Anyway, in the Computers & Accessories category, Microsoft is labelled "Corporate Villain", which means they're the worst of the worst. Better World Shopper cites these reasons:Just want to point out that this was 20 years ago.
Microsoft pays about $10 million per year in lobbying.
You might find that the past 5 years worth of news Greenpeace has on Microsoft is positive. This includes investments in wind energy and leaving ALEC.
I believe in giving opportunities, but within reasonable limits. MS has done the same bad thing 100 times. I have no reason to believe the 101st has a different, innocent purpose.shru wrote: ↑Tue Feb 12, 2019 7:21 pm Spinning "[Microsoft-owned] GitHub started offering unlimited free private repositories" as an "evil" or "malicious" act is incoherent and should be unconvincing to anyone who doesn't operate with the presupposition that everything Michaelsoft does is necessarily of nefarious intent.
And they repeated 15 years ago, in 2004. After they were found guilty, they kept doing the same nevertheless, and it wasn't until 2009, just 10 years ago, that the issue got settled, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ition_case for reference. Just see how quickly they lost their dominant position in the market afterwards, because their product sucked; it was the dominant one just because it was forced down our throats, but as soon as it competed in fair conditions, it started losing market share.
Fair enough. I guess it just comes down to me having more faith in Satya Nadella than Steve Ballmer. I don't think you're necessarily wrong to oppose MS, given their track record. I do think any move made in terms of hosting platforms is mostly limited by changing bugs/issues trackers. The actual history of the project is completely protected in our local copies.pgimeno wrote: ↑Wed Feb 13, 2019 11:35 pmAnd they repeated 15 years ago, in 2004. After they were found guilty, they kept doing the same nevertheless, and it wasn't until 2009, just 10 years ago, that the issue got settled, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_ ... ition_case for reference. Just see how quickly they lost their dominant position in the market afterwards, because their product sucked; it was the dominant one just because it was forced down our throats, but as soon as it competed in fair conditions, it started losing market share.
And well, Skype has gone downhill after it was taken over by MS. And GitHub will probably end up the same way.
I was just opposing the suggestion to move LÖVE to GitHub. I don't think LÖVE needs to actively do anything about it. As for individual actions, I am personally going to close my account there in a few days.keharriso wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:45 am I suppose your argument would be that Microsoft would seek the termination of alternatives like GitLab and Bitbucket. If this is the case, then how would LÖVE, a project using the Bitbucket platform for free, help prevent this monopoly? What is the level of opposition we can reasonably expect to mount against Microsoft's plans merely by avoiding their platform (without paying to support its competitors)? Maybe we can avoid GitHub's advertising/partnerships/sponsorships/tools? Prevent ourselves from "becoming the product"?
Microsoft gets rid of some open source extremists without doing anything