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

301–310 of 500 posts

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

#301

Post by pessimizer »

bob1029 wrote: post #250

.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…

> .NET is the most open

People aren't using "open" in this thread as a euphemism for "nice" or "open to help." There are a lot of nice, friendly, helpful people who work on very proprietary, very closed, intentionally non-interoperable software. It's alright for you to like them personally and to think their products are great, but maybe it's not alright for them to have critical software in Linux distributions, or for people to base their own businesses on that software without being mindful that when you do that they become a defacto partner.

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

#302

Post by oaiey »

nicce wrote: post #127
oaiey wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> host must be open source to control what is happening. Open source does not mean that there is any control with other entities than Microsoft. We can see what is happening, but it is up the the Microsoft to decide what code is merged and so on.

Which is "source open". But we also need "open source" (which includes and OSI license), so we can package independent of Microsoft. There the critic about closing their ecosystem comes from.

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

#303

Post by tresqotheq »

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…

> Opinions like this have always been weird to me. Not wrong, but weird.

You should have felt free to say that it is utter stupidity for people to assume good faith for public companies. But sadly, the times we live does not allow pointing out stupidity in a harsh manner. Don't go easy on stupidity people. You will end up in a nice stupid world without joy or happiness.

> always assume bad faith when you're dealing with a company.

I think this is the biggest problem that humanity is facing right now, and a lot of currently accepted "mainstream" end of world problems derive from it.

And the issue is that these entities are locked in a process where not-the-fastest-growing means on the path to death. And to side step this, they have to do bad things without getting caught. The dominant player will be the one who does the baddest things without getting caught.

For example, In the world of pharmaceuticals, the dominant player would never be the one who play by the rules set by the authorities. But the one who has got authorities on the payroll.

If you are starting about "evidence that authorities are on a payroll", take a look at the above point regarding "not getting caught"...

Sadly, this does remove the higher bounds to what a company would do to secure its bottom line. Which is why I think this is the biggest danger that humanity faces right now. And this is going to get worse, because what ever higher bound we have right now, is going to be pushed higher and higher, in a world full of perpetually distracted people...

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

#304

Post by CyanLite4 »

merouan wrote: post #291
pwdisswordfish0 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Bruh, they’re carbon capturing or offsetting their entire carbon output since they’ve been in business. All in the next few years. No other major public company even comes close.

Being anti-“M$” is one thing, but you it’s hard to disagree with their stance on philanthropy and environmental issues.

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

#306

Post by BiteCode_dev »

bob1029 wrote: post #250

.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…

We are not upset. MS can do as they wish.

We are warning people to not consider this platform the same way they consider fully free ones, despite the obvious wish of MS that they do so.

This platform comes with invisible strings attached, some of them will likely turn into chains in the future.

And it's MS new marketting strat to say they are open now for everything, so it's only fair we point out that the player matters. You are not dealing with the LSF or the PSF, but with MS.

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

#307

Post by FractalHQ »

louthy wrote: post #287
spaetzleesser wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't have to be like that. The focus on shareholders started sometime in the 80s.

But it does have to be like that now. Because if you're not growing (not growing the bottom line), you're almost certainly losing market position to other companies that are chasing growth. If there was some group altruism that made all companies in a sector collectively say "ok, we're big enough now, let's hit pause", then companies could afford to be a bit more about being good for the sake of being good. This is o…

Some anti trust laws with teeth would help move us in the right direction!

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

#309

Post by BiteCode_dev »

rtpg wrote: post #31
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…

The LSP situation with Python was very frustrating, because it totally breathes the oxygen out of "proper" OSS implementations. I feel like with a _loooot_ of coordination it should be possible to have proper, open source LSP implementations that are very performant. Mainly a question of finding enough people willing to fund this work, because it's definitely work! I personally also have gripes about ending up with s…

Indeed.

And even very intelligent, competent AND benevolent MS employees downplay this: https://twitter.com/bitecode_dev/status/1537357261554733056

Steve cannot see how it will lead to attrition or vendor lock in.

It's not that there are no good people at MS, but the internal marketting is strong as well.

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

#310

Post by oaiey »

mattmanser wrote: post #297
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…

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.

True, but we are not talking about a two man company or a historic trust fund in southern France. We talk about an US shareholder company which leadership (do not be nitpicky) can be sued for by shareholders by not doing the best for their money.

And law indeed differs... But everywhere someone will be made responsible for not getting the best for their buck (the simplest case: being fired).

That applies to FAANGMxyz and also the rest of the top 500 shareholder companies.

Post reply on HN