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.
1) Don't trust Go because of Google
2) Don't trust C#,F# because M$ (yes with dollar sign)
3) Don't trust Java because Oracle
4) You gotta use XXX tech, which has no jobs in your area
Yada Yada... yet is probably using VSCode or GitHub. Just ignore it.
> There is no ethical consumption under capitalism
is said to de-emphasize or criticize arguments that are centered on consumer choice which is exactly what you and GP are doing by saying
> You have no choice but to depend on big corporations for key software platforms; advising or choosing to stay away from this one or that one matters little
Same goes for trusting Vue.js instead of React (Meta) and Angular (Google).
We still have copilot case in front of us.
> unconditionally trust Microsoft
But the poster I was responding to was pretty clearly saying that we should:
> unconditionally distrust Microsoft
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.
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').
I have witnessed "before" enough, so I distanced myself from them pretty sharply, and I didn't bother to check "after" that close. It's my fault, I accept it, but from this distance the end result doesn't show any meaningful differences. So, it's something to ponder if you ask me.
> Desktop Linux isn't likely to be something MSFT spends any amount of time concerning themselves with as competition.
It's may not be competition, but is a big hurdle against locking down PC ecosystem and converting them to appliances. If they can run all Linux apps under Windows, they can revoke all 3rd party signing keys, make Secure Boot mandatory and tell judges "See, it all works under Windows. We're no monopoly. We already ship the environment free with new PCs, anyway."
This stance against Microsoft is one of the rare firmly held strong opinions of mine. I certainly would prefer not hold this so firmly, but they made it impossible over the years.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/vjpz2w/ingame_ch...
Fuck Microsoft.
There is a good reason projects like the Rust Language are dual-licensed under MIT AND Apache2 because only the later protects you from software patent claims.
So I wouldn't be so sure about MS not having any legal means to shut down forks. Even if they might not win in court, as long as they can make up something up, they still have enough legal war money to effectively shut down any unwanted fork just by threatening legal action.
That promise seems only to apply if you use the .NET runtime. If you used a forked project, it might not apply.
Or please elaborate a little what you mean by "betraying".
Obviously, I have no idea what exactly will MS do, but after reaching some adoption target, MS will try to extract as much money as it can, because that's what they do.
The other posters in this thread mentioned the debugger is still proprietary. Anyway, I'm not touching this.
I doubt this. Microsoft's monetary strategy around .NET for a number is years has been "look at how easy you can deploy/run/monitor your .NET app on Azure!", I don't see that changing to anything else unless there's a massive change of priority and executive leadership at Microsoft.
- .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 IDEs.[1][2]
- MS was considering deprecating Omnisharp, the open-source language server that implements C# support for VS Code, and replacing it with a closed-source version. Since the announcement, commits to omnisharp-vscode have dropped off significantly. The lack of Omnisharp would mean there would be no real open-source C# development environment for Linux anymore, since MonoDevelop was abandoned a few years ago.[3]
[1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/RIDER-31366/EditContinu...
[2] https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/23685
[3] https://github.com/omnisharp/omnisharp-vscode/issues/5276
My understanding is that they did in fact implement it, but then ripped that code out before the release.
I just can't imagine it makes any business sense to be that hostile in today's world.
That hasn't been true for the last few years.
Source, elsewhere in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32483239
Microsoft is probably the most aggressively mediocre company in history, and the poor quality of everything has extracted an enormous lost productivity cost. Those of you old enough to remember IIS and early internet Microsoft know.
Even today, it takes five full seconds for my work Outlook webmail to load. Every person in the organization waiting for each task in Outlook n times per day adds up to a lot of lost productivity. And Outlook adds nothing to email that we haven't had since forever. Microsoft just took it over and made it slow and convinced the corporate types to use it. Rinse and repeat for everything they do.
I picked up and used XNA for the global gamejam 2012. It wasn't a terrible experience, so I went to use it again for 2013 but they'd since killed it off.
They've already started integrating LinkedIn into Outlook. They will probably be doing the same thing with GitHub in Visual Studio, and downplaying others (like GitLab). Will it affect my use? I don't know. I doubt it, but I wish I didn't feel like I need to be watching them like a hawk now, and be ready to move my code to another provider at short notice.
The really stupid part? Out of other companies who could have bought it, and would be interested in it, Microsoft is probably the best choice. Certainly better than Oracle or Salesforce.
I also have no issues depending on corporate things that I don't like, for example GitHub, as long as they can be replaced with minimal loss. I'd git remote set-url origin <something else> and be done with it.