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

291–300 of 500 posts

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

#291

Post by merouan »

pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #237
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…

> Any contribution that M$ makes to open source or open standards is to support their own bottom line Does Microsoft contribute financially to any social programs or other philanthropic projects? Are all those contributions done solely to support their bottom line?

Typically such contributions come from the PR budget.

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

#292

Post by bogwog »

Shadonototra wrote: post #80

yesterday it was the debugger, then the hotreload, now it's the language server people are still blind

Accepting the truth is harder than learning a new language/ecosystem. Some people love .NET/C# so much that they're willing to pay a hefty premium to stick with it (which is perfectly fine)

But some of those people are also coming out and doing mental gymnastics to defend this decision as something other than what is actually is: an opportunistic price hike (and likely, the first of many)

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

#293

Post by Ygg2 »

natrys wrote: post #164
Ygg2 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm willing to bet $100 that this discussion will look the same way in 15 years I'm willing to take it, but only because I think there won't be a Linux in 15 years. And yeah. Android doesn't count. It's essentially an enclave that runs Dalvik programs. Linux basic assumptions about hardware don't hold on mobile. I think Linux is suffering from the Lisp curse. Because they never choosed a DE, there is endless splint…

In a market share sense, Linux doesn't and never existed in the desktop in first place. However it's ubiquitous in servers and that success has nothing to do with a DE. Its universal success in server space also means many more people are acquainted with Linux today than Lisp in its heyday. If you consider the current 2% market share in desktop to be "existing", I will posit that these people aren't going away just b…

I'm not referencing the market share.

I'm referring to Lisp Curse. http://www.winestockwebdesign.com/Essays/Lisp_Curse.html

In summary: Because Lisp was easy to fork, any time two nerds disagreed it was forked. And because they weren't working on same database you got Lisps with patchworks of functionality/bugs that each on their own couldn't compare to more or less monolith language like C/C++ or Java.

Same dynamic in Linux land.

So instead of having 1000 developers on one codebase we have 100 on ten different DE, windowing system, etc.

Rather than having one sound system we have a dozen... It doesn't work on PulseAudio, try OpenSound, no wait OSSBlasterMaster...

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

#294

Post by JamesSwift »

Its so disappointing because its a very exciting time for .net as a framework with all thats happening in .net 6 and 7. But if you mingle at all around the .net community you start to notice that theres a bunch of politics going on behind the scenes and teams are not on good terms with each other (my interpretation is that the Visual Studio team is really rubbing people the wrong way). This could be a time of explosive growth for .net but its just a weird, frustrating experience most of the time.

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

#295

Post by eropple »

Ygg2 wrote: post #247
cm2187 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

Does it? If I sell you a widget and make available to you that widget's code, with strict prohibitions on copying and sharing, that's not open-source--but you can repair and modify it.

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

#296

Post by rglullis »

brmgb wrote: post #264
rglullis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am convinced that 99.999% of the people that claim to be "anti-Capitalist" are in reality anti- Corporativist . It's way too easy for people working at big companies to think "the company might be evil, but not me / my team". The Corporation gives everyone a moral shield that lets them rationalize all the shit that happens, but the money that pays their salary and the stock options they get all come from the same s…

> I am convinced that 99.999% of the people that claim to be "anti-Capitalist" are in reality anti-Corporativist. Aren't they in fine the same thing? If you believe that the logical consequence of a system is the emergence of amourphous amoral entities harming the greater good, aren't you actually fundamentaly against said system? I kind of get the opposite take-away from your line of thoughts: I believe that a lot o…

You can have Capitalism without Corporations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31317641

You can have a market-oriented economy on small scales, and we can have independent professionals competing to see who provides the best services at the lowest prices, and we can use money and capital as the means of production just fine. The problem is when we take a system in one scale and think "bigger is better". This is when we get "amorphous amoral entities harming the greater good".

Mind you, if you think about it this also applies to other socio-political systems. Communism, per se, is not a problem. If the general idea of "communism" was just a bunch of hippies living however they wanted, there wouldn't be so much reason to be against it.

The problem is when you have people going full Trostky and actively work to make it a Global-scale system, effectively turning the State into an "amorphous amoral entity harming the greater good"

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

#297

Post by mattmanser »

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…

Let's knock some of this nonsense on the head shall we?

Directors do not have a legal responsibility to boost their shareprice.

Companies do not have a single goal.

Public companies are not obliged to increase their share price.

Every company is different.

I'd also add that on top of all that, different countries have different corporate law.

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

#298

Post by asojfdowgh »

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?

publicity and traction over competition by using the open-source label, then silently switching parts of the code out with closed source replacements, and for the most part, dropping any development or contribution to the pre-existing components, practically killing them off (in turn, preventing any floss forks of vscode from using said components, unless they make a commitment to maintain the security, API compatibility, etc, of those components)

for example, Sublime never did that, sublime was closed, and is closed, and will be closed.

They arn't trying to gain traction at the cost of lying in their advertising and labeling, they don't exclusively release closed licensed versions of their "open-source" product like MS does

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

#299

Post by oaiey »

meragrin_ wrote: post #252
exyi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I don't think it is to unify. I wouldn't be surprised if it would be another revenue source. People may prefer the interface of VS Code, but prefer the backend tools in VS. Microsoft could end up selling plugins/add-ons/whatever for VS Code.

That ship has sailed. Which programming language in the top 20 is commercial regards revenue from compiler, Debugger and nowadays basic LSP stuff like IntelliSense, code inspection etc.

The only commercial aspect is productivity like IntelliCode, IntelliTrace, GitHub AutoPilot and friends. For that you pay JetBrains, Microsoft, GitLab etc. There they will make money.

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

#300

Post by bluehatbrit »

scandinavian wrote: post #245
bluehatbrit wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're right, I focused on one of the sub-links too much when I was replying to that. My bad, thanks
Post reply on HN