6 ms·
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.
by 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 agoCan 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 agoThe 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 agoI 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 agoBut 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 agoI 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 agoI 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 agoDon't worry, I don't care much about internet points.
- staticelf 11y agoMaybe not, but they still do development based on self-interest. It's not like they're going to contribute to let´s say KDE if they have no use of it (it is an example, I have no idea of everything they contribute to)? What I mean is it doesn't matter for what reason you're contributing to open source for. The sole thing of open sourcing code, contributing to existing projects etc is inherently a good thing. At least personally I don't give a crap about why someone creates an open source project. I am just happy people do it.
- yAnonymous 11y ago>it doesn't matter for what reason you're contributing to open source for Microsoft is a shady company and they have contributed to projects in the past to cause damage. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11245719 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11245719
- dman 11y agoJava - A hardware company creating a software product that eases their customers ability to run on commodity hardware.