Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by keithwarren 4403 days ago
+1 Best answer so far.

They are just making a bet that tight coupling to a singular platform does not give them the agility they want for the future. This may also be a trial balloon. If this goes well you may see other things in the Microsoft stack make similar changes.
1 comments
laumars 4403 days ago
Except that this isn't any different from the other times they supported other platforms when they didn't hold a monopoly in that specific area. This isn't a new strategy / trial balloon; this is a tried and tested technique for gaining market dominance (and it's not just Microsoft who play this game; most of the tech giants do - even Google).
link
rbanffy 4403 days ago
Yes, but in this case, they are embracing and extending - and open sourcing - their own platform, ASP.NET. We are still missing something.

They may attract some Java developers, but I don't think it has much appeal outside their own ecosystem.

link
laumars 4403 days ago
Just because they haven't yet reached the 'extinguish' stage of their strategy (and possibly never will), it doesn't mean that isn't the intended outcome. And going by their past behaviour; history would suggest that is their eventual end goal.

As for whether ASP.NET on Linux will ever attract many new developers; I must admit that I'm inclined to agree with you.

link
_random_ 4403 days ago
How can you monopolize something that runs on Linux and is forkable?
link
laumars 4403 days ago
Quite easily, actually. If the majority of Mono / .NET developers are in house MS developers, then Microsoft still have all practical control over the project (just because something is open source, it doesn't mean people will develop for it nor fork it). Plus Mono not all of .NET is open source; such as the DRM extensions for Silverlight (there aren't even closed binary Mono libraries for that).

But that wasn't my point, I was commenting about how Microsoft support other platforms and standards to gain a foothold in that specific market; then introduce incompatibilities to lock people into their technology (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish). It's a well used strategy (and not just by MS). In fact, I almost sympathise with it's usage as it makes a lot of business sense - even if it does totally suck from a user perspective.

Also, why down vote me; then ask the question? Doesn't that seem a somewhat backwards approach to discussion and peer moderation?

link