Microsoft's Software Is Malware - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation
www.gnu.org

I was curious what the Linux people think about Microsoft and any bad practices that most people should know about already?

    • AlexanderESmith@social.alexanderesmith.com
      1·
      2 years ago

      You left out that they refuse to let end users control updates on the system unless they resort to hacky bullshit (and even that doesn’t work consistently). As far as I know (and have experienced on Windows Server) this extends to enterprise as well.

    • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
      13·
      2 years ago

      pushing for a move from “Free” to “Open Source.”

      Can you explain more? Is that related to the clown gpl guys criticizing BSD/MIT/ISC license and laugh on FreeBSD for letting Apple to do whatever I can’t remember?

      • rand_alpha19@moist.catsweat.com
        12·
        2 years ago

        https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

        Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc. This doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay for it.

        Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.

        It’s getting more and more common that, even in cases where code is open source, only part of the codebase is actually available. This is something that Microsoft (and other wealthy tech companies) loves to do to show that it’s “transparent.”

        • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
          12·
          2 years ago

          Thanks.

          Open source software has its source code published. It doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re able to copy some or all of it, modify it, distribute it, etc.

          GPL as an example.

          Free software can be freely copied, modified, distributed, etc

          If you are citing the GNU’s website, you should remove the “modified”. I’d quote a mailing list user:

          Say if OpenSSH was licenced under (A)GPL, companies would likely not use it because they wouldn’t be able to incorporate it into their IP, they would then try to code a shoddy implementation, and have numerous security bugs which would affect the end user. In other words, you are just shooting yourself in the foot.

            • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
              1·
              2 years ago

              (A)GPL restrict the modification of the software. I’m sharing an example how that restriction works.

                • scratchandgame@lemmy.mlTiếng Việt
                  2·
                  2 years ago

                  It requires any modifications to be under GPL.

                  And it also requires anything that incorporate GPL codes also be under GPL.

                  And the code must be published to the copyright holder as far as I know.

                  How it harms the end user are described.