-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 04:28:56 -0600,
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 05:01:25 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>
>> Microsoft tries to be friendly to the open source community
>>
>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>| When the company launched its code-sharing forum called CodePlex
>>| in May of 2006, the Web site only had 12 posted projects. Today,
>>| nine months later, there are more than 700 current projects on the
>>| site to allowing programmers and developers to contribute and
>>| freely share code in the IT community.
>> `----
>>
>> http://www.itdirection.net/it-news-0006/021907-00099-it-news.shtml
>>
>> Even the brand-new Google hosting beats them.
>>
>> Yesterday I read a .NET blogger who whined about the lack of Open Source code
>> in the Microsoft world. Everything is PHP and MySQL, he argued. This attempt
>> to catch up is a case of too little, too late. And needless to say, Open
>> source with Microsoft technology is self contradictory.
>
> Oh, give me a break. There are dozens of sites with open source .NET
> projects. A good example is the gotdotnet.com site: That mans nearly 2
> out 3 projects on source forge aren't actually open source, since they
> don't have any source (or binary) files available.
>
>
> http://www.gotdotnet.com/workspaces/directory.aspx
>
> 8925 projects.
>
> http://www.codeproject.com
>
> 14,989 visual studio and .NET articles (most with code)
>
> http://www.asp.net/default.aspx?tabindex=6&tabid=49
>
> a ton of different sites, many of which also have code available.
>
> Don't kid yourself. .NET is well established.
>
> By the way, I'm not sure where you got the 141,625 figure. I did an
> advanced search listing all projects since the 1970's until today and it
> only came back with 118,051. However, if you exclude projects that don't
> have any files, that number drops to 64,144.
>
> So that's right, nearly 1 in 2 projects isn't actually open source, since
> there is no code available.
But then, you've claimed that even open source projects, with the full
code tree available, aren't *really* open source if there aren't a lot
of users of them.
so by that crappy definition of ours of open source (rather than going
by the licencing, like pretty much eveyone else does) what of the above
.Net projects are "really" open source?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFF23h+d90bcYOAWPYRAiluAJ4whK0y98GV5IJPWaQkyA/rQ/cxWgCeOT8T
Qx/LxrlBvGx3XrYNuh1ip4Q=
=2/te
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Life imitates art, but does it have to imitate satire?
|
|
