Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th May 2013 00:45 UTC
Google "So in summary... Google has pulled the plug on support on a protocol they've helped popularize, after years of promising interoperability, for reasons that are dubious at best, and in a way that leaves people who don't jump to the new Hangouts app unable to talk to their contacts without any feedback that their IMs aren't getting through... And they've done that with no warning to anyone. I imagine there's a bunch of people out there wondering where some of their buddies have gone, or why their messages aren't getting responses, because this isn't documented anywhere." Google really messed this up. Such a dick move.
Permalink for comment 562878
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sun 26th May 2013 19:57 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24


Yes, because it is exactly the opposite of what you claim. You have a high degree of choice on Microsoft's cloud offering.

Again, since they can't leverage their desktop monopoly on the cloud, they have to support popular VM OS'es like Linux on their offering or it will simply not be used. You can't spin this as 'Microsoft opening up'.


Do you have any evidence that they're doing anything shady on the W3C?

Do you forget about their work on WebRTC?

Their 'work' on WebRTC was to refuse the standarisation on vp8/vp9 as a default codec and instead propose a version without a standard codec (since they know h.264/h.265 can never be a required standard due to demanding royalties, but they want to be able to force it as a de facto standard and thus collect).

Yes, this sounds exacly like the type of 'work' in standarisation I'm used to from Microsoft, odf/ooxml makes itself reminded.

Hell, they brought Node to Windows.
How is any of this lock in? You don't get to say "Well its popular anyway so they had to"

Why the heck not? Node is popular and Microsoft wants to keep servers running Windows, so this makes perfect sense from a vendor lock-in perspective.


.NET actually represents Microsoft's open source initiative rather well.

Which isn't particularly flattering, you are right that I'm not doing .NET development for a living (a fact I'm perfectly happy with), but AFAIK the vast majority of .NET is still proprietary and thus anything but an open source platform.

Mono's re-implementation of .NET is incomplete and as it's not from Microsoft it's subject to potential patent abuse as it includes components not covered by ecma standards.

I suppose that for someone like you who is used to Microsoft lock-in this must sound like total openess, but really it isn't.


This is exactly the point.

I asked how Google was 'abusing' open source which is what you claimed.


Extremely weak because you choose to understate their significance on an online discussion, not weak because they're actually weak

Extremely weak in comparison with Google, which is what they were compared against. That they are 'strong' in comparison with Microsoft's own pathetic open source history means little in this context.


This screams of a rationalization for why your beloved company has started acting out in the open.

Bullshit, first off there's no denying that Google has done and is doing tons more for open source than Microsoft ever has and I dare swear ever will.

And this is all I've been discussing here, I don't care if it's named 'Google', 'FaceBook', 'Apple' or even 'Microsoft', I care about open source.

So again if the choice was between a Google and a Microsoft service being equal, I would choose the Google service because of how much they benefit open source in comparison with Microsoft.

Now if someone else steps up and puts Google to shame in the promote/benefit open source department, while also offering adequate services then I will switch in a heartbeat.

Maybe someone will (I hope so), Google is far from perfect, but it isn't going to be Microsoft, that's for sure.

Meanwhile as long as Google is the company who is benefiting open source most, I will continue to use their services. My 'allegiance' is to open source, not any specific company, while yours is obviously to Microsoft.

You were the one who was so incensed that Google could possibly be acting like a normal company that you tried to drag Microsoft into this.

Don't make things up, the comparison between Google and Microsoft I made was that of what one gets in return for using their respective services.

'No it isn't' correctly pointed out that from a service perspective, Google search is better, and from an 'evil'ness perspective they are certainly no worse than the competition, which in this case would be Microsoft (Bing).

I argued that as an open source proponent I would use Google over Bing any day even if Bing was just as good, given that Google's benefits to open source/open source projects vastly overshadows those of Microsoft.

I really don't envy your position, having to eat crow and all, but this has little to do with me.

Uh? I don't work for Google, nor do I rely on their products/services professionally (unlike your situation with Microsoft), I care for open source and it will survive Google, and certainly Microsoft aswell.

And while I favour companies who favour and benefit open source, again I don't identify with them (unlike you with your Microsoft zealotry), because they are companies, there to make money for their owners.

Again, the instance another company comes along who are better proponents/benefits to open source and offer adequate rivaling services then I will switch and they will get my 'advertiser' dollars.

Reply Parent Score: 1