291–300 of 351 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew there'd be at least one of you guys in this thread.
I mean Microsoft does have a history of fucking the open source world. We can like their new approach without denying that, and understand people having their reserves.
The .NET ecosystem is giving me a lot of confidence these days. I've been on this rollercoaster since .NET Core 2.x and don't think I will be getting off any time soon. We recently upgraded from 3.1 to 6, which was a total non-event. The code base that was around for Core 2.x is still the same one we have today. Some substantial changes made to the web interfaces and hosting, but nothing in the business logic or data…
Meh. In the end, Microsoft will betray those who trusted it. Long term, better just to pretend it does not exist and never, ever depend on anything with Microsoft name on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm also saying the same thing. We should not trust Microsoft, ever. However with your wording, you leave the impression that you don't agree with your parent (which is perfectly OK in my book), hence I'm not agreeing with you, but your parent.
OK. I mean, yeah I disagree. There's ample reason to distrust Microsoft these days, but far less than there used to be. I've signed many antitrust petitions for them over the years. And they have won a fair amount of good will since Satya came on and pushed for cultural change, as well as a larger pivot towards cloud and open source. So, you know. It's a mixed bag is my take.
Considering their "collaboration" with Canonical, it feels like Microsoft is paying Canonical in order to get help for strangling Linux desktop inside the Windows ecosystem, finally extinguishing desktop Linux installs once and for all.
As a payback they're leaving server space to Canonical, but port their software to work on Ubuntu, so they have a suitable "free" platform to monetize their software. Canonical can make boatloads of money by selling support, Landscape and similar services meanwhile.
I'm thankful to them for their Copilot shenanigans though, they kickstarted the motivation inside me to be even more serious about the services and software I use. I left GitHub, slowly moving away from Google services, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe, sooner or later, MS will put some arbitrary restrictions on .net or some part of its toolchain, forcing users to purchase a license to make it usable. It will probably involve "cloud" to sign/notarize your binaries to distribute them and give MS complete control of the ecosystem. Obviously, I have no idea what exactly will MS do, but after reaching some adoption target, MS will try to extract as much money…
Technically the restrictions already exist, just as a part of the development experience. - .NET Hot Reload is only implemented on Windows. It requires support in the .NET runtime, which is technically possible to implement, but the team has not gotten around to implementing it for years. This doesn't have to do with the issue around MS removing the "dotnet watch" command, it's for the "Edit and Continue" feature in…
I still feel Microsoft development experience is pretty poor and has been sometimes hostile in the past, and still don't have much confidence nowadays. Maybe because it's not a popular language, but the F# experience for me has been bad - tried it two years ago with F# 5, and recently with F# 6. The documentation in both cases was immature/inconsistent to broken.
Meh. In the end, Microsoft will betray those who trusted it. Long term, better just to pretend it does not exist and never, ever depend on anything with Microsoft name on it.
Well I guess everyone should migrate their open source projects off github. Any day now...
I still feel Microsoft development experience is pretty poor and has been sometimes hostile in the past, and still don't have much confidence nowadays. Maybe because it's not a popular language, but the F# experience for me has been bad - tried it two years ago with F# 5, and recently with F# 6. The documentation in both cases was immature/inconsistent to broken.
Early on one of the big selling points was reading all those type provider articles. Then I've tried it a couple of months ago and it was such a broken mess - not worth the time. From what I've read this isn't just my experience.
With, record types, switch expressions, top level expressions, file scoped modules, global usings, etc. C# removed a lot of cruft. Roslyn source generators actually work unlike type providers. If they improved the REPL/scripting aspect of C# I think there would be very little arguments for F# other than catering to FP crowd who like to like |> to |> write |> like |> this instead of this(like(write(to(like))))
Meh. In the end, Microsoft will betray those who trusted it. Long term, better just to pretend it does not exist and never, ever depend on anything with Microsoft name on it.
Not true. To blanket state microsoft is not reliable is ignorant. Anyhow, be on your way. I will continue using .net / c# for another decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. I mean, yeah I disagree. There's ample reason to distrust Microsoft these days, but far less than there used to be. I've signed many antitrust petitions for them over the years. And they have won a fair amount of good will since Satya came on and pushed for cultural change, as well as a larger pivot towards cloud and open source. So, you know. It's a mixed bag is my take.
Sorry, I just can't see the change Satya brought to the company. Considering their "collaboration" with Canonical, it feels like Microsoft is paying Canonical in order to get help for strangling Linux desktop inside the Windows ecosystem, finally extinguishing desktop Linux installs once and for all. As a payback they're leaving server space to Canonical, but port their software to work on Ubuntu, so they have a suit…
I would say that if that is your perspective, then you probably didn't have a close up view of them and how they operated before and after. There's been a lot of spilled ink about it; I won't rehash it here.
> it feels like Microsoft is paying Canonical in order to get help for strangling Linux desktop inside the Windows ecosystem, finally extinguishing desktop Linux installs once and for all.
I expounded on this in another thread - Desktop Linux isn't likely to be something MSFT spends any amount of time concerning themselves with as competition. Realistically, it's not real competition and any harms done to it probably were borne out of callousness or ignorance rather than competitive spite. The competition is OSX and ChromeOS (which I would not consider 'Desktop Linux').