Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft .Net Libraries Not Acting "Open Source"

figleaf writes "Three years ago, with much fanfare, Microsoft announced it would make some of the .Net libraries open source using the Microsoft Reference License. Since then Microsoft has reneged on its promise. The reference code site is dead, the blog hasn't been updated in a year and a half, and no one from Microsoft responds to questions on the forum."

11 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How is this different? by Americano · · Score: 5, Funny

    At the Microsoft site, nobody responds to your questions.

    At the SourceForge site, someone responds to your questions with, "You have the code, figure it out yourself, asshole."

    Worlds of difference, you see.

  2. Re:How is this different? by sunking2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I agree. Sounds to me like they've fully embraced the Open Source mindset. They probably have to get rid of 75% of their documentation though.

  3. Re:How is this different? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Microsoft has a forum

    Ziiiiing!

  4. Open source quality/theft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    First of all, there is the question of intellectual property. I don't see why Microsoft (or Apple, for that matter) should do *anything* to help open source. How many millions of dollars has the open source community stolen from Microsoft over the years through the violation of their patents? Microsoft has found literally hundreds of examples of Linux violating their patents, and not a SINGLE Linux developer has come forward to apologize and offer recompense. Instead, Microsoft has been forced to seek out companies that are using Linux to get them to acknowledge the wrongs that the open source Linux people have committed against Microsoft.

    Secondly, there is the question of quality. Open Source has largely FAILED to produce any software that is notably good. Linux is a terrible desktop OS, and marginal as a server. The GIMP pales in comparison to Photoshop. Open source codecs like ogg theora and vorbis are absolute garbage next to their closed source counterparts, etc. Microsoft really is perfectly justified in keeping as far away from the sinkhole of quality that open source represents.

  5. Re:This should have been seen from the start by jgagnon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well... I didn't know it wasn't happening... :p

    --
    Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
  6. So.... by shadowrat · · Score: 4, Funny

    Just like most open source projects!

    ::ducks::

  7. Re:How is this different? by Coren22 · · Score: 4, Funny

    No no no, that should be Biiiing!

    --
    APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  8. Re:Summary Misleading by alfredos · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know it's fun to bash Microsoft

    Actually, "fun" is an overly simplistic definition of it. Actually, it's an art that has some of the features of a sport.

  9. Re:Forking by value_added · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, it's not an open source license. You get to see the source code, but you have no rights beyond that.

    I once knew a girl like that.

  10. Re:Summary Misleading by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny
    I believe

    this "figleaf" character may just be trying to score some free karma or jollies or something by inciting the standard "M$ sux" response.

    I get the idea he's hiding something, not sure why.

  11. Re:... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word by Hooya · · Score: 4, Funny

    " ... and everyone believed Microsoft at its word ..."

    Well, no one should have believed Microsoft at its word. Or Excel. Or powerpoint.