51–60 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So they are all one-fifth special then.
One veto is enough to kill a resolution, so it’s not quite the same as one-fifth
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you feel better if they worked for Apple? Microsoft is a much more open company than Apple, just look at the immense output of Microsoft Research over the years.
Since you specifically ask: I would probably respect them more if they had joined Apple. I think it's obvious that the bar is noticably higher there. Of course, this is all based on whether they actually thought about it strategically before deciding to go with C#. Perhaps they were thinking they'd get larger roles at Microsoft, perhaps they didn't think about it all and Microsoft was the most direct option due the t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you feel better if they worked for Apple? Microsoft is a much more open company than Apple, just look at the immense output of Microsoft Research over the years.
Since you specifically ask: I would probably respect them more if they had joined Apple. I think it's obvious that the bar is noticably higher there. Of course, this is all based on whether they actually thought about it strategically before deciding to go with C#. Perhaps they were thinking they'd get larger roles at Microsoft, perhaps they didn't think about it all and Microsoft was the most direct option due the t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Wouldn't then Java be already EEE by MS with their Visual J++ /J# ? You would have fragmentation in Java like you have with JavaScript APIs that can be non standard , or work differently in different browsers.
From my memory in the end Google had to pay because they really copy pasted code from the original Java source so they did not respected the license.
The philanthropic energies of the open source community are often in direct conflict with command-and-control corporate structures and even the legal system itself. Pretending like the conflict doesn't exist is how these folks got into this mess. Microsoft has a chance here to generate a huge amount of goodwill not only in the .NET community but also the open source world by choosing to relinquish the "company behind the curtain" aspect apparent in the Bylaws. Articles and blog posts will be written about what happens here. The usual comments of "embrace, extend, extinguish" might themselves be extinguished by Microsoft choosing philanthropy.
Without the philanthropic energies of projects and maintainers, what is the purpose of the Foundation anyway? If .NET as a brand is too important to risk tarnishing by people not on Microsoft's payroll, then abolish the Foundation altogether.