Good work alienating Linux fans [LWN.net]

Good work alienating Linux fans

Posted Mar 21, 2008 19:20 UTC (Fri) by mikov (subscriber, #33179)
Parent article: A tour of the Microsoft open source lab

Good work guys, with all you negative comments. Make sure to alienate the few Microsoft
employees that use/like Linux.

Doesn't it seems a bit immature to condemn all of them just because they work for Microsoft ?
The suggestions to find another job because Microsoft is "evil" make me laugh. Yeah, sure
everybody should quit their Microsoft jobs - the hell with feeding their family, the mortgage,
etc.

This is why from outside the OSS community can seem like a hostile bunch of nerds who never
leave their parent's basement.

(BTW, I have no association with Microsoft whatsoever, and I use Linux both professionally and
at home.)

(Log in to post comments)

Good work alienating Linux fans

Posted Mar 21, 2008 20:10 UTC (Fri) by Zack (guest, #37335) [Link]

>Doesn't it seems a bit immature to condemn all of them just because they work for Microsoft ?

I have to agree here.

"Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software, but the two activities were
separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free products, and work with them on free software
projects. Then we could honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions,
without talking about the rest of what they did." is a quote of rms I agree with.
So if the people at the ms linux-lab are actually making contributions to Free Software, it is
unfair they should be shunned or ridiculed. Or alternatively, all contributions from people
receiving their paycheck from proprietary software vendors (such as HP or IBM) should be
shunned, which obviously would be very detrimental to Free Software.

I understand how great it feels to unite under a single banner against *the enemy*, but in
truth microsoft is just *a* proprietary software vendor out of many.

>Yeah, sure everybody should quit their Microsoft jobs - the hell with feeding their family,
the mortgage, etc.
Depending on what their job is that might be a good idea. 
"Feeding their family" is almost always an appeal to emotion. In reality it is often closer to
"have a second car" or "own a detached house" or similar luxuries.

Good work alienating Linux fans

Posted Mar 21, 2008 20:29 UTC (Fri) by dskoll (subscriber, #1630) [Link]

Doesn't it seems a bit immature to condemn all of them just because they work for Microsoft?

If you choose to work for a convicted criminal monopolist, what do you expect? The market for software developers is such that a software developer choosing not to work for Microsoft could still make a pretty good living.

The whole "port 25" website is just propaganda; it's completely insincere. Oh sure, a few of the geeks working in Microsoft's OSS lab may be stupid or deluded enough to think they'll actually make a difference, but no-one with an ounce of sense is fooled by Microsoft's clumsy and transparent PR attempts. Luckily for us, Microsoft's subtlety is about on par with their software quality.

Good work alienating Linux fans

Posted Mar 21, 2008 20:51 UTC (Fri) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

I wouldn't be worried about alienating them.

If they didn't think that they were not going to get flack for working for Microsoft then they
are morons. Any reasonably intelligent person should realize this and, accordingly, not give a
crap one way or another. Let it roll off like water on a duck's back.

Individually Smart, Collective Stupid

Posted Mar 25, 2008 3:56 UTC (Tue) by ldo (subscriber, #40946) [Link]

Doesn't it seems a bit immature to condemn all of them just because they work for Microsoft ?

No it doesn't. While there are many individually smart people working at Microsoft, collectively a lot of their intelligence just seems to cancel out.

A case in point is this long discussion by Mark Russinovich about the performance of file copying in Vista. Mark is a smart guy--he used to be with the old sysinternals.com company that Microsoft bought. Now here he is, working gamely away at trying to fix one small part of the problem, without having any influence on the whole picture. As a result, people are still complaining about file-copying performance in Vista.

Getting back to Microsoft's stance on Free Software, ultimately it's mainly what Steve Ballmer thinks that counts. Doesn't matter what lower-level Microsofties may think, if Ballmer is hostile, then their company as a whole remains hostile. End of story.

Individually Smart, Collective Stupid

Posted Mar 26, 2008 0:20 UTC (Wed) by mikov (subscriber, #33179) [Link]

No it doesn't. While there are many individually smart people working at Microsoft, collectively a lot of their intelligence just seems to cancel out.

I am sure the same thing can be said for any sufficiently large company.

Regardless of your opinion about their intellect, the presumption that individual employees are evil or hostile, is not only illogical but harmful, especially if they happen to be using Linux and proclaiming their love for it .

I personally think that it is naive to consider whole companies "evil". It simply does not make sense. A company is a business entity which has to make money (especially if it is a public company). Microsoft does it by developing proprietary software.

RedHat happens to be "friendly" because they use Open Source and Free Software. Of course they must be friendly - they rely on it for their business! However it is just that - a business decision. If it was more profitable to develop proprietary software they would do it in a blink.

Individually Smart, Collective Stupid

Posted Mar 26, 2008 7:39 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

I personally think that it is naive to consider whole companies "evil".

I am not sure of that: a company is an organization, and organizations can be less evil or more evil, just like people. Imagine if we said: "Hey, the Mafia is neither good nor evil: they are just an organization, just like the Catholic church or Doctors Without Borders". Sorry, but some organizations are more inclined to commit crime than others.

There is something called corporate culture, and it includes a tendency or willingness to do evil or be fair. Standard Oil was bent on keeping a monopoly, just like Bell or now Microsoft. That doesn't mean that good things can't happen despite that environment (think Unix), but it can be harder.

A company is a business entity which has to make money (especially if it is a public company).

That is true, but a bit lopsided. Making a profit is only one of the objectives of a company, and not always the most important; there is also maintaining its stock price, keeping a good public image, respecting the law, making its employees happy, keeping ahead of the competition... And that is besides its particular objectives such as delivering product or developing free software.

Focusing only on one objective for a company is not likely to capture the whole picture. Case in point: what is more important for Microsoft, keeping its monopoly or making a profit? And now its logical consequence: is Microsoft likely to lose money in a deal, just to keep its monopoly in a market?