6 ms·

I think Microsoft's strategy (I work there, but I don't have any special knowledge of this) is to be the best possible platform for development in general, not

by noahl 6y ago

I think Microsoft's strategy (I work there, but I don't have any special knowledge of this) is to be the best possible platform for development in general, not just machine learning. That's why they bought GitHub, and it's also why they have WSL, remote debugging on Linux, etc. I expect they will go wherever they think developers want to be to achieve that goal. I can see this hurting traditional Linux graphics systems and development tooling, but I think the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, it's Microsoft's ability to coordinate large numbers of developers, because they have a massively more united org than random hobbyists. If you combined all of the efforts of all of the people working on Linux tools for the past 20 years and got them working on the same thing, it would probably be an amazing stack, and Microsoft would probably just support it. Instead, the open source efforts have been scattered among a lot of different ideas, which means there hasn't been a single windowing toolkit, IDE, or whatever for people to rally around and all contribute to. And as a result, Microsoft can show up, get a few hundred people pulling in the same direction, and have the market-leading product not through any dirty tricks, but just by putting in more coordinated effort than anyone else.

brnt 6y ago
I know what you're saying but I still wanted to opine that I find Linux distros amazing stacks! The best stack I know off at least.
xorcist 6y ago
> the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, Some would say that's the whole point. Not which company wins, not even which standard wins, but that openness wins. Of course the fragmentation strategy can be successful against such a push. It's bascially the oldest trick in the book. That doesn't mean it will win in the long run.
hanselot 6y ago
>I can see this hurting traditional Linux graphics systems and development tooling, but I think the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, it's Microsoft's ability to coordinate large numbers of developers, because they have a massively more united org than random hobbyists. As one of the people using this wonderful free technology, I would like to actively state that I will fight MS and any other Tech provider remotely involved in destroying my most productive way of working, and trying to supplant me back into a machine that sells only advertising. I didn't pay for a machine to sell me advertising. "Oh you can disable ads". Why should I need to? On that note: >"If you combined all of the efforts of all of the people working on Linux tools for the past 20 years and got them working on the same thing," Why don't all car manufacturers focus on the same thing? Why is there more than one company for anything then? Shouldn't the government just run everything then? Who needs competition and a free market? But, really, the reason we all know deep down inside is: Because if we did that we would end up with Microsoft, a company that builds AI to find novel ways of forcing you to interact with advertising, somewhat akin to a Black Mirror episode.
donor20 6y ago
Agreed - I will note however how badly Microsoft has bungled this same story on Windows itself. They went from a very high productive and unified development story in mfc/winforms to a super fragmented space. I am getting going with WPF. (But that was then followed by maybe Silverlight? Then HTML with bindings?). Now we have been told that UWP is the big future (basically Windows Phone framework?). Gah! XAML? I mean, we went from a drag and drop unified and simple and extendable dev experience that was actually fast to develop into this GUI nightmare - all produced by ONE company with total command and control over their developers. It tells you something that google web browser is almost a more stable and targetable platform than the native Windows platform (chromium / electron). I mean, that is desparation right there. At least someone was smart enough at microsoft to just give up on IE even on their own platform! If QT had a bit of a simpler onboarding flow or linux was more unified I think there actually is an opportunity to actually be a good standard for line of business apps that want snappy responsiveness etc. But I just can't believe how badly Microsoft has screwed up their GUI story for the developers they claim to care so much about.
- gmueckl 6y ago
  I think you forgot ASP.net, Blazor, Xamarin.Forms and MAUI. UI development with .NET is just incredibly fragmented. If Qt had a good bridge to C#, they could probably get a lot of marketshare on .NET while this confusion lasts.
  - donor20 6y ago
    Haha! So true! My thoughts exactly on QT! A good bridge to C# and a good "get a button on a page that triggers "onClick" quickstart workflow" and they'd be in a great position. There is a lot of confusion on their site between QT creator, Design Studio, bindings, etc etc - so simplifying all that would be great. They could target C# and (maybe) python (since it already is developed) for the windows story.
  - pjmlp 6y ago
    Add C++/WinRT to the mix, which dropped the productivity features of C++/CX, with the team that managed to kill it telling us to just wait for ISO C++ to catch up, while dealing with IDL files pre-.NET style. Naturally the reception has been less than stellar and they are finally acknowledging that waiting isn't not an option and something is being discussed, however don't expect any improvements in 2020.
isp-localhost 6y ago
> ... "bunch of random hobbyists" ... That beat Microsoft dead in the server market. In academic and scientific computing. How about the embedded market? From my perspective the random hobbyists have Microsoft backed into a corner, with only their hold on a narrowing desktop market share remaining. How many 0-days has Microsoft left hanging open for the better part of a decade while trying to figure out how to defeat open source software? I think that if Microsoft focused on being the best of something they'd not have a problem right now. I think they focused on being the only of something, trying to make sure no one else could enter the market. I think now they're trying to use money to make themselves an asset in that market.
- ColanR 6y ago
  Those hobbyists know how to build tools they want; that translates well into server related stuff. Microsoft knows how to build tools that untechnical people can use. They are the best at this; that's why they have the desktop market. If Microsoft can make user centric tools that have at their backend Linux tech, then they will have the best of both worlds. Any idiot can click around Excel or Active Directory and get something good enough. That's what Microsoft is good at facilitating. If Microsoft can make the rest of the Linux stack as easy to use as visual studio code, then why should a random busy sysadmin or webdev bother with buggy Ubuntu? Windows 10 will have everything they need, with more convenience. Microsoft isn't backed into a corner: you're resting on your laurels. They're about to Embrace everything about Linux that's awesome. Get ready for what comes after.
  - larodi 6y ago
    let's consider PowerShell for a moment. when it came out the bulk of windows admins noted as much as the command prompt changing its Color, and the bulk of Unix admins did not even pay a cent, cause they are so happy with existing Unix tools. no one noted that PS is literally taking 'the best of Unix shells and then some', putting this on steroids which vastly simplifies all DevOPs and does so in a fairly structured-OO-fancy. Even even the worst PS1 program is practically more comprehensible than arbitrary /etc/init.d script. And it pumps objects, not streams that you need to through Regexes against to parse. It's been very clear that MS is very well into the idea of embrace opensource, because there is value to it, which even blind opensource advocates can not properly evaluate and then put to work. The non-developer crowd blindly believes that open source is about free software and daring David-vs-Goliath, but open software actually has cost, and this cost can be quite high. at the end - someone pays the bill. For example - number of big organizations put money into Postgre and it's why it's still there. Put money in RedHat, do put money and effort for linux kernel, and I really hope Mozilla will transform soon to actually be able to sell some stuff. Opensource is key asset in this case but likely valued are the communities around it. By no means is open software built by enthusiasts, the most fundamental parts opensource software are built by top-notch hard-core developers unmatched in their coding skills.
t0astbread 6y ago
Just to throw my 2 cents in I appreciate having the choice between 10 mediocre programs (3 of which are actually quite passable!) vs. being tied into the one all-inclusive solution with maybe a few knobs to twist and that's it. That's what drove me away from Windows.
- majkinetor 6y ago
  There are probably more tools for Windows then any other platform.
  - t0astbread 6y ago
    I guess it depends on what you're looking for but I'm happy with what I've got. But I meant more basic things like window managers and desktop environments. Systems like Debian just allow you to build things the way you want using the components you want.

by noahl 6y ago

brnt 6y ago

I know what you're saying but I still wanted to opine that I find Linux distros amazing stacks! The best stack I know off at least.

xorcist 6y ago

> the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, Some would say that's the whole point. Not which company wins, not even which standard wins, but that openness wins. Of course the fragmentation strategy can be successful against such a push. It's bascially the oldest trick in the book. That doesn't mean it will win in the long run.

hanselot 6y ago

>I can see this hurting traditional Linux graphics systems and development tooling, but I think the main dynamic driving this is not proprietary-vs-open, it's Microsoft's ability to coordinate large numbers of developers, because they have a massively more united org than random hobbyists. As one of the people using this wonderful free technology, I would like to actively state that I will fight MS and any other Tech provider remotely involved in destroying my most productive way of working, and trying to supplant me back into a machine that sells only advertising. I didn't pay for a machine to sell me advertising. "Oh you can disable ads". Why should I need to? On that note: >"If you combined all of the efforts of all of the people working on Linux tools for the past 20 years and got them working on the same thing," Why don't all car manufacturers focus on the same thing? Why is there more than one company for anything then? Shouldn't the government just run everything then? Who needs competition and a free market? But, really, the reason we all know deep down inside is: Because if we did that we would end up with Microsoft, a company that builds AI to find novel ways of forcing you to interact with advertising, somewhat akin to a Black Mirror episode.

donor20 6y ago

Agreed - I will note however how badly Microsoft has bungled this same story on Windows itself. They went from a very high productive and unified development story in mfc/winforms to a super fragmented space. I am getting going with WPF. (But that was then followed by maybe Silverlight? Then HTML with bindings?). Now we have been told that UWP is the big future (basically Windows Phone framework?). Gah! XAML? I mean, we went from a drag and drop unified and simple and extendable dev experience that was actually fast to develop into this GUI nightmare - all produced by ONE company with total command and control over their developers. It tells you something that google web browser is almost a more stable and targetable platform than the native Windows platform (chromium / electron). I mean, that is desparation right there. At least someone was smart enough at microsoft to just give up on IE even on their own platform! If QT had a bit of a simpler onboarding flow or linux was more unified I think there actually is an opportunity to actually be a good standard for line of business apps that want snappy responsiveness etc. But I just can't believe how badly Microsoft has screwed up their GUI story for the developers they claim to care so much about.

gmueckl 6y ago
I think you forgot ASP.net, Blazor, Xamarin.Forms and MAUI. UI development with .NET is just incredibly fragmented. If Qt had a good bridge to C#, they could probably get a lot of marketshare on .NET while this confusion lasts.
- donor20 6y ago
  Haha! So true! My thoughts exactly on QT! A good bridge to C# and a good "get a button on a page that triggers "onClick" quickstart workflow" and they'd be in a great position. There is a lot of confusion on their site between QT creator, Design Studio, bindings, etc etc - so simplifying all that would be great. They could target C# and (maybe) python (since it already is developed) for the windows story.
- pjmlp 6y ago
  Add C++/WinRT to the mix, which dropped the productivity features of C++/CX, with the team that managed to kill it telling us to just wait for ISO C++ to catch up, while dealing with IDL files pre-.NET style. Naturally the reception has been less than stellar and they are finally acknowledging that waiting isn't not an option and something is being discussed, however don't expect any improvements in 2020.

isp-localhost 6y ago

> ... "bunch of random hobbyists" ... That beat Microsoft dead in the server market. In academic and scientific computing. How about the embedded market? From my perspective the random hobbyists have Microsoft backed into a corner, with only their hold on a narrowing desktop market share remaining. How many 0-days has Microsoft left hanging open for the better part of a decade while trying to figure out how to defeat open source software? I think that if Microsoft focused on being the best of something they'd not have a problem right now. I think they focused on being the only of something, trying to make sure no one else could enter the market. I think now they're trying to use money to make themselves an asset in that market.

ColanR 6y ago
Those hobbyists know how to build tools they want; that translates well into server related stuff. Microsoft knows how to build tools that untechnical people can use. They are the best at this; that's why they have the desktop market. If Microsoft can make user centric tools that have at their backend Linux tech, then they will have the best of both worlds. Any idiot can click around Excel or Active Directory and get something good enough. That's what Microsoft is good at facilitating. If Microsoft can make the rest of the Linux stack as easy to use as visual studio code, then why should a random busy sysadmin or webdev bother with buggy Ubuntu? Windows 10 will have everything they need, with more convenience. Microsoft isn't backed into a corner: you're resting on your laurels. They're about to Embrace everything about Linux that's awesome. Get ready for what comes after.
- larodi 6y ago
  let's consider PowerShell for a moment. when it came out the bulk of windows admins noted as much as the command prompt changing its Color, and the bulk of Unix admins did not even pay a cent, cause they are so happy with existing Unix tools. no one noted that PS is literally taking 'the best of Unix shells and then some', putting this on steroids which vastly simplifies all DevOPs and does so in a fairly structured-OO-fancy. Even even the worst PS1 program is practically more comprehensible than arbitrary /etc/init.d script. And it pumps objects, not streams that you need to through Regexes against to parse. It's been very clear that MS is very well into the idea of embrace opensource, because there is value to it, which even blind opensource advocates can not properly evaluate and then put to work. The non-developer crowd blindly believes that open source is about free software and daring David-vs-Goliath, but open software actually has cost, and this cost can be quite high. at the end - someone pays the bill. For example - number of big organizations put money into Postgre and it's why it's still there. Put money in RedHat, do put money and effort for linux kernel, and I really hope Mozilla will transform soon to actually be able to sell some stuff. Opensource is key asset in this case but likely valued are the communities around it. By no means is open software built by enthusiasts, the most fundamental parts opensource software are built by top-notch hard-core developers unmatched in their coding skills.

t0astbread 6y ago

Just to throw my 2 cents in I appreciate having the choice between 10 mediocre programs (3 of which are actually quite passable!) vs. being tied into the one all-inclusive solution with maybe a few knobs to twist and that's it. That's what drove me away from Windows.

majkinetor 6y ago
There are probably more tools for Windows then any other platform.
- t0astbread 6y ago
  I guess it depends on what you're looking for but I'm happy with what I've got. But I meant more basic things like window managers and desktop environments. Systems like Debian just allow you to build things the way you want using the components you want.