OSDev.org

Microsoft is buying GitHub, 15K project is migrating from GitHub to GitLab, really guys?
I saw Klange's os migrating to GitLab, I wonder how evil is Microsoft, why 'most' Linux devs hate Microsoft so much that they are leaving GitHub when they knew Microsoft is buying it?

Tbh, this shows how Microsoft is considered a 'Villain' to most Linux users....

I wouldn't call Microsoft evil, imo that should be reserved for companies that ruin people's lives, like Nestle, or exploit the environment, like Nestle, and not those that ruined businesses in the 90s. Microsoft is a massive, fractured organization as shown in the following:



where one single word can't be accurately applied to the entire thing. You can certainly make the case for how certain factions are doing poorly, but generally their 'DevDiv' faction has been consistently nailing it for a while now, and I imagine they would have some influence in this. I think the mass exodus is a bit of an overreaction. Microsoft has been spending a lot of time and resources trying to build developer good-will. Sadya et al have been slowly adjusting the company's course and changing their internal corporate culture. They know that they are bleeding developers and need to change to bring them back, they know that there are many people who will never forget the 90's, they know that they have to tread carefully and not screw things up. Does it make any logical sense to spend over $7 billion and then literally throw everything away by doing something to ruin GitHub, or to make people lose trust in GitHub? It would be corporate suicide. I predict any changes will be very boring, very corporate-speak filled, and be limited to "Oh we integrated GitHub with X".

While it's fair to be suspicious if MS, particularly with regard to free and open software, which they've never really supported (hardly unique to them). I do think the hatred of MS is vastly over the top. They engaged in some monopolistic practises in the past, but they got rightfully slapped down for it and they really haven't done anything nasty for a while.

The "Linux dev" crowd has a very vocal segment that seems to think software and OSs aren't tools to take or leave, but important aspects of who they are as people. As a result they feel the need to assign moral value to OS usage, and by extension the companies that make them. Like political party hacks who don't care about policy or philosophy, just defending their "teams" failings while celebrating the failings of their opponents.

<rant>
Some companies do truly evil things, however even these are usually things that all companies in their field will do, and so defining the company as "evil" seems to me to be missing the point somewhat. Companies are no more capable of being evil than of being good, if they can be considered independent actors at all then they should be thought of as sociopathic. They are incapable, by design, of empathy or compassion. The only metric that a company is truly measured on is profit, and there are always more efficient ways of generating profits by exploiting people than there are by serving them. Look, for example, at Apple. Remember how Apple got blasted for a while in the media for using Foxconn to assemble some part of a iPhone. The thing is, almost all consumer electronics companies have Foxconn, or a similar organisation, in their supply chain. Is Apple evil for using Foxconn to assemble iPhones? Is Gigabyte evil for using them to assemble motherboards? Of course not, Apple got blasted because of the juxtaposition of their exploitative manufacturing practices with their trendy, "woke" image. This isn't to downplay what they do, which is horrific, but I think it hurts more than helps to hold onto the idea that companies have morals and personalities like people, that they can be good or evil.
</rant>

My gods some of you Linux people. There are much bigger actual problems to get uppity about.

Microsoft is a decent company with a flawed past that has gotten really damn good in the past few years overall. They're directly responsible for the software that powered the personal computer revolution, and yes, that means the processes and improvements that led to your precious do-no-wrong morally-just free software operating system environment.

It astounds me that Free Software people scream hatred at Microsoft every time they remember Redmond, WA is a city that exists while simultaneously claiming to be the good guys in some neolithic-grade shit-disturbing competition that only one side is engaging in. And yet the great evil continues to open source major parts of its previously closed proprietary systems, tools, and even entire environments for some reason. Clearly, it must be some nefarious plot.

Kazinsal wrote:My gods some of you Linux people. There are much bigger actual problems to get uppity about.

Microsoft is a decent company with a flawed past that has gotten really damn good in the past few years overall. They're directly responsible for the software that powered the personal computer revolution, and yes, that means the processes and improvements that led to over the counter phentermine your precious do-no-wrong morally-just free software operating system environment.

It astounds me that Free Software people scream hatred at Microsoft every time they remember Redmond, WA is a city that exists while simultaneously claiming to be the good guys in some neolithic-grade shit-disturbing competition that only one side is engaging in. And yet the great evil continues to open source major parts of its previously closed proprietary systems, tools, and even entire environments for some reason. Clearly, it must be some nefarious plot.

There are companies like Microsoft that charge for their good software. Then there are some companies that provide free software but they come with adware, malware, and sometimes ransomware. We've got to decide what to choose. No doubt, there is some good free software available. But you can't expect constant updates and upgrades if the developer is not getting something in return.

It was different when I was a broke student, but now as an employed adult I don't mind paying for software any more than I mind paying for a good meal at a restaurant, paying to watch a movie in the theatre, or many of the other goods and services I value more than the money I'm exchanging for them.

Of course, nobody likes to be overcharged or feel like they are being ripped off, and there is plenty of high quality OSS out there.

It would be great in a post scarcity world when people didn't need money to survive.

But, I feel like there are people out there that believe all software should be free and refuse to pay for any software ever (but believe in paying for hardware, food, houses, etc.) This seems akin to the people who live in the suburbs are used to never paying to park their car the drive to the city where you have to pay and then say "HOW DARE THEY CHARGE? I WILL NEVER PAY FOR SOMETHING I CAN GET FOR FREE ELSEWHERE!!!"

Hi,

MessiahAndrw wrote:But, I feel like there are people out there that believe all software should be free and refuse to pay for any software ever (but believe in paying for hardware, food, houses, etc.) This seems akin to the people who live in the suburbs are used to never paying to park their car the drive to the city where you have to pay and then say "HOW DARE THEY CHARGE? I WILL NEVER PAY FOR SOMETHING I CAN GET FOR FREE ELSEWHERE!!!"

Ironically, the popular "free" OSs are not free at all. For example; for Linux, most of the development is done by large companies who build the cost of Linux development into the prices of everything else (e.g. every time someone buys hardware from Intel they're charged a little bit extra and that little bit extra goes towards paying for Intel's developers to work on Linux, every company that has a support contract with Redhat charges a tiny little bit extra and that goes towards paying for Redhat's developers to work on Linux, etc). The end result is that Linux is funded by millions of "hidden micro-taxes" being paid by everyone.

For an economy based on capitalism where (in theory) consumer choice determines profit and encourages better products, services and prices while discouraging worse products, services and prices; "free" takes consumer choice out of the equation (e.g. people pay the hidden micro-taxes that fund Linux development whether they like Linux or not). In this way it could be argued that "free" is a nasty/unethical anti-competitive practice - a cancer that ruins fair competition.

Of course OSs that actually are free do exist (e.g. the BSDs, where development is funded by generosity alone), but they're also one of the biggest victims - struggling to compete against "free" for recognition/popularity and developers. It's fairly safe to assume every commercial OS has been effected by the unfair competition of "free" too (once upon a time there were lots of OSs, like HP-UX, Solaris, BeOS, Simbian, ... - all dead now).


Cheers,

Brendan

Hmf. Software is a war zone. Microsoft have risen to the top and kept themselves there in that environment. What gets me is no-one's made the connection between Microsoft and Intel. ... And I'm in no mood for a rant right now, but, and I'm saying this as a recent convert TO Windows FROM Linux, I will never think good of the company. I just don't think any better of Linux any more, especially not now I understand what Red Hat are like. It's a war zone, every side is ugly and has done horrible things to try to win.

Incidentally, that Microsoft graphic could do for IBM too, if I understand right.

I like the Dr. Virgil Haas avatar, btw. A Miracle of Science deserves more recognition.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:I like the Dr. Virgil Haas avatar, btw. A Miracle of Science deserves more recognition.

Thanks! It does indeed.

As for IBM, it historically was like the Oracle one, except for the bigger part being the sales staff instead of the legal staff, and the different sections within both Sales and Engineering being like the Microsoft one towards each other, as well. With an extra flavor of Paternalist Corporate Socialism, too ("IBM is what the Soviet Union would be like if the Soviet Union worked." - I forget who said it, but it matches what I've heard elsewhere about them).

Hi,
Microsoft is not evil. There are like any other business in there to make money. Most people there work very hard and there are plenty of great guys that work for Microsoft. My views may be slightly biased because I am an ex Microsoft employee myself. It is likely that they will push for their interests when they acquire a company - after all they do not want to spend money for nothing.
--Thomas

Thomas wrote:Hi,
Microsoft is not evil. There are like any other business in there to make money. Most people there work very hard and there are plenty of great guys that work for Microsoft. My views may be slightly biased because I am an ex Microsoft employee myself. It is likely that they will push for their interests when they acquire a company - after all they do not want to spend money for nothing.
--Thomas

I think that was the OP's point - that people who were jumping ship from Github simply because they think that anything connected to Microsoft is Always A Trap, which is a ridiculous notion to many other people. The point was that assuming that Github would be undermined just because Microsoft bought into it was unreasonable.

Schol-R-LEA wrote:I think that was the OP's point - that people who were jumping ship from Github simply because they think that anything connected to Microsoft is Always A Trap, which is a ridiculous notion to many other people. The point was that assuming that Github would be undermined just because Microsoft bought into it was unreasonable.

Honestly this. I have seen so many people go use inferior GitHub clones like NotABug (Leah Rowe's safe space) or GitLab (Memory hungry and slow GitHub) just because Microsoft is going to "sell their data" or "Make GitHub Paid-Only" (Ironically, private repos are free now). It's like the people who say Windows is bad because you can't stop it from phoning home (Apparently these people have never heard of Wireshark and Port Blocking). I ended up trying to troll the people who made a GitHub repo listing GitHub alternatives. I posted "GitHub Enterprise" as an alternative and got permbanned. These people don't understand that good things cost money and that nothing is free in life, not the air they breath, not the software they use, not the ground they walk on.

You kids surprise me. Okay there are some good points for Microsoft, and definitely for everything costing money to maintain, but in the '90s everything connected to Microsoft was a trap! Let's take ACPI and see how it affects us, remembering Intel was in bed with Microsoft but not Linux at the time.

In ACPI, firmware contains code to run on an interpreter provided by the operating system. (Am I right?) If there are bugs in the interpreter, this code could damage the hardware. Now, how many operating systems are hardware designers going to test with? Has Microsoft open-sourced their interpreter, and if so, when? What may have been intended to happen when other (our!) operating systems' ACPI interpreter are not bug-compatible with Microsoft Windows?

I do understand that they wanted firmware to run on more than one CPU family, but I can see it from the above-hinted point of view too. Remember that Intel has designed other CPU families for Microsoft, particularly the 860 for Windows NT. It was too slow; one of so many Intel failures that I don't think they wouldn't have lasted through the 90s (or maybe even into the 90s) without Microsoft and PC clones.