I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?
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?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc. This doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
It’s getting more and more common that, even in cases where code is open source, only part of the codebase is actually available. This is something that Microsoft (and other wealthy tech companies) loves to do to show that it’s “transparent.”
Thanks.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
GPL as an example.
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc
If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:
Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”
Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).
Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.
(A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.
How does it restrict modifying the software?
It requires any modifications to be under GPL.
And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.
And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.
How it harms the end user are described.
Did you mean
Is that related to the gpl advocates who criticize BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh at FreeBSD for letting Apple do something (I can’t remember what)?
I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly and not putting words in your mouth.
Afaik, BSD and MIT licenses qualify as Free Software licenses. I could be wrong; I am not a lawyer, nor am I Richard Stallman.
As for your first question:
Can you explain more?
@rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com did a good summary of the distinction, so I will expand on m$'s role:
By most Free Software advocates’ accounts, the rise of the term “Open Source” was a deliberate move to make proprietary software less of a bitter pill for us radical digital anarchists: “look, our code is Open and Transparent (but you still can’t reproduce or modify it, even if you buy a license).” At the same time, Open Source advocates argued that this was the “Shoe-In-The-Door” for Free Software into the corporate/capitalist landscape—it’s not, because it doesn’t actually advocate any of Free Software’s Four Essential Freedoms (Five, if you consider Copyleft to be essential, as I do).
So basically the corporate world took the concept of Free Software, which was starting to be a threat to their businesses, sanitized it of any actual freedom, and sold it back to devs and users as some kind of magnanimous gesture that they were letting us look (but not touch) the code they wrote. Open Source.
M$ has been essential in this shift. Perusing their github, they make it clear that they’re willing to toss projects onto the pile, but make sure as hell to keep the Freedom from infecting any of their larger, popular software (e.g. Office, Visual Studio, Windows). And in return, they get access to whatever code you host on their service, assuming they can interpret vague phrasing in their Privacy Policy loosely enough.
Thank you.
You left out that they refuse to let end users control updates on the system unless they resort to hacky bullshit (and even that doesn’t work consistently). As far as I know (and have experienced on Windows Server) this extends to enterprise as well.
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.
Ah yeah sorry lol i misinterpreted
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.
It used to be pretty bad, back when it was using all the dirty tricks it could invent to build its monopoly. By now though it’s just obsolete.
Obsolete? Hardly. The Surface, GamePass, Xbox, GitHub, Skype and just general market dominance says otherwise. They only lost their effective monopoly due to antitrust lawsuits.
Currently, there’s lots of better options out there, true, but it’s far from obsolete.
Is Skype still a thing? I thought it died soon after MS bought it!
It’s Teams, now.
Ugh, Teams. I can’t believe Skype and MSN died for this!
It’s a phone service and business communications. I have to use it for work
Huh, didn’t realise they were still bothering to sell it
Sure enough, it’s up there with Facebook and Saudi Aramco.
I like Micsrosofts office suite, but I hate virtually everything else. I got tired of their recent decisions and bought an Apple laptop, partly because I’m getting into iOS development and wanted that experience. But my other computer is dual booted with Fedora and Windows for when I absolutely need Windows, I’ll swap over, bit rarely do I outside of some gaming.
How bad is Microsoft?
Yes
I consider their new push for webapps in stead of traditional client as bad practice, its buggier and runs like absolute shit
No offence, but have you been living under a Microsoft shaped rock for the past 30 years?
My lifespan is shorter than 30 years so yes.
Consider this; you were taught Microsoft <product> in school as it’s used in work environments, Microsoft <product> is used in work environments as it’s taught in schools or the person making the decision was only taught one product.
Why do you think Microsoft is giving free upgrades from windows 10 to 11, same thing from XP upwards. It’s vendor lock in, and that’s bad for many reasons
Are you a Eggplant?
Haha, yes I’m an eggplant, thank you BTW, I enjoy seeing you posting! I think you were a reason I stick around lemmy.
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.
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.
How bad are we that M$ still has 75% market share on operation systems and office suites?
What’s your point? At one moment in history everybody would buy leaded fuel. That’s my strawmen reply to your strawmen.
The majority are simpletons which (also) love simple stuff. That’s why.
You mean had the education system teach them their tools specifically?
Very bad
Yes. During the entire history of MSDOS, Windows and Internet Explorer, there are so many things you can pick why Microsoft is bad. Now they even integrate Recall into Windows. I want to say that I always disconnected Xbox from Microsoft; and I’m not entirely sure why.
The question of this post is a bit misleading, because it implies that someone could answer with “no”. Better question (in my opinion) is “How bad is Microsoft?”.
Undoubtedly
my favorite bit was how no one at microsoft actually understood their own licensing pricing. for decades, you could call microsoft for pricing and get different answer from people in cubicles next to each other or even from your own rep.
it was as if they were making it up as needed.
