Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th May 2013 00:45 UTC
"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 562947
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2006-01-24
It doesn't matter why they are supporting open source, the end result is that they are supporting open source, which ends up benefiting open source.
I'm using their services for as long as they keep supporting open source, again, if they stop supporting open source, or someone else comes along and does a better job at it while offering the same services I will jump ship in a heartbeat.
Of course there is, Google is actively supporting lots of open source projects right now, Microsoft, not so much.
Drop the corporate bullshit speak, Microsoft wants in on the 'cloud' action as it's a massively growing market, a market where their desktop monopoly isn't giving them any OEM favours and where other systems already have a large presence. That large presence means that unless they support those other systems, companies won't use their cloud offering.
Let's compare, Google offer a royalty free codec which anyone can implement for free, the resulting video files can be distributed for free, this means a free standard for video across the internet.
Microsoft wants to push a royalty laden video codec format from which they will gain royalities, which company has a 'vested interest' here?
Not if you rely on any of Microsoft's proprietary Windows-only 'technologies' aswell.
Microsoft locks you in by providing Windows only technology, that obviously doesn't preclude them from bringing in popular outside technology with which they can't compete.
It's like DirectX / OpenGL, one is a proprietary Windows only 'technology', the other is a cross platform open technology.
Microsoft wants to lock-in as much software as possible using their proprietary DirectX, but they can't afford to not support OpenGL since there is a lot of key software which requires it.
The whole point is to is to lock users to their platform. -'Look, you can have all our windows only shiny toys and the cross platform shiny toys!'
So yes, Microsoft helping to support Node on Windows is perfectly in line with serving their vendor lock-in strategy.
Certainly not, it's practically better than the other when it comes to open source, as in actual support to open source projects in the form of code and funding.
This is false.
No it's not, Microsoft .NET is not an open source platform. It's a proprietary platform with some open source components.
No the crux of the argument is that you are lying through your teeth, whatever the motivations of Google's open source support are, the end result is that they are benefiting free cross platform open source much more than Microsoft.
That is NOT an 'imaginary' difference.
Oh please, now you are outright lying (as opposed to lying through your teeth), Google contributes far more to open source than Microsoft. How can you pretend otherwise?
I've already said the exact thing about Google, or ANY company.
So I look at what they actually do for that which I care for, and Google contributes a lot of open source code, and also money to a lot of open source projects which I use.
And that's what it boils down to, they do more for open source than any other company offering similar services, so I use their services.
Bullshit, how is Google detrimental to open source? In comparison to what?
I think it sucks that they abandoned open standard solutions for interoperability, but that doesn't make them worse than the competition, not better, but certainly not worse.
Beyond that their open source contributions/funding still stands, unlike that of the competition.
So when it comes to whose services I use, it's still going to be Google, until something better comes along.
It's your prerogative, while I don't find anything ethically wrong with proprietary code, I find open source to be practically superior as I or anyone else can examine, enhance and of course use it.
Only thing I 'shill' for is open source (ok, Haiku aswell). My dislike for Microsoft comes from their aggression towards open source and open source projects, aswell as their long history of extremely dirty tactics.
You wish