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

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#41

Post by czechdeveloper »

cjsuk wrote: post #17
czechdeveloper wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing is, that a the good stuff they do (C#, TypeScript, Visual Studio Code) is not limited to Windows use.

You're right but this puts me off among other things: https://github.com/dotnet/cli/issues/3093 (even though I've been writing C# for 15 years now)

I wonder for past few years about backup language/stack/job for me, because my technical life has been MS only. And quite often discontinued tech (Silverlight, WebForms).

I should get that going I guess. I just can't decide what to learn and it's difficult to find time (nodejs? Go? Python?).

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#42

Post by MikeTaylor »

From the press-release: "Microsoft's history with the OSI dates back to 2005 with the submission of the Microsoft Community License"

Well, that is not exactly true. For those who have forgotten the history, or weren't around at the time, this leaked internal document from Microsoft was the proximate cause of OSI taking off: http://catb.org/~esr/halloween/halloween1.html

TLDR: Microsoft's loud opposition to, and deep fear of, open source software provided a catalyst and a point of unification for those who supported it.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#43

Post by KGIII »

voltooid wrote: post #4
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…

I just spent a few minutes this morning trying to figure out how to turn off Cortana on my windows 10 virtual machine. I don't want to have to spend 45 minutes of my morning trying to figure out the ins and outs of elevated power shell to just turn one freaking app off on an operating system that I bought and therefore should have control over. In my view, this is very obviously tailored to deter most people from rem…

There's the rub.

You didn't buy the operating system. You bought a license to use it. That is not a difference without distinction. Microsoft very much view it as their operating system, even though you've purchased a license to use it.

My solution is to use Linux, which has a more permissive license. I'm not sure if that will work for you, but it's nice not actually being dependent on a single vendor.

By the way, I'm not saying that it is right - just that it is what it is. You didn't buy an OS, you bought a license to use an OS. The distinction is important.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#44

Post by morganvachon »

hannob wrote: post #22
ekianjo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All money and support to free software is most likely good. Open source is not the same thing as Free Software. From the website itself, in the history section: > The conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by partici…

> 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, and that's fine. Personally I lean more towards the BSD/MIT style of licensing than GPL; I feel the former is "more free" from the developer's side because it doesn't tell her what she can't do with her code. The GPL forces the developer's hand (though in a way that benefits society as a whole), whereas BSD says "it's your code, do what you will".

All of that said, the GPL is perhaps one of the most important parts of the modern software ecosystem; without it we wouldn't have Linux, and FOSS as we know it wouldn't exist. The world is a better place because of the GPL.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#45

Post by watwut »

belorn wrote: post #36
watwut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure what you ask? If the license they use is incompatible with projects license, then of course it is ok to rewrite it? And of course it is also ok to rewrite project for arbitrary reasons like that you don't like the maintainer.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#46

Post by watwut »

AsyncAwait wrote: post #34
watwut wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

As someone who has zero contact with anyone BSD and have no idea about their community, I have no idea.

As far as I am concerned, there is no open source community as single entity. There are comunities around concrete projects, some better then others. Anyone pretending to represent whole open source is usually doing it for politics and ego.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#47

Post by belorn »

watwut wrote: post #45
belorn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Not sure what you ask? If the license they use is incompatible with projects license, then of course it is ok to rewrite it? And of course it is also ok to rewrite project for arbitrary reasons like that you don't like the maintainer.

Rewriting software just because it do not perfectly match a communities opinion about licenses is the least pragmatic way to go about software. It is the my-way-is-the-only-way approach, rather than working together and work with a mix of licenses and focus on the code.

Diversity in licenses is a sign of cooperation.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#48

Post by Quarrelsome »

sumfag wrote: post #40
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.

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 start…

So the quality of the tool chain has everything to do with their attitude to open source software and whether they can be assumed to be a friend or enemy of open source software? We began couching the argument about the company and its businesses practices and we ended on the implementation detail of needing to change a registry setting in a windows deployment. If that isn't tangential muddying of the waters, what is? I want to discuss things to derive truth but my conversational partner just wants to force the Microsoft == bad equation. THAT is arguing in poor faith and not being interested in the conversation and the revelation of truth. That is forcing a pre-destined conclusion on the conversation and a requirement for re-checking of self.

My argument is merely that there _is_ a difference. Its been over twenty years, surely the passage of time generates _some_ difference. My position is far from radical nor am I excusing Microsoft from anything but merely stating they have a more positive stance on OSS today than they did during the Gates era.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#49

Post by Quarrelsome »

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.

To divert from the debate on their position on OSS. You started okay about Rotor but then went off on a rant. You're not interested in debating you just want to talk about how bad Microsoft are.

I am stating they've changed somewhat since the Bill Gates days. Is my position really so fucking radical that it deserves your tangential rant about registry settings? Peak quality != OSS stance.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#50

Post by sumfag »

Quarrelsome wrote: post #48
sumfag wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 start…

So the quality of the tool chain has everything to do with their attitude to open source software and whether they can be assumed to be a friend or enemy of open source software? We began couching the argument about the company and its businesses practices and we ended on the implementation detail of needing to change a registry setting in a windows deployment. If that isn't tangential muddying of the waters, what is…

No, the quality of the toolchain is emblematic of their attitudes towards FOSS. There is a difference, totally, their sinking ship needs a little help to stay afloat and OSS is that buoy IMO.
Post reply on HN