Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#341

Post by 3825 » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:03 AM UTC

leoc wrote: post #266

bbarn wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure I'm guilty of some logical fallacy or another here, but isn't responding to customer demand one of the core things espoused by the startup community? A big company does exactly what we're all saying is good for companies to do and everyone is up in arms with "TOO LATE M$" and the like (apologies for paraphrasing, and this is directed at several comments, not just this one). This is the kind of thing we WANT…

Well, I certainly can't speak for the startup community, as I'm more strongly affiliated with the screwup community myself. ;) But no, I'm certainly not dismissing MS's new direction: it seems to be fairly genuine, and (some lingering patent/EEE concerns aside) good news, just as IBM's support (in various ways) for Linux or Sun's eventual open-sourcing of Java were good news. I'm all in favour of a kinder and gentler…

Just for clarity, EEE refers to Embrace, extend, and extinguish -- a Microsoft strategy as discovered by the Department of Justice -- "for entering product categories involving widely used standards, extending those standards with proprietary capabilities, and then using those differences to disadvantage its competitors"[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#342

Post by 3825 » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:07 AM UTC

darksim905 wrote: post #302

nitrogen wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_Documents Continue here if you feel extraordinarily ambitious: http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2007021720... (Comes vs. Microsoft)

Damn, give it a break those Halloween Documents were over 10 years ago. The pricing thing is one bit, Microsoft hasn't really been too shy about that, but neither has Intel. The whole bundling of IE - how else did you expect someone to browse the web? I don't get it. People don't want IE in Windows yet can never give an answer of how people will get anything else. Then Microsoft has to give people choice. Such a voca…

>> The whole bundling of IE - how else did you expect someone to browse the web?

Requiring IE to download Windows Update is never acceptable. Everybody likes to hate Windows Vista but here is one thing Microsoft got right in Vista (and beyond).

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#343

Post by shmerl » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:18 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #284

davidgerard wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one would be exceedingly foolish not to exercise the very greatest of caution. This is Microsoft we're talking about - they have a track record of profound fuckery. But I do indeed think this is better than not having happened.

> This is Microsoft we're talking about - they have a track record of profound fuckery. Any examples? Besides "bundling IE with the OS and pressuring some OEM vendors back in the nineties"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_refund

As well as constant attempts to subvert emerging open standards, sabotaging patent reform, patent protection racket and etc. and etc.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#344

Post by Iv » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:19 AM UTC

keithwarren wrote: post #6

They also announced as part of this that they are putting a large swatch of their .NET Source code under Apache 2 and accepting pull requests. Folks, this is a very big deal for Microsoft. Who would have imagined this 10 years ago? Here is an image that shows what they are putting into the community https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BkT9oBcCQAAHIAV.jpg:large

Dumb question: is that the real deal? I see a lot of items, but I don't know how they relate to typical uses of .Net. So I guess my question is more for .Net specialists:

With the code released, can you:

- Run a ASP.Net web server?

- Run a classic C# .Net project better than with Mono?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#345

Post by AYBABTME » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:22 AM UTC

mehrdada wrote: post #317

coldtea wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correction: Webkit wasn't some software Apple made use of. Apple created Webkit as we know it. What they DID use was KHTML, a far more barebones web rendering engine used in KDE, that Apple adopted, and turned into Webkit. Webkit as Apple had it (before Google stepped in) was an order of magnitude more evolved than KHTML.

KHTML was licensed under LGPL. Releasing the code was not a choice, but an obligation.

It was a choice to use KHTML.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#346

Post by sagargv » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:26 AM UTC

How does Microsoft benefit by open sourcing the C# compiler ? How will this drive users/developers towards Windows ?

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#347

Post by Shamanmuni » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:27 AM UTC

eitland wrote: post #200

Shamanmuni wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, I see this as a good sign but for me it's still "too little too late". At least release it under a copyleft license, make it usable with previous versions of Visual Studio (it only works with 2013) and I'll feel more confident that you aren't setting a trap. Non-copyleft licenses can easily align with the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. The value of .NET for most developers is closely associated…

> Non-copyleft licenses can easily align with the "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategy. What? I would think if anything giving everyone else a crippled license while retaining copyright etc yourself that would be an even bigger setup for a EEE. Remember, MS can do w h a t e v e r they want with that code anyway it is not lke they'd be bound by a copyleft on their own code. (Unless they also started accepting patche…

Well, I was surely thinking about the option without copyright assignment. Everybody giving assignment to Microsoft? Yeah, that's a bigger and much more obvious trap.

I don't understand what was so upsetting about my previous comment thatgot so many downvotes. Microsoft has a history of being hostile to FOSS. I will agree that they have changed their attitude when they make a serious effort to assure us that there aren't potential traps in this move. Otherwise I'll say thanks but no thanks.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#348

Post by brightsize » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:32 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #284

davidgerard wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think one would be exceedingly foolish not to exercise the very greatest of caution. This is Microsoft we're talking about - they have a track record of profound fuckery. But I do indeed think this is better than not having happened.

> This is Microsoft we're talking about - they have a track record of profound fuckery. Any examples? Besides "bundling IE with the OS and pressuring some OEM vendors back in the nineties"?

"Microsoft had previously been in discussions with Stac to license its compression technology, and had discussions with Stac engineers and examined Stac's code as part of the due diligence process. Stac, in an effort led by attorney Morgan Chu, sued [1] Microsoft for infringement of two of its data compression patents, and won; in 1994, a California jury ruled the infringement by Microsoft was not willful, but awarded Stac $120 million in compensatory damages" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stac_Electronics]

"Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson issued his findings of fact on November 5, 1999, which stated that Microsoft's dominance of the x86-based personal computer operating systems market constituted a monopoly, and that Microsoft had taken actions to crush threats to that monopoly, including Apple, Java, Netscape, Lotus Notes, RealNetworks, Linux, and others." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft]

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#349

Post by NicoJuicy » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 6:53 AM UTC

Microsofts decision to opensource is not suddenly.

It has actively been pushed by some of Microsoft's evangelists (Phil Haack (ex employee, works at github now i think) and Scott Hansselman to say the more popular names).

I believe they got some playfield to do things and now the community has more and more impact (eg. Nuget and software like myget which is based on Nuget (Nuget for Enterprise))

Also, the CEO isn't Balmer anymore, that probably helps to.

Re: Microsoft Open Sources C# Compiler

#350

Post by Yuioup » Fri, Apr 04, 2014, 7:07 AM UTC

jongalloway2 wrote: post #238

Yuioup wrote: post #224

This means that you can compile .NET code on a non-MS platform (like Linux) but you can only deploy it to ... Azure. Microsoft's endgame is in sight.

How exactly did you get that out of an Apache 2 license? http://roslyn.codeplex.com/license

Well obviously you can eventually run the code on any platform that supports the CLR. At present only Windows and Azure support the CLR but the rest of the world has to depend on Mono.

I suspect that Microsoft is trying to fight their way into the Server space where Linux installations are prevalent by offering services via Azure.

So, for example, you have an extensive Linux environment running critical back-end services. You can have a BASH script which generates C# code, compiles it and eventually deploys it to Azure. This is I think a fantasy scenario that Microsoft is envisioning.