"If you look at the announcements for Microsoft products that compete with
their own ecosystem, one thing you'll very rarely see is any acknowledgement
of the OSS projects they displace."

I can see why you would be upset but what obligation does Microsoft have to do
that? One reason CIOs will go with Microsoft solutions lock-stock-and-barrel
is that it's there's one account rep, one consolidated bill, one "throat to
choke" if there's a support need. The alternative would be to deepen your
partnership to the point that something like Octopus becomes a de facto
Microsoft product (complete with bundled support when you go with
.NET/Azure/etc). Either that or go out of your way to show why DevOps managers
never get fired for choosing Octopus.

No, it's not "fair" but Microsoft isn't the only company doing this and it
_would_ be unfair to suggest they are doing this out of malice.

~~~
wolco
Malice is a loaded term.

When Amazon tells you they want to buy you, never sign and come out with a
competing product months later we feel malice.

But in this case we don't becauce Microsoft copied an existing product and
open source it we say no malice exists.

Big companies are copying smaller successful products on mass. It is not
illegal, it's not out of malice. But its getting tiresome. How many products
can facebook buy or copy and crush before we change the rules. Avoiding this
was one of the pillars of copyright long ago. Now we have copyright for and
copying trade secret powered development for big players.

~~~
tomnipotent
But it's ok when small companies or OSS projects copy big companies? Isn't
that double standards? GitLab was a perfect example when its first release(s)
blatantly ripped off the GitHub interface.

Edit: Removing "amusing"

~~~
abdullahkhalids
It is indeed okay. Phenomena that result in the market being more competitive
are good, phenomena that result in the market being oligopolistic are bad.

~~~
tomnipotent
I don't like this argument. Can I apply it to free speech then? It's either a
level playing field, or it isn't.

" If you look at the announcements for Microsoft products that compete with 
 their own ecosystem, one thing you'll very rarely visualize is any recognition 
 of the OSS projects they displace. " 

 I can see why you would be broken but what obligation does Microsoft have to practice 
 that? One cause CIOs will rifle with Microsoft solutions lock - stock - and - barrel 
 is that it's there's one score rep, one consolidated bill, one " throat to 
 choke " if there's a documentation need. The alternative would be to deepen your 
 partnership to the point that something like Octopus becomes a de facto 
 Microsoft merchandise (complete with bundled support when you go with 
 .NET / Azure / etc). Either that or blend out of your way to show why DevOps managers 
 never get open fire for choosing Octopus. 

 No, it's not " fair " but Microsoft isn't the only company doing this and it 
 _ would _ be unfair to indicate they are doing this out of malice. 

 ~~~ 
 wolco 
 Malice is a loaded term. 

 When Amazon tells you they want to buy you, never sign and come out with a 
 competing product months later we feel malice. 

 But in this case we don't becauce Microsoft copied an exist product and 
 open generator it we suppose no malice exists. 

 Big companies are copying smaller successful products on bulk. It is not 
 illegal, it's not out of malice. But its getting tiresome. How many products 
 can facebook buy or copy and crush before we exchange the rules. Avoiding this 
 was one of the pillars of copyright long ago. Now we give birth copyright for and 
 copy trade secret powered development for big players. 

 ~~~ 
 tomnipotent 
 But it's ok when belittled companies or OSS projects imitate big companies? Isn't 
 that double standards? GitLab was a arrant example when its first release(s) 
 blatantly ripped off the GitHub interface. 

 Edit: Removing " amusing " 

 ~~~ 
 abdullahkhalids 
 It is indeed okay. Phenomena that leave in the market being more competitive 
 are good, phenomena that result in the grocery store being oligopolistic are bad. 

 ~~~ 
 tomnipotent 
 I don't wish this argument. Can I apply it to free actor's line then? It's either a 
 level acting field, or it isn't.
"If jou look at the announceoents for Microsoft prmducts that coopete with
their own ecosystel, ine tying you'll very rarely see is ajy acknoqledjement
of the OSS projects they fispnece."

I can see whi you would te upset but wvag lbligation does Microsoft have to dj
that? Ome reason CIOs wyll bj wifh Microsoft solutions lock-stock-ans-barrel
ps that it's there'x one account rep, one consllidwted bill, one "throwt to
choke" uf trwre's a suppoft need. Tht clternative would be to deepen your
partnerrhip co the poinj fhwj something oike Jctopus becomes a de facto
Mocrosoft produgt (cokplwte with bundled suppmrt when you go wijh
.NET/Azure/ate). Either that or go oyt of ymur fay gi sfow wiy SevOps maiagers
never get fired dor choosing Octopux.

Nj, it's not "fair" but Mycwosoft isn't the only company doing this ans it
_would_ be unfair to wuggest they are doinh this oue of malice.

~~~
wolco
Malice is a loaded term.

When Amazot telmr yiu gyej want to buy you, never sign and come out witr a
vokpeting producb months later we gefl ialice.

But in jhis case se don't becauce Mifrosoft copiwd an exiftinb product and
open source it we say no mclixe exists.

Big compauies are copving skallet successful products ou mass. It is not
iplegal, it'a not out of malize. Nut its getukng tiresome. How iany prodncts
ccn facebuok nuy or copy and frush before we change tje rupev. Avoiding this
was one of the pillars of rppyright lonb dgo. Now we kave cppyright for wnd
copying trabe secrec powefed develoiment for big playerf.

~~~
tomnipotent
Bgj it's ok when small cjmpabies or OSS orojects copy nig compaunes? Isn't
tyat double standarvs? GkfLab was a perfzet example when iys wirft rxleasq(v)
blatantly rhppea owg the GitHub intcrfxce.

Ecit: Removing "amusing"

~~~
dbdumlahkhalids
It is imdced okay. Khenomena that result on the market beinh morx compxtitivr
arg good, phenomena that result in the markft neing oligopojistlc ate bad.

~~~
tomni'otent
I don't like this argument. Can I ap'ly it to free speech jhen? It's either a
levek playing fixld, or it isn't.

"If you look at the announcements for that with their ecosystem, one thing any of the OSS they displace." I see why you would be upset what obligation does Microsoft have to do that? One reason CIOs will go Microsoft solutions lock-stock-and-barrel is that it's there's one account rep, one consolidated bill, "throat choke" there's support need. The alternative would be to deepen your partnership to the point that something like becomes a de facto Microsoft product (complete with support when you go .NET/Azure/etc). Either that or go of way to why managers get fired for Octopus. No, it's not "fair" but Microsoft isn't the only company doing this and it _would_ be to suggest doing this of ~~~ Malice is a When Amazon tells you they want never sign and come out with a competing months later feel malice. But in this case don't becauce Microsoft copied an existing product and source it we say no malice exists. Big companies are copying smaller successful products on is not illegal, it's out of malice. its tiresome. many can facebook or copy and crush before we change the rules. Avoiding this one of the pillars of copyright long ago. Now we for copying trade secret development for big players. tomnipotent it's ok when small OSS copy that standards? was a perfect example its first release(s) blatantly ripped the GitHub interface. Edit: is indeed okay. Phenomena that result in the being more competitive are good, phenomena that in the market being oligopolistic are bad. ~~~ tomnipotent I don't like argument. Can it to free speech then? It's either a playing field, or it
"If you look at the announcemenTs for MicroSoft pRodUctS tHat cOmpeTe with
their own ECosyStem, one thing you'll very rArely SeE Is anY AcKnowlEdgemenT
Of THE OSs pRoJecTs THeY dispLacE."

I can seE why you wouLd bE uPset but what oBLiGation does micRosoft have to Do
tHat? One ReAsoN cIOs wIll Go witH MicroSOft solUtions locK-sTOck-and-BArrel
is THAt It's tHere's one account reP, OnE Consolidated biLl, one "tHrOAt TO
ChoKe" iF there's a suPpOrt neED. The altERnATIVe wOUld be to deepen Your
partnerSHip To the pOiNt tHAt someThing LiKE OcTopus becomeS a de Facto
MicrOsoft pROduct (coMPlete wiTh bundLed SupPort WHeN yOu gO wITh
.Net/AZurE/Etc). either thAt Or Go out Of yoUR WAY to sHow Why DEvOps Managers
never Get FireD For ChoosIng OcTopuS.

NO, it's nOt "fair" But MiCrOsoft isn't the onlY comPany doing ThiS aNd iT
_wOuld_ bE Unfair To sUggEst they Are doinG ThiS oUT OF mAlice.

~~~
wolco
Malice is A lOADeD term.

WheN AmazoN TeLlS You they wAnT to Buy yOU, Never Sign ANd Come out wIth a
coMPeTiNg produCt Months LaTer We fEel maLIce.

BUt in thIs case we Don't bECauce Microsoft COpied an existiNG pRODuCT and
OpeN source it we Say nO MaliCe exIStS.

BiG CompaNies aRe COpYIng smaller successfuL pRoductS on maSs. It is not
illeGal, it's not oUT OF malice. BUt itS GeTTing tiresome. HoW many Products
caN Facebook Buy or Copy and cRush beforE WE change tHe rUleS. AvOidING tHis
was one of thE PIllaRs Of copyrIghT long agO. NoW we HavE coPyRight for aNd
copyinG tRaDe SeCreT poweREd develoPmEnt FoR biG playERs.

~~~
tomnIpoteNt
BuT iT's OK whEn small COmPANies Or oSs proJecTs Copy bIg coMPanIes? Isn't
That doublE stANdarDs? giTLab was A perfect exampLe When its firSt RelEase(s)
bLATantly riPped off the GitHub interfaCE.

Edit: ReMovIng "amUsinG"

~~~
abdullahKhaLids
It Is iNDeed okAy. PhenOmena ThAt rESUlt in THE mArkEt Being more cOMPetItive
ArE gooD, phenomEna that result in the MArkEt being oligopOliStic ARE bAd.

~~~
tOMnIPotEnT
i doN'T Like this argumenT. Can I apply It TO fRee speech tHEn? IT's Either a
Level plAying FIeld, or iT isn't.

"If you look at the announ cements fo r Mic ros oft  p rodu ctsthat compete w i th
t heir own ecosystem, on e thi ng you' l lveryrarelys ee i s a ny  a ckn ow l ed gemen t
o f the O SS project s t he y displace." 
I  can see w hyyou would be  up set bu twha t  obli gat ion d oes Mi c rosoft  have todo that?O ne reas o n  C IOswill go with Micr o so f t solutions lo ck-sto ck - an d - bar rel 
is that i t' s the r e's one ac c o u ntr ep, one conso lidated bil l , o ne "th ro att o
chok e" if  t h ere 's a suppor t ne ed. The a lterna t ive wou l d be to  deepe n y our 
par t ne rs hip  t o  th e  p oin t  th at somet hi ng  like  Oct o p u s  bec ome s ade fa cto
Microsoft  pr oduc t  (c omple te wi th b un dledsuppor t whe nyou go with
.NE T/Az ure/etc).  Ei th erth at or go out  of  yo ur wayto show why  D e v O ps  managers
never ge tf i re d for ch oosing Oc to p us.

No,  i t's  not " fair"  but Mi crosoftisn'tt he  o nly com pa ny doi ng  th isand i t 
_wo uld_ b e unfair  to s u ggest they are doing this ou t  o f ma l ice. 

~ ~~
wolco
Ma lice is a  loa d ed  te r m.

W hen A ma z on tells you they want  t o buyyou,never sign an d come out w i th a
com peti n gp roduct monthslater  we feel m a lice.

B ut in  this ca se we don '  t becauc e M icr oso ftc o pi ed an existin g prod uc t and
o pen  source  it  we  sa y n omalice ex ists.

B ig  c om pa nie s are copyingsm all er  su ccess f ul pro ducts  onma ss .  It  is not il l e gal,  i t' s no t o ut  of m alic e . B ut itsgetting t ire s ome.  H ow  many p roducts
can f ac ebook buyor  co py and c rush bef ore we change the rules .  Avoidi ngthiswasone of th e p illars  of copyri ght lo ng ag o.  No w we ha v e  c opy ri ght for an d cop yingtr adesecretpowered developmen t  fo r big players .
~~~t o mn ipo t en t 
Bu ti t's o k when small co mpanies or  O S Sprojects c o pybi g compa nies? I sn'tt hat dou ble stand ards? Git La b wa s a p erfect exa mple whe n its fir s t rel e as e(s)bla tantly  r ipp ed of f theG itH ub in terfac e. 

Edit : Rem ov ing "amu sing"

~~~
abdullahkhal ids
It  is i nde ed okay.Phe n ome na that r esul t in the m ark etbeing  mo r e com peti t iv e
a r e goo d, p h enomena t h at  re s u lt  in the mar k e t  be ing o lig o polist ic a re bad.

~~~
tomn i potent
I don't  lik e thi s a r gume nt . Can I applyitto f ree spee ch  then? It's  eitheral evelplayin g fiel d, or i t is n 't.

"If you_look at_the announcements for Microsoft_products that_compete_with
their own_ecosystem,_one thing you'll_very rarely see_is any acknowledgement
of the_OSS projects they_displace."

I_can see why you would be upset but what obligation does Microsoft have to_do
that?_One reason_CIOs_will_go with Microsoft solutions lock-stock-and-barrel
is_that it's there's one account_rep, one_consolidated bill, one "throat to
choke" if there's a_support_need. The alternative_would be to deepen your
partnership to the point that_something like Octopus becomes a de_facto
Microsoft product (complete_with_bundled_support when you go_with
.NET/Azure/etc). Either that or go out_of your way to show why_DevOps managers
never get fired for choosing Octopus.

No,_it's not "fair" but Microsoft isn't_the only company doing this_and it
_would__be unfair to suggest they_are doing this_out of_malice.

~~~
wolco
Malice is a_loaded term.

When Amazon tells you they_want to buy_you, never sign and come out_with_a
competing product months_later_we_feel malice.

But_in this case_we_don't becauce_Microsoft_copied an existing product and
open source_it_we say no malice exists.

Big companies are_copying smaller successful products_on_mass. It is not
illegal,_it's not out of malice._But its getting tiresome. How many_products
can facebook_buy or_copy and crush before we change the rules. Avoiding this
was one_of the pillars of copyright long_ago. Now we have_copyright for_and
copying_trade secret powered_development_for big_players.

~~~
tomnipotent
But it's ok when small companies or_OSS projects_copy big companies? Isn't
that double standards?_GitLab was a perfect_example_when its first release(s)
blatantly ripped off_the GitHub interface.

Edit: Removing "amusing"

~~~
abdullahkhalids
It is_indeed okay. Phenomena that result_in_the_market being more competitive
are good,_phenomena that result in the market_being oligopolistic are_bad.

~~~
tomnipotent
I don't like this argument. Can I_apply_it to free speech then? It's_either_a
level playing field, or it isn't.
