Mono 2.11.3 Packs In Microsoft's Entity Framework

[frantaylor]

This is certainly a step in the right direction. Even they see the light: Open source is the future.

Has ANYONE bothered to notice that Microsoft's "contributions" are USELESS unless you are working with MICROSOFT products???

You don't have to pay a toll to use Wal-Mart's parking lot, nor the access road! How GENEROUS they are! LOOK at all the FREE roads they build!

[halfmanhalfamazing]

.

That would seem to be a summary of what you just said. All open source is equal, but some open source is more equal than others.

Has ANYONE bothered to notice that Microsoft's "contributions" are USELESS unless you are working with MICROSOFT products???

Sure, it seems logical actually. Just like British cars generally stay in Britain. Ever noticed how it will get someone's attention if you have your steering wheel on the right hand side?(I'd imagine the same would be said for having the driver sit on the left hand side, for an Englishman)

Now of course in recent years things have changed, where those cars are now built in America.(Driver on the left, though)

At some point, the code will have the same outcome. Why wouldn't it? Open source is on an upward trajectory.(no matter how slight it may be, it's less slight now than it was say 5-10 years ago)

Besides, I would imagine that most open source programmers on the linux side would take the position that "I'm not using that". I wouldn't either.

You don't have to pay a toll to use Wal-Mart's parking lot, nor the access road! How GENEROUS they are! LOOK at all the FREE roads they build!

I think generosity was the last thing on their minds. But the road is still free. And not only that, they gave you the blueprint on how they built the road, which exactly is what all of us keep asking for. Isn't it?

Something that a lot of people around here should consider is the change of culture:

Just as a lot of people on the linux side have blind irrational hatred of anything microsoft, even this - there's aversion among users of the other side.

If Microsoft themselves is opening up it's sources, that will inevitably soften the stance of the closed sourcers.

How could it not? Getting them to switch to Linux will be still be a hard task, but at least the wall is being broken - and by Microsoft themselves.

[frantaylor]

But the road is still free. And not only that, they gave you the blueprint on how they built the road, which exactly is what all of us keep asking for. Isn't it?

" they gave you the blueprint on how they built the road"

WHAT do you PRESUME we are "asking for"??? The road to Microsoft's virtualization technology? NOPE!! The road to "entity frameworks"? NOPE!!

These are roads to NOWHERE.

Microsoft has been publishing "open-source" examples and glue code for DECADES. It's ALL to PUSH THEIR PRODUCTS. It's no more "generous" than Walmart's driveway.

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Microsoft has been publishing "open-source" examples and glue code for DECADES. It's ALL to PUSH THEIR PRODUCTS. It's no more "generous" than Walmart's driveway.

I see what's going on here. There's a reason you keep pigeonholing me into some belief of 'generosity' which I don't hold.

Does it piss you off that Google makes billions off of open source technologies? (Android, among others)

Does it piss you off that Red Hat is a highly successful open source company?

IBM has also made upwards into the billions this way.

You might just have to come to grips that open source can too, be profitable. There's no reason why it can't be.

[frantaylor]

I see what's going on here. There's a reason you keep pigeonholing me into some belief of 'generosity' which I don't hold.

Does it piss you off that Google makes billions off of open source technologies? (Android, among others)

Does it piss you off that Red Hat is a highly successful open source company?

google's open souce contributions are used by people who pay no money to google

RedHat's open souce contributions are used by people who pay no money to RedHat

Microsoft's open source contributions are usless unless you pay money to microsoft.

Did that distinction just fly right over your head?

I'm working with node.js on my Fedora desktop and I didn't have to pay google or RedHat a dime.

THAT is what "free software" is about.

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Did that distinction just fly right over your head?

Of course not. If you were reading what I'm typing, you'd know that.

At some point, the code will have the same outcome. Why wouldn't it?

[frantaylor]

Of course not. If you were reading what I'm typing, you'd know that.

"At some point, the code will have the same outcome. Why wouldn't it?"

What's the outcome? A license for a Microsoft product?

Why aren't you gushing over VMware? They release code as open source too. Again useless without the VMware product, so the outcome is "buy a VMware license"

With google and RedHat's contributions, a paid-for software license is not the outcome.

Maybe we can scour over the web sites of SAP and Oracle and IBM and present all of their "free" demo code and call them "good open source citizens" too

"free advice" on how to pay money. Priceless!

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Your quote ins:

I'm working with node.js on my Fedora desktop and I didn't have to pay google or RedHat a dime.

THAT is what "free software" is about.

Ahhh, you care less about the sources, than just that you can get something for free. That's called mooching.

One of the things I'm glad about in recent times is that more companies are making more money with open source, which means that it's here to stay. I hope Valve makes lots of profits, so that more game companies will follow suit. I'm glad Intel makes money with it's linux products, because we're baby steps away now from OGL 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and ES3.

I myself have bought products from these linux-only companies, for the express purpose of supporting them even though I could've just downloaded it for free.

I like open source for numerous reasons, among them is aversion to vendor-lock. Open source is not just about "free stuff", it has a value........... that you clearly don't understand anyways. So my explanation would be rejected by default. It's not worth me typing it.

[halfmanhalfamazing]

Why aren't you gushing over VMware?

I've never seen people become irrational over VMware. And the problem is, people in their irrational state will proceed to attack people like Miguel de Icaza, which is wholly unnecessary.

Microsoft does evil things. Sure. Proven. But when they do the right thing, it should be noted.

Besides, if MS is opening up sources(even if they only immediately benefit people within the MS camp) it seems logical to think that there's an open source contingent within the camp, that MS feels the need to appease. I would like to encourage that contingent. Like I said, I don't think MS did this for generosity.

[frantaylor]

it seems logical to think that there's an open source contingent within the camp, that MS feels the need to appease.

You mean NOT GET SUED because they weren't going to open their linux virtualization drivers until it was pointed out that they HAD to.

"appease"??? They want to SELL SQL SERVER LICENSES!!! They make CLIENTS to connect to SQL Server and they GIVE THEM AWAY. EVERY vendor does this on EVERY platform that they market to. It's FREE SOFTWARE so they can DUMP it on the "community" and then they don't have to support it anymore, get suckers to do it for them.