Seems like Microsoft really needs Rust. They've completely gutted their prized aggressive prerelease testing, and the quality of the software they expose users to has declined dramatically.
Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
101–110 of 207 posts
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
As part of the BSA, they still lobby for software patents today . The OOXML Office format they used to continue pushing Office lock-in is very recent: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/LibreOffice_OOXML They tried their best to keep the list of their Android patents secret, so that they could not be worked around, and they abused their patent on the FAT filesystem as recently as 2012: https://www.howtogeek.com/1837…
Serious question: are there any major closed-source software companies (so like, not Red Hat or Canonical, etc) who don't lobby for or use software patents?
I consider using patents to extract payment a far lesser evil than lobbying for them. And an even lesser evil if the patent has some merit to it, and is licensed openly (i.e. no confidentiality terms to prevent revealing which parts of Android they claim to have patented).
As for your question - Cloudfront springs to mind - they're pretty loud about going after patent trolls, which implies they might not use patents aggressively. I'm sure there are many others, but a company not using patents to extract payment isn't something you hear about, so it's hard to tell. That said, despite filing for many patents, I haven't heard of Facebook actually using them against others. Which isn't to say they haven't done so (and possibly, like MS, kept the agreement confidential), and of course Facebook is hardly ethical itself.
Another poster says Microsoft joined the Open Invention Network, so perhaps in that area, they've reformed. Though they could still be lobbying for patents, which does much more damage to user freedom.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me” I try to be objective as much as possible, but having witnessed almost all of Microsoft’s behavior through history, we have been fooled 100s if not 1000s of times. How many times do you let the fox back into the hen house? The only thing I think when I read recent “Microsoft is so great” comments is that the person is either too young to have any real knowledge…
All those people who worked at Microsoft in the 90's and 2000's now work for at hundreds of other companies throughout the industry. And a whole bunch of people who weren't even born in those times now work for Microsoft. I don't think your opinion is objective at all. It's based on treating a collective as a single mind.
Obviously ms doesn’t have a candidate must be ruthless two faced bad person interview assessment. I think you are missing a very important ingredient to a company and that is its culture. Company cultures get diluted to the better or to the worse. As in either the company changes the newer employees or the new employees change the company
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
I did read that. So it's not a straight clone, but still, Rust has enough of an uphill battle as it is to reach wide adoption, without having its target market fragmented. So I would've been excited to see Microsoft embracing it instead of building a competitor. Not that I can necessarily judge them for that, but it's still disappointing.
Having rust as the only low level language with ownership concept isn't ideal either.
Not ideal isn't necessarily worse.
It is objectively worse for there to be two such languages, one of which is poorly funded and the other funded by Microsoft than have one such language that is cross platform.
Also the Java oxygen is sucked out of the room by C#. All the OCaml oxygen is sucked out of the room by F#. A world where all the rust oxygen is sucked out of the room by R# and tied to the windows ecosystem is a bad one.
They've tried this shit with a dozen other languages and besides C# being better than Java, (even though the .NET ecosystem sucks) it's always ended terribly. C++/CLR, IronPython, IronRuby, J#, etc.
Having your tech embraced by Microsoft is the kiss of death.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#105What a huge validation of Rust. Here’s to hoping this improves Windows.
Lol, if they wanted to make it better they'd adopt some practices and tools from Linux to get common-sense developers interested instead of looking for MS drones that don't know why they do what they do.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#106Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#107NIH?
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#108I'm curious to see what Microsoft does. The big breakthrough with Rust was ownership, and Microsoft seems to agree on that. Rust has a lot of other baggage that could be dispensed with. Of course, Microsoft has their own baggage.
More precisely Cyclone already had borrow checker over a decade ago. Rust derives much of its memory model from that language.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#109This is great news. Microsoft is adopting/forking Rust. That means Rust will be supported for all eternity.
Just like Windows on ARM is supported for all of eternity! Or google anything, or any one of a million failed and dead projects.
Cool that MS is using something Ruat based. In no way does that opinion lead to a conclusion of ongoing support.
Re: Microsoft is creating a new Rust-based programming language for secure coding
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
The former CEO who retired five years ago?
Yes. That's why people are still super nervous whenever Microsoft dares to embrace something new. Past experience. I'm not saying they're like that today, but that's why some people get all on-edge when Microsoft does things like this.
But he’s not the CEO any longer and he hasn’t been for years. So why is what he did more than a decade ago relevant absent of evidence that he has any direct control of the company today?