3 ms·
Technically you don't own FLOSS software either, never having to pay a license fee is very attractive. Free is nice, but we still pay for commercial software.
by aschobel 18y ago
Technically you don't own FLOSS software either, never having to pay a license fee is very attractive.
Free is nice, but we still pay for commercial software. We spend $600 for each license of IntelliJ because it woks better for us than Eclipse.
Also, in the end you want to build something people want.
If you have a bunch of engineers who are good at .Net, why not use the Microsoft stack to get that done quickly? Go out and build!
- cabalamat 18y agoTechnically you don't own FLOSS software either True: own can mean the ability to do with it as you will, or the ability to exclude others from it. With FLOSS you can do the first but not the second. If you have a bunch of engineers who are good at .Net, why not use the Microsoft stack to get that done quickly Indeed why not? Microsoft may be the best a platform if that's what your experience is in. Though it seems to me that most innovations in software technologies seems to be Open Source these days, e.g. Rails, Django, Clojure. The only closed source thing seems to be C#. Though maybe I am biased because the Microsoft/.Net side of things is something I don't follow -- for example I've no idea if there's a Microsoft/C# equivalent of Ruby on Rails.
- aschobel 18y agoI agree, that's why we extensively use FLOSS. It is nice being use the same innovations that power Google (Guice), Yahoo (Hadoop), Facebook (Thrift). I have a friend who does a lot of C# and he claims there are some really interesting things going on over there. F#, automatic parallelization in the CLR, FP goodness in C#. Meh, I'd rather deploy and use open tools and platforms.