Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ThrowawayB7 14 hours ago
Microsoft doesn't police IHVs -> Geeks: "MS is negligent!"

Microsoft does police IHVs -> Geeks: "MS is an evil monopolist!"

6 comments

You forgot the 3rd current option: Microsoft does police HIV, but does it poorly -> "MS is a negligent evil monopolist"
Or they could bundle a basic driver or police the driver they're curating while allowing people to download and install drivers directly from the vendor website with no policing, no signature checks, etc.

Distributing malware is negligent or malicious, yes. Not stopping users from seeking out their own malware is neither. Nothing stops you from running malware on Linux. The curated repos are simply good enough that there's not much reason to go looking elsewhere.

There's also the option of "MS asks you if you want to run stuff your monitor wants to run". It's not that hard.

The fault here is definitely LG's, though.

Well… they’re putting their signature on the stuff and blocking everything lacking it…
Well yeah, when you spend a significant segment of your corporate life being both negligent and an evil monopolist, people tend to assume the worst. Don't like it? Behave better.
No, it doesn't work that way. You can't blame someone for acting badly no matter what they do - the person who does that is the one acting badly.
There are more than the two bad choices for behavior here.

It's not "no matter what they do" it's really that everything they do is wrong and there really are much better alternatives than the choices they continue to make.

It's called a reputation.
Poor Microsoft, what have they possibly done to deserve such lack of faith??