Doesn't explain why Java developed a robust OSS ecosystem long before it went open source. Java did benefit from the model Sun set up on J2EE of setting out JSR 'specifications' and only providing limited capability reference implementations, which made it possible for the Apache Java ecosystem to spring up, initially around the Xerces and Xalan XML libraries. Maybe - maybe - Microsoft is starting to get on board with this kind of model now.
I agree there was a lot of similarity between how open Java & C# were as they evolved. However, Sun's engagement with the open source development community was much, much, much better than Microsoft's. Sun had its problems, but they actually had worked with that community in the past. At the time Microsoft was openly combative.
I mean... It's nice that they're trying to "come clean," now, and all. But it's sort of like a criminal who was never punished now claiming to be legit because he's seen the light... and there's PLENTY of us out there still who still feel wronged by the past.
Companies aren't monolithic entities, MS has tens of thousands of employees. Just because the upper level of the upper level of upper level management (which is a different group of people than engineering) might have been hostile towards it years ago doesn't mean that everyone there agreed with that stance, and it doesn't mean that that management culture has persisted to the present day.
Ultimately the only thing that matters are actions, not the human personality traits that people project onto anthropomorphized corporations. I'm sure there are plenty of people there now that are anti-OSS, and pro-OSS, and everything in between. It doesn't matter. All that matters at the end of the day is what software is released and how that software is licensed.
> Just because the upper level of the upper level of upper level management (which is a different group of people than engineering) might have been hostile towards it years ago doesn't mean that everyone there agreed with that stance, and it doesn't mean that that management culture has persisted to the present day.
Fallacy of composition?
> Ultimately the only thing that matters are actions
Which were terrible. MAYBE they are better NOW. :P
> not the human personality traits that people project onto anthropomorphized corporations
So corporations are run by computers, I take it?
> anti-OSS
This position is literally irrational UNLESS you are a profit-making entity that considers OSS a threat to your own for-profit business model.
Not so much where the profit comes from selling software.
If Microsoft open sourced Windows and Office they would instantly stop making money, hence they will always have an uncomfortable relationship with open source.
> If Microsoft open sourced Windows and Office they would instantly stop making money
If Microsoft open-sourced Windows and Office and offered enterprise technical support contracts at the same price they offered enterprise licensing contracts for the same level of support that was included in those contracts, they'd probably keep making money, though perhaps somewhat less (they'd probably decrease costs, though, as well, since both the administrative side of license management and building license enforcement mechanisms into all your software has a cost.)
> If Microsoft open sourced Windows and Office they would instantly stop making money
It's funny because I don't actually think this is the case. Not completely, anyway. That's their fear, but I think that the upside in the end would counteract the immediate downside.
It could also be structured interestingly- Basic Windows could be free, but certain diffs/patches/drivers could be for-pay (such as higher-performant stuff, graphics stuff etc.) A mix of free OS and proprietary profitable stuff. They could also employ an army of Windows consultants...