Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Open-Sources Its JavaScript Engine Chakra (windows.com)
An anonymous reader writes: As promised, Microsoft has open-sourced the core components of Chakra, the company's JavaScript engine used in Microsoft Edge and Internet Explorer. The project, dubbed ChakraCore, has been released under the MIT License on GitHub. The official blog post reads in part: "The ChakraCore repository provides a fully supported and open-source standalone JavaScript engine, with the same characteristics as the Microsoft Edge’s Chakra engine, to embed in projects, innovate on top of and contribute back to. We will be accepting community contributions and input to ChakraCore. Once the changes from any pull request have been vetted, our goal is to ensure that all changes find their way to be shipped as a part of the JavaScript engine powering Microsoft Edge and the Universal Windows Platform on Windows 10."
"...with the same characteristics..."
So, not the same code, then. That isn't really the intent of open source, now is it?
...opening their chakra
*puts sunglasses and walks away without looking looking at explosions*
Microsoft's improving attitude in this area should certainly be commended, and without doubt is a great direction for them to be heading in. On the other hand, the whole Windows 10 telemetry/upgrade debacle has done almost as much to destroy much of the goodwill engendered by this.
Which is a shame. They're actually producing some pretty decent software these days, Windows 10 is otherwise a pretty strong outing. It's a shame that this idea of putting more power in the hands of developers hasn't crossed over to putting more power in the hands of their users.
I'm confused as to where the impetus is to have these standalone javascript engines such as Chakra and googles V8 anyway. Javascript is a poor scripting language compared to something like Python and a poor general purpose programming language compared to C++ or Java (Why? Google it). I know a lot of kids these days kick off their coding doing web based stuff, but thats really no reason to try and drag that 2nd rate mishmash of an enviroment out of its niche into other areas of computing such as Databases (hello Mongo) and backend services. I know people who say Javascript is much improved over what it used to be but I do get the feeling that a lot of these people have never really used any other language in depth.
and I'm not going to start making exceptions now.
Yes, I think it is. So developers contribute to this "almost the same" Chakra engine, but Microsoft profits for it by using it in W10 and Edge, cause last time I checked those products weren't free.
Yes, I think it is. So developers contribute to this "almost the same" Chakra engine, but Microsoft profits for it by using it in W10 and Edge, cause last time I checked those products weren't free.
Indeed, notice the project is called ChakraCore (my emphasis). They open source the core and let people contribute, crowdsourcing the "easy" work while they put their developers on the proprietary add ons outside the core. So they get free work on easy stuff, but the community does not get the proprietary stuff they tack on. It's quite a scam.
MS would likely not release anything GPL or they'd have to open it all up to the public, but this is an example why any free software developers out there should use GPL for their own work. If it is MIT/BSD, companies can pull things like this.
They open source the core and let people contribute, crowdsourcing the "easy" work while they put their developers on the proprietary add ons outside the core. So they get free work on easy stuff, but the community does not get the proprietary stuff they tack on. It's quite a scam.
They've been doing it for decades, and even manage to patent trivial extensions on existing code. They make billions from it. Every Android device that can use an SD card has given MS $5, for example.
Also they hold complete control over what is put into this "open source" project. All changes are "vetted" by Microsoft.
Microsoft Chakra not to be confused with Chakra, the GNU/Linux distribution: "Chakra is a GNU/Linux distribution with an emphasis on KDE and Qt technologies that focuses on simplicity from a technical standpoint and free software." ref
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Fucking lamest argument against MS doing this...
The missing bindings are expected. The browser bindings expose Windows APIs into the JS engine within the browser ("standard + extensions"), and the COM bindings on the debug API not being present are there to make it platform agnostic.
The part that I find really amazing is that they are targeting x86, x64, and ARM binary support, with two levels of JIT, with feedback optimization. That's a pretty cool thing to have out there in the wild, under an MIT license:
https://github.com/Microsoft/C...
I think that some of the first contributions need to be buildability support on other platforms, which means CLang/LLVM and GCC support. Ideally, it would handle agnostic conversion from some common representation into both the project build mechanism in Java ("Jenkins"), and Makefiles. Not sure if I'm willing to jump on this, since it would mean a familiarity with both, and I'm not sure they'd accept something like that back (it looks like they specifically picked Jenkins for its cross-platform-ness, even though it adds a Java dependency).
This would enable someone external to Microsoft to run *at least* nightly builds and regression testing for other platforms.
I really have to wonder if it's been thought through, however, to enable people to identify the JavaScript engine, and decide *not* to use the Microsoft specific extensions to the Core platform, so as to keep the things that try to use it portable, or if that's of interest to them. A long time ago, I tried, and failed, to get a common cross-platform ABI adopted, and one of the *key* requirements for it would have been the ability to *turn off* vendor extensions in the runtime, so that you could build cross-platform software targeting it, by causing it to error out when the software used a vendor private API/ABI component.
Without something like that, I fear, it will become an "embrace -- then extend and make incompatible", similar to gcc'isms being incorporated into otherwise portable source code, or the bash extensions to the Bourne shell that resulted in shell scripts actually not being runnable on any shell, but instead only runnable on bash due to bash'isms.
A nice barrier enforcement mechanism that extended up through browser space to enable committing to portability would be nice. Otherwise, when a remote website sent JavaScript content down because of the runtime it though it was hitting, it could include them, unintentionally or no, and non-Microsoft browsers based on the Core implementation would fail to operate.
Uh, you are forgetting the ability to GPL it and require copyright assignment for patches submitted to the master branch. GPLing doesnt affect MS at all if they are the ones to do it, they dont have to force GPL use internally nor "open it all up to the public", as they are the copyright holders and can do what they like with it.
If you wanted to fork it and run with your own fork, rather than submitting patches back, thats fine but you would be doing the leg work to kep the fork in sync as and when the original codebase is updated. MS cant take from your fork, but they also dont have to fold in everything you commit and submit directly to them either.
Except Microsoft is the only company that has been sentenced for antitrust, monopoly and abuse of dominent position.
Ahhh trot that old load of bollocks out, as if it makes any difference to this situation.
Got any arguments that are actually worth the name? Being "sentenced" 15 years ago has fuck all to do with them open sourcing a javascript engine today - got any actual decent arguments against them doing that?
I notice you didnt try and argue as to why any of the projects I listed are different in how patches are accepted...
Embrace, extend, realize people are doing it for free and cancel the extinguish phase just to let the cash roll in from the work of others.
* I have sole ownership of intellectual property rights to my Submissions and I am not making Submissions in the course of work for my employer.
..
* I am making Submissions in the course of work for my employer (or my employer has intellectual property rights in my Submissions by contract or applicable law). I have permission from my employer to make Submissions and enter into this Agreement on behalf of my employer.
Copyright License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submission directly or indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license in the Submission to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly display, publicly perform, and distribute the Submission and such derivative works, and to sublicense any or all of the foregoing rights to third parties.
Patent License. You grant Microsoft, and those who receive the Submissiondirectly or indirectly from Microsoft, a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, irrevocable license under Your patent claims that are necessarily infringed by the Submission or the combination of the Submission with the Project to which it was Submitted to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell and import or otherwise dispose of the Submission alone or with the Project
Notice to Microsoft. You agree to notify Microsoft in writing of any facts or circumstances of which You later become aware that would make Your representations in this Agreement inaccurate in any respect. ref
ChakraCore Contributor License Agreement (CLA)
It doesn't matter how long ago it was. They where sentenced as Microsoft and they still are Microsoft. Microsoft has shown that they are willing to break to law. As an example is the case Microsoft against Sun for the Java runtime that shows that they are prepared to use any illegal tactic to destroy the competition, especially famous is their Embrace, extend and extinguish tactic. So given the history of they company it is no surprise that people have reservations about any "open source" project they have and if this Chakra project becomes successful I think we don't have to wait to long before the extend and extinguish part comes along.
Also they hold complete control over what is put into this "open source" project. All changes are "vetted" by Microsoft.
So? Open source doesn't mean everyone gets full access to their repo.
If you want full control, you can just fork it to your own repo, and do whatever you want with it.
Anybody can spend all of 3 minutes making a free outlook account and signing up for the Windows 10 Insider program so yes Virginia Win 10 and Edge can be had for absolutely, free...just like Google's OSes and browser.
In fact one could argue there is pretty much zero difference between MSFT and Google now, as both give away their OS and then proceed to datamine the shit out of you while tying everything to their services...hmm...where have I seen that before? Why I just don't know where I could have seen such a thing.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
So you hate MS, why should I give a shit about that? And "you" having reservations about Microsoft and opensource doesnt mean "people" have reservations - I've been around on Slashdot since 2000 and while its a great anti-MS rhetorical slogan, I have yet to see Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in real life - .Net is awesome, and getting more open source by the day, and MS is releasing stuff as open source left right and centre. So tell me, just how long do I have to wait to be "extended" or "extinguished"? Another 5 years? 10? Am I going to die of old age first?
Now, care to actually tell me how MS acting as gatekeeper for their project is any different from any of the other projects I mentioned? You cant, other than point to your hate filled rhetoric? Ho hum.
Some FOSS contributors have broken the law, therefore I won't trust them.
If it is MIT/BSD, companies can pull things like this.
As the creator and owner of the code, MS can do this even with GPL. They don't have to "license" the code that they use on their own projects.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
English and Sanskrit both belong to the Indo-European family of languages. S it is not a surprise the word for such an ancient invention as the axle sounds alike in both English and Sanskrit. But what about wheel? Well, Sanskrit word for wheel Chakra comes from circle, which is a cognate in so many languages. Why English disconnected the word for circle from the word for wheel, I don't know.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
If you support open source filesystems, you support murder!
Once someone is found guilty of thing, they are forever tentatively guilty of all things!
Death sentences for all crimes!
Nonsense. Microsoft was already free to take (or if you prefer, steal) anything it liked from the open source V8 Javascript project.
I am voting for you MR. Trump!
I believe in you!
I believe you are teh savior sent here to save us!
Thank You Mr. Trump!
Yes, I think it is. So developers contribute to this "almost the same" Chakra engine, but Microsoft profits for it by using it in W10 and Edge, cause last time I checked those products weren't free.
Oh please.
MS is not the scary giant of the 1990s anymore and lost to Google. So they are now nice guys due to market forces. IBM was just as evil and now are open source friendly and a big contributor.
The intentions are MS wants more node.JS on Windows and feels uncomfortable with Google's monopoly with Chrome V8.
This is a good thing as a monopoly is bad regardless of whether you feel Google is cool and MS is not. Node.JS is mentioned and MS wants it on Chakra and if their JIT is better as it gets improved and runs on MacOSX and Linux will make it harder for Google to make it proprietary.
http://saveie6.com/
That's because other organizations have gotten smarter about this, like Google: http://news.yahoo.com/revolvin...
There are things that Microsoft didn't do back then (ie, lobby heavily) that other organizations do HEAVILY now (even RedHat, surprise surprise) that landed them in a lot of hot water. The idea that Google is a fair and balanced organization that wouldn't have antitrust issues for promoting their own services is ridiculous if you look at it from the lens of what happened to Microsoft a decade ago.
I know it's popular to hate Microsoft at Slashdot but a bit of perspective seems in order.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Looks like the anti-MS brigade is out in force - who gives a fuck that this isnt any different to the other projects I highlight, its MS and therefor bad.
Yes I loathe MS because I am an old timer in this industry and I have seen all this crap from Microsoft first hand and been burned by it. Just look at Embrace, extend and extinguish in Wikipedia to get a few real life examples. All of this happened!
.Net is from Microsoft and therefore Microsoft doesn't have to EEE it's own product. Saying .Net is open source is a misnomer. Taking a real life .Net application and moving to a different platform is basically impossible. Everything in .Net is dictated by Microsoft. Just try to take any .Net project programmed 10 years ago and try to get it to compile in the latest Visual Studio, I can guarantee you will run into major problems. Believe me I know.
The difference from the other projects is that they have been behaving like saints compared to Microsoft. So they can be trusted much more than Microsoft
You mean investing lots of time learning Javascript? Yes.
I don't care much for Microsoft myself. I remember the software bundling. Before that I remember forcing whitebox sellers to license Windows or DOS for every system sold even if that system shipped with 4.4BSD, SCO Unix, or OS/2. The honest, factual truth of the situation though is that Google has had anticompetitive practices trouble in the courts much more recently than has Microsoft.
They appear to be copying the business model of the 'free naughty video' sites, but with software instead.
John_Chalisque
MS's version is "JScript."
In fact one could argue there is pretty much zero difference between MSFT and Google now, as both give away their OS and then proceed to datamine the shit out of you while tying everything to their services...hmm...where have I seen that before? Why I just don't know where I could have seen such a thing.
The difference is that so long as I pick some hardware that works, I can run Android-x86 on a PC without being spied on by Google, but no matter what I do, I cannot run Windows 10 on a PC without being spied on by Microsoft, even when they claim they are not spying because you have turned off the options for the spying. I can do the same with my phone. I can opt out of Google services by getting my distribution elsewhere, but I can't opt out of Microsoft spyware because there's only one source for Windows, and it is tainted. I can also get an OSS version of their web browser, but you cannot get an OSS version of Aieeee! So in fact, the situation is completely different, and as a Microsoft whore you are shilling for them in order to make yourself look less unscrupulous. Your self-serving effort has been noted, and sneered at. And, of course, fellated by other Microsoft shills, with modpoints.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
"you" having reservations about Microsoft and opensource doesnt mean "people" have reservations
kbg has reservations. I have reservations. Now, "people" have reservations. Thanks for playing!
I have yet to see Embrace, Extend and Extinguish in real life
So you haven't been around for very long then? It took me about 3 seconds to find Examples. See also: Exchange / outlook / email standards (the "extinguish" step failed here, but they gave it a good try), and for something more recent, the whole "open" document format fiasco.
.Net is awesome
This is some strange new usage of the word "awesome" with which I'm not familiar. Or did you misspell "horrific"? Damn autocorrect, eh?
MS is releasing stuff as open source left right and centre
Centre, huh?
Get back to me when they open source DirectX. Then I might - might - care.
care to actually tell me how MS acting as gatekeeper for their project is any different from any of the other projects I mentioned? You cant
I can:
The projects you mention are managed by communities of people who have an interest in producing good open source software, and the convention is to use public mailing lists for discussion, where anybody can challenge the decisions of the ruling body. Some of these projects may even have a committee which votes on changes/direction, and a charter/code of conduct/set of rules which even the highest-level members of the community will be bound by.
This project is managed by a company with an interest in selling proprietary software and a history of open hostility to open source in addition to using illegal tactics to abuse its dominant position. How transparent is their vetting process? Do they have a code of conduct/charter/set of rules they're bound by? How does one go about challenging the decisions of Microsoft with regards to contributions and the direction of the project? Are they using a public mailing list where all discussion is publicly available?
Further, most of the projects you list are under a GPL-style license where there is a guarantee that submitted code will remain open. The ones which aren't under such a license have a multi-year history of good faith with regards to keeping things open. By licensing this under the MIT license, I presume that all contributions will also be MIT licensed, meaning that it can be closed off at any point at the whim of the company mentioned above.
just how long do I have to wait to be "extended" or "extinguished"? Another 5 years? 10? Am I going to die of old age first?
You probably have already, it's just that it was spoon-fed to you as an "upgrade" and you bought the marketing line (and, coincidentally, a bunch of new software. Strange coincidence, huh? Those marketing guys sure are slick!). You rewrote some huge and perfectly functional codebase, wasting countless hours, or you upgraded something (likely requiring replacement of perfectly functional hardware) because "new features!" (which you didn't actually use), not because the old thing was obsoleted, right?
Don't misunderstand: Open-sourcing stuff is definitely a step in the right direction. And if they keep it up and demonstrate good faith for 15 years or so I might even begin to trust them. Let's chat in 2030.
It's under MIT I believe. Which means they can stop it at any time and all that work you did would be in violation.
Fallacy, because options exist to use Google without tracking. There are no such options with Windows.
I can completely turn off Google tracking by not using a Chromebook and simply changing a setting in my Google account. This is because the scope is limited to the applications (i.e. browser) level.
There is no way to completely turn off Microsoft telemetry in the average Windows 10 install because the tracking resides at just above the BIOS level.
TL;DR: A Windows 10 machine is completely pwned. Google tracking cannot be compared to Microsoft tracking.
It is MIT licensed, but that doesn't mean that they can revoke the license. You can fork it and add anything that you want. They can take your changes and decide not to open source the next release, but you'd still have all of the code that they'd already released.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
That's only true as long as they are the only contributors. If they take patches from anyone else (without copyright assignment or some kind of contributors' agreement that allows them to use the code under a different license) then having it GPL'd would prevent them from using it in a proprietary product. Which effectively boils down to preventing them from bothering to do the open source release at all. Which tends to be the point that GPL advocates miss. I'd rather a company open sourced 10% of their code (or even 1%) than 0%.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
It doesn't matter how long ago it was. They where sentenced as Microsoft and they still are Microsoft. Microsoft has shown that they are willing to break to law. As an example is the case Microsoft against Sun for the Java runtime that shows that they are prepared to use any illegal tactic to destroy the competition, especially famous is their Embrace, extend and extinguish tactic. So given the history of they company it is no surprise that people have reservations about any "open source" project they have and if this Chakra project becomes successful I think we don't have to wait to long before the extend and extinguish part comes along.
They released the code under an MIT license. If you don't like the direction they're going with it fork it and maintain it yourself. This isn't the old days (the 90s) when they would make a bastardized version of something and attempt to dominate the market with it (look at their Kerberos implementation for one of the last examples of this).
I'm always wary of Microsoft and I don't really use their software, but the reality is when they release code under an open source license they're doing the right thing for the right reasons. It's a huge company which can do many things at the same time. Also, I believe the past "issues" were due to Gates and Ballmer, neither of whom is in the company now.
Do you have ESP?
It would be good if Microsoft sent someone to rip off your face and feed it to a passing hobo. Only then will MS have done a true and lasting favor for humanity. Until then, I'll take what I can get.
You loathe MS because you're mentally deficient. Carry on.
You deserve pain and misery for all your days. Unfortunately, this world is not a just world.
take any .Net project programmed 10 years ago and try to get it to compile in the latest Visual Studio
Done that already. In fact, the code base was from over 13 years ago. Didn't have a problem. I use code from 10+ years ago in the latest version of Visual Studio all the time. What issue do you have?
Taking a real life .Net application and moving to a different platform is basically impossible.
No it isn't, but the project had to be written to be portable in the first place. The same is true of any application written in any language. If you write it so that it depends on libraries only available on X (or you make assumptions that are only true on X), then you can't move it to Y without first using a library that is available on both X and Y.
As if you can just commit changes directly to Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, PostgreSQL, Android, Firefox, Gnome, KDE etc with no one related to those projects "vetting" them.
Wait, so it's easier to edit the Wikipedia Page of Ted Cruz to explain his Canadian name was "Cruz'); -- DROP TABLE DONORS" than it is to edit the MySQL source?
Almost as if mysql were more important than who gets elected President.
"Little Teddy Tables," we call him.
Are you suggesting that the MIT license allows Microsoft to retroactively apply a different license to existing code?
Hans Reiser did nothing wrong!
I read the wiki article, and of its listed instances, only the browser incompatibilities and Kerberos incompatibility actually got anywhere -- and neither one accomplished the "extinguish" step. ActiveX died after a few years (and never really gained traction with mainstream users in the first place, compared to things like Flash), and the Kerberos crap got leaked publicly the same year MS put it out, after which Microsoft eventually gave up and made the changes explicitly public and free to use.
The most MS ever actually accomplished with the EEE strategy was to manage some extra vendor lock-in for users of specialized applications that used a web front-end requiring ActiveX plugins.
And if your problem is with vendor lock-in, then let me tell you about a little company called Apple, who embraced and extended a Unix platform with a proprietary UI which is at this point difficult to even distribute a self-written program for without paying Apple hundreds for a developer license. And then went on to experiment aggressively with how much they could force users of their mobile hardware to use only Apple-certified peripherals, cables, chargers, and software with them.
So you haven't been around for very long then? It took me about 3 seconds to find Examples [wikipedia.org].
Well, most of those examples stem from the whole Java thing which happened 20 years ago (1995-1996).
I'm not sure where the issue with Kerbios is/was. Windows 2000 was release in Feb 2000. The RFP's that describe the extension for changing passwords (RFP3244), was also released Feb 2000, nearly at the same time. The NDA then only covered it until the products actual release, hardly a shining example of "extinguish".
All in all, your "examples", some of which I personally disagree with (having lived through that time) are from 13-20 years ago, 2 CEO's ago, and aren't relevant. Microsoft isn't the same as it was back then, I suspect less than 2% of the workforce that is there now is still there (could be wrong, I just pulled that number out of the air), but the idea stands the same. Not many employees remain that were there are that time, and it's gone under two different CEO's since then.
As for convicted monopolist, they were found guilty of "monopolization and tying" which refers specifically to Microsoft including IE into Windows, and nothing else. I didn't agree with the decision then, still don't today, and most of the claims and assumptions that the court made have since been proven false. Namely, that the court chose that look at smaller segment than it should have. Why only Intel x86 OS's? It should have looked at computers in general. Also, findings 18-29 "The Court has already found, based on the evidence in this record, that there are currently no products - and that there are not likely to be any in the near future - that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." which was false then, and even more false now. There was products that could have substituted, Unix, Xenix, Linux, Mac OS, OS/2, and they could have done so immediately if they so chose, but consumers just didn't want them at the time, and there are even more products now. In fact, many users are realizing the they don't even want or need an Intel-compatible PC AT ALL. They get done what they want on ARM-based (not Intel x86 based) computers called phones and tablets. And yet, each and every single one of these also tie in a web browser, the exact same thing that Microsoft got "convicted" for.
I'm just wonder why Apple isn't getting convicted for the same thing for tying their web browser (AND NOT LETTING OTHERS BE INSTALLED!) on their monopoly of their tablet OSs that run on ARM or android on phones that you can't uninstall their crapware both of which come with their own browsers and is much worse than what Microsoft did.
Let's not get into the copyleft vs. no copyleft argument. The critical question you need to ask about a project is if you could fork it if you wanted. If it's under the MIT license, you can do what you like with the source, provided you keep the license and copyright text.
Microsoft can take any of this and close it up, sure. They could also do that if it were GPLed, as long as they required copyright assignment. In neither case would the license status of the last open version be changed, and people could take that and continue developing their fork.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Just try to take any .Net project programmed 10 years ago and try to get it to compile in the latest Visual Studio, I can guarantee you will run into major problems
Thought I'd try this. Grabbed our .NET source code CVS archive from 2003. Opened the solution in VS2015, got a dialog telling me it was doing a one way upgrade. Clicked ok. Rebuilt, ran!
Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
If your grammar and spelling weren't so abysmal I'd be sure you were working on the MS legal team at the time. So many half-truths, misrepresentations, and outright lies. It didn't work then and it's not going to work now.
What would happen if Microsoft and Google and Apple and Cisco etc completely collapsed? Nothing. We could still route packets. We could still communicate. We could still find things. We could still listen to music and watch video. There would be whole lot less advertising. Very hard for me to recognize the value.
All in all, your "examples", some of which I personally disagree with (having lived through that time) are from 13-20 years ago, 2 CEO's ago, and aren't relevant. Microsoft isn't the same as it was back then, I suspect less than 2% of the workforce that is there now is still there (could be wrong, I just pulled that number out of the air), but the idea stands the same. Not many employees remain that were there are that time, and it's gone under two different CEO's since then.
But it is still the same company. Where any of the CEO involved in this charged with anything? No because the people themselves are not being charged it is the company. Which one is it? Either the individuals are to blame or the company as a whole is to blame. If Microsoft doesn't want to be associated with the bad things they have done in the past, they should disband the company and create a new one with a different name. Now you say: "But the Microsoft name is a valuable asset". Yes but then you also have to live with the bad things also assocated with that name. You can't just take the good and leave out the bad.
Only a person with no valid arguments and no intellect will resort to threats and other childish arguments.
I blame Bill Gates. It was under his direction these things happened. He either set forth the direction or was aware and complicit in all of those examples.
It is also partially the fault of those under him who didn't push back, but that's easy to say when it's not your job, your career on the line and you (may) have a wife (or husband) at home with kids who like to eat.
The company name means nothing, or are you suggesting that if they dissolved the company and created a new company with the same people, same offices that all of sudden everything is "forgiven"? That is just niave.
And I would say you are a paid shill for one of Microsoft's competitors, hiding behind an anonymous account. Why the need to be anonymous on a fairly anti-MS forum if not? We've all seen this before and we won't fall for it again. If you have something to rebut, then do so, but blanket unfounded statements won't cut it.
In fairness, I have four different browsers installed on my iOS device. And three on my Android.
You only have 4 browsers installed on your iOS device if they all use the same WebKit engine supplied by Apple, or you've jail broken the device.
Of course, I also have 4 browsers installed on my Windows PC, and didn't have to jail break it to do so.
Was that a "hello world" demo?