[SwellJoe]

Microsoft has a history of doing bad things. I don't know that the fear is warranted today, but "embrace and extend" was a real problem for a long time. Hell, Microsoft broke innovation on the web for a decade with IE. That wasn't an accident...it's just how Microsoft do.

There are certainly people within Microsoft who want to cooperate with the rest of the world, and their behavior has been better in the past several years, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's built into their corporate culture to destroy or coopt anything that might pose a threat to them. And, it may be that the only reason they aren't still destroying and coopting on a wide scale is because they have so much less power today. The web is not owned by Microsoft; in the end, they lost that war, despite trying very hard.

Anyway...Microsoft is not Google (and Google is not flawless in their relation to the rest of the web and Open Source). I think it's wise to proceed with caution whenever interacting with anything Microsoft has touched.

[nickstinemates]

At some point, you have to make a leap of faith. I take great comfort in the delivery and momentum of the Azure team inside of Microsoft. I'm optimistic that the future of Microsoft looks a lot like that than they have before.

That said, I could be completely wrong, and it's important to trust, but verify.

As a result, I'm pretty comfortable with the terms that ensure we protect our commitment to Open Source and in ensuring there is no special access given by partners, Microsoft or not. The project is the project, governed under the rules set forth by the community. Even members of Docker, Inc. have to advocate and fight for every change they make, as we do not believe in creating different classes of contribution.

Hope that helps, would love to chat more

[rch]

The misalignment of interests is deeper than you think. That shouldn't affect this particular arrangement though; good luck!

[nickstinemates]

You may be completely right! If there's something concrete you can point me to around things that are happening now, I'd appreciate that.

Time will tell, for now I'll remain optimistic and continue down the path we've started.

[outside1234]

So what you are saying is that you are biased against Microsoft and everyone else should be too?

[SwellJoe]

Yes, I am biased against Microsoft. That bias is based on a history of what I believe is unethical behavior that hurt innovation on the Internet and in Open Source software. Others may not consider their past behavior unethical, or may believe in "forgive and forget" now that they seem to be playing fair, which is fine for those folks. I am not as ready to forget, even if I eventually find forgiveness.

Regardless of what others think of Microsoft, I believe my disdain and mistrust for Microsoft is based on a reasonable understanding of historical facts, rather than some subjective vendetta. I've been a nerd for a long time. Microsoft has (until possibly very recently) never been a good citizen in the tech world.

[nbevans]

Give over. Internet Explorer didn't hurt innovation at all. It was more innovative than Netscape by a country mile. IE was the first to pioneer CSS! And DHTML! Netscape pioneered, erm, cookies, I guess? There was no other web browser worth using other than IE or Netscape back in those wild west days of the Web.

Yes there was a period of a year or two when Netscape entered the abyss and it took a while for a new competitor to IE to spring up. But that happened (Firefox) and shortly after Microsoft resumed development on IE too.

You seem to have selective memory. IE brought A LOT of good to the Web. A LOT of good.

[SwellJoe]

Courts in Europe and the United States disagree with you. And, while I'm willing to believe juries and judges can make mistakes, I have to say I don't think the courts did enough...and they went after Microsoft for many of the more minor problems with Microsoft's business.

"You seem to have selective memory. IE brought A LOT of good to the Web. A LOT of good."

From where I'm sitting you have a very imaginative memory. IE was better than the competition because it destroyed the competition using the very unethical (and illegal, according to courts in several nations) tactics I've already mentioned.

Honestly, I'm surprised anyone on HN would have so little knowledge of the history of Microsoft and the web that you would interpret their stranglehold on the browser as a positive thing. I simply can't wrap my head around it, it's so absurd to me.

[nbevans]

Thanks for the down vote for disagreeing with your opinion.

The courts took issue with bundling it with Windows. Not that it was not innovative. There was even a few articles in recent years suggesting the courts went too far over the "bundling" case; sighting comparisons to vendor lock-in all over the industry now not reaching the courts at all. Just one top hit cite: http://readwrite.com/2013/11/12/apple-maps-takes-off-cue-the...

The whole bundling IE case was fundamentally stupid and run by lawyers and judges who had no understand of the technology industry, the web and the wild west stage the web was going through. Back then, it was all about enablement. Getting people just onto the web in the first place was hard. They had to buy a computer, a modem, sign up with an ISP, possibly upgrade their operating system, install a web browser etc. But in those days, installing a web browser meant you had to go buy a Magazine from a shop just to get the CD-ROM. Microsoft viewed this, rightly, as an impediment. So they bundled IE with their OS. A practice that is still common place today by every major operating system that exists including Windows, Linux, OSX, Android, iOS, WinPhone.

Without IE bringing DHTML we would not have the foundations that made modern day JavaScript, SPA, "Ajax" applications today. How is that not fostering innovation? IE 1 to 6 were a technology showcase to show everybody else what the web _could_ be or become. That's one reason why, though they'll never admit it, Mozilla abandoned Mozilla Suite and started work on Firefox.

"So little knowledge of the history of Microsoft and the web"? Er, what? I date back to having to when you had to install a TCP/IP stack manually in order to get onto the web. What you're actually surprised about is that anyone would dare challenge you on what you perhaps believed would be a widely held opinion when it's far from that clear cut.

[tkubacki]

According to this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/business/2000/microsoft/...

MS was making "illegal market-splitting suggestion"

and

"Microsoft began to use its market power to extract exclusionary deals with many of the largest [PC manufacturers and internet service providers]", threatening Netscape customers such as Compaq that if it tried to replace the Internet Explorer icon with the Netscape Navigator icon "

We can assume they've done many more bad things since their EEE attitude was proven many times (Bill Gates included - vide leaked email in antitrust case http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/... )

[TheRealDunkirk]

You want history? I'll give you history. The bottom line is that Microsoft used it's monopoly position to destroy Netscape, who -- really, let's be honest -- made "the web" a thing to begin with at all.

If Microsoft would have made Internet Explorer a boxed piece of software to sit on the shelf beside Netscape Navigator, and if they had priced it similarly, and if people had voted with their wallets in IE's direction (because it was actually a better product for the money), I wouldn't have had a problem with IE taking over the world. As it was, they bundled it, and it was crap in comparison (at least to start with, and many would say up until recently), but Netscape couldn't compete with free.

THAT'S what a lot of us still remember. It was a perfect, easily-visible example of a lot of business moves they have made, and for which they ultimately -- not only weren't punished -- but actually were allowed to prosper because of. THAT'S why people like me are still sore about it.

They won because of BUSINESS SAVVY and LEGAL moves, not TECHNICAL MERIT, and people in the software development world (and everyone else) have paid the price for it for 20 years. (I can't get Sametime in the web version of Lotus Notes to work unless I use Internet Explorer, and in "compatibility mode", to emulate their non-standards-compliant behavior that everyone was forced to code around, as one immediate example.)

All the touchy-feely "openness" they're trying to foist on the world now is going to have to be everything they hope people will interpret it as for the next THIRTY years for me to believe they really want to interoperate with the rest of the world like Linux always has.

[SwellJoe]

HN does not allow one to downvote replies to your own comments.

I do disagree with you, in every regard, but I don't downvote over disagreement (and could not possibly downvote you in this instance). Someone else must also disagree with you.

[piokoch]

The courts questioned the fact that browser was delivered as a part of operating system, not that it was blocking innovation.

Speaking of innovation it is true that IE was terrible in adopting standards (this was pain for long, long years and costed tones of money), but, on the other hand, they have invented XMLHttpRequest, which opened doors to modern web applications development.

[nbevans]

This is complete rubbish. IE was on the cutting edge of web standards, to such an extent it was having to make up some proprietary technologies itself such as XMLHttpRequest (just one example).

The problem is a lot of Ruby/JS/dynamictypedlanguage hipsters these days who shout so loudly about IE having poor standards support weren't actually around at the time. Everyone loved IE back in those days as it was modern and every release had new exciting features in it (both for users and developers).

The fact that IE got some things "wrong" with CSS and had bugs like transparent PNGs not rendering, er, transparently... were just necessary growing pains. This didn't matter in the wild west days of the web as, well, PNGs weren't even that popular back then and CSS was still something web developers were getting to grips with, slowly.

Compare IE4-6 not to later-generation browsers, but to its direct rivals of the day which was Netscape and Opera and not really much else. Compared to these, IE was king.

[scholia]

It's simply not true that IE was terrible in adopting standards: it was very good at it up to and including IE6. That included the rapid adoption of Netscape "standards".

The real problem was that Microsoft stopped browser development for half a dozen years, and that put it miles behind. The rapid releases from IE8 to IE11 show Microsoft trying to catch up, ie being pretty good at adopting standards.

There are plenty of things to blame, including the US Justice Department, the unexpected delay from the Longhorn disaster, and the backlash against Vista. This left XP dominating the PC market, and XP shipped with IE6.

If that's been holding up the web, it's not because Microsoft willed it. Just the reverse: it's being trying for years to kill it off.

[kenjackson]

In fairness, what MS did in the past is what Apple and Google are going now, just with larger market share.

[SwellJoe]

Ken, this is an amazing day. I don't believe I have ever agreed with you in a discussion about Microsoft (or any discussion for that matter). But, I can say with complete conviction that I agree with you. Apple and Google (much moreso Apple) are behaving badly on a number of fronts, and abusing their near-monopoly position in certain markets.

[jabits]

xhr.

[jamespo]

Yeah, who uses SSL/TLS

[spacemanmatt]

Microsoft has more than earned bias against them. You're free to form your own opinion, though.