Windows desktops (certainly here in the UK) four years on, I find it hard to accept that the Vista debacle has left MS in any way "vulnerable". Vista was diabolical when first released, yet arguably the FOSS desktop missed its greatest opportunity then to compete.
MS are formidable and dangerous opponents, and may become more dangerous in areas (eg. Android) where they feel that they are genuinely threatened. Nothing has changed.
trusting Microsoft?
Memyself (not verified) - July 30, 2011 @ 4:23pm
NO
Anti-trust
Troy (not verified) - August 5, 2011 @ 2:57am
Micro-who?
I wonder...
Sparky (not verified) - August 5, 2011 @ 3:05am
You think Steve Ballmer would step into the path of a speeding truck to save another individual? How about to save the world? Probably not. Just sayin.
The size of the stack!
Terry (not verified) - August 18, 2011 @ 4:19pm
The sheer thickness of the stack of papers that was the D.O.J.s findings against Microsoft in the anti-trust suit should answer your question about whether to trust Microsoft or not. What was it two inches thick?
Trust Microsoft Corporation?
Doug (not verified) - August 21, 2011 @ 4:05am
If we trust Microsoft now, then we're letting the wolf into the chicken coop. Microsoft hasn't changed, and it won't change in our lifetime or in our children's lifetime. The reason is that corporations can be likened to single and unique, individual persons; They have their own personalities, idiosyncrasies and ethical dispositions. Unlike people, however, corporations are capable of living well past 100 years.
My advice: I would be suspicious of any Microsoft employee who "contributes" code to a Linux project. Additionally, I wouldn't share a letterhead with Microsoft.
People forget that Microsoft
Anti-MS (not verified) - September 23, 2011 @ 4:42am
People forget that Microsoft was adjudicated a monopoly. Once, They are only good to Linux when it is convenient and the government is not looking. I hope Novell wins their suit about Wordperfect and etc. Then the fun begins. Remember Sco!!
The wolf is already in the chicken coop and we need to escort their posterior out. It should be part of the gpl that people who contribute to linux also declare whether they have a conflict of interest with a proprietary entity. Something that should of be done long ago. With the new MS hardware setup to exclude linux from losesdoze machines. Screw them. Glad I have kept a lot of my old equipment. No one will tell me what software I can or cannot put on my computer. "Give me software or give me death!"
Like the Godfather,
Il Padrino (not verified) - September 23, 2011 @ 4:44am
Like the Godfather, Microsoft keeps it's friends close and it's enemies closer.
No, but..
Anonymous Whale (not verified) - October 24, 2011 @ 10:10pm
I firmly believe that Microsoft, as any other big corporation, is in the game only for the money. But not trusting and hating Microsoft are two different things. I certainly don't hate them. As for trust, well, I trust their products and their development tools enough to invest my reputation and effort into developing commercial software for Windows on .NET.
On a side note, I've been betrayed by Olmypus who stopped manufacturing Four Thirds cameras just when I invested nearly $2000 into photographics equipment. I hope I don't get betrayed by Microsoft in a similar fashion.
Post new comment