Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Microsoft Software Linux

Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease" 634

Posted by kdawson
from the open-means-open dept.
Hugh Pickens writes "In the aftermath of Microsoft's recent decision to contribute 20,000 lines of device driver code to the Linux community, Christopher Smart of Linux Magazine talked to Linus Torvalds and asked if the code was something he would be happy to include, even though it's from Microsoft. 'Oh, I'm a big believer in "technology over politics." I don't care who it comes from, as long as there are solid reasons for the code, and as long as we don't have to worry about licensing etc. issues,' says Torvalds. 'I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease. I believe in open development, and that very much involves not just making the source open, but also not shutting other people and companies out.' Smart asked Torvalds if Microsoft was contributing the code to benefit the Linux community or Microsoft. 'I agree that it's driven by selfish reasons, but that's how all open source code gets written! We all "scratch our own itches." It's why I started Linux, it's why I started git, and it's why I am still involved. It's the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree,' says Torvalds. 'So complaining about the fact that Microsoft picked a selfish area to work on is just silly. Of course they picked an area that helps them. That's the point of open source — the ability to make the code better for your particular needs, whoever the "your" in question happens to be.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linus Calls Microsoft Hatred "a Disease"

Comments Filter:
  • by salimma (115327) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:51PM (#28821417) Homepage Journal
    That was a succint overview of the difference between open source and free software, though to be fair, even pragmatic free software supporters would find this new contribution by Microsoft as a positive thing.
    • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:56PM (#28821463)

      Not really. Free Software is pretty much entirely about what you're allowed to do with the code. As long as the new code from Microsoft allows the desired freedoms (and it does) there's nothing wrong with it from a Free Software perspective.

    • by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunity&yahoo,com> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:27PM (#28821715) Homepage

      Most open source development is a symbiotic relationship between developers. Each developer builds upon others work to create an even better work, often to fill their own needs. Few developers can carry a large project alone, so in that way, each developer relies on each other developer to bring to fruition a complete software product.

      Linus is right in that most OSS development is for selfish reasons, but the net effect is a benefit to the developer community as a whole because of license requirements to share. The result is that each selfish act is inherently beneficial for the community also.

      I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

      Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

      • by derGoldstein (1494129) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @06:00PM (#28821973) Homepage

        I don't hate microsoft, but 20 years of watching their actions has led to great distrust. MS has fostered a industry-wide corporate culture that views OSS as broken, untrustable, risky, unsupportable, or otherwise inadequate. Microsoft contributions to OSS projects is rightfully viewed with distrust by many in the OSS community. Their modus operandi for 20 years has been embrace and extinguish, in all areas of their business.

        Is it outlandish to think Microsoft makes contributions to OSS for subversion?

        One of the biggest problems with OSS developers is short memory spans. Your description of Microsoft's history in regards to OSS was "diplomatic", moderate, and well-mannered. This is good when addressing people who aren't versed in the ongoing "struggle" between OS and proprietary software.
        I, on the other hand, am willing to sound like the neck-bearded 'FLOSS' hippie:
        MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.
        The most important thing to remember is: Nothing has changed. They've not changed their stance on the issue, not by a micron. The only change is that they've become more subtle and press-friendly about it.

        I reserve the word "hate" for extreme situations, but I will say that I do not trust Microsoft and will not develop anything that depends on any technology that they maintain, or have significant influence in.

        • by Svartalf (2997) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @06:32PM (#28822257) Homepage

          I'd have to concur with your position. I don't hate Microsoft, but I do distrust them and do remember all the things they have said done in the past regarding FOSS. I'm not going to not accept their contributions (albeit along with making a few jokes about Hell having froze over and pigs flying...more because of their past positions than about anything else...), but in the same breath, I don't think they're even close to having convinced me that they're doing it for what they said they were- or that they're now even remotely members of the FOSS community as a whole. Linus is sort of right in that it's a problem with the "hatred"- but in the same breath, I strongly think Microsoft has wholly earned the dislike and distrust that is showing with their two releases.

          There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.

          But, in the same vein, there is no good reason to even give them the time of day past thanking them for their contributions and going on. This ISN'T them any more changing their tune than them "changing it" over the last 4 or so years.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by drinkypoo (153816)

            There really is no call for calling them "Microshaft", "Micro$oft", and the like- they might deeply and truly deserve that, yes, but it reflects poorly on yourself and the community when you do it.

            Practically every one of us called Compuserve "Compu$erve" back in the day. Microsoft charges too much for an inferior product. The name Micro$oft is a part of geek history and an indelible entry in the lexicon. When you badmouth people who put a dollar sign in Microsoft's name, you're doing Microsoft's work for them. I hope you're getting paid, because that's otherwise ridiculous.

            • A troll is when you say something you don't believe, in order to elicit a desired response. I'm saying something true, and I'm being modded Troll by someone who disagrees with me. I didn't even have to advocate murder this time :P

        • by Fred_A (10934) <(fred) (at) (fredshome.org)> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @08:07PM (#28822871) Homepage

          MS has called Free Software "a cancer", "unamerican", "implicitly criminal", and "a threat to the economy". It's been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporation so that they include no open-source/free software in their stack. They've threatened to sue, and excommunicate companies advocating OSS, and have been slandering free software in an on-going, relentless campaign that any totalitarian regime would be proud of. They have fired *their own employees* who dabbled in OSS. Their FUD tactics have been to keep painting OSS as legally, and commercially unmaintainable.

          Who, Microsoft ?
          Oh, you mean the *old* Microsoft !

          This is the *new* Microsoft. They wouldn't do anything like that. Not at all. No sir. No way. The new Microsoft is only run by Carebears and Unicorns and rainbow coloured ponies (or so I'm told).

        • by chill (34294) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @09:45PM (#28823455) Journal

          To be fair, Microsoft has been practicing *extortion* when dealing with large corporations; threatened to sue and excommunicate companies, slandering, and fired their own employees for using LOTS of non-Microsoft products.

          FOSS isn't special. Microsoft does the same with anything it perceives as a threat. There have been stories of employees who use Macs getting fired; iPods and iPhones getting fired; extortion against OEMs who bundle WordPerfect, Lotus or any non-Microsoft competitor.

          They haven't changed at all. They want to be on top and are willing to fight everyone and anyone who threatens them.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Draek (916851)

        I'm sorry, I know I'm gonna sound like a Free Software zealot and a member of the Cult of St. IGNUcius here, but please bear with me.

        Yes, its outlandish to think Microsoft makes this contribution for subversion because Richard M. Stallman has made it his main purpose in life to grant us a tool to prevent that from happening, and has fought hard for it. And that tool is the GPL.

        Simply put, the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy only works if you can keep your extensions from your competitors, and prevent

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by microbee (682094)

        You don't have to trust Microsoft. That doesn't mean you can't trust their code. That's the whole point of GPL and open source: you don't need to trust who wrote it. Once it's contributed, it's not owned by Microsoft anymore.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:52PM (#28821421)
    That's the sexiest thing to come from the Linux community in forever.
    • by couchslug (175151)

      "That's the sexiest thing to come from the Linux community in forever."

      Which I why I will recite it, but certainly not buy into it. Without the "politics" of defending freedom, technology is reduced to a weapon against freedom.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Excelsior (164338)

      That's the sexiest thing to come from the Linux community in forever.

      In fairness, the [imknight.net] previous [dindinx.net] competition [wikipedia.org] wasn't [asciibabes.com] exactly [linuxjournal.com] intense [pcworld.co.nz].

    • by jbn-o (555068) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @08:30PM (#28823019) Homepage

      No, it's a lie that not even Torvalds believes.

      In 2005 Torvalds chose the politics of siding with Bitkeeper proprietor Larry McVoy over fellow coder Andrew Tridgell when Tridgell dared to write an interoperating program that was compatible with Bitkeeper API. Tridgell had figured out that by telneting to a Bitkeeper repository server and typing "help" he could get a list of relevant commands. Torvalds took McVoy's side saying Tridgell "screwed people over [theregister.co.uk]" blaming Tridgell for somehow causing McVoy to no longer allow Torvalds to use the proprietary software source code manager (as opposed to recognizing that as McVoy's choice as it was). Torvalds' arguments against software freedom come off badly for multiple reasons including how often Linux kernel hackers leverage their software freedom to continue improving that kernel. In this case where Microsoft contributes Linux code, it seems prudent to consider if a self-declared enemy of FLOSS would contribute a trojan horse to a prominent program. But this is not a consideration one can take if one views code only in terms of code quality and developmental efficiency. Given how much proprietary software is in Torvalds' fork of the Linux kernel (I'm sure the Linux-libre project can tell you all the details) it seems clear that Torvalds is not as concerned with licenses as the /. quote would indicate. Nor is Torvalds apparently concerned with his users' freedom to know what code is in that fork of Linux.

      The phrase "technology over politics" is also a naive position to take: it tries to frame technology and politics as non-overlapping things. In the real world no collaboration is free of politics, that includes technological collaboration. The reason the open source movement exists is because its founders wanted to break away from the older free software movement over a disagreement on politics. The open source movement argues for a technocratic developmental method aimed primarily at benefiting businesses, while the free software movement fights for social solidarity, community, and specific freedoms for all computer users.

      Generally, Torvalds gets way more press than he deserves on politics. His views on the proper approach to solving certain problems with the Linux kernel might be well worth one's time to understand and abide by (particularly if one wishes to get their code into his fork of the Linux kernel). But his views in computer-related politics are so often wrong (either in framing the issue or in the side he takes) one wonders why anyone would bother to give him such heed.

  • Good for him (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndrewBuck (1120597) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:53PM (#28821429)

    I'm no fan of microsoft either however I think Linus really does have the interests of the kernel and the greater linux community at heart. I agree with him that we need to be very careful to make sure there are no potential licensing issues involved here but as long as the lawyers give it a good look and make sure there are no hidden patent claims, etc. then I think there is no reason not to include the code in the kernel.

    -Buck

  • refreshing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sir_Lewk (967686) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (kwelris)> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @04:58PM (#28821475)

    It's really refreshing to hear some level headed comments from high profile open source guys once in a while. I tire of all of the "watch out for X!" and "Y are just out to get you!" stories, no matter how relevant they may or may not be.

    • Re:refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)

      by gavron (1300111) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:04PM (#28821541)
      It IS refreshing to hear level-headed guys say that the FOSS community will happily accept code from those who won't turn on the community and sue it. Microsoft clearly is NOT one of those entities. They have sued as recently as this year (see FAT32 and TOMTOM) and they have funded other suits in the past years (see SCO vs IBM, www.groklaw.com). Microsoft isn't a "partner". They are the snake you let into your home to embrace, extinguish, and "extend" your neck.

      It would be refreshing to see their decline in sales (http://www.informationweek.com/news/windows/operatingsystems/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218600533) and in share value to continue. They've spent two decades making their bed -- mostly by ripping the feathers off of real contributors like Novell, Digital Equipment Corporation, etc. Let them lie in it.

      E

      • Re:refreshing (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Draek (916851) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:35PM (#28821777)

        Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

        That's what Linus is warning against, just because you hate them doesn't mean you have to leave your rationality aside.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Ruie (30480)

          Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

          That's what Linus is warning against, just because you hate them doesn't mean you have to leave your rationality aside.

          And I distinctly remember some nice level headed comments that Linus made about Bitkeeper. We know how that turned out.

          Micr

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Except they can't sue for copyright infringement, since its under the GPLv2 just as the rest of the kernel, and while they theoretically could sue over patent infringement, that applies to any and all code more complex than "hello, world", and goes for all companies.

          Actually they (probably) can't (successfully) sue over patents, because by distributing under GPLv2 they've already granted infinite-downstream permission to run/use/tweak what they distributed. Which logically must include permission to use any patents they might have that would cover what they distributed.

  • by linzeal (197905) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:01PM (#28821497) Homepage Journal
    RMS is going to helicopter out of his grave. 'The Ride of the Valkyries' is going to start playing and innocent civilians will be killed. Theo will say he loves the smell of 'Fresh Napalm in the Morning'. Mark my words.
  • by Sarusa (104047) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:02PM (#28821507)

    I mostly agree with him, but just to be anal (nerdly prerogative)... Stupid, irrational fanboyism isn't really a disease, it's just tribalism. We're apes. We choose some stupid tribe to identify with, be it PS3 or XBox or Windows or Linux or Mac whatever and death to all outsiders. The more underdog the group, the more rabid the members are (Linux, Mac, Amiga). Religion is one of the best, if not the best, strategies for cementing loyalty and killing all competitors, so it shouldn't be a surprise that even something as secular as this takes on strongly religious overtones.

    Not so strangely, as Linux continues to spread its influence the fanbase is getting less stupidly polarized (but then the old guard entrenches further, to combat this 'threat'). Generally this eases up as you get older and your penis stops ruling your brain, but not always.

    • by HermMunster (972336) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:21PM (#28821669)

      I don't think we are trying to become a tribe. I think we are trying to undo the decades of abuse Microsoft preyed on us using their monopoly.

      What many of you don't understand here is that Linus has been desperately seeking to have Microsoft write programs for Linux to validate his efforts for at least a decade. He even said that if they do then he's won.

      I think Linus doesn't understand much outside his purview. He hasn't really focused on what affects our pocketbooks, our future, and our goals. We want to have applications and game developers write their product for Linux. But when you have a company that threatens the industry with 235 alleged patent violations and then shuts down OpenGL support, then stacks the deck with DRM (at the core of the OS), and then says that they will kill Linux by such and such a year. Well, there's reason for the hatred. The community wants untainted product so that in the years when Microsoft is in serious decline they can't keep coming back holding a knife to the community's throat in an effort to stave off their own demise (which is inevitable).

      I dislike many things, spinach is one of them, and yet I have a disease because I hate it? Likewise with other foods and other things. I tend to dislike those that rip me off, yet I am suffering a disease due to that dislike?

      The guy really needs to know when to open his mouth and when not to. For instance, he should talk less about disease and more about how to make Linux a better product and to speak with influence to those hardware vendors and software vendors to create an environment where we can just do our own things and not be influenced by Microsoft.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        If you simply dislike spinach, you don't have a disease. If your dislike of spinach, however, makes you start a massive campaign calling spinach evil and saying nobody should eat it, then yes, you have a disease.

  • re comments (Score:4, Insightful)

    by freddieb (537771) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:02PM (#28821509)
    Sounds very reasonable. Linus is correct. The point of open source is to do something you need done. Sharing it with others gives you satisfaction and reward. What's wrong with that!
    • Re:re comments (Score:5, Informative)

      by someone1234 (830754) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:08PM (#28821567)

      Microsoft is sharing its stuff because they were caught red handed.
      This 'sharing' is a good thing, but it isn't the merit of Microsoft, it is a merit of the GPL.
      Some people still don't want to realise this.
      If Linus will ever use this Microsoft code, he can thank this to the license he chose years ago, he couldn't do the same now if he started Linux using the BSD license.

  • What is a disease? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:03PM (#28821523) Journal
    Disease is just your body's way of letting you know that some part of the body is going rotten. Diagnosing something as a disease does not invalidate the cause nor does it cure what is rotten.
  • +1 for Linus (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DavidR1991 (1047748) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:03PM (#28821533) Homepage

    I don't think I can say anything, other than the fact this confirms my assumptions that Linus is an extremely level-headed, perceptive person.

  • Ironic this story is coming from kdawson. He's like the Fox News guy from Slashdot. The story doesn't have to be true if it garners a ton of posts. His stories about MS are often shallow, w/ summary full of some perceived slight often having nothing to do with the story. This often induces a feeding frenzy as MS haters who take the bait goes. My only reason why this continues is that these bring a lot of ad revenue to Slashdot.
  • I disagree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 (527695) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:12PM (#28821609) Homepage Journal

    I think its quite healthy to dislike ( ok, hate ) an entity whose stated goal is to wipe you from the face of the earth. We arent talking about some bully in a school yard, we are talking about a well funded organized corporation that wants you eradicated..

  • by Seth Kriticos (1227934) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:19PM (#28821659)
    I don't use Microsoft products, and I don't like their corporate agenda, but I don't hate them. It's very counter productive.

    Making ironic jokes here and there is fun, but there are better things to do than hating someone/something.

    As long as I/anybody is actively forced to use Microsoft products, I'm fine with them being around.

    People who don't have a clue about the topic irritate me at times (OSS fanatics and clueless users and OEM's that don't give me choice).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      When you're dealing with the fallout of various microsoft tech failures at work around you, buggy worm ridden OS, buggy worm ridden web server, buggy non compliant browser, etc. it's hard to remain professional. It was OK to mess with DOM implementations in IE4's day but not IE7. >/

  • by erroneus (253617) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:22PM (#28821677) Homepage

    It is an acquired distaste. The fact is, nearly everyone here who hates Microsoft for various reasons once loved and admired Microsoft. The love was eroded and destroyed by Microsoft's own actions and choices. For me, it was the way it intentionally abused "partners" by various means (especially) including some tactics such as forcing partners to fail in their contracts and then claiming whatever work was done by the partners. In particular, a story about a mobile phone maker who partnered with Microsoft where the agreement was that if the company failed to meet specific terms and deadlines, the partnership would dissolve and Microsoft would claim whatever IP that existed. Well, as it turned out, the other company needed something from Microsoft which it did not deliver, causing the deal to go bad and then Microsoft came in to claim whatever they wanted leaving the other company with nothing. That was a particularly dirty and rather deliberate act on their part and this was no isolated incident... there are others; many others.

    It's not that Linux or any other alternative is a Microsoft "opponent" for many of us. It's that Microsoft is simply evil in much of what they do. They do things that are difficult for many to believe or understand and they most certainly play dirty and illegally.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      It is an acquired distaste. The fact is, nearly everyone here who hates Microsoft for various reasons once loved and admired Microsoft.

      I got my first exposure to MS products in 1988. I had no opinion of them either way at the time. Over the last two decades, 'indifference' has turned into a deep contempt and loathing for the company and its products.

      I'm guessing that given who Linus is and what he does for a living, he hasn't worked with MS's crap in quite some time, or else he wouldn't have made the statement he did...

  • by actionbastard (1206160) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:37PM (#28821793)

    While we all love to 'bash' Microsoft and its tactics here, on occasion, please let' s not lose sight as to why they released this code. They did so because it contained both open and closed source components and were issuing them with both a closed and open source license. Those who aren't 'new around here' know that licensing them in this fashion is a violation of the GPLv2 terms. So basically they did this to avoid any 'repercussions' from the community -not that that would stop anyone anyway- and not out of a sense of 'contribution' to the FOSS movement. Ramji and the legal department at Microsoft probably had one of those 'Oh, SNAP!' moments and decided it was best to look like benefactors than the 'evil hive of scum and villainy' that most people perceive them as.

  • by Abalamahalamatandra (639919) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @05:49PM (#28821889)

    I don't hate Microsoft, in fact I've done quite a few implementations of Exchange and SharePoint and AD for companies in the past.

    But I do understand that they're a typical scumbag corporate giant acting the way scumbag corporate giants do - trying to make it so that you HAVE to buy their product because you have no other choice.

    So now I make sure that I don't become dependent on that product by actively avoiding it wherever possible - which means my home family machine, my personal laptops, and my work machine all run Ubuntu quite happily. And when people ask me how I do it, I happily show them so they know they have that option too. Does it involve sacrifice? Yes, a little bit, and less every day. But it also involves great advantages, namely that I don't have to worry much at all about my wife and kids visiting the wrong Web site (and that's all it takes!) and getting our family machine rooted nine ways to Sunday, leading to my bank accounts being emptied out. That's really the stakes here.

    Could I spend all my time positively hating Microsoft and all that they do? Yes, I could, but I'd rather spend my time making sure they don't matter to me. Recently I read an article about Microsoft's change in the upgrade rules, meaning you have to jump through more hoops to do a bare install from an upgrade CD. In the past, I would have been ticked off and hated Microsoft more. Now, I just thought "man, sucks to be you if you're still a Windows user" and moved on to trying out the latest Ubuntu alpha release and looking for bugs. Much more productive use of my time, and more hurtful to MS as well, because it means Ubuntu will be a better OS if the bugs I find are fixed.

  • Bayes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Onymous Coward (97719) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @06:01PM (#28821983) Homepage

    It's useful to know when an entity/organization has tendencies. If Microsoft has a history (and/or a nature) that leads you to expect more shitty behavior from them, you have to be smart and act accordingly.

    Hating them for their misbehavior is kind of unreasonable. Having a bad opinion of them without clear reasons (case histories, e.g.) is also irrational. Folks are sometimes driven by bandwagons and general hating, and those are surely diseases.

    Seeing every detractor as a hater is more stupidity.

    I'm just sayin'. Watch your reflexes.

  • by Trerro (711448) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @06:11PM (#28822071)

    MS released a server product. They recognized that for it to be as profitable as possible, it needed to support Linux, so they produced the drivers to make that happen.

    Result: MS makes more money, Linux is usable on more systems. Everyone's happy.

    Obviously MS only cares about the money part, but who cares as long as:
    1. The code is of sufficient quality. (The reviewers will determine this.)
    2. There's valid reason to include it. (There is.)
    and 3. They're not trying to exert control or otherwise screw with the Linux model (they GPLed this code, so they pretty much can't.)

    There's a LOT of reasons to fear some of MS' moves, especially when it comes to open source, but in this case, we're simply looking at a business decision that happens to be beneficial to all parties involved, so why not just take the code (assuming it doesn't suck) and move on? There are MS decisions that need to be fought, but I really, really, don't think this one of them.

  • by Millennium (2451) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @06:30PM (#28822243) Homepage

    Hatred of Microsoft is indeed a problem. A healthy mistrust of them and everything they put their stamp on, however, is not only rational but frankly quite prudent. After everything Microsoft has done to this industry, having done so little for it, they have a lot to prove. They have not yet proven it to my satisfaction, or apparently ot a lot of people's..

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashBLUEdot.org minus berry> on Saturday July 25, 2009 @07:06PM (#28822535)

    And "celebrities" are no different, apparently.

    After all that Microsoft did, does, and will probably always do, the hatred for Microsoft is completely rightful and perfectly founded on those actions.

    It's like calling it "a disease" to call a murderer and mass scammer what he is, just because some of it was some time ago, and some of it is still happening, but more or less sneaky.
    If that someone got what he deserved, then it's acceptable to stop the hatred. But not before that.

    I will treat Microsoft for exactly what they are, as long as it takes go give them their rightful punishment.
    And it's not only Microsoft. By far. MS looks like a joke in the light of criminal giants like Monsanto & the rest chemical industry, the defense industry, RIAA/MPAA, etc. But still, they are close followers.

    Inform yourself, before you mod this comment. *Really* inform yourself. There are many lists out there about what Microsoft did.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by w0mprat (1317953)
      You're wrong. The hate isn't rightful and deserved if it goes way too far, far beyond the what the actual facts support. It get away from the realm of disciplined intelligent discourse and into fanaticism. Hate in general is not justified as it is not sign a rational state of intellect.

      The problem is of course, once you get fanatical prosetlyzing microsoft haters spouting outright misinformation, it actually starts work against backwards against getting any change from MS.

      So there are lists out there o
  • by MpVpRb (1423381) on Saturday July 25, 2009 @07:53PM (#28822801)

    Believe it or not, Microsoft has done a lot to make the computing world better.

    Anybody remember color monitors before Windows? It seemed like everybody used a different standard. You had to pick your hardware based on what your software supported. And not all software supported all hardware. Same with printers.

    Whatever you may say about Windows, at least it set a standard.

    And yes...I am often annoyed/angered/disappointed by some of Microsoft's policies. I often humorously threaten to "quit programming, move to Idaho, and raise potatoes" as a result of Microsoft decisions. My latest sore spot is their decision to lock out hobbyists from kernel mode driver development. Sometimes, a kernel mode driver is the only way to solve a problem.

One good reason why computers can do more work than people is that they never have to stop and answer the phone.

Working...