Microsoft Open Source
opensource.microsoft.com
Microsoft Open Source
1–10 of 36 posts
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#2Any word on when we can host our own Windows Package Manager repositories?
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#3I don't know about you youngsters, but I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a tag on a Microsoft-branded website.
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#4I don't know about you youngsters, but I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a tag on a Microsoft-branded website.
Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#5I don't know about you youngsters, but I'm in my thirties and it's amazing to watch Microsoft evolve since the 90s. As a teenager I would never have imagined the words 'Open Source' would ever be in a tag on a Microsoft-branded website.
Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
It's not the prettiest word, but just saying he called it cancer leaves out important context. He wasn't trying to bash Linux itself so much as (his interpretation of) its GPL license. If its license had been different (say, MIT or BSD) I don't think he would've described it like that.
https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
It's not the prettiest word, but just saying he called it cancer leaves out important context. He wasn't trying to bash Linux itself so much as (his interpretation of) its GPL license. If its license had been different (say, MIT or BSD) I don't think he would've described it like that. https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
Oh absolutely he was more targeting FOSS software in general than Linux specifically.
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#7Think you're old? I'm in my 50s and the only thing that will make me trust microshit is senility.
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#8I don't think the list of projects is complete.[1] I specifically know Microsoft's open source initiatives through Microsoft R Open[2], which is not listed on that page.
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless perhaps when compared to some kind of disease. Looks like even Ballmer himself did a 180 on the whole "Linux is a cancer" thing (thinks he was still "right" at the time becaus ethe stance made them money): https://www.reuters.com/article/us-microsoft-ballmer-linux-i...
It's not the prettiest word, but just saying he called it cancer leaves out important context. He wasn't trying to bash Linux itself so much as (his interpretation of) its GPL license. If its license had been different (say, MIT or BSD) I don't think he would've described it like that. https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca...
True, but on the other hand, did Microsoft any MIT/BSD Software at that time?
I think it was especially against the GPL, but against a complete different Business model too.
Re: Microsoft Open Source
#10Why is Microsoft interested in open source code? What's the plan?