4 ms·

Being "open source" is meaningless if there isn't a community actively building the software and no one understands (or very few) understand the code outside th

Being "open source" is meaningless if there isn't a community actively building the software and no one understands (or very few) understand the code outside the organization. Open source is luring developers into a false sense of security -- it's possible to implement features that could not be ported easily into competitor's products and have no formal specification provided anywhere. Even if they have a specification, there is no guarantee that the specification will remain up-to-date as time progresses. Also, I even said: > while pointing out to dissenters that the extensions > are open source Open source doesn't mean anything.

addicted 10y ago
I simply cannot foresee a scenario where the Node community is active enough to put in the effort to make Node work with ChakraCore, anode continues to remain popular and widely used, but after adopting ChakraCore the community does down to the point where they are incapable of replacing ChakraCore if MS turns hostile. In addition, if ChakraCore is adopted, it's almost certain there will be a major fork that continues running on V8. The most likely scenario will be that Node will continue to run both in parallel, and soon enough the JS engine bindings will be abstracted enough that it may even become a bring your own JS Engine type software.
- madmax96 10y ago
  I'm not concerned about Node on Chakra necessarily -- its developers are probably smart enough to avoid this issue; I'm concerned about applications running on Node on Chakra. Unless you avoid using __any__ non-standard behavior, Microsoft owns you. Using Chakra is risky. There is a very real possibility that Microsoft will make developers regret trusting them. The only possible payoff is that maybe you need one less app instance. Maybe. It's foolish to put you, your codebase, and your organization at risk for this.
  - chii 10y ago
    Why can't you say the same for v8?
    - KirinDave 10y ago
      Because Google is a company of unceasing virtue and "Don't be evil?" Or perhaps because many people have been conditioned to dislike anything Microsoft does without actually analyzing it's impact or relevance. Certainly it seems like there aren't many rational facts to thia person's argument. I very much agree that "non-standard behavior" in an open source product exists that could be directly replicated. One of the major benefits of open source licensing is to hedge against that behavior.
      - madmax96 10y ago
        So your counter-argument is this: > Or perhaps because many people have been conditioned to > dislike anything Microsoft does without actually > analyzing it's impact or relevance. > Certainly it seems like there aren't many rational facts > to thia person's argument. I could say the same thing about this comment.
        KirinDave 10y ago
        So tell me, why is it bad for the industry? Why wasn't it bad when V8 came out and enabled node? Why is there a different standard you apply to Microsoft's open source efforts? Please, tell me.
        madmax96 10y ago
        > why is it bad for the industry? I already explained how Microsoft has a history of violating people's trusts, and how an investment in Microsoft's technologies is therefore risky. > Why wasn't it bad when V8 came out and enabled node? This is off-topic: you don't know my opinion of V8 or Google. My opinion on V8, good or bad, also does not change the validity of my criticisms. > Why is there a different standard you apply to > Microsoft's open source efforts? You don't know me personally, so it's presumptive of you to assume I'm applying a standard unevenly. You have done nothing to address the criticisms of Microsoft, instead you have resorted to cheap red herrings -- a tell-tale sign of a lost argument. Until you decide to actually provide an argument of substance against what I've said, rather than arrogant name-calling and presumptive assumptions regarding my standards for open source, this conversation cannot serve any constructive purpose.

addicted 10y ago

I simply cannot foresee a scenario where the Node community is active enough to put in the effort to make Node work with ChakraCore, anode continues to remain popular and widely used, but after adopting ChakraCore the community does down to the point where they are incapable of replacing ChakraCore if MS turns hostile. In addition, if ChakraCore is adopted, it's almost certain there will be a major fork that continues running on V8. The most likely scenario will be that Node will continue to run both in parallel, and soon enough the JS engine bindings will be abstracted enough that it may even become a bring your own JS Engine type software.

madmax96 10y ago
I'm not concerned about Node on Chakra necessarily -- its developers are probably smart enough to avoid this issue; I'm concerned about applications running on Node on Chakra. Unless you avoid using __any__ non-standard behavior, Microsoft owns you. Using Chakra is risky. There is a very real possibility that Microsoft will make developers regret trusting them. The only possible payoff is that maybe you need one less app instance. Maybe. It's foolish to put you, your codebase, and your organization at risk for this.
- chii 10y ago
  Why can't you say the same for v8?
  - KirinDave 10y ago
    Because Google is a company of unceasing virtue and "Don't be evil?" Or perhaps because many people have been conditioned to dislike anything Microsoft does without actually analyzing it's impact or relevance. Certainly it seems like there aren't many rational facts to thia person's argument. I very much agree that "non-standard behavior" in an open source product exists that could be directly replicated. One of the major benefits of open source licensing is to hedge against that behavior.
    - madmax96 10y ago
      So your counter-argument is this: > Or perhaps because many people have been conditioned to > dislike anything Microsoft does without actually > analyzing it's impact or relevance. > Certainly it seems like there aren't many rational facts > to thia person's argument. I could say the same thing about this comment.
      - KirinDave 10y ago
        So tell me, why is it bad for the industry? Why wasn't it bad when V8 came out and enabled node? Why is there a different standard you apply to Microsoft's open source efforts? Please, tell me.
        madmax96 10y ago
        > why is it bad for the industry? I already explained how Microsoft has a history of violating people's trusts, and how an investment in Microsoft's technologies is therefore risky. > Why wasn't it bad when V8 came out and enabled node? This is off-topic: you don't know my opinion of V8 or Google. My opinion on V8, good or bad, also does not change the validity of my criticisms. > Why is there a different standard you apply to > Microsoft's open source efforts? You don't know me personally, so it's presumptive of you to assume I'm applying a standard unevenly. You have done nothing to address the criticisms of Microsoft, instead you have resorted to cheap red herrings -- a tell-tale sign of a lost argument. Until you decide to actually provide an argument of substance against what I've said, rather than arrogant name-calling and presumptive assumptions regarding my standards for open source, this conversation cannot serve any constructive purpose.