I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?

  • thirteene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

    • GrappleHat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      6 days ago

      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?

  • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    7 days ago

    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.

    • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      Tiếng Việt
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      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?

      • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        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.”

        • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          Tiếng Việt
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

          • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 days ago

            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.

            • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              Tiếng Việt
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 days ago

              (A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.

                • scratchandgame@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  Tiếng Việt
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  6 days ago

                  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.

      • BaumGeist@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Did you mean

        Is that related to the gpl advocates who criticize BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh at FreeBSD for letting Apple do something (I can’t remember what)?

        I’m not trying to be a grammar nazi, I just want to make sure I’m interpreting you correctly and not putting words in your mouth.

        Afaik, BSD and MIT licenses qualify as Free Software licenses. I could be wrong; I am not a lawyer, nor am I Richard Stallman.

        As for your first question:

        Can you explain more?

        @[email protected] did a good summary of the distinction, so I will expand on m$'s role:

        By most Free Software advocates’ accounts, the rise of the term “Open Source” was a deliberate move to make proprietary software less of a bitter pill for us radical digital anarchists: “look, our code is Open and Transparent (but you still can’t reproduce or modify it, even if you buy a license).” At the same time, Open Source advocates argued that this was the “Shoe-In-The-Door” for Free Software into the corporate/capitalist landscape—it’s not, because it doesn’t actually advocate any of Free Software’s Four Essential Freedoms (Five, if you consider Copyleft to be essential, as I do).

        So basically the corporate world took the concept of Free Software, which was starting to be a threat to their businesses, sanitized it of any actual freedom, and sold it back to devs and users as some kind of magnanimous gesture that they were letting us look (but not touch) the code they wrote. Open Source.

        M$ has been essential in this shift. Perusing their github, they make it clear that they’re willing to toss projects onto the pile, but make sure as hell to keep the Freedom from infecting any of their larger, popular software (e.g. Office, Visual Studio, Windows). And in return, they get access to whatever code you host on their service, assuming they can interpret vague phrasing in their Privacy Policy loosely enough.

  • Captain Beyond@linkage.ds8.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    6 days ago

    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.

  • sansrealname@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    6 days ago

    Maybe I’m going crazy but I feel like I’ve been seeing this post or an identical one for many days, maybe even a week, yet the age is still one day.

    Still, fuck MS and all.

  • Andromxda 🇺🇦🇵🇸🇹🇼@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    First they tried to destroy FOSS, then they realized that they can make money and gain control using open source software, so now they pretend to support it. Microsoft is a monopolistic piece of garbage that I’m staying away from at all costs.

    • Bilb!@lem.monster
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      I don’t think they’re pretending. Open source software is a valuable resource for basically all major tech companies, and a lot of it is driven by major tech companies. Some kind of combination of open source and proprietary software will always be a thing for them. This isn’t some major contradiction, they use either model based on the specific needs of the project.

      This is why some think “Open Source” is too permissive since they see it as free/cheap labor to be exploited by huge corporations.

      I’m not sure that I see it that way, but I can see their point.

      • optissima@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 days ago

        If as soon as it’s more profitable for it to not be they stop supporting it, then yes they were pretending.

        • Bilb!@lem.monster
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 days ago

          It’s not as if they are holding themselves up as supporting Free Software philosophies (as opposed to Open Source), so where’s the pretense?

          If somehow it ever makes strategic sense for them to stop making use of the open source model, yeah, they’ll stop. That doesn’t mean they were pretending.

  • UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I think overall they are not better or worse than other tech giants. They try to be the platform for blank and thus to push competitors out of the marked, or lock it down so they can’t enter. They try to extract as much money from their customers as they can, even if it makes the user experience worse. They push the boundaries of what the can legally do. They charge you, but you don’t own anything.

    What really grinds my gears is how they try to force stuff on me that I don’t fucking want. I feel like they are completely different in that regard than for example Google. I use Google Maps because I want to. I don’t use Chrome because I don’t want to. It’s that easy. They don’t ask me to reconsider, they don’t make it super complicated to switch, nothing. I can disable any Google App and forget about it.

    To stick with the Google comparison, I also feel like Google informs me better and gives me more control regarding my data. This feels much more hidden on convoluted in MS products in general. For example I had no idea Office is basically spyware before reading about it elsewhere. In Google-land, they seem much more upfront about what they use and what I can opt out from (or in to).

  • utopiah@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    As a shareholder (which I’m not), it’s absolutely amazing.

    As a human being though… it’s simple to look at the history of the company, from its inception based on nepotism and locking-down was hitherto the common good, to going from one place of monopoly (OS, app, cloud) to another (extending to whatever is trendy at the moment e.g XR with HoloLens, AI with OpenAI, etc).

    It’s IMHO one of the very worst thing that could have happened to humanity in terms of cognitive empowerment. Apple is not far behind but in terms of locking up an entire ecosystem but Microsoft, sadly, is doing it better.

    To clarify what I mean is that Microsoft is the business embodiment of learned helplessness. Most people would shrug at the quality of software they provide, the price, etc ONLY because they are convinced, wrongfully so, that they are is no legitimate alternative. If users were actually able to chose, not being coerced into but properly chose, by experiencing alternatives, the World would be totally different. Instead of having computer users who feel an adversarial relationship to their devices, we would have a much stronger relation of “this is MY device” the same way a lot (not all) of people have a repair toolbox at home. They know they can try to fix something in THEIR home, even improve it. Most people understand it won’t be easy, they might mess it up, but it’s possible to try. Not in software, and that’s entirely Microsoft “success”. Maybe in an alternative reality others, like Apple, would have made that happen to, but in our reality I blame Microsoft, Bill Gates upbringing from his legal mindset father and well connected mother.

    We could have a world were users own their devices, have a challenging yet empowering relationship to technology, starting with software, and instead we have exploitative learning helplnessness. So yes, Microsoft is that bad.

  • shirro@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    I don’t think about Microsoft at all mostly. I supported their stuff professionally in the past and friends/family but otherwise total avoidance. They own some big game studios so I probably use some of their products like Minecraft but I haven’t used their operating systems or applications for decades and I dislike and distrust cloud services and theirs is no exception. All big companies tend to be the same. Try not to depend on any of them.

    • Epzillon@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      Average Reddit comment.

      • Attempts to roast everyone in the thread and dreail the thread itself by attempting to be “funny”.
      • Contributes nothing to the discussion.
      • Is the reason why circle jerk threads begin at all.

      You: 🤡

    • zeroAhead@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • Cairden@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 days ago

        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