5 ms·

My interpretation of "Microsoft <3 Open Source" is that MS has realized that their power in the tech industry is not dependent on their source code being a secr

My interpretation of "Microsoft <3 Open Source" is that MS has realized that their power in the tech industry is not dependent on their source code being a secret, and that in fact making your stuff open source makes you more popular and influential. In my opinion, MS didn't really cede much power to the community when open-sourcing .NET, for example. It would still be incredibly painful for a company to unhook itself from Microsoft's version of .NET, and .NET is still influential for all the same reasons is was before, because of MS's position in the software industry. I think the move was just MS moving the framework into the current paradigm of software development. All(?) popular frameworks are open source these days: React, Electron, ... It just doesn't fit with the times to have .NET be closed source. It think is interesting to think though about Google directly providing the source code base for its competitors, Edge and the other Chromium clones. Maybe the lasting message of US v. Microsoft was that if you open-source your software, you're less likely to be perceived as controlling. Or maybe your software simply becomes more influential if it's open source! Chrome being open source allows Google to be enormously influential as far as web standards go. It would probably be a lot less so if Chrome was closed source.

why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago
Microsoft simply realized what current Open Source really is -> free labor. People will willingly work for free in their own free time using their own hardware on projects of other people or corporations. And they are proud to do that! Anyone not taking advantage of that must have brain damage. Original ideas of open source (free as in speech) are long forgotten.
Rapzid 6y ago
> MS has realized that their power in the tech industry is not dependent on their source code being a secret, and that in fact making your stuff open source makes you more popular and influential. It has been a huge boon for .NET as well. Serious contributions started pouring in almost immediately. Code from Mono being ported over; linux support. Fixes to really old issues that were not getting attention because .NET was essentially put "in a box". C#, .NET and the CLR are pretty great tech that could have been a true Java alternative if not for the fact the vision for it was so narrowly scoped to Windows.
- smegma2 6y ago
  What's missing in .net core/standard for it to be a Java alternative today? I work with .net on windows so I'm not sure.
  - Rapzid 6y ago
    25 years of momentum.
  - Jochim 6y ago
    It's not had time to stabilise. Many of the multi-platform features are still developing and there's some stuff in there that can trip you up if you're just reading the documentation. A big problem I ran into recently is that the documentation for some methods indicate they can throw a "PlatformNotSupported" exception but don't link to anything that lists which platforms/versions actually support the method. Some new features like single file executables will break existing code in subtle ways, a common method of getting the application directory was to use Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location, when running as a single file executable that returns an empty string. I still think it's a big improvement over the older .NET Framework stuff that I'm mostly using, but I can see why it isn't so appealing to the Java crowd.
axiolite 6y ago
> MS has realized that [...] making your stuff open source makes you more popular and influential. You've got to be kidding. Microsoft isn't about to open source Windows, Office, or any of its crown jewels. They are only opening the source for bits that aren't profit centers and where widespread use would benefit them. And it is a trap... Think Oracle Java. As soon as they see an opening, they'll close it back up and fragment the user base between the open source and proprietary versions.
- skinnymuch 6y ago
  That’s a given. Who is open sourcing their profit centers after the fact?
- fomine3 6y ago
  No. Oracle opensourced features that was only available on paid version of Oracle Java like Java Flight Recorder. OTOH Oracle stopped distributing their own Oracle Java distribution for free. Red Hat is the known company that opensourcing acquired company's products.

why_Mr_Anderson 6y ago

Microsoft simply realized what current Open Source really is -> free labor. People will willingly work for free in their own free time using their own hardware on projects of other people or corporations. And they are proud to do that! Anyone not taking advantage of that must have brain damage. Original ideas of open source (free as in speech) are long forgotten.

Rapzid 6y ago

> MS has realized that their power in the tech industry is not dependent on their source code being a secret, and that in fact making your stuff open source makes you more popular and influential. It has been a huge boon for .NET as well. Serious contributions started pouring in almost immediately. Code from Mono being ported over; linux support. Fixes to really old issues that were not getting attention because .NET was essentially put "in a box". C#, .NET and the CLR are pretty great tech that could have been a true Java alternative if not for the fact the vision for it was so narrowly scoped to Windows.

smegma2 6y ago
What's missing in .net core/standard for it to be a Java alternative today? I work with .net on windows so I'm not sure.
- Rapzid 6y ago
  25 years of momentum.
- Jochim 6y ago
  It's not had time to stabilise. Many of the multi-platform features are still developing and there's some stuff in there that can trip you up if you're just reading the documentation. A big problem I ran into recently is that the documentation for some methods indicate they can throw a "PlatformNotSupported" exception but don't link to anything that lists which platforms/versions actually support the method. Some new features like single file executables will break existing code in subtle ways, a common method of getting the application directory was to use Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().Location, when running as a single file executable that returns an empty string. I still think it's a big improvement over the older .NET Framework stuff that I'm mostly using, but I can see why it isn't so appealing to the Java crowd.

axiolite 6y ago

> MS has realized that [...] making your stuff open source makes you more popular and influential. You've got to be kidding. Microsoft isn't about to open source Windows, Office, or any of its crown jewels. They are only opening the source for bits that aren't profit centers and where widespread use would benefit them. And it is a trap... Think Oracle Java. As soon as they see an opening, they'll close it back up and fragment the user base between the open source and proprietary versions.

skinnymuch 6y ago
That’s a given. Who is open sourcing their profit centers after the fact?
fomine3 6y ago
No. Oracle opensourced features that was only available on paid version of Oracle Java like Java Flight Recorder. OTOH Oracle stopped distributing their own Oracle Java distribution for free. Red Hat is the known company that opensourcing acquired company's products.