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 562947
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Mon 27th May 2013 15:53 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Comment by marcp"
Member since:

The same could be said about every company, including Google. Google uses open source because it is a convenient tool,

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.

You might love to pretend there's a difference between Google and Microsoft on this, but there really isn't.

Of course there is, Google is actively supporting lots of open source projects right now, Microsoft, not so much.

Microsoft happens to offer Azure choice (as opposed to lock in) because they want reach across a broad spectrum of developer tools.

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.

and by the same token one could argue that Google is trying to force vp8 and vp9 as a default codec. Something they obviously have a vested interest in seeing happen.

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?

But you're not locked in AND Microsoft achieves their goal. You're technically running Windows, but you can move anywhere you want.

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.

One isn't magically better than the other,

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.

The crux of the argument is that the differences are imaginary.

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.

You might want to invent a difference for your own rationalization eg. "Google contributes more to open source", but it is one thats in your head only.

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 like I said have no illusions about what Microsoft is or why it does what it does -- there's a business decision behind everything.

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.

If you cared about open source you'd push open source, not help prop up a company that is detrimental to open source.

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.

Me, personally, I don't give a rats ass about open source.

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.

You're so against Microsoft that you've started shilling for a company that acts just like them.

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.

Congrats, you're trying extraordinarily hard to be me. ;)

You wish ;) Even if I wanted to be 'shilling' for open source the way you 'shill' for Microsoft I just wouldn't find the time, between work and family there's no way I could keep up.

Reply Parent Score: 1