Well written. But does not change the fact that Microsoft acts as an ugly monopolist in a user-hostile and developer-hostile way in their market space. And delivers at most mediocre products.
This feels like trying to rewrite history. Those of us who lived through that time know that it was real - Microsoft was extremely anti-Linux. That famous Ballmer quote wasn't taken out of context, it was one of many. Ballmer and Gates were vehemently anti-Linux for years, and Microsoft engaged in deliberate marketing campaigns to smear Linux. They saw it as real competition, and they fought dirty, as they did with all of their competitors.
Here are just a few examples I found of evidence in just a few minutes of searching:
The legal questions were always overblown. The concern Ballmer was raising was that if you incorporate a bit of GPL software into your own, then it could "infect" the rest of your code and force you to release more. But that's ridiculous because nobody is forcing you to incorporate GPL software into your own. There was no serious legal concern about simply using Linux - Microsoft was just trying to scare people.
Is Microsoft a different company today? Yes, in many ways. They're much better about open-source software, for sure.
I still think they're anticompetitive in many ways. Their marketing team still prefers to try to spread lies about their competition (e.g. Chrome) rather than promote their own product on its own merits.
Yess indeed. Additionally, one of the marketing campaigns (“Get the facts”) seemed deliberately arranged to interfere with the SCO vs IBM and SCO vs RedHat legal cases where SCO tried to claim they owned Linux. For people who weren’t around reading “groklaw” on a daily basis at the time this is a bit of a rabbit hole, so be warned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
Not "Developers Developers Developers", that one is great. The cancer one.
Quoted in my household often [1]
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fcSviC7cRM
Well now it’s “AI AI and AI”.
Well written. But does not change the fact that Microsoft acts as an ugly monopolist in a user-hostile and developer-hostile way in their market space. And delivers at most mediocre products.
This feels like trying to rewrite history. Those of us who lived through that time know that it was real - Microsoft was extremely anti-Linux. That famous Ballmer quote wasn't taken out of context, it was one of many. Ballmer and Gates were vehemently anti-Linux for years, and Microsoft engaged in deliberate marketing campaigns to smear Linux. They saw it as real competition, and they fought dirty, as they did with all of their competitors.
Here are just a few examples I found of evidence in just a few minutes of searching:
https://slate.com/technology/2005/11/the-open-source-movemen...
https://www.wired.com/2014/07/tech-time-warp-ms-matrix/
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2002-dec-26-fi-micro...
The legal questions were always overblown. The concern Ballmer was raising was that if you incorporate a bit of GPL software into your own, then it could "infect" the rest of your code and force you to release more. But that's ridiculous because nobody is forcing you to incorporate GPL software into your own. There was no serious legal concern about simply using Linux - Microsoft was just trying to scare people.
Is Microsoft a different company today? Yes, in many ways. They're much better about open-source software, for sure.
I still think they're anticompetitive in many ways. Their marketing team still prefers to try to spread lies about their competition (e.g. Chrome) rather than promote their own product on its own merits.
Yess indeed. Additionally, one of the marketing campaigns (“Get the facts”) seemed deliberately arranged to interfere with the SCO vs IBM and SCO vs RedHat legal cases where SCO tried to claim they owned Linux. For people who weren’t around reading “groklaw” on a daily basis at the time this is a bit of a rabbit hole, so be warned https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCO%E2%80%93Linux_disputes
[dead]