2 ms·

Public companies aren't people. It doesn't make sense to trust them, but it also doesn't make sense to hold a grudge against them. They act in a way that fits t

Public companies aren't people. It doesn't make sense to trust them, but it also doesn't make sense to hold a grudge against them. They act in a way that fits the moment. Right now, Microsoft seems to be in a "build good tools" moment. If they get too dominant they could re-enter an "abuse power" moment. But that would be because it's what they think is in their best interest, not because "Microsoft is [uniquely] untrustworthy"

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Yep. But also this kind of essentialist thinking doesn't work for people, either, so :-) Nobody is just one thing or another. And neither are companies. They act on various levers, in response to various interests, and it's about looking at the tendencies and patterns. Holding grudges against people makes little sense, either.
- brundolf 4y ago
  Fair, although even on a sliding-scale I think trust mechanisms are less-inaccurate when it comes to a single person (who can change, but usually in gradual/limited ways) vs a company (which is a revolving door of thousands of people who come and go over the decades)
chatmasta 4y ago
That may be true, but for many of Microsoft's flagship open source projects, it is very much about the people. For example, TypeScript has been created and maintained by a relatively stable team of highly proficient developers who have become the face of the project and in many ways the driving force behind its success. It's important that Microsoft backed them, because it provides a stable environment for the developers to keep working on the project and gives confidence to the community that it's a stable language to adopt. But fundamentally it's the people who are important. In recent years, Microsoft has shown there can be real upside to corporate-driven open source, especially when it has proper buy-in from management and usage throughout the organization (e.g. VSCode is developed in relative lockstep with TypeScript, and both projects benefit from that relationship).

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

Yep. But also this kind of essentialist thinking doesn't work for people, either, so :-) Nobody is just one thing or another. And neither are companies. They act on various levers, in response to various interests, and it's about looking at the tendencies and patterns. Holding grudges against people makes little sense, either.

brundolf 4y ago
Fair, although even on a sliding-scale I think trust mechanisms are less-inaccurate when it comes to a single person (who can change, but usually in gradual/limited ways) vs a company (which is a revolving door of thousands of people who come and go over the decades)

chatmasta 4y ago

That may be true, but for many of Microsoft's flagship open source projects, it is very much about the people. For example, TypeScript has been created and maintained by a relatively stable team of highly proficient developers who have become the face of the project and in many ways the driving force behind its success. It's important that Microsoft backed them, because it provides a stable environment for the developers to keep working on the project and gives confidence to the community that it's a stable language to adopt. But fundamentally it's the people who are important. In recent years, Microsoft has shown there can be real upside to corporate-driven open source, especially when it has proper buy-in from management and usage throughout the organization (e.g. VSCode is developed in relative lockstep with TypeScript, and both projects benefit from that relationship).