I wouldn't say that Google is high on my list of trust, either. But TypeScript and VS Code do not jump you into a #2 ranking. Go and Chrome easily trump them for starters. Then you get things like node that ride off V8, and Atom that rides off Chrome. The Google ecosystem of community building blocks is still much, much more significant than MS. After all, Google actually dogfoods OSS.

FWIW, I don't and wouldn't use a source code repository of Google's or Facebook's, either. In fact, rather than open a GitLab account, I started self-hosting a year ago. GitLab made that easy. I also looked at Pagure.

wait, how does go and chrome trump open source c#, f#, vb.net, .net core, typescript, asp.net, visual studio code, monaco, powershell core, mono, and the many, many other things they have open sourced?

they’ve gone insane.

https://opensource.microsoft.com

https://github.com/Microsoft

and all of these are active and well managed with microsoft employees engaged in communication.

Angular, Polymer,

Dart, Go,

Android,

Chromium,

Protocol Buffers, Java Guice/Collections, C++ Abseil

Plus a bunch of minor things

https://opensource.google.com/projects/list/featured

and stuff Google contributes to but doesn't lead.

Kubernetes, CGroups (for containers) VP9, VP10 codecs

Microsoft open source is inherently less valuable because it is all built around being closed source until recently.

So there is much less of a network effect which makes it less valuable. One example: most open source modern OO languages, e.g. Kotlin, Scala, target the JVM, and so are interoperable. Whereas C# is in a closed Microsoft bubble of open source. If it had an LLVM or Java backend, it'd be much more useful.

none of that makes any sense. c#, f#, and vb.net all target .NET (and thus the CLR) and are interoperable. they are also cross-platform with .NET core.

and saying “most open source modern OO languages ... target the JVM” is not accurate. if you mean modern OO JVM languages, then yea, of course, but that is satisfied analogously by the .NET languages.

the c# and f# compilers, .NET core (libraries and framework), and core CLR (the runtime) are all open source and cross-platform. there isn’t anything closed about it. i don’t know what you mean by “closed microsoft bubble of open source”.

why do the .NET languages need LLVM or JVM implementations to be useful? again, that doesn’t make sense.

Nothing which a normal 'non microsoft' developer would profit from. Even their contributions to Linux were mostly about running Windows on Linux and the other way around. Nothing a non Microsoft dev would even care about.

Google however maintains a few products that can easily be considered standard, or at least will find their way in any other developer stack.

what is a non-microsoft developer? these are open platforms that happen to be made by microsoft.

if you use google’s open source projects are you now a google developer?

and visual studio code is probably used more for web development than it is .net work. it certainly is the major selling point of it on the website.

Agreed that is weird wording. When I look at my environment there are basically 2 kind of developers (from this point of view) those who do Net and use the MS stack, and those who don't do Net and at max worked with VS code.

I really don't know a lot of people who do anything with the MS stack. And those who do code on and for Microsoft (which already is a minority)

I personally don't know anyone who switched from Atom or Sublime to VS. Only VS users I know have been using real VS before.

Microsoft might be doing a better job wrt contributing to and creating open source software, but the trust of Microsoft is not there.

My SO migrated everything off Github back on Sunday when rumors broke, deleting the account & repos that had commits and contribs going back years.

Consistently, one of the first questions I ask friends and acquaintences who go to work across the lake to work for MS in Bellevue or Redmond is whether they are on an Embrace or Extend team. Most are on Embrace/Rewrite our own version but "better" teams.

Microsoft has changed, but they're no Red Hat or Suse.

Considering Google has over 2000 plus open source projects I find it hard to believe how Microsoft is doing a better job of doing open source than Google.

Additionally, I find it comical that you would even suggest that a company that has sued other companies for using open source software is even in the conversation with companies that have championed open source software since their inception.

There is no undo button. All you can do is be better than what you were. If Microsoft really wants to start doing a better job in the open source community they can start by agreeing to never sue another company for using Linux.

I assume you're not using Google's GitHub profile as a measure since Google's has fewer repositories than Microsoft's. Where does the 2000 number come from?