I don't know seems very basic to me. They removed the ability to display ads off on the Administration Panel and they no longer will be mining data from student emails. Why is it MUD if it was an option to turn on ads?
They hid and lied about the facts about ad tracking of Education and Apps emails etc. until they were forced to testify about it in federal court and no one was clued into it. Once they got caught tracking and making money on it for many many years they rolled back some stuff. How is that clear communication?
Or how is that "Google has been very upfront on exactly how their business model works with users since day one." ?
I find it curious that a huge deal is made out of Microsoft's missteps with over-the-top comments being modded up and same with the articles, but similar or worse things by, say Google or Apple are simply papered over and buried.
We've banned this account for being a long-time pro-Microsoft astroturfer who has plagued this site for years, including making networks of accounts to reply to each other and create the false impression of conversation. We've banned this person or persons many times before and will do so whenever we have evidence of them plying their trade on HN. There are 76 accounts marked in our system as theirs (all banned, of course), and I'm sure they've created many more.
By the way, their bit above about how the HN community makes a 'huge deal' out of Microsoft criticisms while Google and Apple get off, etc. etc., and accusations of voting bias on HN (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11014741) —all that is highly characteristic of this person or persons. So is their use of HN not only to promote Microsoft but also to bash its competitors, something I predict you'll see if you look through the submission history of this one.
So, a call to all upstanding HNers: if in the future you see accounts that comment like that, it might be a good idea to email us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can investigate. But please don't accuse people on the site itself—that undermines civility, and shouldn't be done without strong evidence. (And let's not forget that HN has many legitimate users who use and like Microsoft products. I'm pretty sure kogir is no astroturfer.) When we do have strong evidence, we act immediately to protect the integrity of this site.
When we discovered this astroturfing campaign in 2013, and saw for how long they'd been plaguing HN, pg said that it made his blood boil. Well it makes my blood boil now.
So... where are the threads about the bugsI linked? Why were they not voted up so highly on HN? That was my only point about the story selection and how getting tech news from only HN can cause a blind spot.
HN was a community of Silicon Valley startup founders. Though because of its title, more and more nerds switched over from Reddit/Slashdot/Digg. Until early 2015 HN was mainly inhabited from Linux and MacOS people. But Microsoft invaded HN around their Build 2015 conference in May 2015. Nowadays a lot of sock puppets and fanboys with MSFT background are on HN and try to downvote everything slightly not so pretty. Nowadays "Show HN" is already a bit off-putting with cynical comments and harsh critics. HN certainly needs better voting-ring and paid sock puppet detection - hint: they are only active in certain timezones and mainly on a weekdays.
The question is what HN want to be. I visit HN for startup news and occasionally open source news. Who in the right mind would use vendor lock-in mediocre expensive licensed software for a startup? Although, I am okay with Windows 7, I hate Win8/10 with a passion because MSFT turned to a mean company again (bad ModernUI, don't care about consumer anymore at all, privacy debacle of Win10, turns everything to SaaS, evil license changes). And therefore would welcome to see less MSFT sock puppets and less FUD on HN. Remember HN used to be a group of very intelligent people, burn them once and we will remember that forever, burn them twice... you know, better stop that right now.
While I can attest that HN has always had a significant amount of startup stuff, that was nowhere near the entirety of the site.
I remember when the front page was filled entirely with Erlang articles, for example, and I'm damn sure no more than a tiny fraction of HN was using or considering Erlang for production at that time.
Do you think the above stories and comments are FUD or not?
Eventually the biased story selection by editors, circlejerk, echo chamber and biased moderation got so bad that the site pretty much died. Do we want that to happen on here as well?
>I visit HN for startup news and occasionally open source news
Then perhaps just move past the other posts you're not interested in, like the HoloLens or Open Sourcing of .NET and other libraries announcements which are definitely 'Hacker News' material.
Or spend more time on other places like /r/linux etc.
>Who in the right mind would use vendor lock-in mediocre expensive licensed software for a startup
That's totally your opinion, it works for some companies like StackOverflow.
>less FUD on HN
Can you link me to some of this FUD you're talking about?
>coldtea is a known pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft shill who has no problem lying in an attempt to make Apple look good and make Microsoft look bad.
Sorry, but what is this kind of Reddit-level BS?
First, "shill" means a paid lackey. I don't think you know me, and I sure don't know you. So that's not just rude, it's insulting. Even more so "has no problem lying".
Also "known pro-Apple, anti-Microsoft"? What are you, 16 years old? If you have issues with Apple take it with the company, not people you don't know in forums.
I'm 40ish, not some corporate fanboi in their parents' basement -- which yur kind of arguments seem to be meant for. I've used and am using both Apple and MS products. And Linux and FreeBSD. In fact I've cut my teeth on SunOS, back before there was OS X and Gnome. So, I could not give LESS fucks about Apple or Microsoft. I just tell it like I see it.
Microsoft has been trying with their tablet for decades, and I know because I was in the IT sector all those decades. And it was always subpart, in a crude PC with a detachable monitor way.
So, after nearly 2 decades of them trying, I wouldn't call making 1.3 billion revenue in 3 months with the latest Surface "impressive". Especially since Apple just made 40% more with a new product category, and with a first-generation product in only 6 months -- as opposed to after 16 years of trying to make it with the same product category (and losing money all the while on it).
How is 1.3 billion in 3 months for Surface impressive, when its competitor, considered "declining" still managed to do 4-5 times the number in its last quarter?
I agree, the author picked a really bad example(Office) to make his otherwise good point. Office certainly isn't a shitty product compared to its competition.
You can use browser extensions like hckrnews or 'Hacker news enhancement suite' to collapse comments.
The iPad was hyped to kill laptops/PCs and Surface's doom was also hyped, so the new data points are interesting because they look like a reversal of trend.
Not claiming that this is actually how things have worked out or how customers think, but in terms of strategy it's still interesting. The iPad sought to target usage cases where a "full" laptop or desktop wasn't ideal. In doing so, it also left out several laptop/desktop capabilities that people might want to keep and missed.
After the mobile-grade tablet market was established by iPad and, later, other brands of devices, the Surface seems intended to offer the things people liked about tablets versus laptops or desktops (extreme portability, multitouch, etc) and has at least attempted to add back the things many people might have missed when using those mobile-class tablets such as greater flexibility in file management, the ability to install software from multiple sources, choose your own defaults, and run more capable software packages.
It's certainly had its tradeoffs and the greater power and flexibility meant it couldn't be quite as portable as a tablet or work quite as well in certain cases as a traditional laptop but it's been interesting to see how these companies seem to target audiences that aren't happy with certain aspects of dominant products.
The end result (for me at least) is that I've learned there's no "perfect" device or form factor that has all the pros and none of the cons in all situations. That said, more options certainly does make it easier to find something closer to what you're looking for. I enjoyed the portability of my iPad but chafed under restrictions that required jailbreaking to work around.
The Surface line still is not the perfect device for me but whenever my Asus laptop dies, I'll seriously be considering one as a secondary computer after using one at work (primary will probably remain a desktop for the foreseeable future).
>Actual results may differ materially from those indicated by such forward-looking statements as a result of various important factors, including: ...risks related to data and information security vulnerabilities..
>Security breaches and data loss may expose us to liability, harm our reputation and adversely affect our business.
>Our business involves the production and distribution of enterprise software technologies, as well as hosting applications. As part of our business, we (or third parties with whom we contract) receive, store and process our data, as well as our customers’ and partners’ data.
>While we take security and testing measures relating to our offerings and operations, those measures may not prevent security breaches and data loss that could harm our business or the businesses of our customers and partners. Advances in computer capabilities, new discoveries in the field of cryptography, inadequate technology or facility security measures or other factors may result in data loss or a compromise or breach of our systems and the data we receive, store and process (or systems and the data received, stored and processed by third parties with whom we contract).
>These security measures may be breached or data lost as a result of actions by third parties, employee error (such as weak passwords or unencrypted devices), malfeasance or vulnerabilities or security bugs found in software code. A party who is able to circumvent security measures or exploit inadequacies in security measures, could, among other things, misappropriate proprietary information (including information about our employees, customers and partners, our customers’ information, financial data and data that others could use to compete against us), cause the loss or disclosure of some or all of this information, cause interruptions or denial of service in our or our customers’ operations, cause delays in development efforts or expose customers (and their customers) to computer viruses or other disruptions or vulnerabilities.
>A compromise to these systems could remain undetected for an extended period of time, exacerbating the impact of that compromise. These risks may increase as we continue to grow our cloud and services offerings and as we receive, store and process more of our customers’ data. Actual or perceived vulnerabilities may lead to regulatory investigations, claims against us by customers, partners or other third parties, or costs, such as those related to providing customer notifications and fraud monitoring. While our customer agreements typically contain provisions that seek to limit our liability, there is no assurance these provisions will be enforceable and effective under applicable law. In addition, the cost and operational consequences of implementing further data protection measures could be significant.
>Moreover, because the techniques used to obtain unauthorized access, disable or degrade service or sabotage systems change frequently and often are not recognized until launched against a target, we may be unable to anticipate these techniques or to implement adequate preventative measures. Any loss of data or compromise of our systems or the data we receive, store or process (or systems and the data received, stored and processed by third parties with whom we contract) could result in a loss of confidence in the security of our offerings, damage our reputation, loss of channel or strategic partners, lead to legal liability and adversely affect our business, financial condition, operating results and cash flows.
And their investor site is worryingly running on Cold Fusion of all things.
So I guess you'd not use Linux too, since Red Hat is one of the major contributors to the Linux kernel and server apps?
>One has the passion and enthusiasm of well respected open source volunteers behind it, and the other has a sleek high quality shine only our dear corporate overlords could deliver. This is minor, but it sets the mood the for the whole experience of add ons.
Doesn't Mozilla spend a lot on Firefox development? Like in the hundreds or tens of millions of dollars range? They have very nice and grand offices, lavish even interns with expense paid trips and food, so I don't really know what you're talking about.
[Edit: They spend $212M on Software Development in 2014 alone]
>Interns at Mozilla, myself included, are truly spoiled rotten. Competitive pay, free travel/housing, free snacks/drinks and catered lunches every week were really just icing on the massive cake that was my internship!
>Oh, and did I mention that Mozilla also sent me to Paris, France?! Yeah, it happened. For my final working week, myself and a handful of the Identity team met up in the Paris office and hacked on Persona, and ate… and drank… a lot!
Sorry, I don't understand what point you're making. I was strictly speaking about the aesthetics of their extensions pages. Those were descriptions of the impressions they give.
I was purposefully judging the book by it's cover, because I was talking strictly about the cover. I know FireFox is a brilliant piece of engineering and I never mentioned Mozilla. Red Hat spends a lot on Linux development too, doesn't mean anything about the aesthetics of the platform.
The aesthetics of the FF addon marketplace are the way they are because Mozilla neglected that property for many years. There's currently a new initiative to redesign and build out an updated version of the marketplace, so expect the design to look like the chrome one soon.
http://www.infodocket.com/2014/04/30/privacy-google-no-longe...