51–60 of 195 posts
When I was a script kiddie back in the mid nineties Microsoft was this evil corporate empire that all the linux kids hated. Now I'm in my mid 30s and I respect them a lot and would definitely work for them. I guess we both have changed.
I'm not sure what changed about them. Do you think that dumping some code on GitHub is enough? I disagree. "Linux kids" hated Microsoft because of their dirty tactics, exemplified for example in the "Halloween documents" [1], which shows among other things how they sponsored the SCO lawsuits against Linux. "Linux kids" also hated Microsoft for how they always tried to subvert open standards, like for example the Open…
This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid
Let's discuss Microsoft's software patents. Any Github contributions they make are trivial in comparison.
This is quite an improvement from the olden days when a certain Microsoft executive described the GPL as a cancer, and open source in general as a thing to avoid
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a quite decent improvement from the era when Or the era of "Linux is a cancer" http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_c...
Yeah, now they're just engaging in racketeering against Linux and Android using their patents.
Nor the stealing of Google's search results.
I'm not ready to bless Microsoft yet.
Microsoft is definitely trying to change its perception among the people, from hardcore closed box to trying to be the typical silicon valley company which opensources time to time to entice engineers working for them and yeah, greater good of the community. But, as you see if you add Angular and Google's contributions, Google leads the list by a margin. So this looks more like a PR exercise and since when did we sta…
> when did we start taking BI articles on tech seriously(no offence to any readers) None taken, BI articles are often poorly researched and written from a Wikipedia search knowledge level.
> The data isn't perfect, since it only relies on GitHub information available publicly — lots of businesses and project teams use GitHub in a private mode to quietly share their code. But it's still a big step forward for Microsoft.
Que? The article is regarding open source, not the use of GitHub as a source control, right? So even though the statement is true, it's not really making any sense. Am I misreading this?
As long as key components like the official Microsoft NTFS implementation remain closed source, I see in this open source policy as a charade.
Thats a bit like saying, as long as Google keeps their search algorithm closed source, i see it as charade. I'm happy that those companies open source more and more code. And Microsoft released some of their key technologies like .Net as open source. Personally i give them credit for that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To translate if you are attempting to exploit other peoples code with out giving anything back to the people that created the code then GPL is a cancer >MIT or the MS-PL is much more practical. This depends on the project I normally license my libraries, code I intend to be included in other software under BSD or MIT, but full developed software that is intended to be used as is gets GPL.
Thanks for putting words in my mouth. How many people would have used jQuery, if it was GPL? Full-on GPL taints your software, such that you have to be extremely careful not to use any libraries that are GPL'd if you want to release it under any other sort of license. Sure, you can get exemptions, but can you imagine the clusterfuck if, say, the NPM community defaulted to using GPL? Trying to trace back and make arra…
Software that chooses a copyleft license like the GPL cares for freedom more than broad adoption of their software. I would never want you to help you create non-free software---that's antithetical to everything I stand for. Many feel that way.
You say "trace back and make arrangements with the owners of thousands"---why should you? Why would we want you to do that? Why would we have used the GPL to begin with? I would consider that to be an incredible situation! All these tiny libraries on NPM under the GPL that make it virtually impossible to develop proprietary software because of the infeasibility of working out deals with all the authors---some of which will never agree? That is freedom at its finest! That would be a huge success!
It's great that software like jQuery has had the success that it has. It shares a different philosophy. I don't call that philosophy a "cancer", even though it results in what I consider the worst possible outcome: proprietary software, and often SaaSS at that, which robs freedoms even more.
Please be respectful of others' philosophies. The GPL is the embodiment of ideals and the free software movement---it's more than a license.
When I was a script kiddie back in the mid nineties Microsoft was this evil corporate empire that all the linux kids hated. Now I'm in my mid 30s and I respect them a lot and would definitely work for them. I guess we both have changed.
I'm not sure what changed about them. Do you think that dumping some code on GitHub is enough? I disagree. "Linux kids" hated Microsoft because of their dirty tactics, exemplified for example in the "Halloween documents" [1], which shows among other things how they sponsored the SCO lawsuits against Linux. "Linux kids" also hated Microsoft for how they always tried to subvert open standards, like for example the Open…