4 ms·
Yeah except the implication is that it's at the expense of other players, not that they want to simply join the ecosystem and contribute things that everyone ca
by hardwaresofton 8y ago
Yeah except the implication is that it's at the expense of other players, not that they want to simply join the ecosystem and contribute things that everyone can use with low barriers to exit -- the antithesis of open source. Some companies just join, donate hard work and earn good will without the expectation to cash in with their platform play.
No one has a problem with any company trying to improve it's relationship with any population of consumers it serves, but Microsoft seems to still be trying to create walled gardens and get developers in then make sure they don't leave.
- Latteland 8y agoAlmost every company works this way. They kind of are okay with the world growing but they want to help themselves in what they are really doing. Like hiring interns, it's mostly a way to get 'a really long interview'. It's not really about helping the interns to grow that much.
- hardwaresofton 8y agoLike everything, it's a balance -- open source can also be used to make money (open core, closed source plugins/enhancement suites). At the very least, it's about tact and doing things that are just open enough to not betray your desire to create a walled garden. Let's use Google's Kubernetes as an example -- it's a fantastic tool that doesn't require use of their ecosystem -- so open in fact that both Azure and AWS are spinning up their own hosted versions. Many of the architectural/organizational pieces are non-trivial as well, years of work at google went into it, and they open sourced it.