-
Website
http://www.scobleizer.com/ -
Original page
http://scobleizer.com/2007/10/03/microsoft-open-sourcing-after-everyone-else/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
Not only Microsoft has shipped a full .NET codebase known as "Rotor" for at least 4 years (where you get not only the framework, but also the CLR itself), this move from Microsoft is providing source code that you could already view using the Reflector tool.
The real only positive announcement is that Microsoft is making the server debug symbols for those libraries available in a coming Visual Studio release for debugging purposes.
Nevermind it breaks good engineering practices, where you are supposed to work on a contract basis, not on whatever value of some internal register that you will now access when debugging this stuff.
Also, make no mistake : the core code, the CLR, is still not open. And god only knows what "Microsoft reference's license" might mean for people out there who would embed it in their product(s).
Personally, I think this is huge. This is the single biggest step toward openness I've seen from MS in a long time.
I'm waiting for Miguel de Icaza to sound off on this -- presumably, Mono is seeing some draft from this as well.
Personally I don't believe they will really open source .NET (as defined in www.opensource.org) but at least it will give developers a lot more intimate, inside knowledge on the technology.
A lot of people are growing suspicious of these latest Microsoft moves, but I think it's just Microsoft adapting to a new environment. They may be slow, but they're more than able to adapt. Remember the web? They missed that train and yet, today we have IE as the dominant browser.
Also, Microsoft has been very friendly with the Mono Project, which for me sends a very positive sign that .Net may actually be a good development alternative.
Thats true, but I don't know if it's fair to criticize them for being woefully behind, then also criticize them for being last. Certainly, I don't want to coddle Microsoft (or any corporation), but maybe we should give credit for first steps where credit for first steps is due. But your addition also means that it's a half-assed half-baked first step, so I could be wrong.
Reflector is AWESOME.
A lot of you guys talk about this industry stuff like it will actually improve your life one way or another...I'm just so tired of everyone on the web playing the part of amateur industry pundit...are YOU (commenter's included) actually building anything with open source technologies? If you actually have something to add to the internals of the open source JVM I would actually be interested in hearing about it...but this constant drone of marketing brinkmanship-score-card-keeping from enthusiasts WHO NEVER ACTUALLY MODIFY this freely available source is just painful.
I build business windows apps for a living and this will make my job better and easier. I wish that this had been available since .net shipped.
I also have to say that this whole thing about open source making the world a better place seems so naive now that I'm a little older...like that whole thing that Stallman used to say about free UNIX saving the world...most of the world probably needs more potable water, and fewer AK47's, before they need a UNIX station.
Again a bogus statement.
You probably mean "ahead...on Windows".
Ever heard of Amiga and Atari ST ? You had amazing visual software construction kits for those computers, back in the 80s.
Aaron
you must have smoked something to write such a blog post... This isn't about open sourcing .NET - and if you would be a developer you would know that you could have seen the full source code of the BCL even before Microsoft open sourced it - Just start Reflector (Microsoft knows about that program and never did anything against it - even the dev is employed at microsoft) if you would have it on your computer. ;-)
This is about allowing them to integrate it into Visual Studio and allow people to debug into the BCL more easily. This is a great step forward because debugging into it makes it way easier to find problems.
Chris
Uhm... MFC had the source provided in just exactly the same way as this, way back before 1995 (don't know the exact date, but it was there when I started MFC development in 1995).
Scoble, this isn't about "Open Source" or being a "market leader", it's about providing utility to the .NET developers. I'm 100% sure that the fact that Java was Open Sourced, or any other such foolishness, had any bearing at all on the decision here.
Now, well - I see they were right. This is such an obviously good thing for developers. The buzz I've read so far as been overwhelming positive. For some reason, by calculation or by inclination, you've decided to become an irrational Microsoft-basher. Too bad, I used to like your stuff. I'll go back to not reading you now...
Sure does. Having the source code of an API's internals is extremely useful for coding. I used to step into Swing apps prior to Java's open sourcing to see why I'm not getting expected results (very often, it was a bug in Swing). I currently use Reflector quite a bit (although integration with VS.Net would make it much better). MSDN not documenting an exception? Look at the source. Wonder why an ASP.Net app isn't working? Look at the source. Wonder what the pattern is for adding properties to a new ASP control? Look at the source to see how MS uses viewstate instead of fields.
There's a wealth of benefits to having source code, and a large number of them don't matter that the code is not OSS or that another language/framework vendor releases their source code, too.
I also put a lot of weight on them releasing with source code comments. I'm a big fan of the .Net Framework Guidelines book with its annotations to know why some things are the way they are, and allowing me to browse source code comments should help there, too
From reading Scott Gu's blog post about this, its really a technical thing all about symbols and debugging and nothing whatsoever to do with open source. Personally, I'm happy for Microsoft to not open source .NET.
Is any *comparable* open source framework as solid as .NET?
(Keep up the good work ;)
Coming late to the party, following someone else's lead, has been Microsoft's modus operandi forever and a day. It has made them rich, but irrelevant in the minds of the leaders in the industry.
First, this is a great boon to .NET devs. You aren't a dev, so wouldn't understand that.
Second, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, much of the .NET CLI code has been available for years via Rotor. Not being a dev, you wouldn't know anything about that.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx...
Third, despite your claims that Microsoft released code only after everyone else, Microsoft has released code to aid developers in debugging in the past (MFC, ATL, etc). Not being a dev, you wouldn't know anything about that.
Fourth, despite your claim that Microsoft releases code only after everyone else, Microsoft a few months ago release the DLR code, and not only under a reference license like MS-RL, but under MS-PL, a true open source license. Not being a dev (or not having a clue) you wouldn't know about that.
Fifth, you claim that Microsoft is "last", but your beloved can-do-no-wrong Apple has yet to release code to the Cocoa framework. Not being a dev, you wouldn't understand that this is a problem for Cocoa devs.
Finally, just how old are you? Yesterday (in another "Microsoft sucks" post) you claimed to be 42, but your maturity level is around 12. Anyone that bashes someone for having not done a particular thing, then after they do said thing, bashes them for doing it after others have done it, is a spoiled brat that can't be pleased no matter what, nothing more.
It's EXTREMELY sad that you've reduced yourself to trying to score brownie points with Microsoft haters by making such inane anti-Microsoft posts as you have done lately.
This blog has really gone down the toilet, and that's a shame.
Bull.
If Apple announced that they were releasing the source to Cocoa, Scoble would praise Apple to the heights and use it as an opportunity to bash Microsoft (again). He wouldn't say even a single word about Apple being "last" to release source code.
And the big thing is Scoble is so damn ignorant.
Microsoft release MFC code in 1993 for goodness sakes, well before Sun, Adobe, or anyone else released code. They release Rotor (.NET CLI sources) in 2001! And Rotor2 in 2004! Scoble being completely ignorant of this fact is a complete embarassment.
For Scoble to question whether this matters shows that he doesn't have the first clue about anything, despite posing to be an expert on *everything*. Scoble, get this through your skull - this DOES matter to .NET developers. End of story.
This .NET release applies to .NET developers and it does not matter if someone thinks it is late. The fact is, it does matter going forward. It matters just as the non-developer could not care less that Java is open-sourced. It matters because the market that uses it cares.
As many have said, this helps developers and is not about the tired buzzword "open source". It is another tool that helps make the .NET platform valuable to developers.
Given your post about this, I cannot help but think about Apple and the iPhone. While Apple will not open up their Mac libs to help developers, nor even ALLOW (and brick those that try) development on the various iPod/phone products, you complain about this. I guess the iPod does not matter then because all of the Play For Sure products use a shared technology platform?
As a developer this is only a plus. It helps people get their work done, it is not about whatever marketing phrase you choose to throw at it.
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it's just easier, and integrated with VS.
Go, code something. Open Source *automatically* good+cool.
Borek
Now Microsoft is releasing the source of .NET. UPDATE: Krish points out that this isn’t open sourcing .NET, just releasing the source. That’s even lamer cause the other two have actually open sourced and are accepting submissions from the community.
##
This will definately be possible. If you have access to the source. You can always engage a product team and say I see your do x and really it should be doing y. Happy hippy free love version of open source is definately not the way to go.
Scoble Said:
And anyway, you could always have seen through the code with Reflector. Now, it’s just easier, and integrated with VS.
##
Not True. You get a best guess of what the code was. If you listen to Scott Hanselmans podcast they go over line numbers and even variable names could be different. Making it hard to pin point an issue.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdn-files/027/001/90...
>>When you are last to do something, does it really matter?<<
YES IT DOES! Dunno about you but I feel it is expected for Microsoft to do this last (are they even last?!) becuase .NET is the best, the most used, the easiest to use. It is constantly and consistently being improved, and the community of developers is a billion times larger than Java's wimpy ass could ever hope for. What a ridiculous post this was.
I just un-subscribed...
and adobe open sourced something that no one really uses. big step there.
1: .NET is an ECMA standard, that means anyone can produce an implementation.
2: There is already an open source .NET implementation Mono
3: MS released a reference implementation of the CLR - Rotor - which has allowed people to understand how to build thier own.
4: You have always been able to reverse engineer the .NET framework using ILDASM or reflector. This access is just a convenience to developers to allow them tgo debug into the source. It is not designed to allow .NET developers to build their own .NET framework but to debug issues with their code, by understanding what the framework is doing.
5: This is no different to the releases of source for MFC, ATL etc. which have been available to developers for over ten years now. The MS development community has a tradtion of this approach.
6: Patents are patents whether or not you have read the code; ignorance is not an excuse in the eyes of the law. You are as likely to fall foul of patents by writing clean room code. Copyright is an issue, but was always an issue, even for reverse engineered code, but I am unaware of many successful copyright prosecutions.
Here is how you retain some credibility Robert. Do some reseach to find out what is really happening here, and then print a retraction. You drank the anti-MS kool aid without even questioning it.
Why does it matter to a Microsoft developer if Sun did *anything* first? Viewing the source for the latest and greatest in .NET 3.5 is going to be a major learning experience for real developers and a huge boost for debugging.
Sorry, this isn't your best post.
Wow, that's childish.