I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?
Embrace, extend, extinguish
They also wrote the book on user-hostile everything
And set the bar super low for other tech companies
Came here to say this. They wrote the playbook that has spelled the end or at least shitification of so many standards, open-source or otherwise(but usually still free-to-use or at least cheap).
Microsoft abuses their de facto monopoly to engage in gross invasion of their users’ privacy, and continues to try to wrest their users’ control of their system from them by altering system settings after updates, and making some settings nearly impossible to change. And that’s to say nothing of MS’s attempts to turn their operating system into and advertising platform.
They tried to destroy linux and free/libre software, and when that didn’t work, they started cornering the market and pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.” They also support SaaS model, and have made it next to impossible to get a new computer without their mediocre OS. On top of that, their OS is full of spyware, and is starting to become adware too.
But that all pales in comparison to the fact that you do not own your own OS: you can run Microsoft’s OS, but you can’t modify it or share it.
Oh, and this falls more in the realm of personal preference, but the deliberate lack of customizability is a real pain in the ass.
4/10 OS, only slightly better at disguising its capitalist greed than Apple.
You left out that they refuse to let end users control updates on the system unless they resort to hacky bullshit (and even that doesn’t work consistently). As far as I know (and have experienced on Windows Server) this extends to enterprise as well.
pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.”
Can you explain more? Is that related to the clown gpl guys criticizing BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh on FreeBSD for letting Apple to do whatever I can’t remember?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc. This doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
It’s getting more and more common that, even in cases where code is open source, only part of the codebase is actually available. This is something that Microsoft (and other wealthy tech companies) loves to do to show that it’s “transparent.”
Thanks.
Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.
GPL as an example.
Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc
If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:
Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.
I couldn’t find any primary source on OpenSSH’s licenses, but wikipedia says “BSD, ISC, Public Domain.”
Both BSD and ISC explicitly grant permissions to modify the software (and redistribute the modified software), and Public Domain means no rights reserved whatsoever, so the mailing list user’s points aren’t relevant to any of the Four Freedoms (aka the Sacred Texts).
Without access to the source email: it looks like it’s a debate about using copyleft licensing instead of BSD/ISC, which is sometimes considered the Fifth Freedom. If you want an argument about that, I’m happy to do so (later), but it isn’t a valid reason for saying some piece of software fails to meet the definition of Free Software.
(A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.
How does it restrict modifying the software?
It requires any modifications to be under GPL.
And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.
And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.
How it harms the end user are described.
1. Monopolistic business practices to crush competition (Netscape, Java, web browsers, etc.).
- Microsoft was found guilty of maintaining an illegal monopoly and engaging in anti-competitive tactics against competitors like Netscape Navigator and Java in the 1990s antitrust case.
2. Illegal bundling of Internet Explorer with Windows to eliminate browser rivals.
- The U.S. government accused Microsoft of illegally bundling Internet Explorer with Windows to crush competition from other web browsers. Microsoft was found guilty of this tying arrangement.
3. Keeping useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to disadvantage competitors.
- Microsoft allegedly kept useful Windows APIs secret from third-party developers to give an advantage to their own applications, though this was not a central part of the antitrust case.
4. Embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics to prevent users from switching.
- Microsoft has been criticized for embracing proprietary software and vendor lock-in tactics that make it difficult for users to switch to alternatives, such as their failed attempts to establish OOXML as an open standard for Office documents.
5. “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software.
- Microsoft has been accused of using the “Embrace, Extend, Extinguish” strategy against open source software to undermine adoption of open standards. This is also shown in the leaked Halloween documents.
6. Privacy violations through excessive data collection, user tracking, and sharing data with third parties.
- Microsoft has faced scrutiny over privacy issues, such as the NSA surveillance scandal and their handling of user data with Windows 10.
7. Complicity in enabling government surveillance and spying on user data (PRISM scandal).
- The PRISM surveillance scandal revealed Microsoft’s complicity in enabling government spying on user data.
8. Deliberately making hardware/software incompatible with open source alternatives.
- Microsoft has been accused of deliberately making hardware and software incompatible with open source alternatives through restrictive licensing requirements.
9. Anti-competitive acquisitions to eliminate rivals or control key technologies (GitHub, LinkedIn, etc.).
- Microsoft has acquired many companies over the years, sometimes in an effort to eliminate competition or gain control over key technologies and platforms.
10. Unethical contracts providing military technology like HoloLens for warfare applications.
- Microsoft’s $480 million contract to provide HoloLens augmented reality tech for the military drew protests from employees and criticism over aiding warfare.
11. Failing to address workplace issues like sexual harassment at acquired companies.
- Microsoft’s failed acquisition of gaming company Activision Blizzard raised concerns about ignoring workplace issues like sexual harassment at the acquired company.
12. Forced automatic Windows updates that override user control and cause system issues.
- Microsoft has faced backlash for forcing automatic updates on Windows users, including major updates that have caused issues like deleted files and crashed systems. Users have little control over when updates install.
13. Maintaining monopolistic dominance in productivity software and operating systems.
- Microsoft has maintained its dominance in areas like productivity software (Office) and operating systems (Windows), making it difficult for competitors to gain market share. This monopolistic position allows them to exert control over the industry.
14. Vague and toothless AI ethics principles while pursuing lucrative military AI contracts.
- Microsoft’s AI ethics principles have been criticized as vague and toothless in light of their pursuit of lucrative military AI contracts.
15. Continued excessive privacy violations and treating users as products with Windows.
- Windows 10 has been criticized for excessive data collection and lack of user privacy controls, essentially treating users as products to be monetized.
16. Restrictive proprietary licensing that stifles open source adoption.
- Microsoft’s proprietary software licensing makes it difficult for open source alternatives to be adopted widely, as they have a history of undermining open source software and interoperability with Windows.
This isn’t even anywhere near everything.
pretty much.
If you need a point for developers: all public code repositories hosted on GitHub are harvested, at least in 2021, and used to train copilot regardless of their license. Furthermore, GitHub is OWNED by Microsoft now.
Do you like having bullshit forced on you? Paying a $150 license to have ads in your operating system? Don’t care at all about privacy? Then Windows is for you!
How bad is Microsoft?
Bad enough to be stay away from
I feel like the authors of this site may be biased, though.
I’m a little biased right now.
Microsoft is definitely the corpoest of them all.
Probably not the worst corpo, likely even, but out of the corpos, they are the most corpo corpo of any corpo.
- They own LinkedIn, and I could just stop this list here.
- They’re the founding fathers of Embrace, Extend and Extinguish.
- They are the vanguard of videogame studio consolidation, after buying Activision and Bethesda.
- AI
- Everything they do is soggy bread: you can eat it, it’s probably mostly healthy, I think, but if a product is not the minimum viable product then it will be; take the Halo franchise as a reference for blandness, Windows for end user tolerance - both are controversial yet functional and popular software that people complain (and do nothing) about. Halo took quite a hit in popularity, but still…
- Remember when a software company got in trouble for monopolistic practices? That was a thing that happened at some point, and it was Microsoft. Not that it will ever happen again, nowadays all the cool kids have some slice of the tech landscape on a chokehold.
Ok but look on the bright side of things! you get great futures with this big tech concentration and control of the market. For instance, who else doesn’t want a operating system hotkey to Linkedin, baked into their settings? How did I use a computer without that before?!
Worse than Apple?
Apple is highly restrictive on their OS and over priced. They are extremely pro consumerism with heavy marketing and engineered obsolescence to ensure you are always pressured to buy their new tech, and they are historically very strongly anti-right-to-repair.
Microsoft is bad. But at least they are primarily a software monopoly.
Apple is from the walled garden of Eden.
Fortunately I have a ladder
Microsoft is about as bad as any other proprietary software company. They do some good things for the open source economy, but they also mistreat their users.
I think it’s a mistake to look at the free software movement as being a reaction against Microsoft or Google. It’s against the proprietary software world in general.
Yes. During the entire history of MSDOS, Windows and Internet Explorer, there are so many things you can pick why Microsoft is bad. Now they even integrate Recall into Windows. I want to say that I always disconnected Xbox from Microsoft; and I’m not entirely sure why.
The question of this post is a bit misleading, because it implies that someone could answer with “no”. Better question (in my opinion) is “How bad is Microsoft?”.
Microsoft has been building the O365 platform to lock out competitors and locking users into an ecosystem that is difficult to leave. They systematically eliminate competition and have pushed to create laws that make competition harder. In embrace extend extinguish, they are in phase 3, which is a massive red flag. They also started putting out spyware and malware into their software and have proven they can’t maintain security; making them a bad actor in a position of power. Scale is debatable, but Microsoft is undeniably evil in 2024.
A coworker recently sent me a Word document with edits and comments they had added. When I downloaded & opened it (in Word on Windows!) it told me that it had the edits/comments but it wouldn’t let me see them unless I log in to my Microsoft account and then view it online in the web version of Word. What the actual fuck?
Fuck that. I responded to my coworker and asked them to just send me the edits via email in plain text. I’m not winning popularity contests at work, but what the fuck Microsoft?
This ☝️
The death of Windows means more people will come to Linux
Also mean more commercial distros. Less donations to BSDs projects.
And it also increase the strength of Apple and Google, do you want to see that?
Is this the circlejerk community of lemmy?
What is the point of your comment? The person asked what the Linux community thinks about Microsoft and you come with this idiotic CiRcLeJerk bs? You didn’t add anything to the thread.
I’ve learnt a bunch of horrible practices done by MS that I wasn’t aware of so thank you everybody else.
If you have been on lemmy for any amount of time, “Microsoft bad” is posted almost daily. I’m not disagreeing, yes they are bad. It’s super circle jerky to post a whole thread literally asking something that is posted in comments/other posts literally daily. It’s fine I just find it funny lol
Microsoft is evil, but are they more or less evil than Google?
They took down the fucking don’t be evil sign! Google used to be a good company but I don’t trust their actions. I’ve only found out about the spyware level chrome browser, not to mention that Google has been coloring my searches on the internet.
But what do I expect from a ADVERTISING company first and for most?
Don’t authenticate to a search engine.
youtube needs you to sign in to watch videos now
This is unfortunate, I like my privacy, I’ve also been hearing about server side ads. On grayjay, I haven’t needed to sign in.
