Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices...
...that your comment is basically just FUD?
I'm not saying your wrong! But your comment is, clearly, intended to make people feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft, the Windows platform, what MS may choose to do in the future, etc. And you don't have any particular factual claims to back it up (classic FUD tactic), just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") and some handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. I mean, I'm the oldest dev on my team, and I was a teenager when the Halloween Documents were published.
We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft, and I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. And no, chanting "embrace, extend, extinguish" is not an explanation.
> Microsoft has shown they are only interested in controlling the user, and not in giving the user control.
Is very well supported by their recent we'll-do-everything-possible to get Win10 on people's machines, force upgrades, forced (and ultra comprehensive, but mostly secretive until a month ago) telemetry.
> We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power?
They have spent the last year and a half abusing their power of Win7 updates to force people into Win10, which takes away the power that people had to resist the Win7->Win10 upgrade. If you missed that, we truly do live in different worlds.
I agree that the telemetry is very very dodgy. However, on the forced update front, I have to side with Microsoft here.
From their POV, regular and forced windows updates are the best way to ensure we don't have XP-like situations, where people just keep running out-dated software with horribly exploitable browsers. This creates a maintenance nightmare for software developers. Could you imagine running a 16 year old piece of software, refusing to upgrade to a newer-one but still expect security updates? And Windows 7 is well on it's way to become the 'next XP', it's almost 8 years old now...
I might agree with you from a "public goods" perspective (but only if win10 had user control comparable to win7, and it doesn't)
However, Microsoft is in it for themselves. Not for the public good, not for the people who want to keep running their old system, not for the developers. Furthermore, whoever bought win7 was guaranteed support until 2020.
Your siding with Microsoft in 2016 is siding with "we already got the customer's money, now let's try to do the easiest thing for us rather than keep our promises; use dark patterns if we need, because it is easier to get forgiveness than permission". I am sorry, but I disagree with this attitude.
> Isn't it a bit ironic, given your concern with 90s-era Microsoft practices that your comment is basically just FUD?
Apologies for not taking the time to sit down and list all the ways MS has been bad for the FOSS world and the user. For someone who references the halloween documents and the hn userbase in general I think most of this should be mostly obvious and not need specific hand-holding. As for your accusation of fud, fud by defnition is about false or disinformation in combination with the appeal to fear. I'm basing my comments off true information, and not using the fallacious appeal to fear but instead telling how proprietary systems do affect people.
> just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin")
A key point to the appeal to authority issue is that it isn't inherently a fallacy, and only becomes one with used in an informal fallacy, which I did not. In rhetoric establishing authority is an important (but often overvalued) aspect of argument. As a senior sysadmin, this makes my propositions more likely, but not logically certain. Not a fallacy at all.
> handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce.
What does the date of these actions have to do with the issue at hand? The four principles of software freedom are still not met by MS, and that's just as relevant today as it was 20 years ago.
> We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening?
Where do I begin? First of all, we don't really live in such a different world. Fundamental principles of software freedom have been the same since the 80's when they were first brought up, (though they have been refined somewhat). Second, not only would MS abuse their power, but they already have and do! As for what power, I don't know how you can be serious and ask such a question. Instead of ranting I will just give you a good link to read. https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-microsoft.en.html
> At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft
This is a logical fallacy. We aren't talking about FB. I'm concerned about it too, but to handwave away MS issues in this way is not conducive to honest intellectual conversation.
> I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear.
We have, for years at that. See above gnu.org link for a start.
> And how does WSL provide them an opening?
You mean other than replacing a gplv2 kernel with a closed source proprietary one?
> As for your accusation of fud, fud by defnition is about false or disinformation in combination with the appeal to fear.
By what definition? FUD is literally just the words "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt." Nothing about those words requires the thing being referred to to be false or disinformation.
Less pedantically, propaganda/astroturfing doesn't need to be a lie or an exaggeration or anything of the sort, to serve its purpose. You get just as much of an effect from selectively highlighting some true facts while downplaying others.
The irony the parent is referring to is that you are highlighting some facts about Microsoft [which support the story you wish to tell] while downplaying others [which do not], and so your comment serves as effective anti-Microsoft propaganda (i.e. "FUD") whether or not every statement in it is true.
> As for what power, I don't know how you can be serious and ask such a question.
Likely because—at least if they live in SV—it's almost assuredly true that almost nobody the parent knows uses Microsoft products any more. They have no cultural power, in the sense of having control of cultural influencers. They might still have a large foothold in the enterprise, but—unless there is a massive resurgence—that foothold will die exactly one generation of IT people from now, when nobody of the new generation will have bothered to learn the Windows stack.
> We have, for years at that. See above gnu.org link for a start.
You are not debating charitably here. There is a difference—and you know it—between "what you fear" in a general, ideological sense; and immediate fears of what can and is likely to happen given the current landscape.
The parent poster is asking the latter: what about the current Microsoft—without reference to history, without knowledge of history—do you fear?
> what about the current Microsoft—without reference to history, without knowledge of history—do you fear?
Win10 and how it was shoved hard down everyone's throat -- and how it had taken upgrade liberties away from the vast majority, while adding unstoppable telemetry.
Is 18 months too much history for a 40 year old company?
...that your comment is basically just FUD?
I'm not saying your wrong! But your comment is, clearly, intended to make people feel fear, uncertainty, and doubt about Microsoft, the Windows platform, what MS may choose to do in the future, etc. And you don't have any particular factual claims to back it up (classic FUD tactic), just an appeal to authority ("as a senior sysadmin") and some handwaving about events that took place long before most of us were actually in the workforce. I mean, I'm the oldest dev on my team, and I was a teenager when the Halloween Documents were published.
We live in a very different world. I'm not saying MS wouldn't abuse their power if they could, but you know...what power? And how does WSL provide them an opening? At this point, I'm much, much more concerned about Facebook than Microsoft, and I think the onus is on MS critics to explain exactly what they fear. And no, chanting "embrace, extend, extinguish" is not an explanation.