On 11/12/14, 11:24 AM, [email protected] wrote:
On 2014-11-12 11:36, Paul McNett wrote:
On 11/12/14, 7:44 AM, Alan Bourke wrote:
which is nice.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/12/microsoft_to_open_source_dot_net/


This could be pretty big, or too late.



I don't think it's "too late" but I do wonder why they changed their
mind?  This wasn't going to happen under Ballmer, I'm thinking.

I've long wondered why they hung on to the closed-source model when their profitability has always been hinged to a big degree on the productivity of "developers! developers! developers!" making things that add value to Microsoft's platform.

I think they finally get that developers are most productive (and locked in) when they are using software that is 1) great, 2) being constantly and iteratively developed and maintained, and 3) can't be taken away from them by a vendor in the future. Free is great too, to bring in people that would otherwise not even consider the option.

So, Microsoft has to continue delivering great software that doesn't formally lock people in, and they need a lot of help from third-party developers to keep moving it forward, so they need to show they are serious. This shows it.

They see that the future success of Windows and the entire Microsoft product line is dependent on developers still developing software to add significant value to Microsoft's current-blessed platform.

It may have been an easier decision with Ballmer gone.

My take anyway, not really paying much attention to the world of M$.

Paul


_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message: 
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected]
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the 
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added 
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.

Reply via email to