Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
1–10 of 104 posts
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#2In the first comment, Miguel explains the setup of the .NET Foundation combining Microsoft and Gnome.
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#3In the first comment, Miguel explains the setup of the .NET Foundation combining Microsoft and Gnome.
From that blob about the foundation:
The Foundation claims independence BUT
“One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”.
Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#4I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#5In the first comment, Miguel explains the setup of the .NET Foundation combining Microsoft and Gnome.
From that blob about the foundation: The Foundation claims independence BUT “One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”. Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#6I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?
Among other things, the CLA for .NET projects assigns copyright to the foundation (a non-profit) instead of Microsoft and also has some similar patent terms to protect people who use those projects
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#7I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?
I'm not 100% either, but IIRC there were different groups working with C# back in the day. Microsoft was the largest, but least open. I think Xamarin was one of the large open groups that was developing for/with C#.
The .NET foundation was supposed to make C# a vendor and platform agnostic language from what I understand, giving Microsoft and others like Xamarin a seat at the table.
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
From that blob about the foundation: The Foundation claims independence BUT “One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”. Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special.
Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
From that blob about the foundation: The Foundation claims independence BUT “One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft”. Thus, to me, they are lying on a basic premise about their NATURE. They become worthless by that (I mean the Foundation, not the individuals, obviously).
I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
> I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless.
What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?
Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think of it like the UN. You may not like the USSR (the creators of the UN certainly didn't) but if you don't give them a seat at the table the whole endeavor is useless. Microsoft is by far the biggest contributor to .NET in general, and the .NET foundation projects in particular. No organization can purport to have a say over the evolution of .NET unless Microsoft has a seat at the table.
The comparison with UN is weird, UN does not have 1 member that is super special. Anyway the issue seems to be that the messaging does not match the reality, MS needs to be transparent and very clear in this, then projects can decide if they agree with the conditions. Java world had from a long time foundations that were independent of Sun/Oracle.
Well they have 5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) with veto power ...