[ntakasaki]

They do a lot of things like most big companies, and some people seem to concentrate only the bad.

For example, they started funding OpenSSL and other core infrastructure[1] projects of the Linux foundation after the Heartbleed fiasco. But you don't find that kind of news on here.

By the way "$400m to fund ways to destroy GNU/Linux" seems to be quite hyperbolic, especially coming from 'The Register'. The link in the article goes to a 404 page, do you have any real details of the so called campaign?

[1] https://threatpost.com/group-backed-by-google-microsoft-to-h...

[Jedd]

TheReg link works fine here. You're right about Reg style, though I have no reason to doubt substance of the story.

Agreed on range of perception of deeds of any large company. Microsoft has long form on this front (baiting the education market), though they're certainly not the only organisation to have done this. Unlike other student discounts - say for movie tickets, public transport, etc - there's a clear and obvious future payback for providing free or heavily discounted software & services to that demographic, as opposed to just charging less to customers who can't afford full price.

Also, IIRC it's a requirement in the USA that public (and not-NFP) companies must always act to 'increase shareholder value', so the giving away of products or services could be considered a legal exposure. The obvious way to work around this concern is to label it marketing, which brings us back to where we came in.

EDIT: Sorry - misread your 404 question -- try these:

https://web.archive.org/web/20030604185301/http://economicti...

https://web.archive.org/web/20030604185306/http://economicti...

[ntakasaki]

>Also, IIRC it's a requirement in the USA that public (and not-NFP) companies must always act to 'increase shareholder value', so the giving away of products or services could be considered a legal exposure. The obvious way to work around this concern is to label it marketing, which brings us back to where we came in.

There is no such requirement.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/harold-meyerson-the-...

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-cor...

>EDIT: Sorry - misread your 404 question -- try these:

I read those and I don't find anything to justify OPs "$400m to fund ways to destroy GNU/Linux" or The Register's characterization of '$421m to fight Linux".

[Jedd]

Happy to be disabused on the shareholder value front. In AU we're obliged to consider shareholder interests, but with no constraint to prioritise short-term gains. No idea how far this has been tested by case law.

[icebraining]

For example, they started funding OpenSSL and other core infrastructure projects of the Linux foundation after the Heartbleed fiasco. But you don't find that kind of news on here.

Actually, you do: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7639707 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7639835

[crdoconnor]

>Some people seem to concentrate only the bad.

Some people have longer memories than others.