9 ms·

Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

161 points by oaiey 5y ago

naranha 5y ago
I'm glad that today there are more alternatives and it is not only .NET vs Java for the enterprise segment. Since the 2010s NodeJS, Go and Rust emerged and the world would not end for open source if .NET or Java went completely closed and many already moved on.
oaiey 5y ago
In the first comment, Miguel explains the setup of the .NET Foundation combining Microsoft and Gnome.
- pfortuny 5y ago
  From that blob about the foundation: The Foundation claims independence BUT “One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”. Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
  - mastax 5y ago
    I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
    - nuerow 5y ago
      > I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?
      - FooBarWidget 5y ago
        Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".
        nuerow 5y ago
        > * Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".* This assertion is rejected by ReedCoopsey's statement regarding the fact that Microsoft reserves its right to appoint and control a foundation's director that happens to also have the privilege of single-handedly dictating and overriding any change.
    - simion314 5y ago
      The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special. Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.
      - qaq 5y ago
        Well they have 5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with veto power ...
        oneplane 5y ago
        So they are all one-fifth special then.
        noizejoy 5y ago
        One veto is enough to kill a resolution, so it’s not quite the same as one-fifth
        simion314 5y ago
        It is not the same when in a group just 1 has veto or when more have veto, for good or worse the 2 cases are completely different. If you think is the same I could elaborate but if it would be exactly the same MS could share it with 4 others from community right?
      - rob_c 5y ago
        Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... I think there is still the fear of something like this happening with .net if anyone ships with a modified version or reimplements a piece to meet their own needs, at least from chatting with my developer friends over coffee.
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      But the .NET Foundation as far as I understand isn't about "the evolution of .NET," it's about providing assistance to unpaid open source contributors of popular libraries and such (which I learned today does not include indemnification).
- gnud 5y ago
  No, he explains that the structure of the .NET foundation was based on the structure of the Gnome Foundation, with concessions to Microsoft. Gnome and the Gnome foundation were not involved. They're just the model he used when planning how the .NET foundation should work.
  - oaiey 5y ago
    You are right. My comment misses some words.
COGlory 5y ago
I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?
- keithnz 5y ago
  I think one of the big things is that Microsoft associates its name with the projects. It seemed to me at the time it was a nod towards enterprises to encourage them to use open source libraries that were mature and trustworthy and that it was unlikely Microsoft themselves would build something in the same space.
  - oaiey 5y ago
    Hmm .. this is a problem and surely the foundation is a nod... But the last sentence I would remove. If Microsoft will or will not compete, is a different story. Azure AD e.g. competes with the IdentityServer solution at the time they were in the foundation.
- kevingadd 5y ago
  Among other things, the CLA for .NET projects assigns copyright to the foundation (a non-profit) instead of Microsoft and also has some similar patent terms to protect people who use those projects
  - oneplane 5y ago
    So essentially, this means that the foundation is setup for the benefit of companies that would otherwise deem the use of open-source software too risky since they cannot be legally sure that they will be able to use this software for their business.
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      Well, it also means that you as an open source dev don't have to constantly worry about someone challenging your copyrights or trademarks. And if they do, you don't have to worry about the legal expenses.
oneplane 5y ago
It feels like it only exists to try and emulate the look and feel of a community-driven and community-governed FOSS construction while at the same time being in commercial control of Microsoft since that it what the value is to them. This makes sense, being beholden to shareholders and profit and all that, but not even pretending it's just commercial developer advocacy/evangelism (which would have been fine - lots of companies do this to various degrees of success) is red flags all over. It feels like they want to 'buy' and 'construct' community, which is generally not how those come to be. It's much more like the VB and COM days where they just try to convince developers that in the land of closed systems they haver the best development experience to reach business goals. But in the land of open systems, that push doesn't work. They would have been better off either copying the Apache Foundation or the CNCF, or just incubating their stuff in to one of them. But the first option would not have come with a community, and the second one would be risky since they would have to soft-compete with what's already there and they aren't all that convincing in their value proposition when you make that comparison. The foundation isn't inherently evil or bad, it just isn't what the larger FOSS or OSS communities expect and thus it's not getting the same traction and benefits, making the whole exercise feel dead in the water and not useful to anyone.
- rob_c 5y ago
  I would encourage you to re-read this with the first reply. I agree it looks like it's an effort to placate and build a favourable image, but I think the intentions are to build something more substance beyond this.
  - oneplane 5y ago
    I agree that the intentions might have been different, but the outcome seems to have ended up being legal-laundered... it tarnished the project and this is where we end up. The most recent comment on the issue puts this conflict in much better words than I could.
tpmx 5y ago
I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.
- sneak 5y ago
  I think Carmack going to Facebook is the one that got me. Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
  - dleslie 5y ago
    id Software going to Bethesda.
    - Hokusai 5y ago
      Most products are produced by a few corporations, monopolies are on the rise, that kills competition and variety but it allows to accumulate power to further increase control over the markets. That's the reason that antimonopoly legislation exists.
    - mattl 5y ago
      Which is now owned by Microsoft.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - tpmx 5y ago
    Google wasn't Microsoft-like when they joined.
  - Izikiel43 5y ago
    Isn’t Guido working at microsoft now?
- amelius 5y ago
  Would you feel better if they worked for Apple? Microsoft is a much more open company than Apple, just look at the immense output of Microsoft Research over the years.
villasv 5y ago
This is a Chesterton's Fence situation. Suddenly the .NET foundation is receiving lots of spotlight on its flaws but one needs to understand the historical progression of the organization. Miguel speaks this clearly: > The transition from the old model to the new model was a major concession from Microsoft The current .NET Foundation is an improvement on what existed before. Is it independent? Not completely, but .NET is more independent than it was. Is it frictionless, transparent, trustworthy? Not completely, but .NET is more than it was. Of course the current discussions show it is now time for the next steps and move on from the tradeoffs that brought the Foundation into existence. There are many ways to improve and their messaging/communication is the must urgent one. But it's also important to recognize that the Foundation's organizational design flaws are not a "plot", not result of incompetence nor malice; it's progress, slow as one would expect from the complexity of its goals.
- encryptluks2 5y ago
  As a slave any new privilege is better than having less than before.
  - rob_c 5y ago
    Slave to what exactly at this point?
    - encryptluks2 5y ago
      To Microsoft. You're basically becoming a slave by joining the foundation, agreeing to have them own your projects.
      - ozim 5y ago
        If you go this way, why even bother with whole .NET ecosystem? It is all Microsoft. It would be easier to go with Python/Ruby maybe Java.
        ethbr0 5y ago
oaiey 5y ago
Back then I wondered why Miguel never played a role in that foundation. This explains this a bit. Also it shows the fear in Microsoft about a community switching to a GPL code base (which is ridiculous considering that the .NET community with it's company black matter devs are the opposite of GPL friendly). It is also ridiculous considering that .NET runtime development would never work with the deep pockets of Microsoft.
tialaramex 5y ago
Assuming that you must have an organisation†, the organisation should have a clear purpose, ideally just one or very few of them so as to avoid conflicts. It must be clear to all involved that, if this purpose ceases to be valuable, the organisation likewise ceases to be valuable and must be wound up. It's amazing how often this is overlooked. It is obviously not great news if the purpose of the .NET Foundation is to control this ecosystem on behalf of Microsoft. But, establishing that is better than "Let's continue to be vague and hope nobody notices that in practice that's what it's for". † One of the things to like about the IETF is that it isn't an organisation. The Internet Society is an organisation, several related entities (e.g. the IETF Trust) are organisations, but the IETF isn't, it's just an activity - like dancing. Anybody can do it, if they want. If the people doing it start doing it differently, that can't be wrong, because that's just how they're doing it now.
kristoff_it 5y ago
One thing that I've heard being said multiple times towards Redis Labs and other companies with an Open Source product, is (paraphrasing) "Companies make their products Open Source only because it helps massively with adoption, but then they don't want to accept the other implications that come from Open Source licenses". This was often said in an accusatory tone by certain cloud vendors, with the implication that companies like RL wanted to have their cake and eat it too because they were trying to push for licenses that would prevent clouds from selling their OSS product as a service. I leave it to others to decide how much that accusation was justified or not, but I do find it terribly ironic that now Microsoft is essentially faking a proper Open Source governance model for what could be considered the same end: make the product more popular through Open Source.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
thrower123 5y ago
The most interesting bit that always comes up with the DotNet Foundation is that all the trusted actors who you would expect to be associated are so worn out that they don't take much of a role, and instead less scrupulous and more power-hungry types take their places.
- throw868788 5y ago
  Just like any other human made structure even outside of programming I've known. Admittedly I think the foundation is mostly independent from .NET and is around open source projects in the ecosystem limiting the damage this could cause. Even if it is changing hands, or even collapses its role is limited and I argue doesn't affect the adoption or usage of the platform all that much. On the other hand as an example I have experience first hand where this stuff can matter relating to some other comments on this thread: the confusion around which JVM distribution to use is directly tied to the JVM and its different builds. That doesn't seem to be the biggest problem for people in that ecosystem, but just like this .NET foundation topic confuses people outside the ecosystem as people are cautious and don't understand the implications. (i.e. do I have to pay Oracle for support if I need to limit my liability?). If I'm choosing between two tech stacks and only one has this question mark in a time limited fashion I might choose an alternative instead. Other languages requiring significant investment (e.g. Corporate Languages) have their issues too. The appeal of Java and the .NET platforms to me is their longevity and their seriousness in keeping it alive over the decades.
nathanaldensr 5y ago
Is .NET bigger than Microsoft, or is Microsoft bigger than .NET? That's the real question being asked here. The philanthropic energies of the open source community are often in direct conflict with command-and-control corporate structures and even the legal system itself. Pretending like the conflict doesn't exist is how these folks got into this mess. Microsoft has a chance here to generate a huge amount of goodwill not only in the .NET community but also the open source world by choosing to relinquish the "company behind the curtain" aspect apparent in the Bylaws. Articles and blog posts will be written about what happens here. The usual comments of "embrace, extend, extinguish" might themselves be extinguished by Microsoft choosing philanthropy. Without the philanthropic energies of projects and maintainers, what is the purpose of the Foundation anyway? If .NET as a brand is too important to risk tarnishing by people not on Microsoft's payroll, then abolish the Foundation altogether.
booleandilemma 5y ago
So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java? Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java (or any other technology with corporate backing)?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java Who said it was? > Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? I don't think so, and Oracle gets pounded on for everything, including what they do with Java, too. Google may be better with Go, or maybe people are cutting them undeserved slack. Not really relevant to the discussion of Microsoft and .NET, though, just whataboutism as a distraction. > Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java “open source” is not the issue; community process is the issue. That .NET is available under an open source licensing model is not a subject of any dispute.
  - booleandilemma 5y ago
    Hey, thanks for your answers. I wasn’t trying to engage in whataboutism, I was trying to find out, as a developer who wants to learn a truly community-driven language/technology without any corporate overlords, what my options are. I’ve looked into Go, but a part of me feels like I’m trading one corporation for another. The languages I think of as strongly community-driven: python, ruby, and javascript, are all dynamically typed, and I’m trying to stay with statically typed languages.
    - mtlynch 5y ago
      Zig seems to fit your criteria: https://ziglang.org/ https://ziglang.org/
chuckee 5y ago
> Main site, first element lists "Independent." > One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft > Microsoft appointed Director can effectively override "any vote to materially change the Foundation’s Membership Policy, Director Election Policy, Project Governance Policy, or any Intellectual Property-related agreements or policies" [..] > Any change to the Bylaws which attempts to change this requires not only a 2/3 vote of the Directors, but also agreement from Microsoft separate from the Microsoft appointed director. Ha!
Shadonototra 5y ago
That's the problem with languages managed by big corps I always found peace with community driven projects D, Zig, Odin, way more healthily and organic communities
- pjmlp 5y ago
  And an almost inexisting ecosystem by comparison.
  - Shadonototra 5y ago
    it doesn't matter, at all for some people C interop is more than enough for some people they like to integrate the said language as scripting language for some people it's something else i feel some people miss the point, completly your favorite X language backed by corporate will be replaced tomorow by what ever is more shiny look at the list of dead languages that were once backed by IBM, Apple, Microsoft etc etc etc Community driven projects are different, they don't exist to become irrelevant depending on what management has to say
    - pjmlp 5y ago
      Look at the list of dead languages that were once backed by vocal communities, making the frontpage of BBS forums, Usenet communities, Slashdot, Reddit, HN, and whatever will come next. How is the Coffescript community doing by the way?

161 points by oaiey 5y ago

I'm glad that today there are more alternatives and it is not only .NET vs Java for the enterprise segment. Since the 2010s NodeJS, Go and Rust emerged and the world would not end for open source if .NET or Java went completely closed and many already moved on.

oaiey 5y ago

In the first comment, Miguel explains the setup of the .NET Foundation combining Microsoft and Gnome.

pfortuny 5y ago
From that blob about the foundation: The Foundation claims independence BUT “One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”. Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
- mastax 5y ago
  I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
  - nuerow 5y ago
    > I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?
    - FooBarWidget 5y ago
      Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".
      - nuerow 5y ago
        > * Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".* This assertion is rejected by ReedCoopsey's statement regarding the fact that Microsoft reserves its right to appoint and control a foundation's director that happens to also have the privilege of single-handedly dictating and overriding any change.
  - simion314 5y ago
    The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special. Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.
    - qaq 5y ago
      Well they have 5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with veto power ...
      - oneplane 5y ago
        So they are all one-fifth special then.
        noizejoy 5y ago
        One veto is enough to kill a resolution, so it’s not quite the same as one-fifth
        simion314 5y ago
        It is not the same when in a group just 1 has veto or when more have veto, for good or worse the 2 cases are completely different. If you think is the same I could elaborate but if it would be exactly the same MS could share it with 4 others from community right?
    - rob_c 5y ago
      Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android... I think there is still the fear of something like this happening with .net if anyone ships with a modified version or reimplements a piece to meet their own needs, at least from chatting with my developer friends over coffee.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    But the .NET Foundation as far as I understand isn't about "the evolution of .NET," it's about providing assistance to unpaid open source contributors of popular libraries and such (which I learned today does not include indemnification).
gnud 5y ago
No, he explains that the structure of the .NET foundation was based on the structure of the Gnome Foundation, with concessions to Microsoft. Gnome and the Gnome foundation were not involved. They're just the model he used when planning how the .NET foundation should work.
- oaiey 5y ago
  You are right. My comment misses some words.

COGlory 5y ago

I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?

keithnz 5y ago
I think one of the big things is that Microsoft associates its name with the projects. It seemed to me at the time it was a nod towards enterprises to encourage them to use open source libraries that were mature and trustworthy and that it was unlikely Microsoft themselves would build something in the same space.
- oaiey 5y ago
  Hmm .. this is a problem and surely the foundation is a nod... But the last sentence I would remove. If Microsoft will or will not compete, is a different story. Azure AD e.g. competes with the IdentityServer solution at the time they were in the foundation.
kevingadd 5y ago
Among other things, the CLA for .NET projects assigns copyright to the foundation (a non-profit) instead of Microsoft and also has some similar patent terms to protect people who use those projects
- oneplane 5y ago
  So essentially, this means that the foundation is setup for the benefit of companies that would otherwise deem the use of open-source software too risky since they cannot be legally sure that they will be able to use this software for their business.
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    Well, it also means that you as an open source dev don't have to constantly worry about someone challenging your copyrights or trademarks. And if they do, you don't have to worry about the legal expenses.

oneplane 5y ago

It feels like it only exists to try and emulate the look and feel of a community-driven and community-governed FOSS construction while at the same time being in commercial control of Microsoft since that it what the value is to them. This makes sense, being beholden to shareholders and profit and all that, but not even pretending it's just commercial developer advocacy/evangelism (which would have been fine - lots of companies do this to various degrees of success) is red flags all over. It feels like they want to 'buy' and 'construct' community, which is generally not how those come to be. It's much more like the VB and COM days where they just try to convince developers that in the land of closed systems they haver the best development experience to reach business goals. But in the land of open systems, that push doesn't work. They would have been better off either copying the Apache Foundation or the CNCF, or just incubating their stuff in to one of them. But the first option would not have come with a community, and the second one would be risky since they would have to soft-compete with what's already there and they aren't all that convincing in their value proposition when you make that comparison. The foundation isn't inherently evil or bad, it just isn't what the larger FOSS or OSS communities expect and thus it's not getting the same traction and benefits, making the whole exercise feel dead in the water and not useful to anyone.

rob_c 5y ago
I would encourage you to re-read this with the first reply. I agree it looks like it's an effort to placate and build a favourable image, but I think the intentions are to build something more substance beyond this.
- oneplane 5y ago
  I agree that the intentions might have been different, but the outcome seems to have ended up being legal-laundered... it tarnished the project and this is where we end up. The most recent comment on the issue puts this conflict in much better words than I could.

tpmx 5y ago

I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.

sneak 5y ago
I think Carmack going to Facebook is the one that got me. Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
- dleslie 5y ago
  id Software going to Bethesda.
  - Hokusai 5y ago
    Most products are produced by a few corporations, monopolies are on the rise, that kills competition and variety but it allows to accumulate power to further increase control over the markets. That's the reason that antimonopoly legislation exists.
  - mattl 5y ago
    Which is now owned by Microsoft.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- tpmx 5y ago
  Google wasn't Microsoft-like when they joined.
- Izikiel43 5y ago
  Isn’t Guido working at microsoft now?
amelius 5y ago
Would you feel better if they worked for Apple? Microsoft is a much more open company than Apple, just look at the immense output of Microsoft Research over the years.

villasv 5y ago

This is a Chesterton's Fence situation. Suddenly the .NET foundation is receiving lots of spotlight on its flaws but one needs to understand the historical progression of the organization. Miguel speaks this clearly: > The transition from the old model to the new model was a major concession from Microsoft The current .NET Foundation is an improvement on what existed before. Is it independent? Not completely, but .NET is more independent than it was. Is it frictionless, transparent, trustworthy? Not completely, but .NET is more than it was. Of course the current discussions show it is now time for the next steps and move on from the tradeoffs that brought the Foundation into existence. There are many ways to improve and their messaging/communication is the must urgent one. But it's also important to recognize that the Foundation's organizational design flaws are not a "plot", not result of incompetence nor malice; it's progress, slow as one would expect from the complexity of its goals.

encryptluks2 5y ago
As a slave any new privilege is better than having less than before.
- rob_c 5y ago
  Slave to what exactly at this point?
  - encryptluks2 5y ago
    To Microsoft. You're basically becoming a slave by joining the foundation, agreeing to have them own your projects.
    - ozim 5y ago
      If you go this way, why even bother with whole .NET ecosystem? It is all Microsoft. It would be easier to go with Python/Ruby maybe Java.
      - ethbr0 5y ago

oaiey 5y ago

Back then I wondered why Miguel never played a role in that foundation. This explains this a bit. Also it shows the fear in Microsoft about a community switching to a GPL code base (which is ridiculous considering that the .NET community with it's company black matter devs are the opposite of GPL friendly). It is also ridiculous considering that .NET runtime development would never work with the deep pockets of Microsoft.

tialaramex 5y ago

Assuming that you must have an organisation†, the organisation should have a clear purpose, ideally just one or very few of them so as to avoid conflicts. It must be clear to all involved that, if this purpose ceases to be valuable, the organisation likewise ceases to be valuable and must be wound up. It's amazing how often this is overlooked. It is obviously not great news if the purpose of the .NET Foundation is to control this ecosystem on behalf of Microsoft. But, establishing that is better than "Let's continue to be vague and hope nobody notices that in practice that's what it's for". † One of the things to like about the IETF is that it isn't an organisation. The Internet Society is an organisation, several related entities (e.g. the IETF Trust) are organisations, but the IETF isn't, it's just an activity - like dancing. Anybody can do it, if they want. If the people doing it start doing it differently, that can't be wrong, because that's just how they're doing it now.

kristoff_it 5y ago

One thing that I've heard being said multiple times towards Redis Labs and other companies with an Open Source product, is (paraphrasing) "Companies make their products Open Source only because it helps massively with adoption, but then they don't want to accept the other implications that come from Open Source licenses". This was often said in an accusatory tone by certain cloud vendors, with the implication that companies like RL wanted to have their cake and eat it too because they were trying to push for licenses that would prevent clouds from selling their OSS product as a service. I leave it to others to decide how much that accusation was justified or not, but I do find it terribly ironic that now Microsoft is essentially faking a proper Open Source governance model for what could be considered the same end: make the product more popular through Open Source.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

thrower123 5y ago

The most interesting bit that always comes up with the DotNet Foundation is that all the trusted actors who you would expect to be associated are so worn out that they don't take much of a role, and instead less scrupulous and more power-hungry types take their places.

throw868788 5y ago
Just like any other human made structure even outside of programming I've known. Admittedly I think the foundation is mostly independent from .NET and is around open source projects in the ecosystem limiting the damage this could cause. Even if it is changing hands, or even collapses its role is limited and I argue doesn't affect the adoption or usage of the platform all that much. On the other hand as an example I have experience first hand where this stuff can matter relating to some other comments on this thread: the confusion around which JVM distribution to use is directly tied to the JVM and its different builds. That doesn't seem to be the biggest problem for people in that ecosystem, but just like this .NET foundation topic confuses people outside the ecosystem as people are cautious and don't understand the implications. (i.e. do I have to pay Oracle for support if I need to limit my liability?). If I'm choosing between two tech stacks and only one has this question mark in a time limited fashion I might choose an alternative instead. Other languages requiring significant investment (e.g. Corporate Languages) have their issues too. The appeal of Java and the .NET platforms to me is their longevity and their seriousness in keeping it alive over the decades.

nathanaldensr 5y ago

Is .NET bigger than Microsoft, or is Microsoft bigger than .NET? That's the real question being asked here. The philanthropic energies of the open source community are often in direct conflict with command-and-control corporate structures and even the legal system itself. Pretending like the conflict doesn't exist is how these folks got into this mess. Microsoft has a chance here to generate a huge amount of goodwill not only in the .NET community but also the open source world by choosing to relinquish the "company behind the curtain" aspect apparent in the Bylaws. Articles and blog posts will be written about what happens here. The usual comments of "embrace, extend, extinguish" might themselves be extinguished by Microsoft choosing philanthropy. Without the philanthropic energies of projects and maintainers, what is the purpose of the Foundation anyway? If .NET as a brand is too important to risk tarnishing by people not on Microsoft's payroll, then abolish the Foundation altogether.

booleandilemma 5y ago

So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java? Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java (or any other technology with corporate backing)?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 5y ago
> So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java Who said it was? > Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? I don't think so, and Oracle gets pounded on for everything, including what they do with Java, too. Google may be better with Go, or maybe people are cutting them undeserved slack. Not really relevant to the discussion of Microsoft and .NET, though, just whataboutism as a distraction. > Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java “open source” is not the issue; community process is the issue. That .NET is available under an open source licensing model is not a subject of any dispute.
- booleandilemma 5y ago
  Hey, thanks for your answers. I wasn’t trying to engage in whataboutism, I was trying to find out, as a developer who wants to learn a truly community-driven language/technology without any corporate overlords, what my options are. I’ve looked into Go, but a part of me feels like I’m trading one corporation for another. The languages I think of as strongly community-driven: python, ruby, and javascript, are all dynamically typed, and I’m trying to stay with statically typed languages.
  - mtlynch 5y ago
    Zig seems to fit your criteria: https://ziglang.org/ https://ziglang.org/

chuckee 5y ago

> Main site, first element lists "Independent." > One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft > Microsoft appointed Director can effectively override "any vote to materially change the Foundation’s Membership Policy, Director Election Policy, Project Governance Policy, or any Intellectual Property-related agreements or policies" [..] > Any change to the Bylaws which attempts to change this requires not only a 2/3 vote of the Directors, but also agreement from Microsoft separate from the Microsoft appointed director. Ha!

Shadonototra 5y ago

That's the problem with languages managed by big corps I always found peace with community driven projects D, Zig, Odin, way more healthily and organic communities

pjmlp 5y ago
And an almost inexisting ecosystem by comparison.
- Shadonototra 5y ago
  it doesn't matter, at all for some people C interop is more than enough for some people they like to integrate the said language as scripting language for some people it's something else i feel some people miss the point, completly your favorite X language backed by corporate will be replaced tomorow by what ever is more shiny look at the list of dead languages that were once backed by IBM, Apple, Microsoft etc etc etc Community driven projects are different, they don't exist to become irrelevant depending on what management has to say
  - pjmlp 5y ago
    Look at the list of dead languages that were once backed by vocal communities, making the frontpage of BBS forums, Usenet communities, Slashdot, Reddit, HN, and whatever will come next. How is the Coffescript community doing by the way?