News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by tolmasky on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @12:10PM (#8596668)
Much like countries, it doesn't necessarily make sense to treat companies like people when it comes to reputation. You shouldn't hold a grudge against a country forever, many of the people inside of it may have disagreed with its actions and more importantly the leadership could be completely different now. Similalrly, if most of the employees at Microsoft today are different than in the 90s and the leadership is completely different, then what really has the reputation, their article of incorporation? Mind you, for all I know most of Microsoft is still "old Microsoft", I'm just saying it can't really be as simple as attributing actions of the past to whatever happens to be there today.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jacquesm on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @12:39PM (#8596869)
This is absolutely true but even in the present Microsoft has anything but clean hands:

http://euobserver.com/political/125868

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_Ventures

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2466540/software/munich-...

And on and on.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by deeviant on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @02:09PM (#8597488)
Right, but would own an Apple product? That's terrible, they exploit horrible treatment of rightless Chinese wage-slaves.

Would you use a google product? They are double-faced went in come to net neutrality, only putting their weight on points that promote their own benefit. They also buy up tons of extremely innovative start-ups, then suffocate them under the weight of their glacial bureaucracy and pedantic squabbling.

I could go on all day.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jacquesm on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @02:12PM (#8597507)
I'm sure you could go on all day but this thread is about microsoft. Apple's products are not welcome here because of their walled garden approach and Google has done far worse than making a faux-pas in the net neutrality debate. Agreed on the buying up innovative start-ups and then killing them off, that's really bad and acqui-hires are hurting all start-ups.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by m_mueller on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @06:20PM (#8598960)
Im curious, can you really get by without MS, Google and Apple? No LLVM based products for you? No Webkit? No CUPS? No V8? If you do use some of these projects, where's the difference from an Open Sourced .NET?
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jacquesm on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @06:47PM (#8599074)
I get by without MS and Apple just fine (as I wrote elsewhere, I do still have an elderly Mac here that is sometimes used for compatibility testing but I don't even remember when I started it up last and it currently isn't even plugged in).

As for Google, that's the hard one to avoid. Adsense/Adwords is easy, youtube is hard (plenty of video content is only available on youtube), google search is still better than duckduckgo (and I'm really sorry about that, but I'm rooting for Gabriel to achieve parity some day even if that's an uphill battle), and I use Google docs for a few spreadsheets that I need to be able to access remotely.

My mail is on my own server, web stuff is classical 'LAMP', I don't use webkit, don't use V8 and I don't think I have an instance of CUPS here that is actually configured to do real work but it's possible that I'm missing a machine clever enough to auto-configue.

Other hardware is Dell, Synology (which has CUPS on board but it's not in use) and a variety of smaller fry.

It's really not all that hard to keep the big companies out of your life, one of these days I'll find a way to get rid of google completely. The most frequently used closed source product I have is Varicad (but they have a nasty little gotcha that I recently found out about so they're on the way out) and another is adobe acrobat reader (the linux version). Oh, and the Nvidia binary drivers for the graphics card in this box.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by m_mueller on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @08:06PM (#8599392)
> Oh, and the Nvidia binary drivers for the graphics card in this box.

With NVIDIA drivers you probably have at least some LLVM compiled components (or will have, once their transition has been completed in future generations), but I give you that one. As a GPGPU developer for example, you probably soon can't get around LLVM anymore and I expect its influence to grow in the Linux world, as it has become the default choice to build new OSS compiler / language projects around.

I'm using DDG myself btw. - Google is the main one I'd like to get away from, but as you wrote it's very hard. At least DDG with "g!" prefix makes me anonymous to them.

What I still find very hard to replace is Skype and/or Hangout - I'm not aware of an OSS solution that works on all platforms and that I can easily set up with all kinds of peers (including non computer literate). Even Hangout is way too complicated, even for aged computer scientists I've found. And I'm really using all of it - VoIP, video conferencing, Skype-Out, screen sharing, messaging. This is the main thing I'd like to replace since we're handing out so much control to this tool.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by 72deluxe on Thursday November 13, 2014 @04:42AM (#8600697)
Isn't LLVM used in nvidia drivers for compiling shaders at runtime? GLSL needs compiling, and I thought everyone typically used LLVM for this?
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by m_mueller on Thursday November 13, 2014 @06:29AM (#8600984)
I don't know much about OpenGL and can't confirm it from a quick google [1], but I could well imagine it if that JIT was either recently introduced by NVIDIA or ported over already - LLVM seems to be their company policy for anything compiler related now.

[1] http://http.developer.nvidia.com/Cg/cgc.html

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by sergiosgc on Thursday November 13, 2014 @04:13AM (#8600609)
Hmm, yes I can. Gcc, gecko, cups predates apple, spidermonkey...
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by m_mueller on Thursday November 13, 2014 @06:38AM (#8601011)
While you can, it's not always that simple. Say you want to make a Qt application with a web frame - Qt-Webkit seems to be the most mature for that matter. Spidermonkey seems to be quite a bit behind V8 in terms of performance, tooling and framework support (Node.js ecosystem) as well, so I'm not sure it's a real alternative today. Do you use it for production level serverside-javascript systems?

Also, do you only use older CUPS versions because Apple pays its development for a while now?

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by throwawaykf05 on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @10:52PM (#8599812)
1. Regarding the 1st link - Speaking from experience, if you do business in certain (primarily third-world) countries, bribery is the norm. It's as natural there as lobbying is in the US.

2. Regarding the 2nd link - MS has no control over IV's business, unless you have evidence otherwise. And that too, it's "unclean" only to the extent that you believe patents are evil, which is unfortunately an all-too-common view around here.

3. Regarding the 3rd link - see 1.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by tzs on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @03:46PM (#8598032)
What in the third reference was intended to show unclean hands?
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jacquesm on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @03:54PM (#8598081)
MS coincidentially moved their headquarters to Muenchen.

http://www.eversheds.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?...

Of course that has absolutely nothing to do with Muenchen switching back to MS.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by guardian5x on Thursday November 13, 2014 @03:46AM (#8600535)
It is not decided, if Muenchen switches back or not. Afaik they just want to evaluate the IT systems.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by mercurial on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @05:18PM (#8598637)
> Much like countries, it doesn't necessarily make sense to treat companies like people when it comes to reputation. You shouldn't hold a grudge against a country forever, many of the people inside of it may have disagreed with its actions and more importantly the leadership could be completely different now.

Sure, but it really depends on what and how much. Microsoft made their fortune by being ethically bankrupt and breaking the law. If the Mafia decided to reform today and go legit, it would be a long hard slough before anybody would actually trust them. And if they kept extortion as a side business, it would make it very hard to believe anything they have to say, regardless of the amount of money they give to charity.

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by tiedemann on Thursday November 13, 2014 @04:41AM (#8600691)
"Microsoft made their fortune by being ethically bankrupt and breaking the law". Much like most of todays rich countries including US, EU, Russia and China.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jfoster on Wednesday November 12, 2014 @04:34PM (#8598358)
Even with a complete changing of personnel, factors (eg. business model) could necessitate certain behaviours. For example, every person inside present day Google could be replaced, but the behaviour of learning more about their users in order to more precisely target them with advertising wouldn't change unless they actively tried to reinvent the company. That said, I do think Microsoft are actively trying to reinvent themselves.
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by AlisdairO on Saturday November 15, 2014 @05:52AM (#8611422)
I recognise the sense in what you're saying, but I tend towards treating corporations much like I treat people with regard to reputation. The reason for that is that I want companies to have to think seriously about how it will hurt them long-term before they trade off that reputation.

I don't want it to be an optimal business strategy to be evil to maximise growth, and then become nice once evil no longer pays off. Holding a grudge longer than might seem strictly logical is my way of pushing in that direction :-).