>>53896715
>Here we go again...

You got that right

Remember when Microsoft was mad that Netscape was better than them, so they purposely broke Windows so that Navigator couldn't render or connect to certain pages?

IIRC the reason why Microsoft prevailed on the PC was that Kildall's DOS was much more expensive than MDOS.

>>53896919
Only because IBM and Microsoft pulled a fast one on him.

What open source projects did MS succeeded to kill throughout its history?

>>53896919
It wasn't that simple.

IBM met with Gary first, but he didn't want to change the name or lose ownership, so he pulled out of the deal. IBM then went to Microsoft, and MS took the deal (even though they had no OS yet and had to pinch one) and they could still own the OS. Gary felt he'd been royally done over and a settlement was agreed upon where IBM would sell both OSs. MS colluded with IBM to make theirs much cheaper than CP/M, effectively cutting Gary out of the race.

>>53896993
None, because open source was never really a threat to MS. For other projects, just look at the market.

Word and Excel cut out other word processor or spreadsheets by working better with their new OS (win95) by virtue of them knowing how it worked. So by the time WordPerfect and Lotus and others caught up Word and Excel had already secured their position.

Also the bullshit they pulled with schools.

>>53897042

Poor Gary, he was such a nice guy.
It seems that to make it in silicon valley you must be an asshole or a full blown sociopath.

>>53897072
>None, because open source was never really a threat to MS.
Halloween documents say otherwise, they were shit scared of it and considered it as a threat, and they lost their edge in enterprise and cloud because of FOSS. MS tactics don't work against open source because those projects don't earn money in conventional ways, they can't bankrupt it and they can't lock it to themselves because somebody would just fork it.

>>53896715
I assume ms wants to have developers use the windows workspace by enabling bash support. Osx is very popular for this reason, and I would suspect Ms wants to capitalize on both the hardware sales, and increase w10 user base. I'm a little unsure Ms thinks Linux is a real threat.

>>53896993

None, but much of the anti trust lawsuit revolved around Microsoft consulting to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java with their own proprietary version.

Which is why I'm amazed that people actually advocate for C#, the tech community should be shunning it, not fostering it.

>>53897181
The issue is that, because MS has held dominion for so long, they're just a presence that's there.

Microsoft isn't a company to a lot of people, it's part of the computer, as essential as a cache or memory.

>>53897072
>>53897148
As in example
http://www.catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html#quote7
>* ...to understand how to compete against OSS, we must target a process rather than a company.
>* OSS is long-term credible ... FUD tactics can not be used to combat it.

>>53897164
Agreed to getting more developers from OSX but this is not really about Linux being a threat, rather Linux is an asset to every big company now. They fought the FOSS process itself and failed, git and rise of webdev, hypervisors and VMs was the final nail for that. Now they pivoted and adopting the process they fought against, their azure cloud is running linux vms, bash will run on windows. They are mimicking Google and Apple, did Android and its proprietary components hurt Linux or FOSS? Apple created webkit and incorporated lots of FOSS in proprietary iOS/OSX, that didn't kill FOSS in any way. Open source software and process are assets, not something to be competed against

>>53897516

And really, it kind of is: MS has had an undeniable footprint on the way we interact and view computers, so I kinda get that side of it.

I just get confused by the MS hate:

The neckbeards at large skewer MS for trivial (or outright imagined) transgressions, but look the other way on the few instances where MS has definitively crossed the line.

I'm secure enough to day that Win 10 w/ Classic shell is hands down the best OS I've ever used, but I'll never write a line of C# beyond hello world* unless it goes completely open source on principle.

To paraphrase, I ain't got no quarrel with them Microsoft people.

Apple are basically glorified patent trolls and can fuck off though.


*Within reason, I suppose; if you backed up a dump truck full of money for your CRUD app I'd probably do it.

>>53897181
Java was proprietary during that time, rms used to vehemently campaign against it. Sun made it FOSS in part to resist EEE and compete against .NET and that turned out to be clever

>>53897729
>I'm secure enough to day that Win 10

Here's the thing though: since there's only so far you can see down in to your OS, how would you know if you wasn't secure?

>>53898001

You took that too literally:

Secure enough as in 'comfortable enough', not literal security.