7 ms·

Microsoft, love them or hate them, appear to have been turning over a new leaf for the past while. If trends are to be used as indicators, then it seems the tr

Microsoft, love them or hate them, appear to have been turning over a new leaf for the past while. If trends are to be used as indicators, then it seems the trend is that more and more of Microsoft's projects are becoming more and more open, while it feels like Google is becoming more closed. Yes, Microsoft still has closed source programs (Windows), and yes, Google still has open source programs (Android, Tensorflow), but the general feeling I'm getting from Google is shrinking away from a commitment to open source on practical grounds. I don't know if I'm ready to say that I have more respect for Microsoft than Google at this point, but I definitely have more respect for Microsoft than I ever have, and that's the direct result of their recent efforts to embrace the developer community at large.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago
Strange times, indeed.
- hinkley 8y ago
  This feels a bit like IBM in the 90's. People have been predicting for 20 years that an Old Microsoft would look a lot like IBM. I just hope Microsoft doesn't inflict the moral equivalent of XSLT, XPath, and XML-RPC proxies on us.
  - gm-conspiracy 8y ago
    Ha. I was just talking to a coworker today about using XSLT, unfortunately.
- forgot-my-pw 8y ago
  Balmer times were the strange times. We're in good times now.
some_account 8y ago
Yeah. That generally how you fool people you are a good person. You do stuff that appears to be good hearted. Companies do that too. Just like politicians. I can't understand why people today lack the ability to see a scam.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  Convincing other people you are doing good things when you in fact aren't is a scam. Doing good things is not a scam.
  - perfmode 8y ago
    if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then those good things aren’t good
    - wjn0 8y ago
      you mean, if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then you are bad, not that the good things aren't in fact good
      - bmelton 8y ago
        Right -- I don't care what Bill Gates' motives for donating all the money to charity that he donates, because I believe that the money he's donating is doing actual good. Maybe he feels guilty for some of his actions as Microsoft CEO, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's cheating on his wife, or doing some other nefarious deed -- but those charities still have that money, and they're still (probably) doing good work with it.
        perfmode 8y ago
        that’s not an example of a smoke screen, as i intended. there is an ordering requirement implied in my statement. it’s necessary for the good to precede the bad in a way that demonstrates the good was to prevent the detection or objection to the subsequent bad. using good deeds to atone for past transgressions is different in a way that is subtle.
        bmelton 8y ago
        I disagree. We're perfectly capable of judging an act on its own merits. Orson Scott Card is a good author. Orson Scott Card is a bigot, and I do not ever wish to give him any money, so I will not buy his books now that I know of his bigotry. His bigotry doesn't cancel out his talent as an author, and while I might find that I don't enjoy reading his books any more as a result of what I know of him, that doesn't change what my opinion was before I found out about his bigotry. A good act is a good act, even if it's surrounded by a dozen bad acts.
toofy 8y ago
Agreed, however, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing ms would put the wider software community’s needs before their shareholder profits. The situation with GitHub has radically changed, it is no longer a neutral and independent project which exists solely to provide a service to entire developer community. It is now a tool to leverage more profits for one software company — a company who has proven they care much more about market dominance than the wider tech ecosystem. I’m not trying to imply some forgone conclusion that GitHub is doomed or that ms will ruin it, but the entire purpose of the project is now completely different than when it was an independent company and we would be wise to keep this in mind. I particularly think we should be watching and cautious to see what types of changes they try to leverage into git itself.
- taw-an 8y ago
  Perhaps I am a bit cynical, but why do you say Github "exist[ed] solely to provide a service to entire developer community"? They made money too.
  - TAForObvReasons 8y ago
    The economics were aligned with the customers. The whole business model was based on paying for private services using the same great tooling that was available for open source projects. People developed familiarity with open source and naturally clamored for the same tooling within companies. It was a loss leader of sorts. Now the economic incentives are different. This would be true if Google acquired Github or if Amazon or Facebook or Twitter or any other company acquired it. Since it's not a standalone company, the parent company optimizing for greatest comprehensive profits will make decisions that are not always optimal if GitHub were standalone.
    - cwyers 8y ago
      I'm pretty sure that the economics were aligned with getting bought out by someone. Upselling people who used the free product was not making them profitable and they weren't on the path to profitable.
giancarlostoro 8y ago
They make more money and business if they become developer friendly period. If they step back from that they know they will lose out for no true benefit! Microsoft knows this.
pier25 8y ago
> I don't know if I'm ready to say that I have more respect for Microsoft than Google at this point, but I definitely have more respect for Microsoft than I ever have You expressed it beautifully. While I'm not a fan yet, I think Microsoft is much more invested in its developer and cloud products than Google. After all, most of Google's revenue still comes from ads.
gimmeThaBeet 8y ago
I've been really confused about the reaction around this. It feels like so many people are just waiting to find out how this is a scam, like this is still the same Microsoft. "Oooh, just you wait, they're tricking you with their PR". There's just been too many things that I would never think would come to pass to think that opinion is fair, too many different faces. MS seems to have put more effort into going where the developers and customers are instead of trying to wrangle them in.
dogma1138 8y ago
Google’s main products always were and will be closed source they do have a lot of open source projects but so always has Microsoft especially in the academic scene they just weren’t as prolific and thus impactful. But essentially the entire Google suite and all their commercial apps and services are close source.

gm-conspiracy 8y ago

Strange times, indeed.

hinkley 8y ago
This feels a bit like IBM in the 90's. People have been predicting for 20 years that an Old Microsoft would look a lot like IBM. I just hope Microsoft doesn't inflict the moral equivalent of XSLT, XPath, and XML-RPC proxies on us.
- gm-conspiracy 8y ago
  Ha. I was just talking to a coworker today about using XSLT, unfortunately.
forgot-my-pw 8y ago
Balmer times were the strange times. We're in good times now.

some_account 8y ago

Yeah. That generally how you fool people you are a good person. You do stuff that appears to be good hearted. Companies do that too. Just like politicians. I can't understand why people today lack the ability to see a scam.

JamesBarney 8y ago
Convincing other people you are doing good things when you in fact aren't is a scam. Doing good things is not a scam.
- perfmode 8y ago
  if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then those good things aren’t good
  - wjn0 8y ago
    you mean, if you do $10 of good things as a smoke screen for $11 of bad, then you are bad, not that the good things aren't in fact good
    - bmelton 8y ago
      Right -- I don't care what Bill Gates' motives for donating all the money to charity that he donates, because I believe that the money he's donating is doing actual good. Maybe he feels guilty for some of his actions as Microsoft CEO, maybe he doesn't. Maybe he's cheating on his wife, or doing some other nefarious deed -- but those charities still have that money, and they're still (probably) doing good work with it.
      - perfmode 8y ago
        that’s not an example of a smoke screen, as i intended. there is an ordering requirement implied in my statement. it’s necessary for the good to precede the bad in a way that demonstrates the good was to prevent the detection or objection to the subsequent bad. using good deeds to atone for past transgressions is different in a way that is subtle.
        bmelton 8y ago
        I disagree. We're perfectly capable of judging an act on its own merits. Orson Scott Card is a good author. Orson Scott Card is a bigot, and I do not ever wish to give him any money, so I will not buy his books now that I know of his bigotry. His bigotry doesn't cancel out his talent as an author, and while I might find that I don't enjoy reading his books any more as a result of what I know of him, that doesn't change what my opinion was before I found out about his bigotry. A good act is a good act, even if it's surrounded by a dozen bad acts.

toofy 8y ago

Agreed, however, we shouldn’t fool ourselves into believing ms would put the wider software community’s needs before their shareholder profits. The situation with GitHub has radically changed, it is no longer a neutral and independent project which exists solely to provide a service to entire developer community. It is now a tool to leverage more profits for one software company — a company who has proven they care much more about market dominance than the wider tech ecosystem. I’m not trying to imply some forgone conclusion that GitHub is doomed or that ms will ruin it, but the entire purpose of the project is now completely different than when it was an independent company and we would be wise to keep this in mind. I particularly think we should be watching and cautious to see what types of changes they try to leverage into git itself.

taw-an 8y ago
Perhaps I am a bit cynical, but why do you say Github "exist[ed] solely to provide a service to entire developer community"? They made money too.
- TAForObvReasons 8y ago
  The economics were aligned with the customers. The whole business model was based on paying for private services using the same great tooling that was available for open source projects. People developed familiarity with open source and naturally clamored for the same tooling within companies. It was a loss leader of sorts. Now the economic incentives are different. This would be true if Google acquired Github or if Amazon or Facebook or Twitter or any other company acquired it. Since it's not a standalone company, the parent company optimizing for greatest comprehensive profits will make decisions that are not always optimal if GitHub were standalone.
  - cwyers 8y ago
    I'm pretty sure that the economics were aligned with getting bought out by someone. Upselling people who used the free product was not making them profitable and they weren't on the path to profitable.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

They make more money and business if they become developer friendly period. If they step back from that they know they will lose out for no true benefit! Microsoft knows this.

pier25 8y ago

> I don't know if I'm ready to say that I have more respect for Microsoft than Google at this point, but I definitely have more respect for Microsoft than I ever have You expressed it beautifully. While I'm not a fan yet, I think Microsoft is much more invested in its developer and cloud products than Google. After all, most of Google's revenue still comes from ads.

gimmeThaBeet 8y ago

I've been really confused about the reaction around this. It feels like so many people are just waiting to find out how this is a scam, like this is still the same Microsoft. "Oooh, just you wait, they're tricking you with their PR". There's just been too many things that I would never think would come to pass to think that opinion is fair, too many different faces. MS seems to have put more effort into going where the developers and customers are instead of trying to wrangle them in.

dogma1138 8y ago

Google’s main products always were and will be closed source they do have a lot of open source projects but so always has Microsoft especially in the academic scene they just weren’t as prolific and thus impactful. But essentially the entire Google suite and all their commercial apps and services are close source.