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

51–60 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#51

Post by hannob »

morganvachon wrote: post #44
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, 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 mo…

The BSD/GPL question is independent of the free software / open source term.

Both the OSI and the FSF accept GPL and BSD-style licenses. So both GPL and BSD code is free software and open source software.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#52

Post by giancarlostoro »

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…

and yet they also have things like this:

https://github.com/dotnet/core/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT

https://github.com/Microsoft/vscode/blob/master/LICENSE.txt

Can't really say nothing's changed if a lot has. I personally believe they need to refine their OS department, clearly that side of the company needs serious change. I say this after having heard of all the oddities from Windows 10 (their latest and current OS) and how awful it is to remove software from Windows 10.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#53

Post by SEJeff »

hannob wrote: post #29
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).

That's the philosophical difference I was talking about. Doesn't change the fact that all code you release under an Apache license is free software in the sense of the four freedoms as defined by the FSF. Whether you like their ways or not.

That is somewhat debatable I suppose. The freedom (if you want to quote RMS) absolutely includes the so called viral provisions of licenses such as the GPL. RMS is quoted as saying proprietary software should be illegal.

As a software engineer myself, I find that sort of demagoguery a bit tiring, and consider a license with less mandatory stipulations as more "free" (admittedly under a different definition than the FSF) than one that has required stipulations. As a result of this, there are many people like the parent, and myself, who could really care less about Free Software but find open source development as one of the most effective software development methodologies. Is all OSS I release also Free Software? Sure! Can someone relicense something I publish with a MIT/Apache license as proprietary software without releasing the code? Sure! My definition is more free = less restrictions, and more restrictions = less free. By that definition, the GPL is a less free (as in freedom for the users / consumers) than the MIT / Apache / BSD.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#54

Post by jrochkind1 »

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…

So, there _is_ a difference. But it's _not_ true that open source (as defined by OSI) says "nothing" about the rights it gives users. It says something. "free software" says something else/more (which may or may not be a good thing, that's a value judgement). "free software" is indeed an (intentionally) confusing name meant to discredit "open source".

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#55

Post by JustSomeNobody »

clhodapp wrote: post #8
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…

It really is amazing: Microsoft have fixed so many long-standing problems in Windows 10 and made something that is very close to offering a wonderful, refined user experience. However, they have also doubled down on undisableable focus-stealing and sound-making popups and forced interactions with their latest HCI "innovations" with the net result being that Windows 10 manages to feel as user-hostile as any version of…

They also haven't figured out how to tell a laptop is a laptop and there are times when it should NOT be installing the latest patches.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#56

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

csmattryder wrote: post #14
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…

Devil's advocate: You're supporting `n` billion devices around the world running your product, and the users are typically non-technical (from "I know how to open Word" to "Where's the 'Any' key?") You need to battle against your competitor's product that "just work" because they can target one specific hardware profile and you can't, so you put in telemetry to improve compatibility. Makes sense. It enrages us, the t…

> and the users are typically non-technical (from "I know how to open Word" to "Where's the 'Any' key?")

This isn't nearly as true as it used to be, because those people are on phones and tablets now. People who actually use desktops fall into one of 3 categories: content creators, office workers, and gamers.

Microsoft has ruined Windows by trying to make it into a webapp with a tablet UI in a vain effort to recapture that audience.

Meanwhile, the Linux Desktop has sacrificed any chance it once had of being decent by constantly sacrificing transparency of operation on the alter of "just works".

So here we are, stuck in a world where a really shitty version of Windows is still just barely the least-worst choice.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#57

Post by cup-of-tea »

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…

Of course they haven't turned good. "Open Source" is a buzzword in business right now and just like "cloud" the intended audience for the word has no idea what it actually means.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#58

Post by wjoe »

kakarot wrote: post #25
z3t4 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their new strategy might be to join open source communities and kill them from the inside. Although they probably just mean well and everything bad is just coincidence of incompetence. Btw, you can play a lot of games on Linux!

Btw, you can play a lot of games on Linux! Depends on what your tastes are. If you have a soft spot for SkiFree or bland, cookie-cutter shooters then maybe gaming on GNU/Linux is enough for you. But most of the games available for GNU/Linux are candy, games for games sake, and don't have much intellectual value. Wine helps a bit but a lot of things still break especially with modern titles. My solution is running Win…

Don't agree with that at all. I have over 300 Linux games on Steam, and there's a wide variety of games. Sure, it's lacking the big AAA releases that make the headlines, but in my opinion, those are the 'cookie-cutter' type games that don't have much intellectual value. There are many indie and small developers creating interesting games, and with Unity and other big engines supporting Linux now, it's a relatively small hurdle for them to release their games on Linux, and there are many of them.

I also had a GPU passthrough VM setup, but the only time I used it in the last year was to play Overwatch - a cookie-cutter shooter. I play the occasional game in Wine, but there's no shortage of engaging native Linux games.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#60

Post by miketery »

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…

Woah cool, can you share your scripts? Would love to have something like this.
Post reply on HN