Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Microsoft Windows News

Open Source Software Seeping Into the .NET Developer World 146

Posted by Soulskill
from the slowly-but-surely dept.
dp619 writes "In an interview, Microsoft Regional Director Patrick Hynds says that avoidance of open source components by a large part of the .NET developer population is abating. '...While some may still steer clear of the GPL, there are dozens of FOSS licenses that are compatible with Windows developers and their customers,' he said. Hynds cites NuGet, an open source package management system was originally built by Microsoft and now an Outercurve Foundation project, as an example of FOSS libraries that .NET developer are adopting for their applications. Microsoft itself has embraced open source — to a point. It has partnered with Hortonworks for a Windows port of Hadoop, allowed Linux to run on Windows Azure, and is itself a Hadoop user."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Open Source Software Seeping Into the .NET Developer World

Comments Filter:
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Tuesday March 05, 2013 @11:40PM (#43088445)
    The .NET developer community has long favored open source code, even though Microsoft hasn't always done much to encourage it. However, it seems that .NET developers never get even grudging respect from the likes of Stallman and other Linux hardliners out there. Ironically, this hostility towards .NET has played into the hands of those at Microsoft who sought to discourage the use of .NET outside of Microsoft's control. Yes, the patent laws are a problem but Microsoft has already made legally binding promises not to litigate their patents on core technologies and to be honest the whole patent system is so messed up that you're pretty much damned if you do and damned if you don't whether you use .NET or not. So, if you're worried about patents you should do what every sensible startup does and simply ignore them because (a) patents contain zero useful information for coders (they're written by attorneys for attorneys) and (b) knowing that a patent exists means willful infringement which is treble damages.
  • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Tuesday March 05, 2013 @11:52PM (#43088543)

    They called Linux a cancer, not open source software. They've used BSD software before. BSD folks are just fine with it, so there's no 'hijacking' involved.

  • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Tuesday March 05, 2013 @11:59PM (#43088611)

    Yeah, writing software for a living for a target audience using 90% of the computers out there is idiotic. Especially if that's part of the 99% of the target audience that's used to actually paying you for your software.

    You might not agree with closed source software, but calling folks idiotic for writing software for a large market you can get paid for writing software for is..... idiotic.

  • by LurkerXXX (667952) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @12:32AM (#43088891)

    I write some closed source proprietary programs. I also write some open source programs. If the source code is out there, free for anyone to use, it's open source. It doesn't matter if the OS it runs on is not. The code is free for anyone to use modify, or translate to run in the language and on the OS of their choice. It's open source.

    It's not a false claim. It's just doesn't live up to the unreasonable expectations some people want to use to keep strictly to their own personal 'pure' definition of open source.

  • Re:Uhm... what? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Yaur (1069446) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @12:51AM (#43089011)
    I run a dev team for a commercial, closed source, product. If one of my developers introduces stolen code into the product, one or both of us is getting fired. It doesn't matter if the environment is .net or not and it doesn't matter if its stolen from a FOSS project or a competitor's code base. I don't think that is unreasonable or hard to understand and I've never had to fire someone because of it.
  • Low quality (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @01:03AM (#43089107)

    For the most part, open source software is crap. At least all of the .NET or compatible stuff has been. It's flaky shit that's full of bugs and doesn't integrate worth a damn.

    I can't say I've tried everything, but after dozens of spectacular failures over the last decade of trying I see no hope on the horizon. It's almost always quicker and easier to roll my own solutions, and that's coming from someone who hates having to reinvent the wheel. The only thing that's ever worked has been tiny one-off stuff that can be effectively isolated from the main programs.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @02:47AM (#43089727)
    Well it is actually quite arguable that the GPL does work like a disease or cancer passing on to those that use it. While this conjures up negative conotations it is in many ways how it is meant to work, it is supposed to be an incurable license that passes on to all offspring of the original. Those that favour GPL find this a great thing, those that don't find it inconvenient or in some cases down right unpalatable.
  • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @06:00AM (#43090569) Journal

    GPL does not work like a disease, because a disease propagates regardless of the desires of its host, or the newly infected people. GPL, on the other hand, is something that you decide to use (or not to use) of your own volition.

  • by Dr_Barnowl (709838) on Wednesday March 06, 2013 @06:52AM (#43090811)

    That's not our beef with it - our problem with choosing BSD-style licenses for our code is not that the original code disappears, it's twofold

    i) We granted the freedom to use our code to the person receiving our software. We'd like the person receiving it to be good enough to do the same.

    ii) We put effort into the code - possibly a large community has put in many man hours of work. It doesn't seem fair that a corporation could take that code, roll it into a product, and make a profit selling it, without contributing to the community that created it in the first place, but that is what BSD permits.

    Incidentally, GPL permits this too - it's all about distribution of the software. If a corporation builds software on GPL code, they only have to share their changes with whoever they distribute to. That could be themselves, or just their customers.

    What GPL doesn't permit is that you forbid the recipients of your software from redistributing it, and it doesn't allow you to withhold the source code from them. BSD style licenses allow you to add these restrictions, GPL does not.

    So corporations love BSD licenses because it lets them get something for nothing, with no obligation to give anything back. There are still benefits in contribution to BSD licensed projects - like a reduced overhead, why maintain your patches when the community will do it for you?

    I work for the UK government in software development - I happen to think that GPL is an appropriate license for all government-funded software. If the people are funding it, all the people ought to be able to continue to benefit from it. Of course, corporations don't see it this way and refuse to play ball if you mention it - so the most common license we use is APL2. It irks me that they get a free ride from my taxes. That's not capitalism, that's socialism - for corporations.

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward" -- William E. Davidsen

Working...