3 ms·

> prove that they've had a change of heart regarding open source. Change of heart? Why? I think they are doing a pretty smart move to be friendly towards open

by rqs 8y ago

> prove that they've had a change of heart regarding open source. Change of heart? Why? I think they are doing a pretty smart move to be friendly towards open source community, but it's not because I believe they changed their mind and want to contribute to the open source world, instead, I simply believes they embrace open source community is because it's good for business. You see, open source software these years became pretty good and infrastructural. If Microsoft can't be a part of it, then they will soon be obsolete. And they don't want to be obsolete, so they just can't afford to not be a friend with open source. The real thing that I curious about is what would happen when Microsoft managed to re-dominates the software market (in both user and enterprise end). Will they still be friendly with open source community after that?

staticassertion 8y ago
All companies that embrace open source do it because it's good for business. It's a seemingly unlimited resource that accounts for billions (made up number, feels reasonable) of dollars of unpaid labor. It was always stupid to be against OSS from a business perspective and so long as developers hand over their IP on a platter it always will be - Microsoft would be really stupid to turn away free money, and they seem to realize this now.
- woah 8y ago
  The idea that open source involves “handing over ip on a platter” is what’s stupid here. The vast majority of open source code is developed on the job. The fact that it’s open source means that the developer can take it with them when they leave and possibly even get some name recognition from it. If it was closed source, the developer would be handing it over on a platter to their employer, never to be seen again.
  - mjburgess 8y ago
    That's a very contemporary development. Open source was originally hobbyist, research or academic. Often, it was "programmer solve thyself". Businesses have only been employing significant numbers to work on open source projects for the last decade.
    - dboreham 8y ago
      2 decades
  - staticassertion 8y ago
    So are you saying that we don't encourage unpaid labor with open source? Are you saying that companies choose OSS for non-business reasons?

by rqs 8y ago

staticassertion 8y ago

All companies that embrace open source do it because it's good for business. It's a seemingly unlimited resource that accounts for billions (made up number, feels reasonable) of dollars of unpaid labor. It was always stupid to be against OSS from a business perspective and so long as developers hand over their IP on a platter it always will be - Microsoft would be really stupid to turn away free money, and they seem to realize this now.

woah 8y ago
The idea that open source involves “handing over ip on a platter” is what’s stupid here. The vast majority of open source code is developed on the job. The fact that it’s open source means that the developer can take it with them when they leave and possibly even get some name recognition from it. If it was closed source, the developer would be handing it over on a platter to their employer, never to be seen again.
- mjburgess 8y ago
  That's a very contemporary development. Open source was originally hobbyist, research or academic. Often, it was "programmer solve thyself". Businesses have only been employing significant numbers to work on open source projects for the last decade.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    2 decades
- staticassertion 8y ago
  So are you saying that we don't encourage unpaid labor with open source? Are you saying that companies choose OSS for non-business reasons?