Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 104 posts

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#41

Post by rob_c »

simion314 wrote: post #8
mastax wrote: post #5

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.

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.

Yeah, tbh I'd with that Java was more independent then there maybe they're wouldn't have been so much of that mitigation over android...

I think there is still the fear of something like this happening with .net if anyone ships with a modified version or reimplements a piece to meet their own needs, at least from chatting with my developer friends over coffee.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#42

Post by encryptluks2 »

rob_c wrote: post #37
encryptluks2 wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a slave any new privilege is better than having less than before.

Slave to what exactly at this point?

To Microsoft. You're basically becoming a slave by joining the foundation, agreeing to have them own your projects.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#43

Post by amyjess »

chrisseaton wrote: post #40
tpmx wrote: post #20

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.

Haven't Miguel and Nat both based much of their careers around supporting Microsoft tech? They started Ximian - a support company for an implementation of Microsoft's .NET.

Slight correction: Ximian started out as a support company for GNOME. They didn't pivot to .NET until later.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#44

Post by SgtBastard »

sneak wrote: post #24
COGlory wrote: post #4

I fundamentally do not understand why the .NET foundation exists, and what members gain from joining it. Would someone mind explaining that?

It's a front for Microsoft proprietary software money to participate in open source communities and ecosystems in an effort to gain prominence and control in those cultures, same as their purchase of GitHub and NPM. AFAIK ~all of the people who work there are on the Microsoft concentration-camp-money payroll.

Miguel worked on open-source for decades before joining Microsoft. The snide Godwin comment at the end doesn’t belong on HN.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#45

Post by kristoff_it »

One thing that I've heard being said multiple times towards Redis Labs and other companies with an Open Source product, is (paraphrasing) "Companies make their products Open Source only because it helps massively with adoption, but then they don't want to accept the other implications that come from Open Source licenses".

This was often said in an accusatory tone by certain cloud vendors, with the implication that companies like RL wanted to have their cake and eat it too because they were trying to push for licenses that would prevent clouds from selling their OSS product as a service.

I leave it to others to decide how much that accusation was justified or not, but I do find it terribly ironic that now Microsoft is essentially faking a proper Open Source governance model for what could be considered the same end: make the product more popular through Open Source.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#46

Post by [deleted] »

chrisseaton wrote: post #40
tpmx wrote: post #20

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.

Haven't Miguel and Nat both based much of their careers around supporting Microsoft tech? They started Ximian - a support company for an implementation of Microsoft's .NET.

[deleted]

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#47

Post by nuerow »

FooBarWidget wrote: post #23
nuerow wrote: post #9

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. What's the point of putting up a foundation if it ends up being nothing more than a facade of a single corporation?

Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".

> * Unless the vast majority of seats belong to Microsoft, you can't say that it's "simply a fascade".*

This assertion is rejected by ReedCoopsey's statement regarding the fact that Microsoft reserves its right to appoint and control a foundation's director that happens to also have the privilege of single-handedly dictating and overriding any change.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#48

Post by tpmx »

amyjess wrote: post #36
tpmx wrote: post #20

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.

Miguel and Nat have, ever since the early '00s, been enthusiastic supporters of Microsoft technology and have spent this century doing little other than enabling Microsoft tech to play well with open source. The takeaways from this are: 1. This is likely a lifelong dream for them. I'm not comfortable with shitting on people's lifelong dreams. 2. I definitely saw it coming. As soon as I saw Microsoft acquired Xamarin…

> Miguel and Nat have, ever since the early '00s, been enthusiastic supporters of Microsoft technology and have spent this century doing little other than enabling Microsoft tech to play well with open source.

This seems like obvious Microsoft PR speech to me.

Re: Detailed thoughts on the State of the .NET Foundation

#50

Post by corpMaverick »

tpmx wrote: post #20

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 looked up to Miguel in the 1990s. But him and his father ended up supporting the current president of Mexico. Who is a demagogue with kleptomaniac tendencies.
Post reply on HN