Why is everyone surprised when Microsoft open sources something?
Seriously?
I said this before and I'll be quite likely to be forced to say it again numerous times in the future. Microsoft has contributed more to open source directly and indirectly than... well just about every other company.
Google? Easily beaten. What has Google open sourced? On a large scale... the open component of Android (which isn't effectively even a complete OS in and of itself due to a lack of drivers, generic or otherwise). And, even that piece has been kept from the public at times leading many to question Google's definition of Open Source.
ALL of the core Google Services and the most marketable and useful pieces are closed software. And, just about everything else Google does for that matter.
TypeScript, Roslyn and even legacy versions of Office have been released. They have backed open source initiatives directly in terms of hosting services, financing and even encouraging and actively participating in coding for these OSS projects.
Yes, open sourcing the vast majority of the .Net platform is huge. But mostly because the project itself is huge. Otherwise, it is on par with TypeScript and Roslyn. Perhaps the bigger news is the 1st party Mac and Linux support. Simply opening up the runtime this way could have lead to such a development... in fact numerous already exist; Mono and Xamarin to name a few.
Frankly, this is probably a smart move for them. .Net doesn't generate any direct revenue. It is much more important that the technology be pervasive than proprietary. As Microsoft's market share in key areas dwindles, this gives current .Net developers a reason not to worry. If Windows 10 sells 0 copies my life as a .Net developer is safe. I can write .Net applications for Mac or Linux (more likely Mac than Linux, but you get the point). And that keeps the company relevant.
The other thing it does, if only for a brief period, is get people talking in a positive way about the company. Open Source looks good. Google made it look good. Microsoft is simply capitalizing on that.
I'll have to look more into this. Not sure what the effort is (if any) to get a pure .Net Windows application running on the likes of Mac or Linux... but I have a Linux partition on the computer, so I may just need to try.
This may also be a stepping stone. For years Microsoft has been migrating more and more of their software including OS components to running natively in .Net. In theory this means that any products that they can do that with, they become able to distribute cross platform with a single code base. Visual Studio on Mac or Linux would be nice. Full blown Office suites would be nice as well.
Anyway... the point is simple... Microsoft opening up existing things to open source is not new. Not by a long shot. And contributing to open source, even less so. If you think another company does it better, think about the last time they made a notable contribution.
I said this before and I'll be quite likely to be forced to say it again numerous times in the future. Microsoft has contributed more to open source directly and indirectly than... well just about every other company.
Google? Easily beaten. What has Google open sourced? On a large scale... the open component of Android (which isn't effectively even a complete OS in and of itself due to a lack of drivers, generic or otherwise). And, even that piece has been kept from the public at times leading many to question Google's definition of Open Source.
ALL of the core Google Services and the most marketable and useful pieces are closed software. And, just about everything else Google does for that matter.
TypeScript, Roslyn and even legacy versions of Office have been released. They have backed open source initiatives directly in terms of hosting services, financing and even encouraging and actively participating in coding for these OSS projects.
Yes, open sourcing the vast majority of the .Net platform is huge. But mostly because the project itself is huge. Otherwise, it is on par with TypeScript and Roslyn. Perhaps the bigger news is the 1st party Mac and Linux support. Simply opening up the runtime this way could have lead to such a development... in fact numerous already exist; Mono and Xamarin to name a few.
Frankly, this is probably a smart move for them. .Net doesn't generate any direct revenue. It is much more important that the technology be pervasive than proprietary. As Microsoft's market share in key areas dwindles, this gives current .Net developers a reason not to worry. If Windows 10 sells 0 copies my life as a .Net developer is safe. I can write .Net applications for Mac or Linux (more likely Mac than Linux, but you get the point). And that keeps the company relevant.
The other thing it does, if only for a brief period, is get people talking in a positive way about the company. Open Source looks good. Google made it look good. Microsoft is simply capitalizing on that.
I'll have to look more into this. Not sure what the effort is (if any) to get a pure .Net Windows application running on the likes of Mac or Linux... but I have a Linux partition on the computer, so I may just need to try.
This may also be a stepping stone. For years Microsoft has been migrating more and more of their software including OS components to running natively in .Net. In theory this means that any products that they can do that with, they become able to distribute cross platform with a single code base. Visual Studio on Mac or Linux would be nice. Full blown Office suites would be nice as well.
Anyway... the point is simple... Microsoft opening up existing things to open source is not new. Not by a long shot. And contributing to open source, even less so. If you think another company does it better, think about the last time they made a notable contribution.
Comments
Post a Comment