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

101–110 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#101

Post by AnIdiotOnTheNet »

wjoe wrote: post #58
kakarot wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sm…

But if you're going to spend a bunch of money on a gaming rig, because you're that kind of gamer as opposed to someone who just casually sometimes plays some games when they work, then it seems incredibly silly to jump through the hoops of wine and VMs with GPU passthrough and still not be able to play everything.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#102

Post by KGIII »

voltooid wrote: post #90
KGIII wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

To your point about using Linux, unfortunately working with specific tools that only run on Windows, I don't have that option. Windows is forced on me and I don't think that is by accident. Again this leads me to seriously question that they indeed could have turned "good" as the parent comment asks.

Yeah, that was why I mentioned that it may not be a viable option for them.

I'm not sure the answer is in one license over another, nor in one OS over another. I'm not sure it is, realistically, solved by any one company being 'good' or 'evil.'

I think the most realistic hope for the future is open standards being used and people opting to support them. If we get rid of proprietary standards, we can more easily have alternative software to do the same work.

As far as Microsoft goes, I do not really expect them to be good or evil. I expect them to do things that increase their profitability. I recognize that their goals don't always align with my best interests, so I generally avoid them.

At the same time, I'm grateful that they exist as an option. I do use a Windows phone, but that's because it suits my needs better than the alternatives. So, I don't dislike Microsoft, I just avoid them most of the time.

I don't think they are as bad as they used to be. They seem to have come to grips with open source and have made some steps in the right direction. VSCode is pretty nice to work with and they have a Shared Source Initiative program that many don't know about, which is another example.

Anyhow, I think using open standards and enforcing it by demanding support in the products we buy is probably our best chance at changing the industry. Our applications output something. There's no realistic reason, that I can think of, for that something to not conform to open standards. Then, we can select vendors of our choice, licenses of our choice, or create our own, by ourselves or through paying someone.

I will note that it is understandable but sad that more companies aren't willing to write their own software. I see that as related to the problem. They'd prefer to use COTS software. Yeah, it's less expensive and does sometimes make sense, but if they wrote it themselves they could more easily port it to various operating systems and architecture. Ideally, those OSes and architecture would conform to open standards and make it even easier as time progresses.

I'm not sure if we will reach that point, but it'd be nicer - I think.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#103

Post by bad_user »

pksadiq wrote: post #79
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…

> The difference is merely a philosophical one NO. They can be very different practically. For example, your Android phone/router contains open source software pieces (and very likely have GPLv2 licensed code). You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. So yes, they are open source, but not free software. Open source means the code is open, and you can do anything with the code (licensi…

> Free software extends that further to have freedom to run modified code on the same device[0]

That is not true. You're talking of GPL version 3, but that does not extend to all Free Software licenses and is not included in the Free Software definition.

For example GPLv2 does NOT require devices to allow you to run modified code, having no anti-tivoization clause. Are you saying that GPLv2, which was created by the FSF and is used by such prominent projects as the Linux kernel, is not Free Software?

Stop speaking nonsense.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#104

Post by vog »

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #71

What signs of change are you expecting? Microsoft is a huge organization and change comes slowly to different products. Here's the thing - if we see Microsoft making tangible changes to their behavior, and we reward that with more derision and distrust, then we aren't exactly incentivizing them - or anyone wathcing - to do more. I personally applaud Microsoft on their dramatically increased involvement in open source…

I'm confused, the article doesn't say anything negative about Microsoft. Did you intend to reply to some specific comment?

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#105

Post by Sir_Cmpwn »

vog wrote: post #104
Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #71

What signs of change are you expecting? Microsoft is a huge organization and change comes slowly to different products. Here's the thing - if we see Microsoft making tangible changes to their behavior, and we reward that with more derision and distrust, then we aren't exactly incentivizing them - or anyone wathcing - to do more. I personally applaud Microsoft on their dramatically increased involvement in open source…

I'm confused, the article doesn't say anything negative about Microsoft. Did you intend to reply to some specific comment?

I'm replying to the general tone of the HN discussion, which is (or was at the time of comment) largely negative in most of the threads.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#106

Post by bad_user »

SEJeff wrote: post #83
bad_user wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's nothing in the Free Software definition that requires copy-left licensing and RMS, along with the other FSF members have validated most OSI approved licenses as being Free Software, including BSD, MIT, MPL and Apache 2.0. RMS has said a lot over the years, including that the dual licensing business model (e.g. GPL + proprietary) is a valid business model (i.e. whatever it takes to keep development of the GPL…

He's also said that proprietary software should be illegal due to it stripping freedoms away from users.

He also said that he downloads websites by sending an order by email [1].

That's still irrelevant to the discussion here, which is about what Free Software is and how it compares with Open Source.

[1] https://stallman.org/stallman-computing.html

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#107

Post by pksadiq »

bad_user wrote: post #103
pksadiq wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The difference is merely a philosophical one NO. They can be very different practically. For example, your Android phone/router contains open source software pieces (and very likely have GPLv2 licensed code). You get the source code of those, but you may not be able to change them. So yes, they are open source, but not free software. Open source means the code is open, and you can do anything with the code (licensi…

> Free software extends that further to have freedom to run modified code on the same device[0] That is not true. You're talking of GPL version 3, but that does not extend to all Free Software licenses and is not included in the Free Software definition. For example GPLv2 does NOT require devices to allow you to run modified code, having no anti-tivoization clause. Are you saying that GPLv2, which was created by the…

> Are you saying that GPLv2, which was created by the FSF and is used by such prominent projects as the Linux kernel, is not Free Software?

No. I have quoted that in a comment below. That is, a software can be both open source and free software or open source only based on where the code is run. GNU GPLv3 simply enforces this freedom irrespective of where the code is run. That doesn't mean some other license is non-free.

> Stop speaking nonsense.

We learn from mistakes. And from the mistakes we made, we learn and improve. GNU GPLv2 wasn't a mistake. It was a really good License (still is). But time proved its weakness. And FSF released GPL v3 License that addressed many issues that weren't addressed by GPL v2.

FSF now recommends GNU [LA]GPLv3 for most of the software pieces. So yeah, a binary of a code written in GNU GPLv2 may become non-free (but still open source), but GNU GPLv3 code and binary will always be free software (until time proves otherwise).

Edit: clarify that the binary made with GNU GPLv2 code (not to be confused with the source code itself) may be non-free.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#108

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#109

Post by msla »

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 remember when IBM was running ads on TV for Linux, and I don't remember them getting the kind of push-back Microsoft is.

And IBM used to be seriously rapacious.

More to the point:

> Have they really turned "good"?

"Good" and "bad" presume human morality, which groups don't have. Groups view the world as "good for the group" or "bad for the group", or "in line with policy" or "contrary to policy", or on some other axis which is not entirely parallel to the whole "good"/"bad" thing individuals mostly follow.

Point being, Microsoft will do what it always does: Attempt to improve its next quarterly balance sheet. Same as IBM. We have to rely on the licenses to make sure it can't take over any projects. Same as IBM.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#110

Post by fdchn2016 »

czechdeveloper wrote: post #41
cjsuk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

Rust or Erlang/Elixir
Post reply on HN