101–110 of 215 posts
I ran into this when working for the government, CSC, and another company. They developed some cool stuff but just didn't want to share...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But were those companies ever openly hostile towards open-source? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish and http://techrights.org/2010/09/17/microsoft-management-mocks-... and many other examples abound. I mean... It's nice that they're trying to "come clean," now, and all. But it's sort of like a criminal who was never punished now claiming to be legit because he's seen the light... and there'…
Companies aren't monolithic entities, MS has tens of thousands of employees. Just because the upper level of the upper level of upper level management (which is a different group of people than engineering) might have been hostile towards it years ago doesn't mean that everyone there agreed with that stance, and it doesn't mean that that management culture has persisted to the present day. Ultimately the only thing t…
Fallacy of composition?
> Ultimately the only thing that matters are actions
Which were terrible. MAYBE they are better NOW. :P
> not the human personality traits that people project onto anthropomorphized corporations
So corporations are run by computers, I take it?
> anti-OSS
This position is literally irrational UNLESS you are a profit-making entity that considers OSS a threat to your own for-profit business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Which tends to promote the idea that the MS way is the right way, and if I need something else I must be doing something wrong This is not exactly true. MS recommends other technologies when they fit. Like Redis for caching on azure. https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/cac...
That's certainly a new approach for Microsoft. They have a long history of writing things that are clearly inspired by open source projects, but failing to mention the inspiration: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppFabric_Caching vs memcached * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa9... vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb9... vs rs…
Rsync exists to synchronize folders between machines.
If the whole pool of developers world wide was considered as a big pie, and a certain section of that do these 'hard problems', the solution is to market to them the strengths of .NET. Advocating other parts of the pie who build enterprise apps and who already use .NET that they should suddenly start writing actor systems 'for the good of the framework's OSS cred' seems silly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's certainly a new approach for Microsoft. They have a long history of writing things that are clearly inspired by open source projects, but failing to mention the inspiration: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AppFabric_Caching vs memcached * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa9... vs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futex * https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/bb9... vs rs…
BITS is nothing like rsync. The purpose of BITS is to allow low-priority downloads/uploads to progress without impacting the real-time network traffic on the machine. (The classic use being to download Windows Updates without annoying the user by slowing down their web surfing.) Rsync exists to synchronize folders between machines.
Just to add to something I've seen is many places that the Microsoft stack is used open source code is either frowned upon or completely banned. Contributing your (company code) to that is not only against policy but illegal if the company you work for owns the code. I ran into this when working for the government, CSC, and another company. They developed some cool stuff but just didn't want to share...
So sadly, pathetically ironic.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whether/when Sun released the source code isn't as relevant as the fact that JDK and JRE 1.0 in 1995 were free . Microsoft .NET 1.0 development in 2002 required paid tools and a free version (Visual Studio Express) didn't happen until 2005. VS Express was also crippled in comparison to the paid product (VS Professional). We can't just look at the technical features and syntax of C# and compare to Java. (E.g. they bot…
In general, you're correct about the difference being social, nt one of licencing. You're wrong on one thing: Microsoft's .NET 1.0 CLR and compilers were also free from day one. You never HAD to use VS to develop with .NET, any more than you HAD to use NetBeans or Eclipse to develop with Java.