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

You've got a good point.

I believe personally that there are great people working at MS (because I know one or two... so I'll just take a leap and assume in general) --

so it seems like a problem of reining in the beast.

Hell, Gates seems like a generally good person. It's the default nature of a corporation [read: monster] so large to consume as much as it can and become as powerful as it can. Such organizations are structured this way, and bend this way regardless, because of the framework they operate within. I hardly need to say this. MS started making some good ground recently, so maybe with further prodding and pressure, who knows. Everything you suggested sounds like easy wins for them. It's not like it would affect their core consumer base too much.



Yeah I like Gates, much more than Jobs or Ellison, for example. I'm sure he was far from perfect, but he's pumped more money (and convinced others to pump more money) into big causes than probably most others on the planet.

Ballmer on the other hand - both an idiot who stopped Microsoft doing much good for ten years, supported a stupid HR manager in her talent-scaring practices, and also helped give MS its bad reputation. Good job mate.


Good people work for Oracle as well, but that doesn't mean oracle isn't a destructive open source participant.


Surely it's a similar problem to MS. "Reining in the beast" so to speak.

Corporations, any for-profit corporation, are all by their nature (if you can call it that) for the express purpose of making money in their raw functioning. It would take a purposeful, active measure to sway the actions a corporate body would take (or should take).

Not saying MS is an innocent party in the slightest.




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

Search: