Allowing multiple generations access to an simplified UI & OS,and providing opportunity for those that thirst for knowledge a stepping stone into the world of open source. Yes, free/open source *nix distro's allow this as well, but the barrier to entry is higher when you are a young kid without even basic knowledge (providing that your hand was not held during the process).
Without Microsoft and Apple, how many of the generations that have contributed to open source, be were they are now??
Edit: Just playing Devils Advocate here - I hold no special regard for MS - but rather appreciate the symbiosis that has developed within IT in general.
> rather appreciate the symbiosis that has developed within IT in general.
Microsoft has been a bully for very long. Whether that has been beneficial or detrimental to IT cannot be proved, of course, but whichever you believe, one must acknowledge the other side.
Personally, I think Microsoft held personal computing back by at least a decade. The Amiga 1000, in 1985, was better at Graphics, Sound, Games, and even multitasking than the PC of 1995, and was way cheaper (for the same functionality) then the PC of 1985[0]. Amiga died because of mismanagement, mostly, but might have succeeded if MS did not commoditize the PC market. (Amiga wasn't the only player at the time -- commoditizing the PC killed most of the variety)
Also, BeOS, in 1995, was way better than Windows 95 for all home uses; At the time, windows was popular but not dominant (DOS was still king), and BeOS actually was a competitor; Microsoft flexed their muscles and killed BeOS by forcing vendors to pay full Windows price for any unit sold (on one hand), and disallowing selling dual boot machines (on the other).
> Without Microsoft and Apple, how many of the generations that have contributed to open source, be were they are now??
Why, running Amiga 16000s, Atari ST 5200s, Sinclair QLs and Acorn Aristotles. There was once a thriving echosystem that comprised a lot more variety. And it died ~20 years ago, in no small part thanks to Microsoft.
[0] An Amiga cost less than an 8Mhz PC+EGA (best you could get back then) + EGA monitor + sound card, and delivered more - but the basic Amiga did cost twice as much as a PC+CGA+Green CRT which was the common setup at the time.
First, almost all open source software runs on Microsoft Windows. As such, it provides and curates the biggest market for open source PC software, and I'd guess that Windows generates the majority of the money earned by the developers of open source applications (ie not the OS).
You can see that in action at Steam, which is fuelled by Windows users (over 90% of the user base), and from which Linux gamers (less than 1%) derive huge benefits.
Second, Microsoft created a compatible x86-based PC market, which created high volume sales, which drove down prices. This is exactly the market on which and for which Linux was originally developed. The people who run free software have saved far more money through Microsoft-driven economies of scale than they would ever have paid for Windows.
Third, Microsoft is a major contributor to open source, including the Linux kernel, and it has a large number of projects on both Github and Codeplex. Sure, it's self-interested, but it's no more self-interested than IBM, Google, Red Hat, and dozens of other companies that make money from software.
Why do you think Microsoft is the enemy? (I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft was a spunky young bunch of freedom fighters, pioneering desktop Unix, among other things.)
> Why do you think Microsoft is the enemy? (I'm old enough to remember when Microsoft was a spunky young bunch of freedom fighters, pioneering desktop Unix, among other things.)
I'm old enough to remember Microsoft was always an abusive back- stabbing company, often abusing their position. Yes, Excel was the better product than 1-2-3, and Word was better than WordPerfect. That said ...
Windows 3, the killer MS app, refused to run on DR-DOS.
Their contract with SpyGlass said SpyGlass would get a share of the profits of selling IE - which MS gave for free. Though IE3 was acceptable, that was not enough to win the hearts and minds, so they kludged IE4 into the operating system, thus leveraging their OS monopoly to gain browser monopoly - which they cemented by having e.g. Word and FrontPage emit IE-specific markup.
Microsoft was continually spreading FUD, making vague threats about viral licenses, various ip issues and other problems with free software. They still make more revenue off Android patent threat agreements than they make on Windows phones.
They stacked the ISO vote for OOXML, which took a couple of years to clear in some countries (beyond the specific OOXML damage done, in some countries the new members that voted only on this issue ground work to a halt because of quorum requirements).
Not to mention all of the "protected path" issues, which are actively working against users.
While only the last three items have anything to do with free software, Microsoft is a bully, and has been one for 30 years. "Freedom fighters" is not a title I would associate with Microsoft at any point in time. They have been behaving better recently, but only because Google and Apple managed to beat them into submission. I don't think the company culture actually changed. Two years of behaving is not enough to be convincing, after ~30 years of bullying.
Microsoft's record of back-stabbing is rather small and trivial compared to some other companies, such as IBM and Oracle, and is a long way in the past. The company has been under government attack since 1995 (when it signed Janet Reno's consent decree) and was under very close day-to-day judicial supervision for a decade after losing its anti-trust case (it paid many billions for its sins).
So, for the past 15 years or so, Microsoft's behavior has been far better than average for the software industry. For the past five years, it has been listed as one of the world's "most ethical" corporations.
Pretty much all the people who did bad things departed in a previous century, and the company culture is radically different today.
Ah, I didn't realize "ethical" just meant things you don't like.
> OOXML happened in 2006.
Standard technique re committees, and Microsoft isn't the first to use it. However, on balance, it was a good thing to do. Frankly, I don't see how any sensible person can object to the opening up and standardization of ubiquitous file formats (and again, that's a common industry move). It's good for users.
> Android racket is still going on.
Microsoft was one of the pioneers of desktop computing and desktop Unix, so I can believe it has some IP (though I don't know what it is).
Monetizing your IP is a standard American practice, in which IBM has long been a world leader. I wouldn't expect the US DoJ to disapprove of it. Indeed, it appears the whole US legal, economic and political systems encourage it.
> Proxy fight against linux through SCO (yes, MS financed it) went through 2010.
> Ah, I didn't realize "ethical" just meant things you don't like.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are unaware of what was going on. I've attached references so that you can educate yourself. If you think they are wrong, please have the courtesy to provide references that counter these.
> However, on balance, it was a good thing to do.
What exactly was a good thing to do? Stacking ISO committees with inactive members[0], that took years to clear so the committees went back to function? (No, that's not standard practice). Or was the good thing ignoring requests to join the OASIS ODF standardization process? Or was it the actual OOXML "standard" itself, which is so convoluted that at the time it was published, no software (Including Microsoft Office) supported it, and in general, no software CAN really support it because it has settings like[1] "auto space like word 95", which is not specified anywhere except in the Word 95 source code? It's not a standard, it's a joke, and it's a mockery any community process. And I've been on committees before - politics is rampant, but what Microsoft did is not.
> Microsoft was one of the pioneers of desktop computing and desktop Unix, so I can believe it has some IP (though I don't know what it is).
You were saying microsoft has changed and has been better than most companies for the last few years. I would say this contradicts your position. It is no worse than IBM or Oracle, but that doesn't make Microsoft ethical.
> Which Microsoft didn't finance.
"The email details how, surprise surprise, Microsoft has arranged virtually all of SCO’s financing, hiding behind intermediaries like Baystar Capital.”[2]
Microsoft has been my enemy for a long time.
Please be specific: what has Microsoft ever done that has significantly improved end users' ability to run Free Software?