> I'm not sure what they've done to receive such hatred.

Hatred?

I simply decide not to buy into a certain company's products and services because I recall some misdeeds from the past and that's equal to hatred?

As for what they have done, I thought Microsofts history was chronicled enough that it doesn't need repetition, especially not on a website for 'hackers'.

But if you need pointers, you can go visit groklaw.net (if it is still up) to read about SCO and Linux, you can read up on the Stacker case and you can try to figure out why Microsoft ended up in court over IE and a long list of other not so nice things they did in the past.

I don't understand this attitude. Microsoft's behavior (especially recently) is not out of line with the other tech giants. They are for the most part ethically indistinguishable - so whose products and services can I buy into? Who do you recommend?

I think some people just have moved on. Heck, a lot of people here were not in tech when Microsoft was doing bad stuff.

Stacker: 20 years ago. IE Antitrust: 10 years ago. SCO: 10 years ago.

They're still doing bad stuff today, just on different fronts. That said, I hope they give Google and Apple a run for their money, those are (probably) just as bad.

The last ruling in the SCO case was a mere 4 years ago.

> They're still doing bad stuff today, just on different fronts.

I mean no disrespect, but what's the bad stuff being done my Microsoft today?

That's going to be quite a list. The highlights:

Abusing their patent portfolio directly, ditto through proxies, continued attempts to subvert open standards, bribery to use Microsoft software in various third world countries (and in Romania too, and Germany for that matter) and many others besides but those alone would be enough to not make me go back to using their development platform.

Just out of curiosity. When did Microsoft bribe anyone in Germany? I have never heard about that.

I have my own wishlist:

http://yuhongbao.blogspot.ca/2014/08/my-wishlist-for-satya.h...

It also includes things MS has done in the past that is not too late to fix.

Patent threats and lawsuits against Android OEMs.

Locking down computers using UEFI Secure Boot and taking control away from the owners of the machine.

Sabotaging the office document standard process at ISO.

Corruption in cases where governments explored switching to alternative operating systems.

Working against software patent reforms.

All these happened within last 5 years (and continue to happen).

The anti-trust result put Microsoft under US Federal oversight for 10 years. After 10 years, the Justice Department found Microsoft ignoring requirements they were supposed to supply them and extended that oversight for an additional two years which just ended in 2011.

hm, maybe pass that question to someone from finland?

Ok the brief they submitted in the java case was just last year. they believe that APIs should be copyrighted and should be controlled by those who build the first implementation. Which is just great news for anyone ever building anything.

How many years ago was the Windows8 release?

Was that a scummy trick? Or just a dumb move?

It is not hatred, decades more of experience. Throughout the 90's and early 2000's Microsoft abused their monopoly position to the detriment of many. Open source options were much more limited then than now. The only reason Microsoft is changing now is that they have no choice.

To me it seems just survival evolution. I can assure that if your ancestors and my ancestors had not killed and raped lots of people, it would be very unlikely that both of us would be here today discussing this.

And what would happen if we took those same actions today? Cultural notions about what is acceptable behavior have also evolved. Microsoft's behavior may have been accepted 100 years ago, but not today when there is more freedom of choice.

> They are just a technology company and are trying to sell the product.

If you reword things enough, nothing makes sense. For example:

"I don't see why Stalin receives such hatred. He was just a politician, and tried to stay in power so he could keep following his vision."

Where are the millions of people killed by Microsoft?

That is not the point of the comparison; the point is that in the same way someone could use an euphemism to describe the behaviour of Stalin, "they're just a technology company looking out for their shareholders" etc. is an euphemistic simplification of why people are wary, if not hostile, towards Microsoft. I might as well have said a bee sting doesn't hurt less just because you call it "a tiny injection of fluid that quickly dissipates"; but I totally reject this squeamishness about strong comparisons when the point of the comparison isn't comparing the "strength", but something else.

But since you brought it up: who knows? How can anyone measure how many people were put out of business and killed themselves because of the ruthless tactics of huge corporations? How many people have wasted how many hours paying for their inferior products, or trying to make them work, and to how many human lifespans does that add up? It's impossible to claim any company "killed X people" that way, but to think the net effect is somehow clean and unbloody is also naive. To put it crassly, some people didn't take to the boardrooms because that is more humane, but because it's more effective, because robbing and killing people is inefficient. Doesn't it make it as bad as Stalin, but since Stalin isn't the baseline for how bad something has to be to be unacceptable, that is irrelevant.

Also, imagine a world where Linus Torvalds had done something else, and a bunch of other factors had worked out slightly differently; as far as open source goes, Microsoft DID try to kill it, they spread as much FUD as they could, they handed out their products to schools and universities for fear of them breaking free, and only now when they still lost they are starting to play nice. So as far as software and software freedom is concerned, Microsoft did kill plenty.

And now imagine repelling the Conquistadores; not because they reconsidered, but because even giving it their best shot, they could not kill enough to totally submit everyone like they originally planned, and had to regroup or be wiped out themselves. And now I am supposed to be grateful and let bygones be bygones? No. Others can do that, but I can't respect them for it, at best despite of it. And you know what, I don't like Apple either. So I'm the position of loving computers and programming, but none of the big players, anymore. And I don't have to chose a side, I can find them all lacking. Because they are not to be compared to each other, but to the behaviour of intelligent humans with dignity, and the vision of an actual information age that empowers and liberates people, instead of just seeking to capture them, so they can be fed any old uninspired BS that is made shiny and big with all the capital leeched off the masses. This doesn't change in a few years or decades, or without fines or even prison sentences, for that matter. I'm not buying it for one second.