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

71–80 of 104 posts

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

#71

Post by nathanaldensr »

mastax wrote: post #5
pfortuny wrote: post #3

Earlier 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.

But the .NET Foundation as far as I understand isn't about "the evolution of .NET," it's about providing assistance to unpaid open source contributors of popular libraries and such (which I learned today does not include indemnification).

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

#73

Post by chuckee »

> Main site, first element lists "Independent."

> One Director always appointed and controlled by Microsoft

> Microsoft appointed Director can effectively override "any vote to materially change the Foundation’s Membership Policy, Director Election Policy, Project Governance Policy, or any Intellectual Property-related agreements or policies" [..]

> Any change to the Bylaws which attempts to change this requires not only a 2/3 vote of the Directors, but also agreement from Microsoft separate from the Microsoft appointed director.

Ha!

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

#74

Post by achandlerwhite »

encryptluks2 wrote: post #42
rob_c wrote: post #37

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.

No you don’t. They have a contribution model where you keep the copyright. I recently had a project accepted under those terms.

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

#75

Post by dragonwriter »

booleandilemma wrote: post #68

So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java? Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java (or any other technology with corporate backing)?

> So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java

Who said it was?

> Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft?

I don't think so, and Oracle gets pounded on for everything, including what they do with Java, too.

Google may be better with Go, or maybe people are cutting them undeserved slack. Not really relevant to the discussion of Microsoft and .NET, though, just whataboutism as a distraction.

> Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java

“open source” is not the issue; community process is the issue. That .NET is available under an open source licensing model is not a subject of any dispute.

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

#76

Post by achandlerwhite »

kevingadd wrote: post #6
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?

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

Not necessarily true. The CLA assigns copyright as outlined in the project agreement with the foundation, which does not have to use the copyright assignment model. My project used the contribution model wherein my contributors and I retain copyright.

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

#78

Post by booleandilemma »

dragonwriter wrote: post #75
booleandilemma wrote: post #68

So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java? Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? Is .NET any less open source than Go or Java (or any other technology with corporate backing)?

> So how is what Microsoft is doing with .NET any different than what Google is doing with Go and Oracle with Java Who said it was? > Is this people unfairly hating on Microsoft for being Microsoft? I don't think so, and Oracle gets pounded on for everything, including what they do with Java, too. Google may be better with Go, or maybe people are cutting them undeserved slack. Not really relevant to the discussion of…

Hey, thanks for your answers. I wasn’t trying to engage in whataboutism, I was trying to find out, as a developer who wants to learn a truly community-driven language/technology without any corporate overlords, what my options are. I’ve looked into Go, but a part of me feels like I’m trading one corporation for another.

The languages I think of as strongly community-driven: python, ruby, and javascript, are all dynamically typed, and I’m trying to stay with statically typed languages.

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

#79

Post by keithnz »

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?

I think one of the big things is that Microsoft associates its name with the projects. It seemed to me at the time it was a nod towards enterprises to encourage them to use open source libraries that were mature and trustworthy and that it was unlikely Microsoft themselves would build something in the same space.

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

#80

Post by chrisseaton »

amyjess wrote: post #43
chrisseaton wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think that corrects anything I said?
Post reply on HN