Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

expected, a post about irrational hatred generates even more irrational hatred. But that's what you get when open source is your religion of choice. Since HN does not let me comment too frequently, I'll just address these points in a single post:

1. "Open source Bing/Windows": Yes, please, give away the things that took thousands of engineers and billions of dollars and decades to build. Look, I like open source and use entirely open source stuff at my day job and hobby projects, and even have open sourced my piddly crap that nobody uses on Github... but nobody is entitled to somebody else's work for free. And damning somebody else for not espousing your beliefs is simply being a religious fanatic.

2. "Antitrust/Monopoly": They were dinged by the US and the EU for essentially trying to turn their OS into a browser while having an OS desktop monopoly. They were trying to be ChromeOS before Google even existed. They were accused of leveraging their monopoly to enter another market but, as is obvious now, is that the desktop and browser market were one and the same. And then people insist that they "missed the web"! And after almost being dismantled by the US government for going that route, people are angry that they let IE stagnate!

3. "Android patent trolling" - They have an impressive patent portfolio (well, by the standards of most patents out there) and have every right to monetize it, which is how things typically happen in all industries. And as an early incumbent in mobile OSs, they did do a lot of work that modern smartphones still use, so it's not like Android isn't standing on the shoulders of WinMobile in addition to iOS.

4. "API copyrightability": It's not so much that Microsoft and Oracle are right on this, it's Google that's wrong. Google's arguments as to why why APIs should not be copyrightable, taken to their logical conclusion, mean no code ever can be copyrightable. My take is they would be found copyrightable, but Google may probably prevail on fair use.

5. "Scroogled": It's based on surveys that shows people are not aware that gmail scans their email contents, and when told of this, most of them disapprove. And if the surveys don't convince you, the class action "wiretap" lawsuits recently filed against Google are a clear indication that there are those who don't like this. It's perfectly fine to make consumers aware of their product choices, especially if it's also in your business interests.

6. "WebGL": There were actual security holes (DOS was just one hole -- the screencap exploit was much worse), and what Microsoft had said then was "WebGL in its current form is not safe". However, as the standard was redesigned to address such issues (http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/why-micr..., search for "CORS"), MS has gone ahead and included it in IE 11.



Not sure if serious or just a copy paste from a Microsoft PR.


Allow me to rebut your arguments point-by-point:


Yap, more less those are all of your arguments, FUD and lies




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: