←back to thread

617 points EvgeniyZh | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.686s | source
Show context
santiagobasulto ◴[] No.43576378[source]
Microsoft (and maybe even Bill Gates personally) generated a strong "dislike" sentiment to the hacker community. But we can't deny that he and Paul Allen were pure breed hackers and helped a lot the development of technology. Of course, we all prefer OSS and we'd pick Linus (or insert OSS dev name here) 100 times over one of the "evil capitalists"/s, but nevertheless they have to be recognized.
replies(9): >>43576677 #>>43576921 #>>43577033 #>>43577209 #>>43577563 #>>43578156 #>>43579422 #>>43579491 #>>43588088 #
mmooss ◴[] No.43578156[source]
How were they "pure bread hackers"? Was Gates especially proficient with code? I've never heard that. From what I read, they were the enemies of hackers. This really seems like looking back with rose-colored glasses.

My understanding of Microsoft's success was it came from marketplace maneuvers, many ranging from unethical to illegal, not from quality or innovative hacking. Compare Windows with any contemporaneous MacOS, for example. They took over the office productivity software market by illegally leveraging their Windows monopoly. Their initial and core success - getting DOS on IBM PCs, which led to the Windows monopoly - was simply leaping at a business opportunity, I think even before they began developing the product.

Didn't they generate fake errors for Windows running on DR-DOS, or something like that, even though it ran fine? Do you mind that they tried to destroy and monopolize the open web (thank you Mozilla!)?

replies(8): >>43578704 #>>43578844 #>>43579055 #>>43579319 #>>43581196 #>>43584713 #>>43586533 #>>43589230 #
wvenable ◴[] No.43586533[source]
> This really seems like looking back with rose-colored glasses.

It works both ways. It's hard to look back at the time while ignoring all the paths the road has taken since then.

Microsoft has always been company that is very good at building software compared their competition at the time. Their office productivity software, for example, is what made Windows popular (Windows is useless without apps). It's easy to give more weight to their flaws because, in many ways, their successes just seem obvious now.

replies(1): >>43588007 #
mmooss ◴[] No.43588007[source]
> Microsoft has always been company that is very good at building software compared their competition at the time.

I have never, ever heard that. (Edit: Name such software today.)

> Their office productivity software, for example, is what made Windows popular (Windows is useless without apps).

Completely false. Windows was already a monopoly, and the US government successfully sued Microsoft for using their Windows monopoly to leverage sales for Office. They told manufacturers: If you want Windows (which was essential) for the computer, you must pay for an Office license too.

Where do you get this stuff or why are you posting it?

replies(1): >>43588795 #
wvenable ◴[] No.43588795[source]
> Completely false. Windows was already a monopoly, and the US government successfully sued Microsoft for using their Windows monopoly to leverage sales for Office.

The government lawsuit was specifically about Internet Explorer, not Office. At no time were manufacturers forced to pay for Office licenses. Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.

Where do you get your stuff and why are posting it? You do know that Office applications existed before Windows, right? Excel came out for Mac OS first.

replies(1): >>43591170 #
1. mmooss ◴[] No.43591170[source]
> The government lawsuit was specifically about Internet Explorer, not Office.

There was more than one government action back then - DR-DOS (maybe a private lawsuit), IE, Office, maybe others. It's possible Microsoft settled before anything was filed for the Office abuse, but there was government action on it.

> At no time were manufacturers forced to pay for Office licenses. Go ahead, look it up, I'll wait.

Do I work for you? What will you give me to look it up for you?

Why are you making this stuff up?

replies(1): >>43595129 #
2. wvenable ◴[] No.43595129[source]
You: Vague over-exaggerated unsubstantiated claims without even being able to say what decade you're referring to.

Also you: "Why are you making stuff up."

I lived through this entire time. You're right you don't work for me but if you're going to make wild claims you should back them up or not continue to post misinformation as fact.

I guarantee to you that there was never any government action (or even proposed action) against Microsoft for Office.

replies(1): >>43598476 #
3. mmooss ◴[] No.43598476[source]
What will you give me if I prove you wrong? Let's make a bet. How about a note in the loser's profile for a month? 'I was a fool to doubt _____'. (I feel like we need something more creative.) :)

> if you're going to make wild claims you should back them up

Same goes for you.

I'm just going to preserve this claim here:

> I guarantee to you that there was never any government action (or even proposed action) against Microsoft for Office.

A guarantee! Can I sue if you're wrong? :)