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

321–330 of 500 posts

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

#321

Post by oaiey »

fhkaQ wrote: post #162
thejosh wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, they saw no real backlash to doing this for the Python one, then decided to do it here as well.

Of course not. Python is in the hands of people with a mixed contribution history (to say the least) who want to preserve their jobs at Google, Microsoft, RedHat etc. The rest of the Python "community" does as they are told. They are not in a position to voice dissent, unlike de Icaza, who has a great programming record and courage.

Icaza is a financially made man. He can do what he likes!

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

#322

Post by yourapostasy »

cachvico wrote: post #254
davedx wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He provided a citation. Please provide one to back up your argument

It's an opinion piece. Citation implies academic paper. Not quite the same.

US-based companies and their directors do NOT have a legal, fiscal agent duty to always increase profit / share price. There is well-established case law around this. This Harvard Law précis of an academic book gives guidance on where to find the dry legal work that surrounds this legal position [1]. You are welcome to counter that Part I with your own legal constructs, but there are sound legal reasons it is structured this way.

There are dissenting papers [2] mostly revolving upon Dodge v. Ford Motor Company, but there are many intractable problems when you assert such primacy. Over what duration? As compared to which company? Accounting for intangibles? Valuation of non-monetary factors? Accounting for market gyrations? Primacy by what percentage? That dissenting paper glosses over much of the nuance of Stout's thesis [3], as well as case law ever since that point to the problematic practicalities of courts deciding how companies should carry out the distribution of the benefits of organizing stakeholders together.

So many people who should know better keep repeating this canard. Shareholders can certainly mount a challenge through corporate governance channels for example, but they fare poorly when mounting a challenge through the courts.

[1] https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2012/06/26/the-shareholder-v...

[2] https://clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2022/04/26/why-we-should...

[3] https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?arti...

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

#323

Post by intrasight »

_old_dude_ wrote: post #20
Aloha wrote: post #9

I'm somewhat confused what's going on here.

Microsoft is starting to port VS studio (IntelliSense) which is proprietary to VS code which is opensource. Current C# plugin (Omnisharp) is opensource, so they announce that it will be replaced by a closed source selector that let you choose the opensource or the proprietary plugin with the proprietary as default. It's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish just in front of our eyes, so opensource people are pissed.

I'm still confused too. How exactly does this "LSP Tools Host" fit into the larger platform of tools? For example, how does it affect me as an Emacs user?

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

#324

Post by actionfromafar »

makeitdouble wrote: post #268
actionfromafar wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

IKEA in a vacuum has many many flaws. As I see it though, what IKEA displaced wasn’t the family owned expert artisans manufacturing built to order furnitures. It was piss poor, badly designed, actual shitty materials, poor country labor intensive flat packs. When I was a kid my family bought cheap mass produced furniture from shopping malls, the looks were fine, it came from Vietnam or China [0], and the quality was…

The effects of IKEA must be very different depending on where in the world they were introduced, and when.

If your country (cough-cough USA) had already descended into the "crap products globalisation stage" before IKEA came along, it will feel like a net positive.

If your country (cough-cough Sweden) got IKEA before that stage, I would say, yes, IKEA displaced quality furniture.

I'd say the overall problem is un-accounted for externalities. Cheap crap from China or Vietnam is just a symptom of the same illness.

Crappy products are okay, in a free market economy. But crappy products with huge environmental costs undercutting "kosher" crappy products, is not okay.

What use are even labour and environmental laws if one can skirt them by pushing the problem elsewhere?

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

#325

Post by oaiey »

adrr wrote: post #319
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…

What does an IDE have to do with a software framework? Besides Java and eclipse, what other frameworks provide an open source IDE?

A programming language is defined by its attributes. Some measure speed, beauty, library reach but most modern language need productivity as a key attribute. There C# has its strength. And productivity includes debuggers, intellisense, etc. It requires a non traditional compiler etc. There is a powerful video of Anders Hejlsberg explaining this. And that guy knows about it.

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

#326

Post by _-david-_ »

rglullis wrote: post #206
notriskfree wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dea…

It's like the story of the scorpion and the frog. If you know that the system is broken and it is setup in a way that rewards bad behavior, what do you think is the best course of action: to expect that exceptional individuals will be always in charge to avoid the mistakes, or to fix the system so that even normal , fallible humans can be at helm and not having everyone else worried about potential abuses?

>fix the system so that even normal, fallible humans can be at helm and not having everyone else worried about potential abuses?

I assume normal and fallible humans are the ones who are going to setup this new system that will prevent abuse?

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

#327

Post by alxlaz »

oaiey wrote: post #310
mattmanser wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I was under the impression (based on the USSC's opinion back in 2015, see e.g. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/04/16/what-are-co... ) that this was not true even in the US. Has anything changed in the meantime? Or did I get that article wrong from the beginning?

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

#328

Post by parineum »

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.

I have a pull request out right now for an open source project that hasn't been merged because I'm not in control of it.

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

#329

Post by Someone »

oaiey wrote: post #310
mattmanser wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But “the best for their money” need not be short-term. Shareholders have successfully sued big oil for not preparing enough for climate change, for example.

(https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/15/oil-shell-directors-sued-for..., https://www.forbes.com/sites/timabansal/2021/05/27/big-oil-u...)

It will be a lot harder to argue that developing a closed-source component is, in the long run, bad for Microsoft, though.

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

#330

Post by oaiey »

Swinx43 wrote: post #47
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…

The problem with MVPs is that they are effectively Microsoft sponsored marketing outlets. I know a few of them personally and they are great people but damn have they drunk the kool-aid.

To a degree where they are pointless as a consumer but also pointless as an input gatherer.

MVP are pointless.

Post reply on HN