I'm sorry, that doesn't exactly back up your assertions. Microsoft built their own language that was inspired by Java, but they didn't steal Java. You'd have to make some pretty big assumptions to jump to that.
(By the way, I'm definitely among the louder anti-Microsoft voices of yesteryear, so my responses are not out of any sort of good will towards Ballmer's Microsoft.)
They certainly did, if "stolen" could even be said at that point. By that point, the mouse was getting adopted on a broader scale.
Understand, I'm fully conscious that Gates's Microsoft, and Ballmer's Microsoft, has indeed stolen things. They've committed some major crimes against ethics, and yes, they've broken some laws in the past. But we have to be careful that our accusations are indeed based in truth. Stick to facts...and be sure you actually have said facts.
We also have to recognize that the leadership in a company makes a fundamental difference. Nadella's Microsoft has not replicated the patterns of theft. They've built bridges where it would have been more profitable to burn them. They've made above-board acquisitions instead of under-handed thefts. They've given at least three of the companies they acquired the latitude to make their own autonomous decisions, something Ballmer's Microsoft would have never done. They've put more money, time, and resources into things like open source than they could ever hope to recover from any scam. If they violate the early trust they've won in the open source community, they stand to lose a lot.
Corporations are not strange macroorganisms unto themselves, they are a group of people with a clear chain of command. Microsoft's current C-suite is NOT the same as that under Ballmer or Gates. After everything he has done so far, to judge Satya Nadella's leadership by that of his predecessors is, frankly, unreasonable prejudice.
Suffice it to say, these are NOT the folks who committed the crimes of Microsoft's yesteryears! These are different folks. Would you like your work and character to be assessed primarily through the lens of the previous person who held your job, especially if that person was a rake? I guarantee you wouldn't!
Google provably changed from the good to the bad; that alone demonstrates that corporate character is not "fixed". Conversely, Microsoft has provably changed from the bad to what may be good, but in the least, they are not following the patterns or practices of Ballmer and Gates.
Judge Nadella's Microsoft through the lens of the actions of Nadella's Microsoft. It's just basic human decency.
Clearly you haven't used Teams, as it is not a clone of Slack. I've used both. They don't even look alike.
Similarly, C# is a riff on C++ if anything, but has little resemblance to Java in either syntax or implementation, save their common heritage as C-style ALGOL descendants. Learn the difference between competing products and clones. Learn the difference between stealing and re-implementing features.
You don't have to trust them, but you NEED to stop misrepresenting their actions. As it stands, the way you're approaching this is destroying any credibility present opponents of Microsoft have; if you have to distort and falsify data to make your point, your point is invalid. Rely on verifiable facts, or else don't get involved in the debate.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'm sorry, that doesn't exactly back up your assertions. Microsoft built their own language that was inspired by Java, but they didn't steal Java. You'd have to make some pretty big assumptions to jump to that.
(By the way, I'm definitely among the louder anti-Microsoft voices of yesteryear, so my responses are not out of any sort of good will towards Ballmer's Microsoft.)
Of course not. Apple did. :P
They certainly did, if "stolen" could even be said at that point. By that point, the mouse was getting adopted on a broader scale.
Understand, I'm fully conscious that Gates's Microsoft, and Ballmer's Microsoft, has indeed stolen things. They've committed some major crimes against ethics, and yes, they've broken some laws in the past. But we have to be careful that our accusations are indeed based in truth. Stick to facts...and be sure you actually have said facts.
We also have to recognize that the leadership in a company makes a fundamental difference. Nadella's Microsoft has not replicated the patterns of theft. They've built bridges where it would have been more profitable to burn them. They've made above-board acquisitions instead of under-handed thefts. They've given at least three of the companies they acquired the latitude to make their own autonomous decisions, something Ballmer's Microsoft would have never done. They've put more money, time, and resources into things like open source than they could ever hope to recover from any scam. If they violate the early trust they've won in the open source community, they stand to lose a lot.
Corporations are not strange macroorganisms unto themselves, they are a group of people with a clear chain of command. Microsoft's current C-suite is NOT the same as that under Ballmer or Gates. After everything he has done so far, to judge Satya Nadella's leadership by that of his predecessors is, frankly, unreasonable prejudice.
Suffice it to say, these are NOT the folks who committed the crimes of Microsoft's yesteryears! These are different folks. Would you like your work and character to be assessed primarily through the lens of the previous person who held your job, especially if that person was a rake? I guarantee you wouldn't!
Google provably changed from the good to the bad; that alone demonstrates that corporate character is not "fixed". Conversely, Microsoft has provably changed from the bad to what may be good, but in the least, they are not following the patterns or practices of Ballmer and Gates.
Judge Nadella's Microsoft through the lens of the actions of Nadella's Microsoft. It's just basic human decency.
Clearly you haven't used Teams, as it is not a clone of Slack. I've used both. They don't even look alike.
Similarly, C# is a riff on C++ if anything, but has little resemblance to Java in either syntax or implementation, save their common heritage as C-style ALGOL descendants. Learn the difference between competing products and clones. Learn the difference between stealing and re-implementing features.
You don't have to trust them, but you NEED to stop misrepresenting their actions. As it stands, the way you're approaching this is destroying any credibility present opponents of Microsoft have; if you have to distort and falsify data to make your point, your point is invalid. Rely on verifiable facts, or else don't get involved in the debate.