6 ms·

Microsoft Open Source

70 points by Garbage 6y ago

OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
Any word on when we can host our own Windows Package Manager repositories?
- rudiv 6y ago
  They're implementing a very basic version of a package manager. There's a whole saga about the creation of that which you might also have seen, was on HN. (Called winget) Edit: Just realized that's probably what you're referring to, didn't know they were officially calling it Windows Package Manager. I thought you were being sarcastic vis-a-vis the lack of a windows package manager.
  - OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
    Haha I was in fact referring to WPM - the thing that winget gets from.
kanobo 6y ago
I don't know about you youngsters, but I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a <h1> tag on a Microsoft-branded website.
- Legogris 6y ago
  Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-idUSKCN0WC2RA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
  - mehrdadn 6y ago
    It's not the prettiest word, but just saying he called it cancer leaves out important context. He wasn't trying to bash Linux itself so much as (his interpretation of) its GPL license. If its license had been different (say, MIT or BSD) I don't think he would've described it like that. https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
    - Legogris 6y ago
      Oh absolutely he was more targeting FOSS software in general than Linux specifically.
    - nix23 6y ago
      True, but on the other hand, did Microsoft any MIT/BSD Software at that time? I think it was especially against the GPL, but against a complete different Business model too.
      - mehrdadn 6y ago
        No, but I didn't claim they would've actively embraced MIT/BSD either.
      - sgift 6y ago
        Afair the first IP stack of either Windows 95 oder Windows 98 was the one from FreeBSD(?). They rewrote it later, but there was an acknowledgement in the docs for a while. So, they at least used it when needed. (My memory may be fuzzy, it's been a long time after all ..)
        johannes1234321 6y ago
        Yes, the IP stack was derived from BSD as well as Internet Explorer was derived from NCSA Mosaic however they didn't publish those things under open licenses. (Which isn't required by BSD etc.)
      - 6y ago
- Hokusai 6y ago
  I agree (not a youngster). I guess that Microsoft has also changed business model. Nowadays they are way more into hardware, cloud and services than just selling software. Still a nice move. Other similar companies (Oracle, Amazon) are less kind with Open Source. So, kudos to the new Microsoft.
  - johannes1234321 6y ago
    Oracle certainly has a different approach, but they contribute to the Linux kernel (i.e. bttrfs originates from Oracle), Oracle also runs MySQL, OpenJDK, GraalVM, Fn Project, ... https://github.com/oracle/ https://github.com/oracle/ has a few more projects.
- pydry 6y ago
  I'm in my thirties too and I'm not at all amazed by the way MS evolved. The three MS open source offerings I have tried where MS has something that resembles a non open source competitor - Azure MySQL, Azure Postgres and WSL are all horrendously slow (I'd go as far as to say deliberately crippled). It's a trap. Every time they've released something big as open source or on Linux (e.g. .NET/vscode) it's been something where they're losing ground quickly and fighting off irrelevance. Moreover it's just as irritating as ever to get Linux installed on laptops (the OEM stranglehold is still there). I am amazed that Microsoft did a PR push on how they've turned 5 or so years around and people bought it. They acknowledged some new realities but they didn't fundamentally change tactics. They still (correctly) view open source as a threat to their profits and act accordingly.
  - ItsJason 6y ago
    Can confirm; tried to use Azure PG in a project at work and we were shocked at the terrible performance. It was basically unusable. This was < 1 year ago.
  - ewzimm 6y ago
    Microsoft is over 163,000 people. While I don't doubt that executives tend to be motivated by profit, I doubt that everyone shares a singular focus on it. Someone in charge of an open source project at Microsoft today might have been working with Mozilla or Apache yesterday. I know executive leadership sets trends and influences culture, but I don't agree with the idea that a corporation is nothing more than the extension of the leadership's ambitions.
  - kanobo 6y ago
    I'm not disagreeing, but there's plenty of microsoft closed-source efforts that have been horrible too. It's possible microsoft just isn't very good at everything.
    - pydry 6y ago
      I'd be receptive to that view if hosted Microsoft SQL server were also crippled.
gregmorton 6y ago
Think you're old? I'm in my 50s and the only thing that will make me trust microshit is senility.
- mhh__ 6y ago
  Trust but verify, as the saying goes. I'm not that worried in the long-ish term about microsoft, but I worry that the new generation (my generation) have grown up post GPL in that there is an open source tool for everything now but generally under a corporate-friendly license - I worry the pendulum will swing back the other way.
  - solarkraft 6y ago
    > I worry the pendulum will swing back the other way So do I, but only moderately so. They're using open source projects to smuggle in proprietary things in their official builds (VSCode), collect data (dotnet telemetry) and get people into their proprietary offerings (Azure, LiveShare). This is arguably not very nice, but the business case is obvious and they're pretty much only doing the same thing as the other big players. Additionally, since the core offerings really are open, people are free to build more user friendly versions of them (VScodium). Strategically I think they're slowly entering the "Extend" phase. Let's not let them extinguish, ie don't start depending on their proprietary offerings. Getting it into peoples' heads probably requires EEE education.
- tonyedgecombe 6y ago
  They should be trusted as much as any other large enterprise software developer. In other words not at all.
  - beagle3 6y ago
    No, they deserve less trust than most other large enterprise software - most should not be trusted. Microsoft should be actively distrusted following their previous assaults on FOSS in general, open standards (web with IE6, ISO committee loading fiasco), FUD and mob tactics (they were collecting a few bucks for every android unit sold from manufacturers supposedly for patents - details never disclosed - and for all I know they still are). The Microsoft kiss of death (for those old enough to remember it) was strategy, not random happenstance.
phillc73 6y ago
I don't think the list of projects is complete.[1] I specifically know Microsoft's open source initiatives through Microsoft R Open[2], which is not listed on that page. [1] https://opensource.microsoft.com/projects/explore/ https://opensource.microsoft.com/projects/explore/ [2] https://mran.microsoft.com/open https://mran.microsoft.com/open
klickitat 6y ago
Why is Microsoft interested in open source code? What's the plan?
mastazi 6y ago
Oh PowerToys, you’re back, I’ve missed you so much https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys
greenleaf3 6y ago
Cannot believe people bought this "Microsoft loves open source" advertisement. This is their PR stunt. What are the famous Open Source projects they have released? 1. Typescript 2. VS code 3. .Net Compare that to Google, Facebook, others. You will find how much Microsoft is really investing in Open Source projects.
- theandrewbailey 6y ago
  Microsoft open sourcing .Net is not a PR stunt. It's like Sun open sourcing Java. I'm not sure what other big company open source projects you're thinking of that compare. Maybe Chrome, Electron, or React?
- coldtea 6y ago
  Why should they? And why should we compare? It's not a pissing contest...

70 points by Garbage 6y ago

OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago

Any word on when we can host our own Windows Package Manager repositories?

rudiv 6y ago
They're implementing a very basic version of a package manager. There's a whole saga about the creation of that which you might also have seen, was on HN. (Called winget) Edit: Just realized that's probably what you're referring to, didn't know they were officially calling it Windows Package Manager. I thought you were being sarcastic vis-a-vis the lack of a windows package manager.
- OnlyOneCannolo 6y ago
  Haha I was in fact referring to WPM - the thing that winget gets from.

kanobo 6y ago

I don't know about you youngsters, but I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a <h1> tag on a Microsoft-branded website.

Legogris 6y ago
Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-idUSKCN0WC2RA https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  It's not the prettiest word, but just saying he called it cancer leaves out important context. He wasn't trying to bash Linux itself so much as (his interpretation of) its GPL license. If its license had been different (say, MIT or BSD) I don't think he would've described it like that. https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
  - Legogris 6y ago
    Oh absolutely he was more targeting FOSS software in general than Linux specifically.
  - nix23 6y ago
    True, but on the other hand, did Microsoft any MIT/BSD Software at that time? I think it was especially against the GPL, but against a complete different Business model too.
    - mehrdadn 6y ago
      No, but I didn't claim they would've actively embraced MIT/BSD either.
    - sgift 6y ago
      Afair the first IP stack of either Windows 95 oder Windows 98 was the one from FreeBSD(?). They rewrote it later, but there was an acknowledgement in the docs for a while. So, they at least used it when needed. (My memory may be fuzzy, it's been a long time after all ..)
      - johannes1234321 6y ago
        Yes, the IP stack was derived from BSD as well as Internet Explorer was derived from NCSA Mosaic however they didn't publish those things under open licenses. (Which isn't required by BSD etc.)
    - 6y ago
Hokusai 6y ago
I agree (not a youngster). I guess that Microsoft has also changed business model. Nowadays they are way more into hardware, cloud and services than just selling software. Still a nice move. Other similar companies (Oracle, Amazon) are less kind with Open Source. So, kudos to the new Microsoft.
- johannes1234321 6y ago
  Oracle certainly has a different approach, but they contribute to the Linux kernel (i.e. bttrfs originates from Oracle), Oracle also runs MySQL, OpenJDK, GraalVM, Fn Project, ... https://github.com/oracle/ https://github.com/oracle/ has a few more projects.
pydry 6y ago
I'm in my thirties too and I'm not at all amazed by the way MS evolved. The three MS open source offerings I have tried where MS has something that resembles a non open source competitor - Azure MySQL, Azure Postgres and WSL are all horrendously slow (I'd go as far as to say deliberately crippled). It's a trap. Every time they've released something big as open source or on Linux (e.g. .NET/vscode) it's been something where they're losing ground quickly and fighting off irrelevance. Moreover it's just as irritating as ever to get Linux installed on laptops (the OEM stranglehold is still there). I am amazed that Microsoft did a PR push on how they've turned 5 or so years around and people bought it. They acknowledged some new realities but they didn't fundamentally change tactics. They still (correctly) view open source as a threat to their profits and act accordingly.
- ItsJason 6y ago
  Can confirm; tried to use Azure PG in a project at work and we were shocked at the terrible performance. It was basically unusable. This was < 1 year ago.
- ewzimm 6y ago
  Microsoft is over 163,000 people. While I don't doubt that executives tend to be motivated by profit, I doubt that everyone shares a singular focus on it. Someone in charge of an open source project at Microsoft today might have been working with Mozilla or Apache yesterday. I know executive leadership sets trends and influences culture, but I don't agree with the idea that a corporation is nothing more than the extension of the leadership's ambitions.
- kanobo 6y ago
  I'm not disagreeing, but there's plenty of microsoft closed-source efforts that have been horrible too. It's possible microsoft just isn't very good at everything.
  - pydry 6y ago
    I'd be receptive to that view if hosted Microsoft SQL server were also crippled.

gregmorton 6y ago

Think you're old? I'm in my 50s and the only thing that will make me trust microshit is senility.

mhh__ 6y ago
Trust but verify, as the saying goes. I'm not that worried in the long-ish term about microsoft, but I worry that the new generation (my generation) have grown up post GPL in that there is an open source tool for everything now but generally under a corporate-friendly license - I worry the pendulum will swing back the other way.
- solarkraft 6y ago
  > I worry the pendulum will swing back the other way So do I, but only moderately so. They're using open source projects to smuggle in proprietary things in their official builds (VSCode), collect data (dotnet telemetry) and get people into their proprietary offerings (Azure, LiveShare). This is arguably not very nice, but the business case is obvious and they're pretty much only doing the same thing as the other big players. Additionally, since the core offerings really are open, people are free to build more user friendly versions of them (VScodium). Strategically I think they're slowly entering the "Extend" phase. Let's not let them extinguish, ie don't start depending on their proprietary offerings. Getting it into peoples' heads probably requires EEE education.
tonyedgecombe 6y ago
They should be trusted as much as any other large enterprise software developer. In other words not at all.
- beagle3 6y ago
  No, they deserve less trust than most other large enterprise software - most should not be trusted. Microsoft should be actively distrusted following their previous assaults on FOSS in general, open standards (web with IE6, ISO committee loading fiasco), FUD and mob tactics (they were collecting a few bucks for every android unit sold from manufacturers supposedly for patents - details never disclosed - and for all I know they still are). The Microsoft kiss of death (for those old enough to remember it) was strategy, not random happenstance.

phillc73 6y ago

I don't think the list of projects is complete.[1] I specifically know Microsoft's open source initiatives through Microsoft R Open[2], which is not listed on that page. [1] https://opensource.microsoft.com/projects/explore/ https://opensource.microsoft.com/projects/explore/ [2] https://mran.microsoft.com/open https://mran.microsoft.com/open

klickitat 6y ago

Why is Microsoft interested in open source code? What's the plan?

mastazi 6y ago

Oh PowerToys, you’re back, I’ve missed you so much https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys

greenleaf3 6y ago

Cannot believe people bought this "Microsoft loves open source" advertisement. This is their PR stunt. What are the famous Open Source projects they have released? 1. Typescript 2. VS code 3. .Net Compare that to Google, Facebook, others. You will find how much Microsoft is really investing in Open Source projects.

theandrewbailey 6y ago
Microsoft open sourcing .Net is not a PR stunt. It's like Sun open sourcing Java. I'm not sure what other big company open source projects you're thinking of that compare. Maybe Chrome, Electron, or React?
coldtea 6y ago
Why should they? And why should we compare? It's not a pissing contest...