Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.
I don’t trust or like Microsoft, but the likelihood of there being malicious intentions in this is incredibly low. Just imagine the fallout if Microsoft tried to sabotage the kernel.
Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.
which they can do in private any time they wish, without any of the fanfare.
if they actually believe in opensource let them opensource windows 7 1, or idk the 1/4 of a century old windows 2k
instead we get the fanare as they pat themselves on the back for opensourcing MS-DOS 4.0 early last year (not even 8.0, which is 24 years old btw, 4.0 which came out in 1986).
38 years ago…
MS-fucking-DOS, from 38 years ago, THAT’S how much they give a shit about opensource mate.
all we get is a poor pantomime which actually only illustrates just how stupid they truly think we are to believe the charade.
does any of that mean they’re 100% have to be actively shipping “bad code” in this project, not by any means. does it mean microsoft will never make a useful contribution to linux, not by any means. what it does mean is they’re increasing their sphere of influence over the project. and they have absolutely no incentive to help anyone but themselves, in fact the opposite.
as everyone knows (it’s not some deep secret the tech heads on lemmy somehow didn’t hear about) microsoft is highly dependent on linux for major revenue streams. anything a monolith depends on which they don’t control represents a risk. they’d be negligent if they didn’t try to exert control over it. and that’s for any organisation in their position. then factor in their widespread outspoken agenda against opensource, embrace, extend, extinguish and the vastly lacking longterm evidence to match their claims of <3 opensource.
they’re welcome to prove us all wrong, but that isn’t even on the horizon currently.
1 yes yes they claim they can’t because “licensing”, which is mostly but not entirely fucking flimsy, but ok devils advocate: release the rest, but nah.
Or they’re just adding improvements to the software they heavily rely on.
I don’t trust or like Microsoft, but the likelihood of there being malicious intentions in this is incredibly low. Just imagine the fallout if Microsoft tried to sabotage the kernel.
which they can do in private any time they wish, without any of the fanfare.
if they actually believe in opensource let them opensource windows 7 1, or idk the 1/4 of a century old windows 2k
instead we get the fanare as they pat themselves on the back for opensourcing MS-DOS 4.0 early last year (not even 8.0, which is 24 years old btw, 4.0 which came out in 1986).
38 years ago…
MS-fucking-DOS, from 38 years ago, THAT’S how much they give a shit about opensource mate.
all we get is a poor pantomime which actually only illustrates just how stupid they truly think we are to believe the charade.
does any of that mean they’re 100% have to be actively shipping “bad code” in this project, not by any means. does it mean microsoft will never make a useful contribution to linux, not by any means. what it does mean is they’re increasing their sphere of influence over the project. and they have absolutely no incentive to help anyone but themselves, in fact the opposite.
as everyone knows (it’s not some deep secret the tech heads on lemmy somehow didn’t hear about) microsoft is highly dependent on linux for major revenue streams. anything a monolith depends on which they don’t control represents a risk. they’d be negligent if they didn’t try to exert control over it. and that’s for any organisation in their position. then factor in their widespread outspoken agenda against opensource, embrace, extend, extinguish and the vastly lacking longterm evidence to match their claims of <3 opensource.
they’re welcome to prove us all wrong, but that isn’t even on the horizon currently.
1 yes yes they claim they can’t because “licensing”, which is mostly but not entirely fucking flimsy, but ok devils advocate: release the rest, but nah.