4 ms·

> have to wonder at what point developers remember how anti-developer Microsoft used to be Microsoft has historically been anti-opensource, but not anti-develo

> have to wonder at what point developers remember how anti-developer Microsoft used to be Microsoft has historically been anti-opensource, but not anti-developer. Their first product was a BASIC interpreter and in my experience throughout the 90s and early 2000s their developer ecosystem (aka Visual Studio) has really been first-class. I am not a fan of Microsoft because they have been openly hostile to open source, but I don't think it's fair to say they have been anti-developer.

erikstarck 4y ago
"Developers! Developers! Developers!" He wasn't kidding.
- oefrha 4y ago
  Brings back the fond memories of Ballmer and his sweaty shirt.
mistrial9 4y ago
the economic contracts offered to developers by Microsoft were very different than in other development ecosystems. Microsoft always represented a different economic culture than many others, developers chose their allies based on multiple criteria.
PurpleRamen 4y ago
Microsoft was also a long time anti-commandline and against scripting, they tried to made everything clickable, with wizards and s**, and remove text and keyboard-input as much as possible for admins and devs. Thinking about, Copilot is in it's own way, a continuation of this, just more dev-friendly.
- bradford 4y ago
  > Microsoft was also a long time anti-commandline and against scripting, they tried to made everything clickable, with wizards and s*, I'd categorize this as incompetence, not malice towards developers. Specifically: Microsoft thought that code-creation wizards and UI would offer a better story than command line and text. Those attempts were misguided, and MS adjusted. The command line culture at MS has been pervasive for a long time, despite the quirkiness of DOS, so I must object to your categorization of MS being anti command-line and anti-scripting. [disclaimer, MS employee, my opinion only.]
- klibertp 4y ago
  Yeah, but then they made PowerShell, which was at the time seriously the most advanced shell and shell scripting language out there. PS got pretty mixed reactions because it was different than BASH, but the idea of typed pipes of objects instead of one-size-fits-all streams of lines of text was (and still is) powerful. (The syntax could be a little less verbose though)
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  Being a developer isn't the same as being a command line user. Most Windows users prefer GUI over the command line. That being said, Microsoft released PowerShell, Windows Terminal and lots of command line tools. A large part of the Windows administration can be done trough command line if one so desires.
- int_19h 4y ago
  Even during the 90s, arguably at the peak of "make everything GUI", this was also a thing in Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Scripting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Scripting
lancesells 4y ago
Many people paid to host their code at Github to only then have it sold back to them and others in the form of Copilot. IMO that's very anti-developer.
- vincentkriek 4y ago
  That is not anti-developer, but definitely anti-opensource. As a developer I dont really care my code is used to make copilot better and sold in that way.
  - bhj 4y ago
    You should care if your code's license is being violated by being reproduced without attribution. Undermining OSS's licenses can ultimately weaken it, and the cynic in me suspects MS is fully aware of this.
bastardoperator 4y ago
Is there anyone doing more for open source today? I hear you, but it's clear they've changed that tune dramatically.
- throwaway290 4y ago
  By monetising OSS and sidestepping copyleft licenses to suggest you the same code repackaged as part of proprietary autocomplete for which you pay MS and not original authors?
  - DeathArrow 4y ago
    What do you mean by that?
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Read how LLMs work. Copilot is one.
  - bastardoperator 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Sounds like you could get a refresher on how it works, and regarding your ad hominem you are clearly using your real name just as much.
ensignavenger 4y ago
At this point, it seems MS has almost as many years of being neutral-supportive of FOSS as they have of being against it.
cornholio 4y ago
There is some nuance here. Microsoft executed "commoditize your complement" to perfection - the complements to their OS being PC hardware and applications. This meant they had to be insanely good at supporting a vast array of diverse hardware, but also offered exceptionally good support for developers to keep the barriers of entry low in the Windows software market. They had even a cute name for these commoditized and neutered competitors - "ISVs". Basically, Microsoft owned the OS and the major applications like office & enterprise software, media, browser etc. and everything else was supplied by an ISV, for example your accounting software for country XYZ, a market where MS had no interest in entering. As long as you kept within the ISV playground, MS was developer friendly, but it would turn very hostile to any perceived competitor to their core assets. Undocumented APIs, monopoly abuse, dark patterns, the entire circus. This strategy made the PC market impenetrable for nearly two decades, and it was only through sheer luck and complacency that the mobile revolution caught them on the wrong foot.
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  > it was only through sheer luck and complacency that the mobile revolution caught them on the wrong foot. Windows Phone wasn't bad and I wish we could have more competition in mobile space.
  - cornholio 4y ago
    I wish we could have open platforms that competitive players can extend and develop without owning outright and excluding other competitors. It's the great next step in regulating monopolies, contemporary products no longer exist standalone in the marketplace but must always interoperate with existing infrastructure and platforms. The last decades of tech competition were a repetition of this basic tune, some first mover more or less stumbling into a de-facto standard and then fighting like hell to maintain its dominance and undeserved rent extraction. The situation is complicated by the nature of international trade vs local regulations, it might not be good for your national consumers to be fleeced by a platform monopoly, but you more than make up for it if your national tech champions achieve world-dominance.

erikstarck 4y ago

"Developers! Developers! Developers!" He wasn't kidding.

oefrha 4y ago
Brings back the fond memories of Ballmer and his sweaty shirt.

mistrial9 4y ago

the economic contracts offered to developers by Microsoft were very different than in other development ecosystems. Microsoft always represented a different economic culture than many others, developers chose their allies based on multiple criteria.

PurpleRamen 4y ago

Microsoft was also a long time anti-commandline and against scripting, they tried to made everything clickable, with wizards and s**, and remove text and keyboard-input as much as possible for admins and devs. Thinking about, Copilot is in it's own way, a continuation of this, just more dev-friendly.

bradford 4y ago
> Microsoft was also a long time anti-commandline and against scripting, they tried to made everything clickable, with wizards and s*, I'd categorize this as incompetence, not malice towards developers. Specifically: Microsoft thought that code-creation wizards and UI would offer a better story than command line and text. Those attempts were misguided, and MS adjusted. The command line culture at MS has been pervasive for a long time, despite the quirkiness of DOS, so I must object to your categorization of MS being anti command-line and anti-scripting. [disclaimer, MS employee, my opinion only.]
klibertp 4y ago
Yeah, but then they made PowerShell, which was at the time seriously the most advanced shell and shell scripting language out there. PS got pretty mixed reactions because it was different than BASH, but the idea of typed pipes of objects instead of one-size-fits-all streams of lines of text was (and still is) powerful. (The syntax could be a little less verbose though)
DeathArrow 4y ago
Being a developer isn't the same as being a command line user. Most Windows users prefer GUI over the command line. That being said, Microsoft released PowerShell, Windows Terminal and lots of command line tools. A large part of the Windows administration can be done trough command line if one so desires.
int_19h 4y ago
Even during the 90s, arguably at the peak of "make everything GUI", this was also a thing in Windows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Scripting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Scripting

lancesells 4y ago

Many people paid to host their code at Github to only then have it sold back to them and others in the form of Copilot. IMO that's very anti-developer.

vincentkriek 4y ago
That is not anti-developer, but definitely anti-opensource. As a developer I dont really care my code is used to make copilot better and sold in that way.
- bhj 4y ago
  You should care if your code's license is being violated by being reproduced without attribution. Undermining OSS's licenses can ultimately weaken it, and the cynic in me suspects MS is fully aware of this.

bastardoperator 4y ago

Is there anyone doing more for open source today? I hear you, but it's clear they've changed that tune dramatically.

throwaway290 4y ago
By monetising OSS and sidestepping copyleft licenses to suggest you the same code repackaged as part of proprietary autocomplete for which you pay MS and not original authors?
- DeathArrow 4y ago
  What do you mean by that?
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Read how LLMs work. Copilot is one.
- bastardoperator 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Sounds like you could get a refresher on how it works, and regarding your ad hominem you are clearly using your real name just as much.

ensignavenger 4y ago

At this point, it seems MS has almost as many years of being neutral-supportive of FOSS as they have of being against it.

cornholio 4y ago

There is some nuance here. Microsoft executed "commoditize your complement" to perfection - the complements to their OS being PC hardware and applications. This meant they had to be insanely good at supporting a vast array of diverse hardware, but also offered exceptionally good support for developers to keep the barriers of entry low in the Windows software market. They had even a cute name for these commoditized and neutered competitors - "ISVs". Basically, Microsoft owned the OS and the major applications like office & enterprise software, media, browser etc. and everything else was supplied by an ISV, for example your accounting software for country XYZ, a market where MS had no interest in entering. As long as you kept within the ISV playground, MS was developer friendly, but it would turn very hostile to any perceived competitor to their core assets. Undocumented APIs, monopoly abuse, dark patterns, the entire circus. This strategy made the PC market impenetrable for nearly two decades, and it was only through sheer luck and complacency that the mobile revolution caught them on the wrong foot.

DeathArrow 4y ago
> it was only through sheer luck and complacency that the mobile revolution caught them on the wrong foot. Windows Phone wasn't bad and I wish we could have more competition in mobile space.
- cornholio 4y ago
  I wish we could have open platforms that competitive players can extend and develop without owning outright and excluding other competitors. It's the great next step in regulating monopolies, contemporary products no longer exist standalone in the marketplace but must always interoperate with existing infrastructure and platforms. The last decades of tech competition were a repetition of this basic tune, some first mover more or less stumbling into a de-facto standard and then fighting like hell to maintain its dominance and undeserved rent extraction. The situation is complicated by the nature of international trade vs local regulations, it might not be good for your national consumers to be fleeced by a platform monopoly, but you more than make up for it if your national tech champions achieve world-dominance.