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.
Thread beginning with comment 562790
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sat 25th May 2013 16:53 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

But what's the point?

The alternatives are either just as "evil" or not nearly as good.


Exactly, and while I'm unhappy with many of Google's choices of late, I still benefit greatly not only from their services but also from their open source offerings, not to mention how so many of my favourite open source projects greatly benefit from efforts like Google summer of code.

Since I have a brain I was never under the impression that Google ran on pixie dust, they offer services in exchange for advertising and advertising data which is also what all the other 'free' services does, so the question boils down to what do I get in return.

The quality of Google's services is typically top notch, so I'm unlikely to consider switching based upon technical reasons, the privacy 'issue' is just BS, all the 'players' offering 'free' services gathers your personal habits when using these services and sells that data to advertisers.

It's all the same and unlike the case with government requests, this advertising data can't be used to identify you as an idividual.

Looking past the services, do they offer anything else?

As an open source proponent I find Google offers a great deal here, they fund Google summer of code, they fund development of Linux, FreeBSD, GCC, Clang/LLVM, Webm (VP8/VP9), Firefox, Chromium, Android, Blink, etc.

As such I wouldn't use Bing even if it was as good as Google search.

I get nothing back from Microsoft beyond the service itself, instead any advertising dollar I put in Microsoft's pocket will most likely be used against my open source interests as Microsoft will use that money to further their proprietary vendor lock-in strategy (to which open source is a long time threat).

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[3]: Comment by marcp
by Nelson on Sat 25th May 2013 19:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by marcp"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

Running a Linux VM on an Azure Instance in Microsoft's Cloud. Yeah, sure sounds like vendor lock in.

Microsoft has plenty of open source initiatives and has published numerous specifications for their technologies with the relevant standards bodies.

Microsoft is incredibly active on the W3C, their .NET scene is pivoting towards open source, and their browser embraces more open standards with every release.

This doesn't have much to do with Microsoft, and plenty to do with Google using and abusing open source to suit their own agenda.

This classic bait and switch is hilarious, if for little more than the fact that the wool was pulled over the eyes of the OSNews collective and they never saw it coming.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by Valhalla on Sat 25th May 2013 20:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24

Running a Linux VM on an Azure Instance in Microsoft's Cloud. Yeah, sure sounds like vendor lock in.

That support is a result of Linux already having a huge presence in typical VM workloads, as such not supporting Linux on Azure would be commercial suicide.

Are you seriously trying to pass that off as evidence of Microsoft not being about vendor lock-in?

Microsoft is incredibly active on the W3C

I'm sure, just as they were incredibly active when they bribed their way in getting OOXML accepted as an ISO standard.

their .NET scene is pivoting towards open source,

Whatever the '.NET scene' is 'pivoting' to is not due to Microsoft, how about they open source .NET and allow it to be ported to any platform? Now that could indeed be construed as them 'pivoting' towards open source.

and plenty to do with Google using and abusing open source to suit their own agenda.

How is Google 'abusing' open source? As for using open source for their own agenda, certainly, just as every other company out there which uses open source.

Google however also gives a lot back to open source, which is something that can't be said for many companies.

Certainly not Microsoft whose 'open source initiatives' as you described them are extremely weak at best, but furthermore has a long history of actively trying to harm open source and open source projects.

This classic bait and switch is hilarious,

Coming from a Microsoft fanboy it makes you sound like you suffer from Stockholm syndrome.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Comment by marcp
by phoenix on Mon 27th May 2013 01:07 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by marcp"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Running a Linux VM on an Azure Instance in Microsoft's Cloud. Yeah, sure sounds like vendor lock in.


Can you migrate that VM to a non-MS VM host? Of not, that's the lock-in. Can you manage that VM using non-MS tools? If not, that's more lock-in.

Just curious, as I haven't used MS VM tools.

Reply Parent Score: 2