4 ms·

To everyone chanting "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", I'd like to remind you that Node proper was a golden egg sitting under Joyent's goose. When Joyent decided t

To everyone chanting "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish", I'd like to remind you that Node proper was a golden egg sitting under Joyent's goose. When Joyent decided they didn't want to embrace anymore, the community took the extinguisher out of their hands. Granted, Microsoft is in a more similar position to Google than to Joyent, but the point of the argument is that the community has driven the language and the runtime forward, not the corporation backing it. Unlike most of Microsoft's other EEE attempts, this time they're putting their code with their mouths are and putting it all up under MIT. There's little you can do to get more open and honest than that. If the community doesn't like the direction MS is taking Chakra, they're free to take it in a new direction. Hopefully it doesn't come to that, but it's an option.

_greim_ 11y ago
> putting it all up under MIT. There's little you can do to get more open and honest than that. I disagree. Node was OSS-licensed under GitHub back in the Joyent days, but the inner circle was still very much closed. PRs languished for months or even years. The leap from there to here for Node is, arguably, bigger than the leap from closed-source to open. Evidence: io.js had to happen.
- ybx 11y ago
  But the thing he's saying is that having io.js happen was possible. It's also possible in this scenario too.
  - smacktoward 11y ago
    Forking is always possible, but it was only practical because the community could plausibly claim to be able to put as much or more effort into building out their fork than Joyent could theirs. Microsoft is a much, much, much bigger company than Joyent. If they decide they want to take things in their own direction, they can throw an awful lot of programmers at making that happen. Which would make standing up a fork that could plausibly claim to be at least as actively developed as Microsoft's would be much more difficult.
    - dsp1234 11y ago
      to take things in their own direction And there is evidence that this is true. Node itself has had to make major changes to it's own code to account for unilateral V8 changes, and node really has had no choice but to suck it up and make corresponding changes. They could fork V8, but it's not likely since Google is always going to be able to throw more resources at it.
    - ybx 11y ago
      Forking isn't possible when the code is not there, and when the company that created/copyrighted the code is openly hostile to forks. By them releasing under MIT, this issue is resolved. As for the manpower behind Microsoft, git has made it very easy to merge code from relatively similar source code - in the cases that they make large important changes, those can always be merged in, and usually without too much work involved. The only way they could succeed with something like that would be for them to go closed-source again, in which case you're still better off than if they never went open in the first place because you still at least have some code to work from.
krisdol 11y ago
>When Joyent decided they didn't want to embrace anymore, the community took the extinguisher out of their hands Joyent wound up embracing io.js, and Node.js is moving at a very fast pace now while maintaining LTS branches in parallel. It's a very well managed project, in my opinion. Aside, how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes?
- _greim_ 11y ago
  > how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes? Selection effects! Posts about Microsoft doing something cool will attract a readership in which Microsoft fandom is over-represented, compared to the average readership of HN.
  - nilliams 11y ago
    I don't agree with your characterisation. GP was complaining about downvotes to anti-MS comments, and that's nothing to do with 'attracting a readership'. More like the specific criticism of Microsoft demonstrated in this thread so far is the same tired old crap and not relevant to the actual topic.
    - annnnd 11y ago
      ...that, or "PR bots" at work. I guess I'll see by the downvotes this comment receives. ;)
- untog 11y ago
  Aside, how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes? I don't think it is. However, I'll downvote criticism that isn't actually based on anything other than "well, you know, it's Microsoft so they won't", "remember extend, embrace, extinguish?" or "M$", etc. etc. Criticism with actual backing is fine.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
nly 11y ago
Node isn't a very complicated piece of software though... 30,000 lines of C++ and 20,000 lines of Javascript. We're talking about a top tier Javascript engine here that weighs in at closer to half a million lines (only a fraction smaller than v8) where open source efforts are already split over three other mature engines.
bluejekyll 11y ago
MIT is flawed b/c it does nothing for licensing of patents that might cover sections of that code base. I'm not saying Microsoft is intentionally not licensing patents through OS, this might be strictly to be compatable with GPL.

_greim_ 11y ago

> putting it all up under MIT. There's little you can do to get more open and honest than that. I disagree. Node was OSS-licensed under GitHub back in the Joyent days, but the inner circle was still very much closed. PRs languished for months or even years. The leap from there to here for Node is, arguably, bigger than the leap from closed-source to open. Evidence: io.js had to happen.

ybx 11y ago
But the thing he's saying is that having io.js happen was possible. It's also possible in this scenario too.
- smacktoward 11y ago
  Forking is always possible, but it was only practical because the community could plausibly claim to be able to put as much or more effort into building out their fork than Joyent could theirs. Microsoft is a much, much, much bigger company than Joyent. If they decide they want to take things in their own direction, they can throw an awful lot of programmers at making that happen. Which would make standing up a fork that could plausibly claim to be at least as actively developed as Microsoft's would be much more difficult.
  - dsp1234 11y ago
    to take things in their own direction And there is evidence that this is true. Node itself has had to make major changes to it's own code to account for unilateral V8 changes, and node really has had no choice but to suck it up and make corresponding changes. They could fork V8, but it's not likely since Google is always going to be able to throw more resources at it.
  - ybx 11y ago
    Forking isn't possible when the code is not there, and when the company that created/copyrighted the code is openly hostile to forks. By them releasing under MIT, this issue is resolved. As for the manpower behind Microsoft, git has made it very easy to merge code from relatively similar source code - in the cases that they make large important changes, those can always be merged in, and usually without too much work involved. The only way they could succeed with something like that would be for them to go closed-source again, in which case you're still better off than if they never went open in the first place because you still at least have some code to work from.

krisdol 11y ago

>When Joyent decided they didn't want to embrace anymore, the community took the extinguisher out of their hands Joyent wound up embracing io.js, and Node.js is moving at a very fast pace now while maintaining LTS branches in parallel. It's a very well managed project, in my opinion. Aside, how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes?

_greim_ 11y ago
> how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes? Selection effects! Posts about Microsoft doing something cool will attract a readership in which Microsoft fandom is over-represented, compared to the average readership of HN.
- nilliams 11y ago
  I don't agree with your characterisation. GP was complaining about downvotes to anti-MS comments, and that's nothing to do with 'attracting a readership'. More like the specific criticism of Microsoft demonstrated in this thread so far is the same tired old crap and not relevant to the actual topic.
  - annnnd 11y ago
    ...that, or "PR bots" at work. I guess I'll see by the downvotes this comment receives. ;)
untog 11y ago
Aside, how come anything remotely questioning of Microsoft when there's an announcement is met with downvotes? I don't think it is. However, I'll downvote criticism that isn't actually based on anything other than "well, you know, it's Microsoft so they won't", "remember extend, embrace, extinguish?" or "M$", etc. etc. Criticism with actual backing is fine.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

nly 11y ago

Node isn't a very complicated piece of software though... 30,000 lines of C++ and 20,000 lines of Javascript. We're talking about a top tier Javascript engine here that weighs in at closer to half a million lines (only a fraction smaller than v8) where open source efforts are already split over three other mature engines.

bluejekyll 11y ago

MIT is flawed b/c it does nothing for licensing of patents that might cover sections of that code base. I'm not saying Microsoft is intentionally not licensing patents through OS, this might be strictly to be compatable with GPL.