1. whether this means Microsoft is no longer the enemy of the open source movement
2. if not, then does it mean Microsoft has so lost in the web server arena that it's resorting to desperate moves.
3. or nah — it's standard MS operating procedure. Embrace, extend, extinguish.
What I'd like to ask is whether anybody that's not currently a
Employers love standardization. Choosing a standard means you can't be blamed for your choice. Choosing a standard means you can recruit young, cheap developers and actually get some output from them before they move on. Or you can outsource with some hope of success (because that's what outsourcing firms do — recruit young, cheap devs and rotate them around).
To me, those are red flags — not pluses at all. But they're undeniable pluses to greedy employers. Of course, there's much more to being an effective developer than knowing the platform so you can be easily slotted in to a project. But try telling that to the private equity guys running too much of the show these days...
So, assuming MS is 'sincere' about this open source move (big assumption),
2. Is there an Open Source choice today that's popular enough to be considered the standard that employers would like?
3. If the answer to 1 is yes and 2 is no, make the argument for avoiding
Here's an update: North Korea denies hacking Sony, U.S. stands by its assertion
The FBI said technical analysis of malicious software used in the Sony attack found links to malware that "North Korean actors" had developed and found a "significant overlap" with "other malicious cyber activity" previously tied to Pyongyang. But it otherwise gave scant details on how it concluded that North Korea was behind the attack.
Sums up the mickey mouse laws that Sony, Disney and their ilk have created in the industry. It has nothing to do with copyrights it has everything to do with control of content.
I don't see a problem with Disney still retaining full rights to Mickey. The company still exists and actively uses the character in their works.
Link to Original Source
The major downside to this is promoting the idea that an https connection is "secure", because especially when it comes to https, there are so many different attacks to level against both an end user and a host that we'd be better using a risk grading system.
A security feature does not have to be perfect to provide value. The user is still significantly more protected with HTTPS than with HTTP.