re: Issues with VSCODE License — You should worry VIEW POST

FULL DISCUSSION
 

Business speaking: Open source is not sustainable. You can name a few cases where it works but generally, it is not viable economically. Even Linux is backed by Microsoft.

Microsoft is supplying two licenses: open source and commercial. I don't see the problem with it.

 

Offtop: a lot of people think that open source is actually sustainable. See this talk on the sustainability of open source by the creator of Ruby on Rails.

Now, I’m not saying that there’s something categorically wrong with developing open source on market-based terms. What I’m saying is that it isn’t a necessary condition of sustainability.

 

Your quote is misleading.

He said "[FOSS] isn't a necessary condition of sustainability" not that "FOSS is not sustainable"

i.e. It may not automatically make your project sustainable, but it definitely won't stop you from achieving sustainability.

Open-Source projects can still be sustainable.

Open-Source projects can still be sustainable

I tried to say the same thing

 
Sloan, the sloth mascot Comment marked as low quality/non-constructive by the community View code of conduct

Microsoft is now backing Linux after decades of demonizing and trying to destroy it, because it runs the entire internet and Microsoft lost. How's that for economically viable? Just figured you wouldn't want to sound so foolish going forward.

 

Except for the fact that pure open source projects without backing of such big commercial companies often die after the developers lose interest or the time to maintain it next to their commercial jobs to make a living. Not that it can't be done but it definitely cannot be the only way to do it.

Closed source projects die too. G+ anyone? Internet explorer?

Indeed.

killedbygoogle.com/

But it does not change the even big open source projects are struggling, for example, Docker, and Docker is a big one.

 

Just figured you wouldn't want to sound so foolish going forward.

I have not spent much time in these dev.to discussions, so I am unfamiliar with the customs here. But your comment sounds very much like the kind of personal attack that is unwelcome in many civilized communities.

 

Business speaking, Microsoft is backing Linux, not the opposite.
In fact, Microsoft is part of the Linux Foundation, ergo Microsoft is part of the ownership of the Linux Foundation. Even Linus was almost ousted from his own foundation.

Linux is gaining the server market yes, but with a free product. At the end of the day, only a few companies profit-generating Linux distro, one of them is Redhat but hey, it was purchased by IBM (sneaky IBM). We have Ubuntu but Ubuntu is not truly open source.

It's funny how some Linux community talks about open source and free. I understand it. But Microsoft talks another language: money.

Also, Microsoft IS STILL DEMONIZING LINUX. Microsoft hasn't freed some licenses either has it stopped suing Linux companies.

Is Microsoft an evil company?. Truly it is, but it is sustainable. You can look at RedisLab or MongoDB Inc.

 

Microsoft is backing linux because they have to, as half of their Azure IaaS customers are running linux. They have to resort to linux to power their virtual network appliance. They even engineered WSL to keep Windows on desktop relevant

 

Microsoft could follow the path of Amazon: (so it does not need to fund Linux)

  • Take an open-source project.
  • Use it and sells service from it.
  • And paid nothing from it.
  • And if the owner of the open-source project complains, then Amazon will create an "it-is-legally-a-not-fork-or-anything-related".
 

They even engineered WSL to keep Windows on desktop relevant

That was very funny 😂. What percentage of desktops are NOT Windows and Macs, again?

Quite the opposite is true in my opinion; if the WSL 2.0 lives up to the promise, it completely extinguishes the need for Linux on Desktop (which is not being used by anyone, statistically, anyways)

 

You do realize that the entire framework of the net would be unsustainably expensive if not for open source, don't you?
I know MS, Amazon and Oracle would love to see a world where everyone was using their hosting software. I'm sure 99% of us hosting sites are glad that's not the case.

 

Ugh. Yeah. It might be a really good time to fork every bit of Google's code that's still open and run away with it. Is the go compiler still OSS?

 

Open source is sustainable. I work on open source for fun, not profit, as do many of us. It sustains my fun. 100% sustainable fun.

 

In that it makes paid work much easier to obtain, yes.

 

Godot and Blender are opensource and they are doing good.

 

I dare say that the profits of Microsoft make open source contribution very sustainable.

 

Though Microsoft has been benefiting from Linux/Unix for years with it's cloud offerings (plus Hotmail ran on Unix for a looong time) I have a feeling this may be flavor of it's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish strategy.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_e...
They seem to be in the EMBRACE stage. They joined the Linux foundation and have made heavy "donations" which earned them a director seat - they've bought their way into influencing the future of Linux.

Though Linux can't really be extinguished, I'm curious where they go or hope to go with this new "love" for Linux. Maybe it's true love, maybe it's ...

 

Nothing but FUD? Times change. SCO tried to destroy Linux to further their software. Oracle releases the JVM under a much more restrictive commercial license. Red Hat might be transforming into a patent troll. Richard Stallman is being petitioned to step away from the GNU Foundation. Linus Torvalds can be incredibly rude and sensitive to his own contributors .

Microsoft employs hundreds of thousands of people across countless teams. I don't think it's fair to classify such a diverse organization of having an evil agenda without being able to provide substantial evidence.

Well... that same "diverse organization" has HAD evil agendas that only became apparent after the destruction was complete, so what are you even talking about?

If you READ my comment you'll see that I didn't make any claims. I said what they've done so far feels like a stage in the strategy they have employed to crush competition in the past.

Like I said, Linux can't be "crushed", but it can be steered in a "direction". For better or for worse. Hence I'm curious what they will actually do with the influence they are buying their way into.

I was trying to point out that lots of organizations have tried to get rid of Linux with their efforts perceived very differently by the public.

I do not appreciate your dismissive tone. I did read your comment and personally felt the disrespectful tone was uncalled for.

You may not have forecast any specific claims, but the language and attitude of your post suggests that you have already made up your mind about their intentions.

code of conduct - report abuse