Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#131

Post by nailer » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:12 PM UTC

pksadiq wrote: post #98

nailer wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where in The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html does it require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device?

> Where in The Free Software Definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html does it require the user to be able to run the modified versions on the same device? Quoting from the above link: Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a practice known a…

Yes, you can have non-free binaries, but from that same quote: the source code to build them is still considered free.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#132

Post by Sir_Cmpwn » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:14 PM UTC

vog wrote: post #111

Sir_Cmpwn wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm aware that this behaviour is somewhat "popular" on HN, to make their comment kind-of "stand above all other's", but I'm not sure if that is actually a good idea. The authors of those comments almost certainly won't notice your reply if it is in a new thread. And the others (like myself) are confused as soon as your fuzzy reference becomes more and more ambiguous.

I mean, that's not really the purpose of my comment. The purpose is more that I don't want to copy+paste my comment on the 30 different negative threads, nor do I think I should.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#133

Post by X86BSD » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:16 PM UTC

calcifer wrote: post #123

X86BSD wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

I do not see the difference since Linux is not synonymous with Open Source but IS synonymous with the GPL.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#134

Post by jordigh » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:18 PM UTC

cjsuk wrote: post #124

jordigh wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> I am helping them fix their product.

Then stop. You don't have to make anything better for them. Fix it for yourself. If you're not having a good time trying to help others, then stop doing it. You have no obligation and neither do they (except, of course, if there were explicit contracts involved).

I have some Xchat patches. I tried getting them into Hexchat, but they didn't want them. Well, looks like I'm now permanently running a personal Xchat fork.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#135

Post by digi_owl » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:20 PM UTC

danielbarla wrote: post #70

SEJeff wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 F…

Yepp, it's a trade off between the rights of the developer and the rights of the consumer / user, you fundamentally can't have both (simplification). RMS goes all on the latter side, essentially.

I am not sure RMS makes such a distinction. To him all users are potential developers (or programmers more likely).

Frankly he is more concerned with who actually control the computing hardware and software being in use on a daily basis.

Keep in mind that one of the issues that got him on his quest was the loss of the ability to modify a printer driver to message those with a print job in the queue that the printer was out of paper.

It may seem frivolous, but it made life that much nicer at MIT. Because once the printer down the hall was out, any number of people may converge on it to fix it once they got the message. Without it, any number of print jobs may be sitting in wait because nobody had checked if there were still paper ready before adding another job to the queue.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#136

Post by digi_owl » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

Karunamon wrote: post #113

alexvoda wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like with most of RMSs terminology, I disagree with the dichotomy of developer vs user. Freedom 1 and 3 apply specifically to users who are or will become developers. I believe what we actually want to talk about is publisher vs user/consumer instead of developer vs user. The FSF people really like their ambiguous terminology, unfortunately.

It's an important distinction IMO. Roughly 99% of the GPL is irrelevant to the end user if they don't have all of the knowledge, desire, and time to crack open the code and modify it.

Even if they themselves do not, they have the possibility of finding someone that does.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#137

Post by digi_owl » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:22 PM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #76

danielbarla wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yepp, it's a trade off between the rights of the developer and the rights of the consumer / user, you fundamentally can't have both (simplification). RMS goes all on the latter side, essentially.

Like with most of RMSs terminology, I disagree with the dichotomy of developer vs user. Freedom 1 and 3 apply specifically to users who are or will become developers. I believe what we actually want to talk about is publisher vs user/consumer instead of developer vs user. The FSF people really like their ambiguous terminology, unfortunately.

I an honestly not sure RMS would make such a distinction.

It seems more like one that has grown in into being in more recent years, particularly with the rise of mobile and web.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#138

Post by Karunamon » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:25 PM UTC

digi_owl wrote: post #136

Karunamon wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an important distinction IMO. Roughly 99% of the GPL is irrelevant to the end user if they don't have all of the knowledge, desire, and time to crack open the code and modify it.

Even if they themselves do not, they have the possibility of finding someone that does.

And that's the remaining 1% :)

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#139

Post by ovao » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:44 PM UTC

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 fair, the messaging about open source/free software/GPL/Linux being cancerous was Steve Ballmer's. Steve Ballmer is no longer member of Microsoft's board of directors and his past comments don't really speak to Microsoft's current leadership.

With respect to additional OSI funding, I can't really hypothesize a bad outcome.

Re: Microsoft Becomes Sponsor of Open Source Initiative

#140

Post by arca_vorago » Wed, Sep 27, 2017, 4:45 PM UTC

AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote: post #86

arca_vorago wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You had me until the Linux part. I've been using GNU+Linux and BSD as an OS since the late 90s. I've supported windows and osx as a sysadmins as well. Windows is not the least worst choice, and gnu/Linux has made huge strides in the past few years towards just works. That said though,one of my issues is this concept that everyone should be able to use a computer without learning how. Comp uters are inherently technic…

> Linux has made huge strides in the past few years towards just works This is precisely my point. "Just works" is great, until something doesn't "just work", then you have to untangle a pile of complex and opaque interactions, often with poor and outdated documentation, to make something work. In the past, Windows at least had relatively straight-forward mechanisms of operation that were all well documented and, imp…

>then you have to untangle a pile of complex and opaque interactions, often with poor and outdated documentation, to make something work.

As if windows doesn't do this but worse? At least on linux I can see the source code of whatever is breaking and fix it. MS's official documentation is crap compared to gnu/linux documentation, not to mention linux has a very helpful community on places like irc. Have you ever taken a visit over to MS's "help" website? Worst outsourced-scripted-answerfest I've ever seen. I've been supporting Windows for many years as a senior sysadmin, years of licensing issues and bugs and ms shadyness, and windows 10 was the straw that broke the camels back for me. I switched to gnu+linux only and haven't looked back.

All I can say is this. If you put off linux a few years ago, you owe it to yourself to at least spin up a new just works distro like manjaro at least in a vm. I think you might be surprised just how far gnu+linux has come, and personally, I think that as vulkan solidifies and suddenly we have more AAA gaming titles on Linux, the cards show Linux poised to make a surge in the desktop market. Also, as much as I have vocally had issues with systemd, it has allowed many of the past init bugs to be done away with so the focus in dev has turned much more to the userspace and it's showing.

GNU+Linux is the computing choice of the future imho, and it's not dying or dead, it's thriving. It already runs most of our key infrastructure, supercomputers, etc. It just needs some tweaks for lay-user-compatability.

This is why MS is pushing the OSS angle so much. They recognize that gnu+linux and foss (as opposed to oss) in general is a real and credible threat!

It's also worth remember the nut-to-butt relationship MS has with NSA.