8 ms·

Say what you want about Microsoft, but they really take their words into action nowadays. Seems like there is at least one news item per week. They have been re

Say what you want about Microsoft, but they really take their words into action nowadays. Seems like there is at least one news item per week. They have been really active in the open source space recently. Personally, I love this. Have recently been learning ASP.NET and started using Azure simply because I find it to be one of the easiest frameworks and platforms to iterate quickly on. I love the new Microsoft, I hope this continues. It feels like they have had a lot of brilliant people previously held back by rules and constraints which are now removed.

cm2187 11y ago
Reading it, it doesn't seem to be a completely altruistic policy. The way I read this blog post is "we are going to contribute to Eclipse to ensure that you can deploy your projects well on Azure". I'm not saying it's bad. But it's not a "MSFT open sources xxx" headline either.
- staticelf 11y ago
  Of course it's in their interest to do this, but that's always the case when it comes to company sponsored open source? It's not like they're going to throw money on something that they believe never will benefit them in any way. This is completely fine and how it should be.
yAnonymous 11y ago
They're doing this for themselves. If MS don't invest in open source, they'll be left behind. It's a nice reminder how important OSS has become.
- staticelf 11y ago
  Can you mention one company sponsored open source investment that isn't based in self-interest? I don't think that is relevant, but of course open source is important and probably will be in the future as well.
  - yAnonymous 11y ago
    The point here is that people remember MS aren't doing this for philanthropic reasons. To answer the question: Canonical. While they're aiming to become profitable, I don't think Mark Shuttleworth has any illusions about getting back all the money he invested.
    - pc86 11y ago
      I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to upvote. I really wish you could undo that (even if it precluded you from voting on that post again). But the point is that everyone is self-interested in OSS. Canonical has an ad on their page for Ubuntu Advantage, they run training and offer certifications, etc. They are not a philanthropic organization.
      - petercooper 11y ago
        But the point is that everyone is self-interested in OSS. If we're going that far, everyone is self-interested in everything, even if it's just because doing something (like, say, giving to charity) makes them feel good or suffer less guilt.
        pc86 11y ago
        I realize that was an overly broad statement but I thought the next line clarified it a bit. Canonical definitely has a direct monetary incentive in its OSS participation.
        petercooper 11y ago
        I agree, but compared to what he's put in, I'd be surprised if he has any ambitions of getting out anywhere near what has gone in. I think it's more of a lifestyle business (in the literal sense)... but I could be wrong! :)
      - yAnonymous 11y ago
        Don't worry, I don't care much about internet points.
elcct 11y ago
To me it feels like they are IE6 of Open Source
edwinnathaniel 11y ago
They got no choice. They realized that if they don't do these moves their platform is dying. But let's scope the discussion just around this announcement. Majority of the topics here are around azure for non-.net market. There's TFS but only because this is how IDE works: provide plugins for a source control systems to reduce task switching.
- staticelf 11y ago
  I don't agree that they have no choice, they are simply making a good choice. Yes, in Visual Studio publishing your application (even node.js) is as easy as going into the meny and pressing publish. You can setup git-push deploy, databases etc easily. I believe they want to integrate their tools into Eclipse which seems awesome. Think if you could set up cloud management in your IDE for java/C++/php projects as well. That would be awesome for the people using Eclipse and Azure.
  - edwinnathaniel 11y ago
    When the other choice is bad (as you eluded that they chose the good option) then they got not much of a choice isn't it? Treat the non .net platform as a second class citizen and their potential customers will smell that from far away...
chei0aiV 11y ago
Wake me when they GPLv3 something and create a development community around it so that they aren't the sole copyright holder.
- Someone1234 11y ago
  Arbitrary requirements much. By your own logic if Linux were a Microsoft product that wouldn't be good enough because it is only GPLv2. A lot chunk of the .Net framework are under MIT license and include this: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT Seems pretty comprehensive to me.
  - carussell 11y ago
    Distaste for the GPL aside, the second part of GP's comment is on-point. Not sure if you've actually looked at Microsoft's CLA or tried to contribute to any of their projects. The CLA signals that, despite having chosen how their projects are licensed themselves, they don't hold those licenses in high regard. And like most CLAs, it creates a needless barrier to entry and turns away real contributors. (Not that this is actually seen as a big concern within MS—at least it doesn't seem to be. Based on the projects I've been watching, development is very cabalistic [read: top-down] and that they might get some outside contributions because they're open source seems more like a nice also-have rather than an outright goal.) And since you brought up the .NET patent grant, it's hardly comprehensive. It severely limits the practical chances of anybody doing anything with it outside of Microsoft's own .NET Core project and Mono—which is more or less another project under Microsoft control, now that they've acquired Xamarin. All signs point to the .NET patent grant being specifically written to enable Microsoft's very own version of Sun/Oracle's "don't fragment Java" lawsuits. (Especially ironic given that the whole reason C#/.NET came about in the first place is because, in addition to Google being a target because of Android, the only other big target of such a suit was Microsoft themselves because of Visual J++.)
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      What's wrong with their CLA? Apache requires a CLA as well: https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt I think these are just good legal and business a lot of the time. They are the legal protection and audit trail showing that the person really did intend to license their IP.

cm2187 11y ago

Reading it, it doesn't seem to be a completely altruistic policy. The way I read this blog post is "we are going to contribute to Eclipse to ensure that you can deploy your projects well on Azure". I'm not saying it's bad. But it's not a "MSFT open sources xxx" headline either.

staticelf 11y ago
Of course it's in their interest to do this, but that's always the case when it comes to company sponsored open source? It's not like they're going to throw money on something that they believe never will benefit them in any way. This is completely fine and how it should be.

yAnonymous 11y ago

They're doing this for themselves. If MS don't invest in open source, they'll be left behind. It's a nice reminder how important OSS has become.

staticelf 11y ago
Can you mention one company sponsored open source investment that isn't based in self-interest? I don't think that is relevant, but of course open source is important and probably will be in the future as well.
- yAnonymous 11y ago
  The point here is that people remember MS aren't doing this for philanthropic reasons. To answer the question: Canonical. While they're aiming to become profitable, I don't think Mark Shuttleworth has any illusions about getting back all the money he invested.
  - pc86 11y ago
    I accidentally downvoted you when I meant to upvote. I really wish you could undo that (even if it precluded you from voting on that post again). But the point is that everyone is self-interested in OSS. Canonical has an ad on their page for Ubuntu Advantage, they run training and offer certifications, etc. They are not a philanthropic organization.
    - petercooper 11y ago
      But the point is that everyone is self-interested in OSS. If we're going that far, everyone is self-interested in everything, even if it's just because doing something (like, say, giving to charity) makes them feel good or suffer less guilt.
      - pc86 11y ago
        I realize that was an overly broad statement but I thought the next line clarified it a bit. Canonical definitely has a direct monetary incentive in its OSS participation.
        petercooper 11y ago
        I agree, but compared to what he's put in, I'd be surprised if he has any ambitions of getting out anywhere near what has gone in. I think it's more of a lifestyle business (in the literal sense)... but I could be wrong! :)
    - yAnonymous 11y ago
      Don't worry, I don't care much about internet points.

elcct 11y ago

To me it feels like they are IE6 of Open Source

edwinnathaniel 11y ago

They got no choice. They realized that if they don't do these moves their platform is dying. But let's scope the discussion just around this announcement. Majority of the topics here are around azure for non-.net market. There's TFS but only because this is how IDE works: provide plugins for a source control systems to reduce task switching.

staticelf 11y ago
I don't agree that they have no choice, they are simply making a good choice. Yes, in Visual Studio publishing your application (even node.js) is as easy as going into the meny and pressing publish. You can setup git-push deploy, databases etc easily. I believe they want to integrate their tools into Eclipse which seems awesome. Think if you could set up cloud management in your IDE for java/C++/php projects as well. That would be awesome for the people using Eclipse and Azure.
- edwinnathaniel 11y ago
  When the other choice is bad (as you eluded that they chose the good option) then they got not much of a choice isn't it? Treat the non .net platform as a second class citizen and their potential customers will smell that from far away...

chei0aiV 11y ago

Wake me when they GPLv3 something and create a development community around it so that they aren't the sole copyright holder.

Someone1234 11y ago
Arbitrary requirements much. By your own logic if Linux were a Microsoft product that wouldn't be good enough because it is only GPLv2. A lot chunk of the .Net framework are under MIT license and include this: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT https://github.com/dotnet/corefx/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT Seems pretty comprehensive to me.
- carussell 11y ago
  Distaste for the GPL aside, the second part of GP's comment is on-point. Not sure if you've actually looked at Microsoft's CLA or tried to contribute to any of their projects. The CLA signals that, despite having chosen how their projects are licensed themselves, they don't hold those licenses in high regard. And like most CLAs, it creates a needless barrier to entry and turns away real contributors. (Not that this is actually seen as a big concern within MS—at least it doesn't seem to be. Based on the projects I've been watching, development is very cabalistic [read: top-down] and that they might get some outside contributions because they're open source seems more like a nice also-have rather than an outright goal.) And since you brought up the .NET patent grant, it's hardly comprehensive. It severely limits the practical chances of anybody doing anything with it outside of Microsoft's own .NET Core project and Mono—which is more or less another project under Microsoft control, now that they've acquired Xamarin. All signs point to the .NET patent grant being specifically written to enable Microsoft's very own version of Sun/Oracle's "don't fragment Java" lawsuits. (Especially ironic given that the whole reason C#/.NET came about in the first place is because, in addition to Google being a target because of Android, the only other big target of such a suit was Microsoft themselves because of Visual J++.)
  - Pyxl101 11y ago
    What's wrong with their CLA? Apache requires a CLA as well: https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt https://www.apache.org/licenses/icla.txt I think these are just good legal and business a lot of the time. They are the legal protection and audit trail showing that the person really did intend to license their IP.