Big companies are not autonomous and do not make their own decisions, individual people working at those companies do. I think it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing, so I don’t know why you would consider decades old issues to be relevant today.
Less propaganda that the whole "do no evil" stuff.
Windows 10 telemetry is a child's game compared how much Google and FB spy on people's lives, yet most MS haters just jump of joy to use any tech that comes out from them.
Legions of US parents just put their kids under Google surveillance getting them Chromebooks.
OS spying is so much more invasive than application or service spying because you can’t opt out as easily. You can go without Facebook but a lot of people just need windows (for their jobs if nothing else, though I sure wish unity3d ran better on Linux and that more games ran smoothly on Linux)
The OS is also theoretically able to watch what you do in other services by monitoring keystrokes etc, where Facebook merely dreams of such things
Serious question: are there any major closed-source software companies (so like, not Red Hat or Canonical, etc) who don't lobby for or use software patents?
I consider using patents to extract payment a far lesser evil than lobbying for them. And an even lesser evil if the patent has some merit to it, and is licensed openly (i.e. no confidentiality terms to prevent revealing which parts of Android they claim to have patented).
As for your question - Cloudfront springs to mind - they're pretty loud about going after patent trolls, which implies they might not use patents aggressively. I'm sure there are many others, but a company not using patents to extract payment isn't something you hear about, so it's hard to tell. That said, despite filing for many patents, I haven't heard of Facebook actually using them against others. Which isn't to say they haven't done so (and possibly, like MS, kept the agreement confidential), and of course Facebook is hardly ethical itself.
Another poster says Microsoft joined the Open Invention Network, so perhaps in that area, they've reformed. Though they could still be lobbying for patents, which does much more damage to user freedom.
There was a medium post about Microsoft's culture and their inability to move on past Gates and Balmer about 6 weeks ago [1]. According to that article you are objectively wrong in saying "it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing". The article claims that the majority of the power within Microsoft still lays precisely in the hands of people who worked for the company during the times referenced.
I know you referenced that article to prove you point but it ultimately does just as good of job as saying the opposite.
One example:
"Microsoft is killing it. Revenue is up. Stock is up. Industry stature is up. The places where Microsoft finds itself thriving all have one thing in common: key made-men were pushed aside for better people."
I was contradicting the clearly false claim made by OP, not trying to give the nuanced portrayal from the article. The thesis of the article I posted is that Microsoft continues to be haunted by the vestiges of Gates' and Balmer's influence. I think your cherry picking of a single quote praising some positives the author provides to balance his polemic is purposefully misleading.
The original argument was: "Microsoft still has the elements of its previous bad behaviour in its DNA." The counter claim was: "No one from Microsoft during that time is still in the company". The article clearly supports the first claim and shows the second claim is at its face false. I encourage everyone to read the article and not to take speculations and misleading quotes as support for false ideas.
Does the fact that some Microsoft employees, even those in positions of influence, remain from that time matter? Does the fact that there are new successful employees, with entirely new ideas about products and management, matter?
The article demonstrates that Microsoft is a complex organization with both good and bad and is changing for the better even if it has a way to go.
Supporting the good and praising Microsoft for what they're doing well is going to make Microsoft better. Crapping on what they're doing well because of actions from 20 years is not rational or helpful.
If you are asking: "Should Microsoft get some credit for the positive things it has done" then the answer is clearly yes. Even during the time periods where Microsoft was universally (and legally) perceived to be engaged in unfair business practices my own feeling is that their overall contribution to IT was a net positive.
That does not change the fact that Microsoft is a risk. Google is a risk since they have a habit of shutting down projects. Oracle is a risk due to their insane licensing and consulting fees. Open Source is a risk since the contributors can just decided to drop support. Everything has elements of risk. I guess I just won't back down from someone claiming there is no risk in Microsoft because all the bad people are gone. That is an absurd claim that also happens to be false.
That's arguing against a straw man. Nobody is claiming all the bad people are gone. But the claim that Microsoft is all bad was the source of this whole thread.
I am not claiming you are making that argument. I'm responding to the original poster, relevant part quoted here: "I think it’s safe to say that anyone working there today has nothing to do with the time periods you’re referencing, so I don’t know why you would consider decades old issues to be relevant today."
As demonstrated, people working during the time periods he referenced are still working for Microsoft, contrary to this claim. This also addresses why someone should consider the risk of "decades old issues" when making decisions today.
