Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#31

Post by lou1306 »

tyfon wrote: post #12
gear54rus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have a lot more patience that I do, frankly. That's the point people keep missing. These a-holes are seizing control over our computing primarily through Windows and while this stuff (described above) continues, it doesn't really matter if they open-source a lot of shit that doesn't matter much in the grand scheme of things or throw a few bucks here and there because all in all it's Windows that has become a huge…

The patience is becoming more and more an experiment to see how far they will go to control my usage in the operating system as a thanks for my 1000 NOK purchase of a license. Just what does it take to actually be able to use a new Windows without getting shafted? My gaming is almost completely moved to the PS4, Switch and Linux, even though neither Sony nor Nintendo are paragons of virtue in any sense, they are smal…

> like Microsoft is doing

I thought it was, you know, game developers and publishers? How many games are actually published by Microsoft, outside of Halo, Minecraft, Age of Empires, and Gears of War?

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#32

Post by Quarrelsome »

cjsuk wrote: post #30
Quarrelsome wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They haven't changed a bit. o_0. I remember when I had to use tools to disassemble their precious source that they kept withheld and locked up. Now they post their new tech to github and I can view all the source easily. Now they try to make their tech work on Linux. I'm all for fair criticism but your prose is not that, its dogma. If you think they're still the same company I can only imagine that you left your ey…

They're not really different though. People's memory is short. I've had access to MSFT source code before under shared source apart from the CSPs suspiciously, I've had symbol server around for years and been able to pop into framework code, then there's stuff like this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx - not even counting the amount of source coming from MSR etc. My criticism is not dogma, it's…

Sorry we're now discussing completely different things and you acknowledge that they are "different" in regards to their lack of "peak quality". You are not arguing in good faith. Check yourself.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#33

Post by cjsuk »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #32
cjsuk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not really different though. People's memory is short. I've had access to MSFT source code before under shared source apart from the CSPs suspiciously, I've had symbol server around for years and been able to pop into framework code, then there's stuff like this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx - not even counting the amount of source coming from MSR etc. My criticism is not dogma, it's…

Sorry we're now discussing completely different things and you acknowledge that they are "different" in regards to their lack of "peak quality". You are not arguing in good faith. Check yourself.

I disagree. I am merely relaying experience.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#34

Post by AsyncAwait »

watwut wrote: post #24
hannob wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open-source is used broadly to define a way of developing software, but it says nothing about the rights it gives users. That is totally wrong and a myth spread by people who like to call their products "Open Source" while they aren't. The Open Source Definition is very clear: https://opensource.org/osd Practically there is no difference between Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses. The difference is mer…

They are different. I have open source contributions and I am cool giving away code free (and use others code of course). E.g. open source as Apache license. I disagree with free software peoples opinions often and don't want much contact with that community (prefer less ideological communities and less my-way-is-the-only-way and if-you-want-something-different-then-me-you-are-stupid communities).

Ironically, I see the attitude you describe in the open-source community quite often, specifically the BSD community is quite vocal about being more 'level headed' than the GPL community and more 'mature'.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#35

Post by l0b0 »

The obvious advantage for Microsoft is that they can now influence OSI. Even if they don't get voting rights immediately (which I would expect them to push hard for) there will now be the everlasting threat of pulling the funding to keep OSI in line. Organisations sponsored mostly by companies can't be expected to be bold about upholding users' rights and keeping the moral high ground, because most organisations are willing to compromise to keep themselves alive. Now it remains to be seen if this is a dark day for FOSS or just for OSI.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#36

Post by belorn »

watwut wrote: post #24
hannob wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Open-source is used broadly to define a way of developing software, but it says nothing about the rights it gives users. That is totally wrong and a myth spread by people who like to call their products "Open Source" while they aren't. The Open Source Definition is very clear: https://opensource.org/osd Practically there is no difference between Open Source licenses and Free Software licenses. The difference is mer…

They are different. I have open source contributions and I am cool giving away code free (and use others code of course). E.g. open source as Apache license. I disagree with free software peoples opinions often and don't want much contact with that community (prefer less ideological communities and less my-way-is-the-only-way and if-you-want-something-different-then-me-you-are-stupid communities).

> less ideological communities and less my-way-is-the-only-way and if-you-want-something-different-then-me-you-are-stupid

You mean like rewriting entire projects, just because they have the wrong open source defined license? Tell me, which operative systems welcome all software that the Open source initiative define as open source, and which operative systems do only allow a very narrow list of licenses that match a specific ideology?

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#37

Post by tyfon »

lou1306 wrote: post #31
tyfon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The patience is becoming more and more an experiment to see how far they will go to control my usage in the operating system as a thanks for my 1000 NOK purchase of a license. Just what does it take to actually be able to use a new Windows without getting shafted? My gaming is almost completely moved to the PS4, Switch and Linux, even though neither Sony nor Nintendo are paragons of virtue in any sense, they are smal…

> like Microsoft is doing I thought it was, you know, game developers and publishers? How many games are actually published by Microsoft, outside of Halo, Minecraft, Age of Empires, and Gears of War?

These are the ones I am talking about. Halo, GoW and Minecraft have been GAASified. We have to see about Forza 7.

Meanwhile, 1st party games like Horizon Zero Dawn from Sony or Mario vs Rabbids from Nintendo are free of such.

In 3rd party games, all bets are off of course (see Destiny 2 for a good example)

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#38

Post by thanksgiving »

cjsuk wrote: post #33
Quarrelsome wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry we're now discussing completely different things and you acknowledge that they are "different" in regards to their lack of "peak quality". You are not arguing in good faith. Check yourself.

I disagree. I am merely relaying experience.

I agree with you. I think most free software advocates are far too nice to say anything bad about people. Just look at dot net and how it is now "open source". Well, except it isn't because the dot net special interest group doesn't have the source code for tooling they need in order to meet fedora packaging guidelines. This is supposed to be the easy part because from what I understand they rewrote everything for .NET core. I was a big fan of dot net core and now I warn everyone of it. It is best to just avoid Microsoft in many cases.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#39

Post by ts330 »

romanovcode wrote: post #27
tyfon wrote: post #2

This is all fine and good. I hope their efforts are sincere. All money and support to free software is most likely good. However, I've been part of the open source community for 25 years, and I remember the brutal marketing against the "cancer" of open source. It will take a lot to convince me that there is not some underlying goal here that is not beneficial to free software. How much has Microsoft really changed? I…

> Why fight the user to this level? Have they really turned "good"? Most of MS revenue comes from Azure so it makes perfect sense for them to invest in open source that is used on Azure servers.

Roughly 1/3 comes from Intelligent Cloud (i.e. Azure and friends)... although revenues increased 93% in FYQ3. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2017-Q3...

[edit: fix Intelligent Cloud vs Azure specifically]

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#40

Post by sumfag »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #32
cjsuk wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not really different though. People's memory is short. I've had access to MSFT source code before under shared source apart from the CSPs suspiciously, I've had symbol server around for years and been able to pop into framework code, then there's stuff like this: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc749640.aspx - not even counting the amount of source coming from MSR etc. My criticism is not dogma, it's…

Sorry we're now discussing completely different things and you acknowledge that they are "different" in regards to their lack of "peak quality". You are not arguing in good faith. Check yourself.

No, you weren't. Gonna have to agree with your parent commenter that they are actively user-hostile and consumer-hostile, in addition to FOSS-hostile, even moreso than ever before for all the reasons stated above. Your comment right here shows me you have little to no argument left in you, despite your "good faith". I advise you check yourself Quarrelsome, since you devalued your own argument before it even got started.

(fitting username)

Post reply on HN