5 ms·

That's not a fair assessment, specifically towards open source in Microsoft. Big closed-source corps, such as Microsoft, are often the biggest contributors to t

That's not a fair assessment, specifically towards open source in Microsoft. Big closed-source corps, such as Microsoft, are often the biggest contributors to the open source projects they use. The free time of thousands of developers is not as efficient as a team of developers working full time under a PM. That's why I think it's really counter-productive when we call out those companies who are top contributors. We should recognize good when we see it and encourage more of it.

giancarlostoro 8y ago
They have full time employees working on VS Code who work remotely even. It's a pretty good gig. Even back in the mid to late 2000's Microsoft wasn't above hiring open source engineers to work for them. I remember IronPython's creator (or maintainer / both?) being hired by Microsoft for a full time gig. Funnily enough he tried to make IronPython to prove that the .NET Framework was an awful platform to make a language in and found out the opposite.
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  VS Code has business value for them in keeping them relevant. Visual Studio is one of their shining pearls, mostly because it's one of the only ways to use .NET Framework and C# coherently (assuming you're running microsoft to begin with since none of their stuff worked well on other OSes before mono and even after mono). They "weren't above" hiring open source engineers so they're clearly a good company? They hired a guy that happened to try and make python run on windows so they're awesome? What kind of logic is that? You have to take both of those eventualities super optimistically for that to be a plus -- pessimistically it just looks like they tried to ingratiate themselves and make python run on windows better so that more people would use windows. This is the company that put ads on user's login screens. BTW, the mono effort's patent status[0] (receiving a broadened patent "promise" from MS). A group of open source hackers bore the brunt of bringing their platform to other operating systems and the best they can do is a "patent promise" and the OIN "swearing to protect" mono as a project? I honestly don't even know what secret sauce could possibly be inside C#/.NET that would make me choose it in this day and age. Honestly why would anyone choose C# unless they had no choice but to run windows (in development or deployment)? [EDIT] I removed some of my comments on .NET Framework because I'm very biased against it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_Microsoft's_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_M...
hardwaresofton 8y ago
Cool, are we just ignoring all the anti-competitive things Microsoft and some of these other corps have done in the past? What about the time they sued TomTom[0]? What about the paper that was written detailing other such action[1]? I'm all for forgiveness but I won't forget. Microsoft wanted Linux and any ostensibly open source dead, as you would expect from a corporation which has a horse in the software patents rat race and a moat to protect. If they want good will, they should release their patents into the public domain, even someone like me can't possibly ignore that kind of move. I can recognize the fact that Microsoft has done a bunch for open source, but do you think that's proportional to how much they've gained from it? In the end a company is made of people, and maybe the people in Microsoft have changed and the culture is changing but Microsoft the entity/business isn't my friend/ally (as much of a corporation can be). It would be great if they've turned over a new leaf but I'm not going to hold my breath. I might be too harsh, but that doesn't change the point -- if they wanted to get rid of patent wars, they'd just release the patents/start hunting patent trolls/lobby for abolishing software patents all together. I'll say it again, this is either a patent cartel, or a distraction -- I'd love to be proven wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc. [1]: http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...
- prajaybasu 8y ago
  TomTom is a member of the OIN, and it probably will not be required to pay the FAT32 IP licensing fees now that Microsoft has joined them. It seems like Microsoft can do nothing to please you. But this is huge for the OIN and its members.
  - hardwaresofton 8y ago
    I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but the bar is higher. At this point I can't tell who is being unreasonable anymore -- this is exactly how cartels work, join/cooperate or face consequences. TomTom paid licensing fees in 2009 -- they lost that fight with Microsoft... When Microsoft joined OIN, did it return the licensing money TomTom paid adjusted for inflation? Again, I'm capable of looking at this optimistically -- this move is better than the status quo, but it is not enough to budge my skepticism given the damage done over the years by Microsoft.

giancarlostoro 8y ago

They have full time employees working on VS Code who work remotely even. It's a pretty good gig. Even back in the mid to late 2000's Microsoft wasn't above hiring open source engineers to work for them. I remember IronPython's creator (or maintainer / both?) being hired by Microsoft for a full time gig. Funnily enough he tried to make IronPython to prove that the .NET Framework was an awful platform to make a language in and found out the opposite.

hardwaresofton 8y ago
VS Code has business value for them in keeping them relevant. Visual Studio is one of their shining pearls, mostly because it's one of the only ways to use .NET Framework and C# coherently (assuming you're running microsoft to begin with since none of their stuff worked well on other OSes before mono and even after mono). They "weren't above" hiring open source engineers so they're clearly a good company? They hired a guy that happened to try and make python run on windows so they're awesome? What kind of logic is that? You have to take both of those eventualities super optimistically for that to be a plus -- pessimistically it just looks like they tried to ingratiate themselves and make python run on windows better so that more people would use windows. This is the company that put ads on user's login screens. BTW, the mono effort's patent status[0] (receiving a broadened patent "promise" from MS). A group of open source hackers bore the brunt of bringing their platform to other operating systems and the best they can do is a "patent promise" and the OIN "swearing to protect" mono as a project? I honestly don't even know what secret sauce could possibly be inside C#/.NET that would make me choose it in this day and age. Honestly why would anyone choose C# unless they had no choice but to run windows (in development or deployment)? [EDIT] I removed some of my comments on .NET Framework because I'm very biased against it. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_Microsoft's_patents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_%28software%29#Mono_and_M...

hardwaresofton 8y ago

Cool, are we just ignoring all the anti-competitive things Microsoft and some of these other corps have done in the past? What about the time they sued TomTom[0]? What about the paper that was written detailing other such action[1]? I'm all for forgiveness but I won't forget. Microsoft wanted Linux and any ostensibly open source dead, as you would expect from a corporation which has a horse in the software patents rat race and a moat to protect. If they want good will, they should release their patents into the public domain, even someone like me can't possibly ignore that kind of move. I can recognize the fact that Microsoft has done a bunch for open source, but do you think that's proportional to how much they've gained from it? In the end a company is made of people, and maybe the people in Microsoft have changed and the culture is changing but Microsoft the entity/business isn't my friend/ally (as much of a corporation can be). It would be great if they've turned over a new leaf but I'm not going to hold my breath. I might be too harsh, but that doesn't change the point -- if they wanted to get rid of patent wars, they'd just release the patents/start hunting patent trolls/lobby for abolishing software patents all together. I'll say it again, this is either a patent cartel, or a distraction -- I'd love to be proven wrong. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._TomTom_Inc. [1]: http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepaper.pdf http://www.ecis.eu/documents/Finalversion_Consumerchoicepape...

prajaybasu 8y ago
TomTom is a member of the OIN, and it probably will not be required to pay the FAT32 IP licensing fees now that Microsoft has joined them. It seems like Microsoft can do nothing to please you. But this is huge for the OIN and its members.
- hardwaresofton 8y ago
  I'm willing to give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt, but the bar is higher. At this point I can't tell who is being unreasonable anymore -- this is exactly how cartels work, join/cooperate or face consequences. TomTom paid licensing fees in 2009 -- they lost that fight with Microsoft... When Microsoft joined OIN, did it return the licensing money TomTom paid adjusted for inflation? Again, I'm capable of looking at this optimistically -- this move is better than the status quo, but it is not enough to budge my skepticism given the damage done over the years by Microsoft.