Microsoft joins the Linux Foundation

[Bleipriester]

Microsoft is finaly on the path of accepting that it has not to be the provider of a platform by all means. Going for the mobile phone market is also not a good idea. There are plenty of producers but only two make cash: Apple and Samsung. And Microsoft has another handicap: It has a platform that struggles with a lack of third party support.

Microsoft has finally figured out that the times they are a changin' and they need to change with the times or ultimately die a slow agonizing death, becoming but a shadow of their former selves. This is a good thing for consumers as Microsoft loses it's arrogance. Win 8 was an attempt to change but still imbued with Microsoft's arrogant approach, "we're Microsoft, everyone will accept and love it", Win 10 is Microsoft's realization of that failure and their first attempt at compromise/collaboration with the Windows operating system.
My hope is that Microsoft is rapidly losing it's arrogance and is not simply joining up with Linux in an attempt to take over or undermine that system.

Microsoft´s dominance on desktops is still unchallenged. I don´t think that this is their concern.

Not yet but it's their dominance that has fostered arrogance, an arrogance that has happened with many companies in the past only to have that attitude ultimately destroy the company. Ultimately companies that develop the attitude that they and their product is irreplaceable often begin dictating to the consumer, eventually the consumer tires of being dictated to. As an example, you don't live here so you haven't noticed more and more food service companies are dropping Coca-Cola in favor of Pepsico products. This is because Coca-Cola stringently dictates terms of usage and sale to it's commercial customers, Pepsico does not making Pepsi products cheaper to sell.

On the other hand, Canonical has dictated its UI like Microsoft. And Pepsi serves as good as Coke while most companies and users rely on Windows.

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

 

[Ringel05]

Microsoft has finally figured out that the times they are a changin' and they need to change with the times or ultimately die a slow agonizing death, becoming but a shadow of their former selves. This is a good thing for consumers as Microsoft loses it's arrogance. Win 8 was an attempt to change but still imbued with Microsoft's arrogant approach, "we're Microsoft, everyone will accept and love it", Win 10 is Microsoft's realization of that failure and their first attempt at compromise/collaboration with the Windows operating system.
My hope is that Microsoft is rapidly losing it's arrogance and is not simply joining up with Linux in an attempt to take over or undermine that system.

Microsoft´s dominance on desktops is still unchallenged. I don´t think that this is their concern.

Not yet but it's their dominance that has fostered arrogance, an arrogance that has happened with many companies in the past only to have that attitude ultimately destroy the company. Ultimately companies that develop the attitude that they and their product is irreplaceable often begin dictating to the consumer, eventually the consumer tires of being dictated to. As an example, you don't live here so you haven't noticed more and more food service companies are dropping Coca-Cola in favor of Pepsico products. This is because Coca-Cola stringently dictates terms of usage and sale to it's commercial customers, Pepsico does not making Pepsi products cheaper to sell.

On the other hand, Canonical has dictated its UI like Microsoft. And Pepsi serves as good as Coke while most companies and users rely on Windows.

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

For now but that's changing and that's not 100% true with all companies but you're still missing the point and that was the old leadership issue where they had developed an arrogant approach. The new leadership appears to be slowly overcoming that arrogant corporate mentality, that's a GOOD THING not a negative, you don't have to defend Microsoft at all costs...........

 

[Bleipriester]

Microsoft´s dominance on desktops is still unchallenged. I don´t think that this is their concern.

Not yet but it's their dominance that has fostered arrogance, an arrogance that has happened with many companies in the past only to have that attitude ultimately destroy the company. Ultimately companies that develop the attitude that they and their product is irreplaceable often begin dictating to the consumer, eventually the consumer tires of being dictated to. As an example, you don't live here so you haven't noticed more and more food service companies are dropping Coca-Cola in favor of Pepsico products. This is because Coca-Cola stringently dictates terms of usage and sale to it's commercial customers, Pepsico does not making Pepsi products cheaper to sell.

On the other hand, Canonical has dictated its UI like Microsoft. And Pepsi serves as good as Coke while most companies and users rely on Windows.

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

For now but that's changing and that's not 100% true with all companies but you're still missing the point and that was the old leadership issue where they had developed an arrogant approach. The new leadership appears to be slowly overcoming that arrogant corporate mentality, that's a GOOD THING not a negative, you don't have to defend Microsoft at all costs...........

You claimed I am always with the non-American side. However, I am not siding with Microsoft. My view simply different from the long-term anti-Microsoft trend.

 

[Ringel05]

Not yet but it's their dominance that has fostered arrogance, an arrogance that has happened with many companies in the past only to have that attitude ultimately destroy the company. Ultimately companies that develop the attitude that they and their product is irreplaceable often begin dictating to the consumer, eventually the consumer tires of being dictated to. As an example, you don't live here so you haven't noticed more and more food service companies are dropping Coca-Cola in favor of Pepsico products. This is because Coca-Cola stringently dictates terms of usage and sale to it's commercial customers, Pepsico does not making Pepsi products cheaper to sell.

On the other hand, Canonical has dictated its UI like Microsoft. And Pepsi serves as good as Coke while most companies and users rely on Windows.

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

For now but that's changing and that's not 100% true with all companies but you're still missing the point and that was the old leadership issue where they had developed an arrogant approach. The new leadership appears to be slowly overcoming that arrogant corporate mentality, that's a GOOD THING not a negative, you don't have to defend Microsoft at all costs...........

You claimed I am always with the non-American side. However, I am not siding with Microsoft. My view simply different from the long-term anti-Microsoft trend.

Daymn dude, I give you shit about your propensity to defend Putin and the Russian Federation no matter what, I give you shit because you always defend Microsoft to the exclusion of everything else. Basically I just give you shit because it's fun to........
The only reason I don't like Microsoft is because they developed a "we dictate to the consumer" attitude, not a smart business move no matter how big you are, eventually it pisses consumers off. Microsoft appears to be in the process of coming to their collective senses and realize they might no longer be the be all, end all, with any luck they'll start listening to the typical end user not just market sampling the Windows adherents and intentionally misinterpreting user resignation as approval.

 

[Bleipriester]

On the other hand, Canonical has dictated its UI like Microsoft. And Pepsi serves as good as Coke while most companies and users rely on Windows.

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

For now but that's changing and that's not 100% true with all companies but you're still missing the point and that was the old leadership issue where they had developed an arrogant approach. The new leadership appears to be slowly overcoming that arrogant corporate mentality, that's a GOOD THING not a negative, you don't have to defend Microsoft at all costs...........

You claimed I am always with the non-American side. However, I am not siding with Microsoft. My view simply different from the long-term anti-Microsoft trend.

Daymn dude, I give you shit about your propensity to defend Putin and the Russian Federation no matter what, I give you shit because you always defend Microsoft to the exclusion of everything else. Basically I just give you shit because it's fun to........
The only reason I don't like Microsoft is because they developed a "we dictate to the consumer" attitude, not a smart business move no matter how big you are, eventually it pisses consumers off. Microsoft appears to be in the process of coming to their collective senses and realize they might no longer be the be all, end all, with any luck they'll start listening to the typical end user not just market sampling the Windows adherents and intentionally misinterpreting user resignation as approval.

Microsoft did not flood peaceful countries with murderous Nazis and Islamists. If they do, I would oppose them.

 

[Ringel05]

Not very up on business knowledge are ya. Yes, Canonical dictates it's UI but is that all you can focus on? Is it you think my only focus on this subject is the PC user? I'm discussing general business practices and consequences not narrowly focused ones.

Companies have computers. And they need specific software that is only available for Windows.

For now but that's changing and that's not 100% true with all companies but you're still missing the point and that was the old leadership issue where they had developed an arrogant approach. The new leadership appears to be slowly overcoming that arrogant corporate mentality, that's a GOOD THING not a negative, you don't have to defend Microsoft at all costs...........

You claimed I am always with the non-American side. However, I am not siding with Microsoft. My view simply different from the long-term anti-Microsoft trend.

Daymn dude, I give you shit about your propensity to defend Putin and the Russian Federation no matter what, I give you shit because you always defend Microsoft to the exclusion of everything else. Basically I just give you shit because it's fun to........
The only reason I don't like Microsoft is because they developed a "we dictate to the consumer" attitude, not a smart business move no matter how big you are, eventually it pisses consumers off. Microsoft appears to be in the process of coming to their collective senses and realize they might no longer be the be all, end all, with any luck they'll start listening to the typical end user not just market sampling the Windows adherents and intentionally misinterpreting user resignation as approval.

Microsoft did not flood peaceful countries with murderous Nazis and Islamists. If they do, I would oppose them.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

 

[Bleipriester]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

It is because of the old and untrue claims. Linux is safe because no one uses and thus no one attacks it. In fact, Linux is the main platform for attacks, instead. A day with as many uses as Windows would reveal Linux´ actual safety.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

It is because of the old and untrue claims. Linux is safe because no one uses and thus no one attacks it. In fact, Linux is the main platform for attacks, instead. A day with as many uses as Windows would reveal Linux´ actual safety.

Just sayin - you realize this doesn't address a single thing I said.
Just try it...if you know the industry, then you know Outlook was a virus trap by it's design, and M$ ignored the obvious and fixable holes for years. That is the crux of what people complain about them. Same with I.E. it didn't become more secure until competition began eating a hole in their marketshare. They should have fixed it! And when they did - it sure looked easy. One version change and bingo the main holes went away.

 

[Bleipriester]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

It is because of the old and untrue claims. Linux is safe because no one uses and thus no one attacks it. In fact, Linux is the main platform for attacks, instead. A day with as many uses as Windows would reveal Linux´ actual safety.

Just sayin - you realize this doesn't address a single thing I said.
Just try it...if you know the industry, then you know Outlook was a virus trap by it's design, and M$ ignored the obvious and fixable holes for years. That is the crux of what people complain about them. Same with I.E. it didn't become more secure until competition began eating a hole in their marketshare. They should have fixed it! And when they did - it sure looked easy. One version change and bingo the main holes went away.

Your security largely depends on your Internet behavior. 80 % of the Internet constitutes the "darknet". That doesn´t mean you are save on the other 20 %. if you visit a malicious website, you can´t blame the browser. If you receive malicious e-mails, where did the addressor get your e-mail address from? It can happen to you without your own fault, of course but I guess most people simply lack awareness.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

It is because of the old and untrue claims. Linux is safe because no one uses and thus no one attacks it. In fact, Linux is the main platform for attacks, instead. A day with as many uses as Windows would reveal Linux´ actual safety.

Just sayin - you realize this doesn't address a single thing I said.
Just try it...if you know the industry, then you know Outlook was a virus trap by it's design, and M$ ignored the obvious and fixable holes for years. That is the crux of what people complain about them. Same with I.E. it didn't become more secure until competition began eating a hole in their marketshare. They should have fixed it! And when they did - it sure looked easy. One version change and bingo the main holes went away.

Your security largely depends on your Internet behavior. 80 % of the Internet constitutes the "darknet". That doesn´t mean you are save on the other 20 %. if you visit a malicious website, you can´t blame the browser. If you receive malicious e-mails, where did the addressor get your e-mail address from? It can happen to you without your own fault, of course but I guess most people simply lack awareness.

Really Blie?
The OS maker bears zero responsibility?
When I was in IT...it was about 1998 or so, a virus ripped through our network. The root cause was an office worker opened an infected email...but the virus easily ripped through the system because of the myriad of security holes and ease of access to the core system. Outlook was a "trusted" software on Windows - so the OS allowed Outlook access to absolutely everything...providing a fantastic avenue for viruses to spread.
It took M$ a good 10 years before they FINALLY zipped up the holes, including the insanity of providing an email client complete and unquestioning access to the root of the OS.
You are correct that viruses are primarily introduced by user behavior. However that does not mean the OS bears no responsibility. M$ did not care about user security for well over a decade...period.

 

[Bleipriester]

In 1960 anyone would have been laughed at at even suggesting IBM would lose it's marketshare.
They did.
People used IBM on their business systems in 1960 because that is all they knew.
People "use" Microsoft Windows because that is all that they know exist...well except for Mac, but Mac is so much higher priced.
And therein lies your "problem" Blie...you defend M$ every.single.time.
M$ is a lousy company. It took them over a decade to secure their browser. It took them even longer to face the fact that M$ Outlook was a giant security hole and the very reason why so many people got viruses. People don't get viruses like they use to, not because they are not out there - but because M$ finally gave a flying f*** about it and decided to act like they cared to do something about their unbelievably swiss cheese software.
What Ringel is trying to say is the M$ has bad business practices. Namely their arrogance and refusal to accept the chance they may not be right about everything.

It is because of the old and untrue claims. Linux is safe because no one uses and thus no one attacks it. In fact, Linux is the main platform for attacks, instead. A day with as many uses as Windows would reveal Linux´ actual safety.

Just sayin - you realize this doesn't address a single thing I said.
Just try it...if you know the industry, then you know Outlook was a virus trap by it's design, and M$ ignored the obvious and fixable holes for years. That is the crux of what people complain about them. Same with I.E. it didn't become more secure until competition began eating a hole in their marketshare. They should have fixed it! And when they did - it sure looked easy. One version change and bingo the main holes went away.

Your security largely depends on your Internet behavior. 80 % of the Internet constitutes the "darknet". That doesn´t mean you are save on the other 20 %. if you visit a malicious website, you can´t blame the browser. If you receive malicious e-mails, where did the addressor get your e-mail address from? It can happen to you without your own fault, of course but I guess most people simply lack awareness.

Really Blie?
The OS maker bears zero responsibility?
When I was in IT...it was about 1998 or so, a virus ripped through our network. The root cause was an office worker opened an infected email...but the virus easily ripped through the system because of the myriad of security holes and ease of access to the core system. Outlook was a "trusted" software on Windows - so the OS allowed Outlook access to absolutely everything...providing a fantastic avenue for viruses to spread.
It took M$ a good 10 years before they FINALLY zipped up the holes, including the insanity of providing an email client complete and unquestioning access to the root of the OS.
You are correct that viruses are primarily introduced by user behavior. However that does not mean the OS bears no responsibility. M$ did not care about user security for well over a decade...period.

They have a responsibility. But maybe they could not calculate the "quality" of the malware programs. And there is another point. MS is being blamed for offering a browser at all. "EU-Editions" (N) are shipped with a tool "Browser Choice" that points out to other browsers and without the Media Player because the EU says MS uses that tools to gain world domination.

 

[Moonglow]

Does this mean they will make Windows easier to dual boot? Or make office FINALLY be able to read open source document formats like we all know it already can? Does this mean they will FINALLY realize that if they make Windows sit on top of a *nix platform it will be faster, require less memory and lower consumer costs?

Nah.

If you are willing to pay the price....