Another defensive move on part of Microsoft? Protect the tools business!
So, Sun Microsystems open sourced Java.
Adobe open sourced Flex.
Now Microsoft is releasing the source of .NET. UPDATE: Krish points out that this isn’t open sourcing .NET, just releasing the source. That’s even lamer cause the other two have actually open sourced and are accepting submissions from the community.
Cool, but when you’re last to do something does it really matter anymore? This is a good move, though, and will help many of Microsoft’s developer community stay on Microsoft’s tools.
“Cool, but when you’re last to do something does it really matter anymore?”
Coming late to the party, following someone else’s lead, has been Microsoft’s modus operandi forever and a day. It has made them rich, but irrelevant in the minds of the leaders in the industry.
This is easily the worst post of your career, Scoble, and believe me, that’s saying something.
First, this is a great boon to .NET devs. You aren’t a dev, so wouldn’t understand that.
Second, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, much of the .NET CLI code has been available for years via Rotor. Not being a dev, you wouldn’t know anything about that.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8C09FD61-3F26-4555-AE17-3121B4F51D4D&displaylang=en
Third, despite your claims that Microsoft released code only after everyone else, Microsoft has released code to aid developers in debugging in the past (MFC, ATL, etc). Not being a dev, you wouldn’t know anything about that.
Fourth, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, Microsoft a few months ago release the DLR code, and not only under a reference license like MS-RL, but under MS-PL, a true open source license. Not being a dev (or not having a clue) you wouldn’t know about that.
Fifth, you claim that Microsoft is “last”, but your beloved can-do-no-wrong Apple has yet to release code to the Cocoa framework. Not being a dev, you wouldn’t understand that this is a problem for Cocoa devs.
Finally, just how old are you? Yesterday (in another “Microsoft sucks” post) you claimed to be 42, but your maturity level is around 12. Anyone that bashes someone for having not done a particular thing, then after they do said thing, bashes them for doing it after others have done it, is a spoiled brat that can’t be pleased no matter what, nothing more.
It’s EXTREMELY sad that you’ve reduced yourself to trying to score brownie points with Microsoft haters by making such inane anti-Microsoft posts as you have done lately.
This blog has really gone down the toilet, and that’s a shame.
This is easily the worst post of your career, Scoble, and believe me, that’s saying something.
First, this is a great boon to .NET devs. You aren’t a dev, so wouldn’t understand that.
Second, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, much of the .NET CLI code has been available for years via Rotor. Not being a dev, you wouldn’t know anything about that.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8C09FD61-3F26-4555-AE17-3121B4F51D4D&displaylang=en
Third, despite your claims that Microsoft released code only after everyone else, Microsoft has released code to aid developers in debugging in the past (MFC, ATL, etc). Not being a dev, you wouldn’t know anything about that.
Fourth, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, Microsoft a few months ago release the DLR code, and not only under a reference license like MS-RL, but under MS-PL, a true open source license. Not being a dev (or not having a clue) you wouldn’t know about that.
Fifth, you claim that Microsoft is “last”, but your beloved can-do-no-wrong Apple has yet to release code to the Cocoa framework. Not being a dev, you wouldn’t understand that this is a problem for Cocoa devs.
Finally, just how old are you? Yesterday (in another “Microsoft sucks” post) you claimed to be 42, but your maturity level is around 12. Anyone that bashes someone for having not done a particular thing, then after they do said thing, bashes them for doing it after others have done it, is a spoiled brat that can’t be pleased no matter what, nothing more.
It’s EXTREMELY sad that you’ve reduced yourself to trying to score brownie points with Microsoft haters by making such inane anti-Microsoft posts as you have done lately.
This blog has really gone down the toilet, and that’s a shame.
“A market leader is one who leads not the one who follows. I think thatz what Scoble meant in this post.”
Bull.
If Apple announced that they were releasing the source to Cocoa, Scoble would praise Apple to the heights and use it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft (again). He wouldn’t say even a single word about Apple being “last” to release source code.
And the big thing is Scoble is so damn ignorant.
Microsoft release MFC code in 1993 for goodness sakes, well before Sun, Adobe, or anyone else released code. They release Rotor (.NET CLI sources) in 2001! And Rotor2 in 2004! Scoble being completely ignorant of this fact is a complete embarassment.
For Scoble to question whether this matters shows that he doesn’t have the first clue about anything, despite posing to be an expert on *everything*. Scoble, get this through your skull – this DOES matter to .NET developers. End of story.
“A market leader is one who leads not the one who follows. I think thatz what Scoble meant in this post.”
Bull.
If Apple announced that they were releasing the source to Cocoa, Scoble would praise Apple to the heights and use it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft (again). He wouldn’t say even a single word about Apple being “last” to release source code.
And the big thing is Scoble is so damn ignorant.
Microsoft release MFC code in 1993 for goodness sakes, well before Sun, Adobe, or anyone else released code. They release Rotor (.NET CLI sources) in 2001! And Rotor2 in 2004! Scoble being completely ignorant of this fact is a complete embarassment.
For Scoble to question whether this matters shows that he doesn’t have the first clue about anything, despite posing to be an expert on *everything*. Scoble, get this through your skull – this DOES matter to .NET developers. End of story.
As a .NET developer this is nothing but positive. I agree with many posts here and question the foundation of your post Robert. It just does not make any sense… As noted the entire foundation, CLI, has been avail. C# is avail… Microsoft has plenty of problems but you have chosen the wrong thing to sabre rattle about.
This .NET release applies to .NET developers and it does not matter if someone thinks it is late. The fact is, it does matter going forward. It matters just as the non-developer could not care less that Java is open-sourced. It matters because the market that uses it cares.
As many have said, this helps developers and is not about the tired buzzword “open source”. It is another tool that helps make the .NET platform valuable to developers.
Given your post about this, I cannot help but think about Apple and the iPhone. While Apple will not open up their Mac libs to help developers, nor even ALLOW (and brick those that try) development on the various iPod/phone products, you complain about this. I guess the iPod does not matter then because all of the Play For Sure products use a shared technology platform?
As a developer this is only a plus. It helps people get their work done, it is not about whatever marketing phrase you choose to throw at it.
As a .NET developer this is nothing but positive. I agree with many posts here and question the foundation of your post Robert. It just does not make any sense… As noted the entire foundation, CLI, has been avail. C# is avail… Microsoft has plenty of problems but you have chosen the wrong thing to sabre rattle about.
This .NET release applies to .NET developers and it does not matter if someone thinks it is late. The fact is, it does matter going forward. It matters just as the non-developer could not care less that Java is open-sourced. It matters because the market that uses it cares.
As many have said, this helps developers and is not about the tired buzzword “open source”. It is another tool that helps make the .NET platform valuable to developers.
Given your post about this, I cannot help but think about Apple and the iPhone. While Apple will not open up their Mac libs to help developers, nor even ALLOW (and brick those that try) development on the various iPod/phone products, you complain about this. I guess the iPod does not matter then because all of the Play For Sure products use a shared technology platform?
As a developer this is only a plus. It helps people get their work done, it is not about whatever marketing phrase you choose to throw at it.
Learn C#, try to build something real with it, try to do it for fun, and you’ll realize how effin awesome this is.
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it’s just easier, and integrated with VS.
Go, code something. Open Source *automatically* good+cool.
Learn C#, try to build something real with it, try to do it for fun, and you’ll realize how effin awesome this is.
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it’s just easier, and integrated with VS.
Go, code something. Open Source *automatically* good+cool.
[...] That’s what I did today when I wrote about .NET’s moves to share source with developers. [...]
Flex team is not accepting code submissions of any kind. (Just correcting one thing from the post that hasn’t been pointed out yet.)
Borek
Flex team is not accepting code submissions of any kind. (Just correcting one thing from the post that hasn’t been pointed out yet.)
Borek
[...] ser que Scoble escribió sobre algo sin estar muy bien enterado. En concreto dijo que .NET iba a ser open source (al igual que Java), cuando no es así, será share source (podrá verse el código fuente pero no [...]
[...] has their opinions. Even Robert Scoble, the ex-microsoft guy who was never a developer seems to think this was an open source [...]
[...] That’s what I did today when I wrote about .NET’s moves to share source with developers. [...]
Scoble Said:
Now Microsoft is releasing the source of .NET. UPDATE: Krish points out that this isn’t open sourcing .NET, just releasing the source. That’s even lamer cause the other two have actually open sourced and are accepting submissions from the community.
##
This will definately be possible. If you have access to the source. You can always engage a product team and say I see your do x and really it should be doing y. Happy hippy free love version of open source is definately not the way to go.
Scoble Said:
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it’s just easier, and integrated with VS.
##
Not True. You get a best guess of what the code was. If you listen to Scott Hanselmans podcast they go over line numbers and even variable names could be different. Making it hard to pin point an issue.
Scoble Said:
Now Microsoft is releasing the source of .NET. UPDATE: Krish points out that this isn’t open sourcing .NET, just releasing the source. That’s even lamer cause the other two have actually open sourced and are accepting submissions from the community.
##
This will definately be possible. If you have access to the source. You can always engage a product team and say I see your do x and really it should be doing y. Happy hippy free love version of open source is definately not the way to go.
Scoble Said:
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it’s just easier, and integrated with VS.
##
Not True. You get a best guess of what the code was. If you listen to Scott Hanselmans podcast they go over line numbers and even variable names could be different. Making it hard to pin point an issue.
[...] Scoble says .NET open-source: http://scobleizer.com/2007/10/03/microsoft-open-sourcing-after-everyone-else/ [...]
Hello people, “Rotor” is *NOT* open source. It is licensed under the Microsoft “shared source” license that, among other things, prohibits reuse for commercial purposes. IMHO all of this license proliferation and terminology confusion is a direct result of Microsoft’s desire to confuse the marketplace over what is and what is not “open source”.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
Hello people, “Rotor” is *NOT* open source. It is licensed under the Microsoft “shared source” license that, among other things, prohibits reuse for commercial purposes. IMHO all of this license proliferation and terminology confusion is a direct result of Microsoft’s desire to confuse the marketplace over what is and what is not “open source”.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/901/ShSourceCLIbetaLicense.htm
So Microsoft opens up the source of the framework that rules the world, and all you have to say is “Bout Time”? I can’t believe you posted this.
>>When you are last to do something, does it really matter?<<
YES IT DOES! Dunno about you but I feel it is expected for Microsoft to do this last (are they even last?!) becuase .NET is the best, the most used, the easiest to use. It is constantly and consistently being improved, and the community of developers is a billion times larger than Java’s wimpy ass could ever hope for. What a ridiculous post this was.
I just un-subscribed…
So Microsoft opens up the source of the framework that rules the world, and all you have to say is “Bout Time”? I can’t believe you posted this.
>>When you are last to do something, does it really matter?<<
YES IT DOES! Dunno about you but I feel it is expected for Microsoft to do this last (are they even last?!) becuase .NET is the best, the most used, the easiest to use. It is constantly and consistently being improved, and the community of developers is a billion times larger than Java’s wimpy ass could ever hope for. What a ridiculous post this was.
I just un-subscribed…
Yeah, java open sourced their platform and are letting people add to it because sun is slowly dying and couldn’t support the platform. nuff said.
and adobe open sourced something that no one really uses. big step there.
Yeah, java open sourced their platform and are letting people add to it because sun is slowly dying and couldn’t support the platform. nuff said.
and adobe open sourced something that no one really uses. big step there.
Honestly this is just lame and ignorant. You have tried so long to suggest that bloggers should behave like journalists and now what do you do: print unresearched fear and doubt.
1: .NET is an ECMA standard, that means anyone can produce an implementation.
2: There is already an open source .NET implementation Mono
3: MS released a reference implementation of the CLR – Rotor – which has allowed people to understand how to build thier own.
4: You have always been able to reverse engineer the .NET framework using ILDASM or reflector. This access is just a convenience to developers to allow them tgo debug into the source. It is not designed to allow .NET developers to build their own .NET framework but to debug issues with their code, by understanding what the framework is doing.
5: This is no different to the releases of source for MFC, ATL etc. which have been available to developers for over ten years now. The MS development community has a tradtion of this approach.
6: Patents are patents whether or not you have read the code; ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. You are as likely to fall foul of patents by writing clean room code. Copyright is an issue, but was always an issue, even for reverse engineered code, but I am unaware of many successful copyright prosecutions.
Here is how you retain some credibility Robert. Do some reseach to find out what is really happening here, and then print a retraction. You drank the anti-MS kool aid without even questioning it.
Honestly this is just lame and ignorant. You have tried so long to suggest that bloggers should behave like journalists and now what do you do: print unresearched fear and doubt.
1: .NET is an ECMA standard, that means anyone can produce an implementation.
2: There is already an open source .NET implementation Mono
3: MS released a reference implementation of the CLR – Rotor – which has allowed people to understand how to build thier own.
4: You have always been able to reverse engineer the .NET framework using ILDASM or reflector. This access is just a convenience to developers to allow them tgo debug into the source. It is not designed to allow .NET developers to build their own .NET framework but to debug issues with their code, by understanding what the framework is doing.
5: This is no different to the releases of source for MFC, ATL etc. which have been available to developers for over ten years now. The MS development community has a tradtion of this approach.
6: Patents are patents whether or not you have read the code; ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. You are as likely to fall foul of patents by writing clean room code. Copyright is an issue, but was always an issue, even for reverse engineered code, but I am unaware of many successful copyright prosecutions.
Here is how you retain some credibility Robert. Do some reseach to find out what is really happening here, and then print a retraction. You drank the anti-MS kool aid without even questioning it.
First you say its “lame” and then you say it’s a “good move”.
Why does it matter to a Microsoft developer if Sun did *anything* first? Viewing the source for the latest and greatest in .NET 3.5 is going to be a major learning experience for real developers and a huge boost for debugging.
Sorry, this isn’t your best post.
First you say its “lame” and then you say it’s a “good move”.
Why does it matter to a Microsoft developer if Sun did *anything* first? Viewing the source for the latest and greatest in .NET 3.5 is going to be a major learning experience for real developers and a huge boost for debugging.
Sorry, this isn’t your best post.
“Cool, but when you’re last to do something does it really matter anymore? ”
Wow, that’s childish.
“Cool, but when you’re last to do something does it really matter anymore? ”
Wow, that’s childish.
[...] about the release of .NET Framework Source Code. This doesn’t mean it’s going Open Source as Scoble first thought, but it does mean that you’ll be able to debug in to the base libraries. This is [...]
[...] are opensourcing many products, what options does Microsoft really have ? Robert Scoble calls it a “defensive move” and notes that as many times in last few years, Microsoft follows, rather then leads industry: [...]