3 ms·
Interesting. I was part of the original "Team Explorer Everywhere" team that built their Eclipse plug-in for TFS and had originally championed this as a good i
by ethomson 11y ago
Interesting. I was part of the original "Team Explorer Everywhere" team that built their Eclipse plug-in for TFS and had originally championed this as a good idea. But really, I'm not sure that I'm enthused about this news. Certainly this is good community building, but I've found the Eclipse Foundation to be so ineffective that I'm not sure what purpose this actually serves except to send out a press release.
My team was initially acquired; we were originally a small company in a cornfield in Illinois called Teamprise, where we built the original TFS plug-in for Eclipse. At the time, we were Eclipse Foundation members and reasonably happy about it. Certainly it was nice to give back (in terms of membership fees) to a project that we were a part of and took advantage of. And the Foundation has a few really solid employees and it was nice to talk to them about tech stuff.
But our larger goal in joining the Eclipse Foundation was largely unmet, which was to actually partner. For example: we hoped to bring in a contractor who could occasionally tackle some bugs in Eclipse on AIX which ultimately affected our customers. We were a tiny company and going deep on some weird problem that only affected the Motif AIX build was not particularly rewarding. So we hoped to engage the Foundation to help us out here: we would pay this contractor if they could help us find them. But we were rebuffed in a manner that I found rather off-putting.
Despite this, after we became part of Microsoft I still pushed for us to join the Eclipse Foundation. I stopped pushing when Microsoft had a booth at Eclipse Con one year and a member of the Foundation (apropos nothing) went on a nice, long rant about Microsoft. I don't think it's particularly classy to make fun of your competitors, nor do I really appreciate inculcating an "us vs them" mentality. But to do that after we had paid a big hunk of money to sponsor that conference seemed particularly poor form, and if the Foundation is going to make fun of the people who are paying to sponsor their Conference, what does membership buy you? A steaming pile on your doorstep once a year?
In any case, that was when I stopped advocating for Microsoft to join the Eclipse Foundation and instead advocated for us to ignore them wholesale. I hope that my old team has better luck working with them than I did.
- specialist 11y agoVery interesting. I would like to understand governance models for open source projects, standards committees, etc. I took a job working on an open source product / stack precisely to get experience with how a consortia (kuali.org) manages to do things. TL;DR: it doesn't. I'm told the Apache Foundation is also like a tarpit. Would love to hear stories from people with direct experience. My utopian view is that all government software should be citizen owned. That dream took a hit by my recent experience. I'm still searching for projects, efforts, teams, whatever that cracked this nut.
- B1FF_PSUVM 11y ago> I'm not sure what purpose this actually serves Preparation. The world isn't ready yet for Microsoft joining the Linux Foundation.
- ethomson 11y agoI can't tell if you're joking or serious. Certainly, Microsoft hosts a lot of Linux VMs in Azure. A lot. The last I heard, Azure was hosting more Ubuntu than anything else. I'm going to assume you're serious and agree with you; I wouldn't be at all surprised if Microsoft did end up joining the Linux Foundation. I'll guess within the next 2 years.
- nickbauman 11y agoNa. The only reason why Microsoft is doing this is because they want to remain relevant in a world that has largely stopped relying on closed-source code in a server-side OS. I suspect Microsoft will open source Windows long before it ever joins the Linux Foundation.
- ethomson 11y agoThose are unrelated concerns. Microsoft isn't a big homogenous unit. The business unit that would join the Linux Foundation would be Cloud & Enterprise (which does crazy things like open sourcing .NET and joining the Eclipse Foundation). The business unit that would open source Windows is Windows Development Group, who are mostly stuck in neutral. They can barely perform builds of Windows themselves, it's so huge and tangled and poorly organized. They can't change anything because they're crippled with decades of technical debt. Whether they want to or not (and I don't think that they really do want to) to try to open source that monstrosity is quite far away. That said, I'm sure some people within Netscape said the same thing about Mozilla. So I'd love to be proven wrong.