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

451–460 of 500 posts

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

#451

Post by tomnipotent »

tinco wrote: post #355
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…

You are unaware of how much better it is with the other ecosystems. Probably all of them except the ones controlled by Apple, Oracle and IBM. You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go. That's not just a dream, that's the standard way of operating for most l…

> Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go.

And? The vast majority of the .NET ecosystem operates this way, and discounting that because MS still has proprietary closed-source projects is disingenuous.

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

#452

Post by codebolt »

giaour wrote: post #428
tinco wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bonus points if you're either not asked to transfer your copyright, or asked to transfer it to a non-profit foundation. Personally, I'm ok with doing the work myself if I didn't pay for the product. It gives me a feeling we're all working together on a better software ecosystem, because Turing knows we need it to be better sometimes. edit: sorry for moving the goal posts, it's definitely cool that you got MR's into R…

I work on an open-source project for Microsoft, and I review and merge community PRs all the time. Nobody pays for the product I work on (or for C# or TypeScript, for that matter). The Contributor License Agreement used on all MSFT open source projects doesn't ask you to transfer your copyright, though it does require submitters to agree to grant a permissive copyright and patent license. IANAL, but the copyright and…

It's a stretch to say that nobody pays for C#. A commercial Visual Studio license sure isn't free, and depending on what you're making you're at a big disadvantage without one.

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

#453

Post by tomnipotent »

pedro2 wrote: post #272
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're talking about cognitive dissonance here. If Microsoft hadn't put out "Microsoft loves open-source" statements, then all this would be treated as business as usual. However MS did. So people are dealing with the dissonance. Some people are being remembered how the strategy Embrace, Extend and Extinguish works. TL;DR: the attitude MS is having is not open-source friendly. NOTE: at least today they did state their…

You can love open source and still have proprietary code. It's not mutually exclusive.

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

#454

Post by eikenberry »

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…

IMO this is more an attack on FLOSS/Python than anything else. LSP is pretty quickly becoming a predominant standard for free software editors. Making LSP proprietary for Python will kill it as a language for larger project by FLOSS developers as they won't want to use the proprietary component. I know I'll never use proprietary products in my creative pipeline as they should be open for anyone to work on at any economic level. I don't want to lock people out of working on my projects due to a restrictive development environment.

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

#455

Post by varispeed »

Pathogen-David wrote: post #375
tinco wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are unaware of how much better it is with the other ecosystems. Probably all of them except the ones controlled by Apple, Oracle and IBM. You want to know what's better than having actual MS developers interact with your issue on GH? Being able to submit a MR yourself and actually have that MR be merged in within days of it being good to go. That's not just a dream, that's the standard way of operating for most l…

You can do this in the .NET ecosystem too, they accept pull requests from the community regularly. I have a few merged PRs in Roslyn, one in particular I made because I knew it didn't affect very many developers and would have trouble getting prioritized. Also personally the ideal situation for me is for someone who is getting paid to fix the issue to go fix it without me having to get my hands dirty.

I have a problem with that. You have essentially done work for multi-billion corporation without remuneration. That would probably violate many laws like minimum wage requirement and volunteering at for profit corporation (minimum wage must be paid). I wonder why this is not pursued.

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

#456

Post by babypuncher »

giobox wrote: post #429
babypuncher wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you want, but Visual Studio 2022 is one of the best IDE I've used, way better than Eclipse. And You're not stuck on it either, JetBrains Rider is a 100% viable alternative and often preferred by many .NET developers. Windows is also not a requirement unless you are using old Windows-specific frameworks like WPF. ASP.NET, EFCore, IdentityServer, and everything else you need to build a web app works equally on…

While I like Visual Studio, comparing to Eclipse is a little unfair. Exactly like DotNet today, you can use any IDE you like, InteliJ will compare extremely favorably to Visual Studio if we want to pick a good Java IDE to compare.

I compared to Eclipse because it is the most notable open source IDE I have meaningful experience with. I haven't used IntelliJ, but I have used Rider which is very similar.

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

#457

Post by camdenreslink »

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…

Just for balance, Pylance is proprietary but the core of it is the Pyright library which is completely open (see: https://github.com/microsoft/pyright).

It would be nice if they were more transparent about the differences between the two and why Pylance is closed. There are a few github issues where Microsoft PMs basically stonewall the community with very little info.

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

#458

Post by wtetzner »

actionfromafar wrote: post #376
com2kid wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ikea also sells nice, solid wood, furniture. And they typically do so at a price that is much more affordable than their competitors. If you want to go into Ikea and just buy long lasting solid wood products, go ahead! Indeed I'd argue Ikea has made new solid wood furniture more accessible, heck sometimes new Ikea wood furniture is cheaper than consignment store wood furniture!

I see. Then it's OK to skirt environmental and worker protection laws, I guess. As long as the products are nice.

No, and I don't think anyone has argued that. The argument is that the company has both good and bad aspects to it.

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

#459

Post by loeg »

tomnipotent wrote: post #450
loeg wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

.NET PRs sit unmerged for years if they're not a priority for MSFT. I'm glad it works well sometimes and that MSFT seems to care about .NET on Linux, but it's not that open.

Point out a major language that doesn't have a graveyard of PR's with similar stories.

The important distinction is that the PR graveyard of other projects isn't determined by MSFT's corporate priorities.

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

#460

Post by GABeech »

codebolt wrote: post #452
giaour wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on an open-source project for Microsoft, and I review and merge community PRs all the time. Nobody pays for the product I work on (or for C# or TypeScript, for that matter). The Contributor License Agreement used on all MSFT open source projects doesn't ask you to transfer your copyright, though it does require submitters to agree to grant a permissive copyright and patent license. IANAL, but the copyright and…

It's a stretch to say that nobody pays for C#. A commercial Visual Studio license sure isn't free, and depending on what you're making you're at a big disadvantage without one.

Right, you're not paying for C# you're paying for an IDE. You don't need VS to use C#. Especially now with Roslyn a the c# language server a lot of other IDEs can do a lot of the same things VS can do.
Post reply on HN