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

181–190 of 500 posts

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

#181

Post by bayindirh »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #141
bayindirh wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll just say that while Linux desktop is not perfect, I see much more people who're "assembling" their own environments to work at speeds I can't ever imagine. I'm part of a community who does amazing things with all these fragmented parts and assemble unimaginable things while staying productive and inventing new ways of work. The overall maturity of these small parts have not reversed the tide, but actually change…

> people who're "assembling" their own environments to work at speeds I can't ever imagine. People who assemble cars from scratch can accomplish things from that are amazing too, but only 0 1% of the population will ever want to do that.

The thing is, some of these people are professional developers, and they inspire their peers and younger generations. There's an active momentum around that and it's definitely larger than 15 years ago.

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

#182

Post by headmelted »

deadbunny wrote: post #176
headmelted wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're spending up the wazoo on Xbox 2002 - Rare - $375 million 2005 - Lionhead - ??? 2014 - Mojang - $4 billion 2014 - Gears of War - ??? 2018 - Compulsion - ??? 2018 - inXile - ??? 2018 - Obsidian - ??? 2018 - Ninja Theory - ??? 2018 - Playground - ??? 2018 - Undead Labs - ??? Sept 2020 - Zenimax / Bethesda - $7.5 billion January 2022 - Activision Blizzard - $69 billion This is just acquisitions, so it isn't exh…

They are building Xbox as a brand/service not as a product these days. Sure they ship consoles but you can subscribe to Xbox Gamepass and and use it on both Windows and Xbox (and I think they also have game streaming? I could be wrong).

Exactly.

.. and they’re spending up the wazoo to do it!

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

#183

Post by someotherperson »

tzs wrote: post #175
someotherperson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird. Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies wil…

That companies (or their officers or directors) have a legal obligation to boost share price (or maximize profits or similar) is one of the most widely believed myths about companies. Google for something like "obligation to maximize shareholder value" if you want to find numerous articles debunking the myth. Here's a good one [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

That comes across as a straw-man. The myth from the linked article is that they should maximize share price "even if this means skirting ethical rules, damaging the environment or harming employees." Agreed, this is a myth.

But nobody said they need to break the law, or hurt employees. Given the constraints of the law, they have a single mission of maximizing the share price. Which is exactly what Microsoft and other companies do every day. If the environment gets in the way of your business (i.e if you are an oil company) then you will only care about the environment to the extent that you are legally obligated to.

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

#184

Post by notriskfree »

makeitdouble wrote: post #132
someotherperson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird. Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies wil…

> Public companies are inherently evil by default The extremism of this positon makes it hard to swallow the message. You might as well be right, but accepting it at face value would be a huge cognitive dissonance for many people working in public companies. Basically, the “are we the baddies ?” answer would be “yes” for a huge chunk of us, and I don’t think that’s how we see it personally. Companies have to make mon…

The other problem with "Public companies are inherently evil by default" is that saying that "the whole system is wrong", is just providing leaders with an excuse. Public Companies can serve their customers, shareholders, and look after their employees while still being ethical, there is always a choice, and there are many positive benefits to behaving ethically, for one, it means you are a trustworthy company to deal with.

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

#185

Post by visose »

gigel82 wrote: post #99
konsuko wrote: post #33

I can definitely say that for me, this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. I am turning my back on the .NET ecosystem, after having written C# for 7 years. The `dotnet watch` debacle from last year, still having key parts like the debugger closed-source and now again with this: It's just too much. I do not want to build anything of value on top of such a shady platform that's completely controlled by one Megac…

.NET was open sourced in 2016, that's 6 years ago. It looks like you were 1+ years fully within the ecosystem before any part of it was OSS, and now you're demanding new features they write get open sourced as well? Reminds of that time they introduced WiFi on planes; it was a brand new thing, and they let folks on the flight use it for free - but of course being a new tech it broke down after about an hour. There wa…

I agree with this sentiment, but you forgot to credit Louis CK for the anecdote you borrowed.

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

#186

Post by headmelted »

square_usual wrote: post #148
p1necone wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They're spending up the wazoo on Xbox, still, to battle PlayStation. Microsofts decision to release all of their new XBox games on PC was kinda bizarre to me. It basically guarantees the XBox as a gaming console is going to lose market share to the PlayStation and eventually die out because the core gaming market is going to pick PC + PS5 + Switch (or some subset of those) as the sensible combo to be able to play a…

Then why is Sony heavily emphasizing PC too?

That’s the more bizarre decision to me.

I get that some suits have decided PC isn’t a threat to Playstation’s business model, but they’re just wrong.

A gaming PC will play PC/Xbox/Playstation/Switch exclusives now. That really is compelling for someone in the market.

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

#187

Post by Beltiras »

tzs wrote: post #175
someotherperson wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird. Any contribution that M$ (remember when people would sub the S for a dollar sign?) makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line and we shouldn't expect anything else. The directors have a legal responsibility to the company and to boost the share price, not for the betterment of humanity. To this effect, companies wil…

That companies (or their officers or directors) have a legal obligation to boost share price (or maximize profits or similar) is one of the most widely believed myths about companies. Google for something like "obligation to maximize shareholder value" if you want to find numerous articles debunking the myth. Here's a good one [1]. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co...

Even if they don't have a legal obligation to do so, they sure seem to pick that heuristic to the exclusion of other pursuits quite often.

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

#188

Post by rglullis »

actionfromafar wrote: post #169
makeitdouble wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Public companies are inherently evil by default The extremism of this positon makes it hard to swallow the message. You might as well be right, but accepting it at face value would be a huge cognitive dissonance for many people working in public companies. Basically, the “are we the baddies ?” answer would be “yes” for a huge chunk of us, and I don’t think that’s how we see it personally. Companies have to make mon…

Funny, I don't see any good from IKEA when you look at the greater picture. More waste, un-accounted for externalities all over the board (labour laws, environment exploitation), extremely well-honed organisation designed to evade taxes through "charities".

You can add their influences in normalizing mass production and mass consumerism, "fast decor", the complete blandness of what they sell and how it contributes to globalization and the destruction of diverse aesthetic values...

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

#189

Post by exyi »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #82

I don't understand the fuzz about it. There are a lot of commercial/closed-source devtools out there (IntelliJ, Rider) for otherwise open languages/platforms that devs are obviously happy to use and pay for. We are not demanding that every Java/Python/PHP etc. tool is open source and free, why is there this double-standard for Microsoft?

When I use Rider I just fully accept that it's not open source. Same with the old Visual Studio.

VSCode on the other hand looks open source, they claim it's open source, the extension is open source, yet the most critical component is not. I would call this the new new Microsoft - we look like we love open source, we give you open source tools, but it's either not open actually (this) / will not work if you compile it yourself (VS Code and .NET debugger) / only works on Windows ("Multi-platform App UI", maybe Mac, I don't know)

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

#190

Post by bayindirh »

Ygg2 wrote: post #139
bayindirh wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm willing to take it, but only because I think there won't be a Linux in 15 years. Let's see. I've added a reminder in my calendar with a link to this comment. > Because they never choosed a DE... But they created a Desktop Standard which allows every DE to behave the same where it matters. This unified a lot of things. So every DE is a shell and workflow with same underlying principles underside. Much like POSIX…

> every DE to behave the same where it matters. Sure. Except the end user won't care. As end user I don't see it implements DS. I see that KDE has bug A and Gnome has bug B. Or KDE has feature C that Gnome doesn't have, and vice versa. All in all as user. No DE fits me because bugs and features are scattered around. E.g. Haiku did it right. You don't get to choose. It's baked into the OS

> I see that KDE has bug A and Gnome has bug B. Or KDE has feature C that Gnome doesn't have, and vice versa. All in all as user. No DE fits me because bugs and features are scattered around.

This is a "grass is greener over the fence" perspective. You can install apps for missing functionality or report bugs for the things you don't like.

Except, Windows and macOS doesn't care about your bug reports, and some of the applications are not implemented on these systems because there's no financial incentive, and open source tools for these platforms are low quality.

On the other hand, this modularity and composability does wonders in the Linux side.

Linux DEs have feature levels. from LXDE to E17/XFCE to GNOME/KDE. People try, change, select and settle. Their most important settings are carried around. BTW, Qt/KDE guys allows amazing interoperability between GTK and Qt, regardless of your primary choice.

So, after some time it's borderline nitpicking IMHO.

Post reply on HN