[entropy1111]

>This is really cool. Kudos to Microsoft for really getting open source lately

If they get open source so much it means not open sourcing what really matters is intentional. And quite frankly getting rid of patents, their litigiousness and data collection. But I'm asking too much and I would settle for them to just stop suffocating competitors, innovation and stop with vendor lock in. Same deal for their competitors.

Anything that really matters is just like the same old MS you know. DirectX, Office, Xbox, everything SaaS, IDE, compilers, debuggers, language servers, file formats, UI frameworks, UI patents, GitHub, Windows, Server, you'll find examples in every area. Practices like buying or killing competitors like Vulkan related acquisitions. I get it they are a company and need to maximize profits, so it's cool.

Microsoft has so many quality projects and good people working for them, it's just so frustrating that it's still like this. This will only get worse as the exploitative behavior and business models of their competitors like Google force their hand to do the same.

[galgalesh]

Microsoft joined the open invention network; a defensive patent pool protecting Linux (kernel and distributions). This directly cut into their patent revenue and removed some of their leverage towards Android OEM's. This matters a lot to the android and wider Linux ecosystem.

Moreover, every single Microsoft patent will now be used to fight against any patent claim concerning Linux, related open source software, and a limited set of codecs. [0]

Given the recent inclusion of an exFAT driver in Linux, this hurt MS's business even more.

[0] https://openinventionnetwork.com/linux-system/

[nitrogen]

Moreover, every single Microsoft patent will now be used to fight against any patent claim concerning Linux, related open source software, and a limited set of codecs.

Did Microsoft contribute all of their patents to the OIN? I seem to recall IBM only contributed a specific subset back in the day.

[DennisP]

According to the zdnet article I posted in a sibling comment, they did contribute all their patents, which is about 60,000 of them. They gave up significant licensing revenue.

[beagle3]

Did they?

Is there a breakdown somewhere of their patent licensing revenue from Linux licensees, and the legal expenses they have in enforcing it?

Did they give up Linux patent licenses from Android makers? They had billions coming in from Samsung and LG in the past but that was all under NDAs, we don’t know what patents were under discussion.

[DennisP]

I have no idea what their legal expenses were, but they explicitly said it covered all their patents. The link I posted mentions Android as something that would be covered.

[DennisP]

"By joining the Open Invention Network, Microsoft is offering its entire patent portfolio to all of the open-source patent consortium's members."

https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-open-sources-its-ent...

Apple had "1,996 total patents granted between July 1, 2019 and June 1, 2020, more than any other company in Silicon Valley."

https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2020/07/27/top-of-t...

[entropy1111]

My recollection from previous OIN threads was that it came with a lot of caveats. I can't comment any further from lack of knowledge about patents and its subtleties. Would love to see an analysis of what really happened in practice since they did that.

[29athrowaway]

All core MS products are the result of some level of backstabbing.

Apple + Microsoft. Expected: Macintosh apps. Actual: Windows

IBM + Microsoft. Expected: OS/2. Actual: MS NT kernel

Sybase + Microsoft. Expected: Sybase SQL server. Actual: MS SQL Server

Sun + Microsoft. Expected: Sun Java. Expected: .NET Framework

OpenGL ARB + Microsoft. Expected: OpenGL. Actual: Direct3D.

Also see what happened with Xamarin and Corel Office for Linux, DR-DOS, etc.

But hey, they bought Github and open sourced an Electron based editor so we have to worship them now.

Imagine you hire someone to do something for you and they end up stealing your business model and market share. That is Microsoft in a nutshell.

[Kipters]

> Sun + Microsoft. Expected: Sun Java. Expected: .NET Framework

Well, they tried doing Java (in their own way), we got .NET because Sun sued them (rightfully so). I'm happy we got .NET though.

[29athrowaway]

All the technologies listed above are good from a technological standpoint. My critique is about corporate ethics rather than whether or not those technologies are good or convenient.

Many years ago I worked developing on Windows 7, using C# and MS SQL Server, and had a satisfactory experience at that time. I can see how that convenience has captivated many users.

But knowing how those technologies came to be makes a difference for me.

For example, Direct3D can be great, but the resulting vendor lock prevents other operating systems like Linux from getting game releases. There was a time where OpenGL was the most popular graphics library, but Microsoft frightened OpenGL users and told them that in future Windows releases, OpenGL would go through a compatibility layer with a significant performance cost and that they should switch to Direct3D. As a result, now everyone uses Direct3D.

Fortunately, projects like dxvk have implemented Direct3D on top of Vulkan and now many projects like Wine and Proton use it to run games using Direct3D on Linux.

[pjmlp]

> There was a time where OpenGL was the most popular graphics library

Contrary to urban myths it never had a place on the game consoles.

[j0057]

> open sourced an Electron based editor

VSCode may be open source, but the .NET Core plugin bits inside aren't, so in practice the open sourceness is debatable.

[stevefan1999]

> IBM + Microsoft. Expected: OS/2. Actual: MS NT kernel

Not entirely true, because in fact NT is heavily "inspired" by VMS, that Dave Cutler, the main architect of NT kernel, used to work in DEC as a technical fellow. This is also one of the reason DEC Alpha can run Windows NT out of the box, as it is quite similar to VMS in nature.

[chenzhekl]

I cannot call those backstabbing. They are more of the results of market competition.

[beagle3]

It’s not happening anymore, partly because of reputation and partly because they’re no longer the 800lbs gorilla they once were - but the “Microsoft kiss of death” was a thing - cooperating with Microsoft often resulted in great damage to the other company.

SGI; Nokia; Sando; Spry; there were many others through the years.

[pjmlp]

Nokia have themselves to blame, with the internal teams competition and the board promising an hefty bonus to Elop if he managed to do what he did, selling the mobile business unit.

Similar examples can be given for other IT giants.

[29athrowaway]

This wasn't team 1 vs team 2.

It was one team splitting half-way and taking everything from the other.

[kyberias]

Explain how it was like that in the case of NT.

IBM went their own way with OS/2 and Microsoft hired Dave Cutler from Digital to develop NT over several years. Windows NT is not OS/2. It never was.

[29athrowaway]

That is a mischaracterization of what happened.

Microsoft unilaterally changed the OS/2 3.0 API to the match the Windows API, IBM did not approve of that, and then the project split, with the Microsoft version of OS/2 3.0 becoming Windows NT.

[merb]

to be fair, apple stole the technology that they gave microsoft.

[29athrowaway]

Apple lawfully licensed technology from the Xerox PARC from Xerox. Xerox knew they were licensing the technology, with the likely objective of copying it. That's a substantial difference with respect to what Microsoft did.

Xerox's decision is considered dumb, but they were told exactly what was going to be done. The executives were stupid enough to agree because they did not want to hear about anything other than photocopiers and toners.

Microsoft on the other hand was initially a close Apple partner, developing the Z-80 SoftCard for Apple II and then helping develop applications for the Macintosh. Once they gained enough trust, they used that trust to clone the Macintosh (Windows 1.0).

[mynameisash]

> Anything that really matters is just like the same old MS you know.

I have been hearing this kind of thing for years, and I just don't get it.

Microsoft has turned around completely, becoming a huge open-source contributor. They committed all their patents to OIN. They make .NET Core available for MacOS and Linux (including open-source). They are noticeably absent from the congressional hearings of the other huge tech companies who have been bad players.

And yet we hear that they're "the same old MS". I get that no company is perfect, but in all honesty, what could Microsoft do that would change your perspective on them? And do you hold other companies (FAANG) do the same standard?

[entropy1111]

>what could Microsoft do that would change your perspective on them?

I mean it's really complicated. For starters I'd like them to stop forcing people to use their bad products just because they were there first to lock down the market and or abused their position. This is still happening today.

Then I'll be more open to use their good products, and there's plenty of that. I want to be excited when MS announces a new technology, not to be reminded of how bad they behave as a company and the negative impact they have on my life.

>And do you hold other companies (FAANG) do the same standard?

Yes. At least with e.g. Apple and Google I can just not use their products, but with Google it's getting harder and harder as they monopolize the web and close/lock Android even more. Google removed don't be evil from their motto, MS should change theirs to We love open source when it's convenient. Nothing wrong with doing manipulative PR like everyone else, but don't be surprised when some people don't want to drink it.

[Shared404]

I agree with everything you've said, except

>Nothing wrong with doing manipulative PR like everyone else[.]

Just because everyone does something doesn't make it right.