Jump to content

Talk:Embrace, extend, and extinguish

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Where is kerberos?[edit]

Microsoft also tried EEE on kerberos. I don't see it in the article though. Was it removed or something? There's even a link in this talk page to an article about Microsoft's kerberos. (https://web.archive.org/web/20140222133423/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2000/0511kerberos.html)

Etoombs (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There should be section with other Microsoft examples that did not worked out as planed like: OpenGL (although Microsoft manage to make some damage to it), audio/video codec and formats… Calimero (talk) 19:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following section was removed in 2020:-
  • Networking: In 2000, an extension to the Kerberos networking protocol (an Internet standard) was included in Windows 2000, effectively denying all products except those made by Microsoft access to a Windows 2000 Server using Kerberos.[1] The extension was published through an executable, whose running required agreeing to an NDA, disallowing third party implementation, especially open source. To allow developers to implement the new features, without having to agree to the license, users on Slashdot posted the document (disregarding the NDA), effectively allowing third party developers to access the documentation without having agreed to the NDA. Microsoft responded by asking Slashdot to remove the content.[2] The Microsoft extensions to Kerberos, as introduced in binary form in Windows 2000, have since been described in RFC 3244 and RFC 4757, and these extensions have since been listed in Microsoft Open Specification Promise. This document relates to "Microsoft-owned or Microsoft-controlled patents that are necessary to implement" the technologies listed. Microsoft's legal statement concerning unrestricted use of Microsoft intellectual property also includes the Kerberos Network Authentication Service v5 (RFC 1510 and RFC 1964).[3] (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. ^ "Microsoft's Kerberos shuck and jive". Networkworld.com. 2000-05-11. Archived from the original on 2014-02-22. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
  2. ^ "Microsoft Asks Slashdot To Remove Readers' Posts". Features.slashdot.org. Retrieved 2016-04-28.
  3. ^ "Microsoft Open Specification Promise". Microsoft.com. Retrieved 2007-11-02.

Chat reporting in Minecraft, another recent example?[edit]

Microsoft bought Mojang, the makers of Minecraft, then created bedrock edition, replacing the existing console editions, and only supporting Bedrock running on Windows (Bedrock cannot run on Linux or MacOS natively, in fact Bedrock for Windows is called Minecraft Windows 10 edition)

The bedrock ecosystem is much more tightly controlled by Microsoft than Java Edition or even the legacy console editions (pocket edition had modding, Bedrock only has weaker “behavior packs”)

And now, they’re further enforcing control. There’s evidence they deliberately kept the community in the dark about chat reporting. And the chat reporting system provides no new tools to server owners, it only allows for Microsoft to further control the ecosystem.

This whole thing is a right mess, and I don’t have the energy to write about it now, but I highly recommend looking into this situation if you’ve been lying attention to Microsoft’s strategy before.

Also concerning is Microsoft’s new embracing of Linux and Open Source tech. People think the license of Linux and open source projects protects them, but there’s a lot Microsoft and other companies (for example Red Hat and Canonical, see also systemd) can do to homogenize the Linux ecosystem even without direct control.

Concern is warranted in general and the article ought to reflect these concerns. (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead paragraph about how Microsoft has changed[edit]

This article isn't a general article about Microsoft and Linux; it's an article about a very specific term (and to a lesser extent the behavior described by that term.) If we're going to say that Microsoft no longer does this, we need a source saying so specifically, which neither of the cited sources support. One of them only use the term "embrace, extend, and extinguish" in passing as a summary of how Microsoft is viewed, mostly just consists of some quotes, and didn't support anything in that paragraph; the other one doesn't use the term "embrace, extend, and extinguish" or anything comparable at all and seems to have been used in an WP:OR / WP:SYNTH sort of way. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't prove a negative (e.g. that something doesn't happen) and it's hard to find references which explicitly say something *doesn't* happen, but at the same time it is an important piece of context here, and that it's a historic term is also obviously the case, but now it's no longer clear from the article (at least not explicitly, although it is implicitly by using past tense). I feel this is far too strict of an interpretation of the guidelines, and an example where it impedes the usefulness and informativeness of an article. Arp242 (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes To "Strategy" Section[edit]

I think that the Strategy section of the article needs changing. It is too difficult to understand, even for technically well-versed individuals. A more suitable alternative would be something along the lines of "Support a competing project by creating an extension of that project that is inherently incompatible with the original. Once the new variant receives wide adoption, the original standard is discontinued due to not being compatible with the new standard." Smochort11 (talk) 16:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit/improve it. Arp242 (talk) 10:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removal of Unix/Linux example[edit]

Under Examples by Microsoft, the final point named Unix/Linux is out of place. This list is meant to show examples of EEE, there is no evidence to support that this is an example of that yet. They've embraced Unix/Linux, and I think it's fair for individuals to suspect the rest may come, but so far, there are no sources to indicate they've extended it nor plan to extinguish it.

Would it be fair to remove this point? Sethiiii (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it; I agree it doesn't make much sense. SFU was from a time when every Unix was incompatible with every other Unix, so that's hardly surprising, and it was always a very niche feature few people used, mostly intended for people migrating from Unix systems to Windows. Arp242 (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new example: IDE editor (VS Code)[edit]

More details in the post at: https://ghuntley.com/fracture/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:41, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Google helped destroy adoption of RSS feeds[edit]

"Below, we dive deeper into Google's track record of what appears to be an Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish model. The company has continuously built and extended their products around the free and open RSS protocol to gain user trust, only to then remove RSS support once they've locked users in, and ignore any complaints or requests to restore it. Not only is it a blatant disregard for RSS and a huge disappointment to those who use it, it poses one of the biggest threats to the freedom and openness of the internet."

https://openrss.org/blog/how-google-helped-destroy-adoption-of-rss-feeds Berebi (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]