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

241–250 of 500 posts

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

#241

Post by trissylegs »

littlecranky67 wrote: post #174
bayindirh wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're a .NET developer who uses Linux, yes that sounds nice. On the other hand. Consider a prominent member one of the biggest open source projects leaves the project, joins Microsoft, and praises Microsoft and pushes semi-closed Microsoft technologies on every project, claiming Linux is dead without Microsoft, and we need to compromise by allowing these non-free technologies and porting almost everything to it.…

VSCode is free software, and also used a lot outside .NET development (TypeScript). It is extension based, and not all extensions every written for it are free software. And VSCode is not essential in any way for .NET development, and I am saying this as someone who learned C# with MonoDevelop on Linux around 2010. There are commercial IDEs like Rider, and you don't need an IDE to compile code - the build toolchain o…

The .NET debugging tools in VS code are proprietary. If you get the OSS build from your distro and try to debug a .NET program it'll fail with an error. (Telling you it's only available with proprietary VS code from MS) For other languages this might be a minor pain. For C# it kills one of its best features, it's debugging support.

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

#242

Post by trissylegs »

robertlagrant wrote: post #86
kelnos wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup, agreed. Didn't realize how much Canonical was helping with WSL, though it of course makes sense that they're doing so, unfortunately. > De Icasa is not a saint either by pushing Mono on GNOME and Linux Eh, I think interoperability is good, and reverse-engineering Windows frameworks/technology has a long history in the open-source world (WINE & Samba being two prominent examples). I was disappointed when they sol…

> even though I'm sure it made sense at the time I think it definitely made sense. Xamarin was conceived in a world of many mobile platforms, and so it was the only way to develop cross-platform apps. Now there are basically two, and it's a much closer call.

Also stiff competition from React native. A lot more JS Devs around today than c#.

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

#244

Post by bayindirh »

goodpoint wrote: post #240
bayindirh wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. All developers are users of the said tools, applications and libraries, but the reverse is not true. i.e. not all users are developers. So, while I see this is a clarification, I don't think what I've said is blatantly wrong.

> I don't think what I've said is blatantly wrong. Nobody accused you to do so. I wrote "also" in both sentences to add nuance to what you wrote and finesse it.

Sorry, my bad, honestly. I probably read it wrong, then. Didn't intend to sound too harsh, too.

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

#245

Post by scandinavian »

bluehatbrit wrote: post #93
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?

In this case they didn't just plan, build, and release a feature in VS. They got all the way through the building and most of the QA for a feature in the core .net cli and decided to remove it, not for quality reasons, but because they wanted VS to have a feature others didn't. The work had been done and then they rushed through a PR to avoid community comment to remove the code. If python removed a feature so a spec…

I feel like you are talking about dotnet watch thing which this post is not about.

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

#247

Post by Ygg2 »

cm2187 wrote: post #159
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…

Particularly the logic “your code is not open source” = “you are evil”…

Closed source code definitely goes against the right to repair/own/modify.

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

#248

Post by WithinReason »

someotherperson wrote: post #71
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…

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…

Of course the difference is: Does the company believe that "doing good" contributes to their bottom line or not? A company that does will do good, a company that doesn't will not. You could then realize that this is true about humans in general. In fact, you could replace "company" with "human" and your point would still apply, making us assume that everyone is evil and only out for themselves, and always assume bad faith, since the same drives control humans as well.

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

#249

Post by ethbr0 »

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...

It's more complicated than you're making it out to be.

Maximizing shareholder value is a management philosophy that became increasingly prevalent between 1975 and 2000. In both management ("What we should value and pursue") and case law ("What you will be sued and found guilty for not doing").

Why did it become popular? Because there were a huge number of inefficient companies at the time that were continuing business as usual under some guise of "We think this is best." While Japanese companies ate their lunches by working harder, faster, better, and smarter.

Holding management to shareholder value -- and sueing the heck out of them when they didn't focus on it -- was a more objective measurement of effectiveness.

After 2000, it became clear that the metric had become the target, and was now being pursued with a myopicness that was to the detriment of the company.

There are few absolutes in "high performance"

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

#250

Post by bob1029 »

.NET is the most open, non-trivial ecosystem I have ever participated in.

I experienced 2 different problems with .NET (back in 2.x/3.x days), and was able to have interaction with the actual MS developers on their Github issue page without any sort of bullshit overhead process.

Within days, I saw traction on my comments and within months I saw PRs that ultimately resolved the issue I presented. The following year, I was deploying framework code to my customers' instances which incorporated fixes to my concerns.

Perhaps I am unaware of just how much better it is with the other ecosystems, but for me this is enough interaction with my framework vendor.

Are we upset that we have to pay money for the privilege of using other peoples' intellectual property? Or are we asserting that Microsoft is stealing other peoples' IP? I am trying to find the actual crime here.

Post reply on HN