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

Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

isdotnetopen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 500 posts

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#51

Post by formerly_proven »

EdwardDiego wrote: post #43
chenzhekl wrote: post #15

This is exactly the same as what MS did for the Python extension when the open-source LSP was replaced by the proprietary Pylance. I get the feeling that MS becomes more and more likes Google. For example, on Android, the core experience is provided by GMS while the AOSP is provided as an open-source core. In terms of VSCode, the core editor is free and open-source, but some key experience is baked by proprietary com…

Why didn't MS just contribute to the existing one, instead of writing its own from scratch?

Imperialism, basically.

Contributing to open source means you don't wholly own the project you contributed to, and that constrains what you can do with it.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#52

Post by Ygg2 »

WalterGR wrote: post #2

Is Microsoft un-open-sourcing or un-free-softwaring existing code?

Not yet. Remember, lobotomized frogs prefer slow cooking.

Anyway. MSFT is adding closed source version of Omnislash in parallel to the open source one, and offering a choice which to pick.

Give it a few years. They will sunset the OSS, because of lack of interest. Maybe they will even slap on a price.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#53

Post by bayesian_horse »

jayd16 wrote: post #46
exyi wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could however reasonably expect that core tools like debugger and LSP will be open too.

Maybe? These are just implementations, right? Others will still be able to build tools? JetBrains isn't pushed out by this, is it? Java flight recorder, for example, wasn't always open source. While it's not ideal, I'm not sure the idea of closed source tools in an open language is all that unheard of.

Key tools of the platform not being open means the platform is either not open or not useable, take your pick.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#54

Post by xnorswap »

tempodox wrote: post #38

The actual announcement is here: https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276 It's not quite as dramatic as the OP is making it out to be.

These things almost never are, and the purists risk a purist death spiral.

It reminds me of the closed source drivers debate.

Someone has a proprietary component they want to incorporate into an open source system.

The purists demand they open source that proprietary software if they want it integrated into the open source.

The developer wants a compromise, but the purists won't allow it, so the developer is left to pick up their ball and go home.

And it rarely ends with the developer open sourcing their proprietary system; they often just shrug and leave, which leaves the open source system behind on tech compared to closed source and then proprietary software truly eats the world.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#55

Post by oaiey »

tempodox wrote: post #38

The actual announcement is here: https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276 It's not quite as dramatic as the OP is making it out to be.

The web page is FUD, but the GitHub issue is describing yet another top level management decision which is totally not helpful source code wise and reputation wise.

Creating a bridging host component for tools with multiple intellisense or debugging providers is okay, but the host must be open source to control what is happening.

This is a strategic move to unify VS and VS Code ... And the open source debacle is the thing in between.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#56

Post by bayindirh »

xnorswap wrote: post #54
tempodox wrote: post #38

The actual announcement is here: https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276 It's not quite as dramatic as the OP is making it out to be.

These things almost never are, and the purists risk a purist death spiral. It reminds me of the closed source drivers debate. Someone has a proprietary component they want to incorporate into an open source system. The purists demand they open source that proprietary software if they want it integrated into the open source. The developer wants a compromise, but the purists won't allow it, so the developer is left to…

> The purists demand they open source that proprietary software if they want it integrated into the open source.

...and as a result we got GPLv2, GPLv3, open Intel, AMD and Broadcom drivers. Lastly Paragon donated NTFS source code to kernel tree (...and probably many smaller examples I've forgot).

> The developer wants a compromise, but the purists won't allow it, so the developer is left to pick up their ball and go home.

Because purists don't care about the developer, they care about the user. MIT/permissive licenses are for developer freedom, but xGPL and other strong copyleft licenses are for users' freedom.

As a developer, I contribute to projects licensed permissively, but I license all my code with GPL, because I care about the user who's gonna use and explore it, and I don't want my handful of users to be locked out of developments.

> And it rarely ends with the developer open sourcing their proprietary system; they often just shrug and leave...

Again we have Intel, AMD/ATI, Broadcom, Logitech, Paragon software and others.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#57

Post by mikevm »

foepys wrote: post #35
DeathArrow wrote: post #14

.NET is open. You can find its source on Github. The .NET platform being open doesn't mean everything targeting the .NET platform is open, too.

A problem of the .NET ecosystem is that there is no open source debugger for C#. The Microsoft-provided debugger has strict license terms that only allow it to be used in Visual Studio and Visual Studio Code. JetBrains needed to write their own debugger for their cross-platform IDE Rider. Luckily they already knew a lot about .NET to do this and it turned out very well but it's still not the official debugger and als…

Why do you care about the debugger not being open source?

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#58

Post by exyi »

oaiey wrote: post #55
tempodox wrote: post #38

The actual announcement is here: https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276 It's not quite as dramatic as the OP is making it out to be.

The web page is FUD, but the GitHub issue is describing yet another top level management decision which is totally not helpful source code wise and reputation wise. Creating a bridging host component for tools with multiple intellisense or debugging providers is okay, but the host must be open source to control what is happening. This is a strategic move to unify VS and VS Code ... And the open source debacle is the…

If they want to unify and not just have more control over the ecosystem, why not unify them over OmniSharp or other open LSP?

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#59

Post by bayindirh »

kelnos wrote: post #37

This sort of thing has been MS's playbook since I was a kid, or earlier. It surprises me that people are still surprised when things like this happen. I especially think someone with Miguel de Icaza's experience should know better[0]. It's interesting to see the generational difference here. Many of my somewhat-younger (even only by 7-10 years) programmer/techie friends just don't remember the Microsoft of the 80s an…

Yes, a lot of younger developers and "tech citizens" think MS is a saint now. They need to love Open Source / Linux because their platform has lost to the openness, composability and lightness of Linux.

They lost the server space, but they're retrying to seize desktop from Linux with WSL and invading the developer tools space and trying to isolate Desktop Linux as an "irrelevant layer which runs MS software and technologies, which is not visible and accessible as the laymen", and Linux server as a layer "which you don't need to think about" (i.e. make Linux irrelevant as a whole OS for developers at scale).

Canonical is helping them with this endeavor, because Ubuntu desktop doesn't make money. If they can piggyback the userspace to Windows and earn money from servers, they're kosher.

It's really ugly. However, De Icasa is not a saint either by pushing Mono on GNOME and Linux and allowing some borders to dissolve to allow Microsoft in, regardless of it's intended or not.

Re: Despite best efforts .NET is still not an open platform

#60

Post by okamiueru »

ozim wrote: post #29
bmitc wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does Microsoft get labeled like this while Apple, one of the most brutally closed off companies, is loved by developers? Microsoft is very responsive on GitHub issues I have filed, and I have benefited a lot from their open source offerings, namely VS Code and F#.

While Swift might be open source - to effectively do something with it you still need to buy a Macbook or even iPhone, which as we know are expensive. To release any application in Apple ecosystem you have to pay for developer account each year. You might play around with stuff - but I don't believe anyone would be developing on their platform just for fun. Microsoft gives stuff away for free - loads of stuff - there…

If only apple products were just expensive. For certain kinds of people, dev-tools/environment and OS are exceedingly frustrating to work with. I don't get why developers put up with it, well, other than the obvious market access.
Post reply on HN