4 ms·
Absolutely. I'd love to see the "new Microsoft" step up and say "Under our stewardship, one of our acquisitions has abandoned a vital and heavily relied upon pr
by davb 11y ago
Absolutely. I'd love to see the "new Microsoft" step up and say "Under our stewardship, one of our acquisitions has abandoned a vital and heavily relied upon product. We're going to give it back to the community to ensure that it'll live on past Xamarin's ownership".
I doubt this is just RoboVM unilaterally making this decision. They're offering a full refund to all license holders - some decision maker somewhere is paying for this (be in Xamarin or Microsoft).
- ta_donk_gt 11y ago> I doubt this is just RoboVM unilaterally making this decision. While they likely didn't make the decision to close up shop, RoboVM did unilaterally make the decision to close source the code 7 months ago. Additionally, they did make the decision to sell to Xamarin. They indicated that very few people contributed to the open source project, and with it being open source it was difficult, if not impossible, for them to make money as a business. I understand that people want to make Microsoft the bad guy, but in this case RoboVM sealed this fate themselves a while back, and from their point of view they didn't really have a choice if they wanted to make any money. As another comment pointed out, the old open source repository is still available on github as of now.
- sitkack 11y agoAnd libgdx single handily gave them a market. RoboVM would have withered long ago without it.
- pjmlp 10y agoYes, the fact being that there are a few commercial native AOT compilers for Java and all FOSS alternatives for AOT compilation fail to get any community support.
- sitkack 10y agoI think this is because the gulf between the user and one with the ability to do the hacking is so far apart. Those with a pressing need to get Java compiled into a native exe also has ability to pay for an off the shelf solution.
- matt_wulfeck 11y agoI'm calling them "Microsoft Nouveaux"