21–30 of 104 posts
I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.
Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.
I think Carmack going to Facebook is the one that got me. Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
Earlier 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.
> 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?
I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?
AFAIK ~all of the people who work there are on the Microsoft concentration-camp-money payroll.
I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.
I think Carmack going to Facebook is the one that got me. Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
I may be an out of touch old-timer but I still find it kinda sad and weird that Miguel and Nat, both of them heroes of mine in the early 2000s now work for Microsoft.
Microsoft is a much more open company than Apple, just look at the immense output of Microsoft Research over the years.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Carmack going to Facebook is the one that got me. Somehow Rob Pike and Guido at Google didn't, even though they are pretty close to Microsoft-equivalent these days.
id Software going to Bethesda.
> The transition from the old model to the new model was a major concession from Microsoft
The current .NET Foundation is an improvement on what existed before. Is it independent? Not completely, but .NET is more independent than it was. Is it frictionless, transparent, trustworthy? Not completely, but .NET is more than it was.
Of course the current discussions show it is now time for the next steps and move on from the tradeoffs that brought the Foundation into existence. There are many ways to improve and their messaging/communication is the must urgent one. But it's also important to recognize that the Foundation's organizational design flaws are not a "plot", not result of incompetence nor malice; it's progress, slow as one would expect from the complexity of its goals.