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

121–130 of 165 posts

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#121

Post by Gracana »

jordigh wrote: post #77
cjsuk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They haven't changed a bit. Open Source is merely a marketing tag for them to gain credibility. They are not very good in the open source community; most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response. If you want to fire up Linux in SCVMM for example, the tooling is open source now, but full of bugs and no way to ship it with working tools. Nothing is ever re…

> most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response. I find this a very entitled and weird attitude. I also find the opposite side of this attitude weird, that if you release source suddenly you have new obligations. That opposite side is even worse because it makes people scared of releasing code. Being open source or free software isn't some kind of contra…

If Microsoft dies or abandons maintainership of some code they've released, then the free stuff is great, because we can pick up where they left off. If they just throw it over the wall and you have no hope of getting your fixes into the tree, then you have to maintain a fork of it alongside theirs, merge changes, hope they don't change anything that would cause problems for you, etc.

Source is better than no source, but I can see why people would complain about the way they're handling things right now.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#123

Post by calcifer »

X86BSD wrote: post #96
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…

To be accurate, it was not the cancer of "Open Source", it was the cancer of the GPL.

Ballmer meant the GPL, but he literally [0] said "Linux is a cancer".

[0] https://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_...

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#124

Post by cjsuk »

jordigh wrote: post #77
cjsuk wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They haven't changed a bit. Open Source is merely a marketing tag for them to gain credibility. They are not very good in the open source community; most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response. If you want to fire up Linux in SCVMM for example, the tooling is open source now, but full of bugs and no way to ship it with working tools. Nothing is ever re…

> most of their github OSS releases other than a few high profile ones are unmaintained crap with zero response. I find this a very entitled and weird attitude. I also find the opposite side of this attitude weird, that if you release source suddenly you have new obligations. That opposite side is even worse because it makes people scared of releasing code. Being open source or free software isn't some kind of contra…

I've patched and raised PRs to contribute and they are ignored. I am helping them fix their product.

Nothing.

So I phone up support and PAY to have something fixed.

Nothing.

I try playing nice. I try paying nice. I get nothing. I vote with my feet. Nice or not, that's also an aspect here; choice.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#125

Post by cjsuk »

fdchn2016 wrote: post #110
czechdeveloper wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I really like Erlang. Python seems to pay the bills though ;)

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#126

Post by cjsuk »

bousaid wrote: post #99
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…

I’m sorry but you are incredibly ignorant. There’s a huge focus on customer feedback and “customer obsession” in the company now. And that’s coming from Satya himself. I’m sure what are talking about was true in the past (and it seems like you experienced a lot) but things really have changed - not completely of course, Microsoft is so huge that it’ll take a while. You should just ask some people who work there;)

Why does no one listen to customers then?

Ignored on privacy.

Ignored on bugs.

Ignored on product direction.

That's not feedback or customer obsession, that's lip service. And we pay for the software so we can only vote with our feet and on the way help other people to avoid the same pitfalls.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#127

Post by cjsuk »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #52
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…

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) an…

That's only there because they know no one can fork and commit to maintain a codebase that size. Same reason no one forked Linux. They still have 100% control over it.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#128

Post by digi_owl »

fish_fan wrote: post #115
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…

Err, this is the myth that keeps spreading mysteriously. There are absolutely massive differences between open source and free software. Why would you want to be open but not free unless you wanted to restrict the use of the code you “opened”.

Not mysteriously at all. There is big money to be made by muddying this water.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#129

Post by jrochkind1 »

DonHopkins wrote: post #64
jrochkind1 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

You've got the directions of the arrow of time and cause and effect backwards. "Free Software" and "Copyleft" came WAY first. "Open Software" came later, and was meant to intentionally and personally discredit RMS, "free software" and "Copyleft".

OK, thanks for the correction.

I still think it's important to note that a) they are NOT "the same" (as some people in the thread are saying), and b) "open source" as defined by OSI does NOT "say nothing about the rights it gives users" (as other people in the thread are saying). Neither are true.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#130

Post by flyinghamster »

bousaid wrote: post #99
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…

I’m sorry but you are incredibly ignorant. There’s a huge focus on customer feedback and “customer obsession” in the company now. And that’s coming from Satya himself. I’m sure what are talking about was true in the past (and it seems like you experienced a lot) but things really have changed - not completely of course, Microsoft is so huge that it’ll take a while. You should just ask some people who work there;)

Given the loud backlash against Microsoft's telemetry practices and MS's doubling down, I couldn't agree less.

The ad hominem was uncalled for.

Post reply on HN