> It's Microsoft - it is entirely against their culture and history as a business to allow anything they control to be cross platform. This is just the usual embrace-and-extend crap.
This is such an antiquated view at this point in time. This is the same Microsoft that is taking .NET open-source and cross-platform, including ASP.Next. This is the same Microsoft that just open-sourced their JavaScript engine and integrated it with Node.js. This is the same Microsoft developing the open-source and cross-platform Visual Studio Code. This is the same Microsoft that writes more apps with better user experiences for iOS and Android than it does for Windows Mobile 8 and so far 10.
You're welcome to your opinion. What you see as "open-source and cross platform" offerings I see as a few cheap baubles being given out to buy developer good will. It seems to have worked in your case.
Node.js isn't particularly relevant to their primary business, nor is keeping Visual Studio proprietary. Opening them makes developers happy at a time when fewer non-MS developers are writing for their platform (they moved to the web and mobile).
Microsoft's bad behavior with Windows 10 (including the drama involving the back-ports and strong-arm upgrades in 7/8) suggest the company's behavior hasn't changed much.
But as I said, you're entitled to your opinion. I would love to be proven wrong here. Unfortunately, experience has taught me otherwise.
The real question - that you ignored - was this:
> I suspect that "always get updates" promise I paid for years ago will be ignored.
Given that Microsoft already restricted a C++ version of Minecraft to Windows 10, do you really think they will ever ship this new C++ version of Minecraft for Linux and Mac? At the same time, not years later? Or will they split the community?
> Given that Microsoft already restricted a C++ version of Minecraft to Windows 10, do you really think they will ever ship this new C++ version of Minecraft for Linux and Mac? At the same time, not years later? Or will they split the community?
Considering that this named and marketed as a separate product ("Minecraft - Education Edition"), I don't really see where you believe you have a standing here. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a company put out a new version of something in order to move on from previous commitments. For instance, "Minecraft - XBox Edition" and "Minecraft - Android Edition" are not in sync with "Minecraft - The Original PC Edition" either.
And I certainly won't pretend to know where they're going with this, and I also want and hope for this new version to be a cross-platform product. I was more addressing the general opening statement, which is exactly what I quoted in my response.
Let's wait a bit before praising MS as an open company. They properly changed just last year. If it only takes one management change to do that, we may end up with another reversal in a year or two. It would be really easy for them to just say "well, that experiment didn't work out; no more published code".
I can certainly praise their current movements to be a more open company. The worst thing we as technologists can do is to be reserved in providing positive feedback on movements that we see as positive ones.
I can see how my original statement could be interpreted as praising the company directly. Allow me to clarify. I did intend to praise their actions. And I did intend to suggest that the current Microsoft is not necessarily the same company as relayed by pdkl95, because of these actions. Specifically, it is no longer clear that, "it is entirely against [Microsoft's] culture and history as a business to allow anything they control to be cross platform". History, well that can't be changed, only diluted with time. But culture can be changed.
I wouldn't ever make the assertion that a company should do something for any reason other than to make profit. Helping society is what non-profits are for, and that's why they receive tax benefits.
If it were an antiquated view it wouldn't be so popular!
Even as open source .NET is still a huge pain to get running under Linux and development of .NET anything is extremely difficult without Visual Studio (which doesn't run on Linux). Not only that but most of the .NET libraries one would use for any given purpose only work on Windows. So even if the core of .NET is open source and cross platform any software written using that platform can only effectively run on Windows.
When Microsoft puts out a version of Visual Studio for Linux desktops ("Minecraft modding edition"!) then I might start believing that they're serious about cross-platform software. It'll also signify their complete lack of relevance because to have gotten to that point would mean a level of desperation that would indicate a sinking ship.
It's just not in Microsoft's nature to make a product that's truly independent of its operating system and/or office software.
This argument is basically argumentum ad populum, and your concluding sentence is nothing more than the very same statement that I originally refuted.
> Even as open source .NET is still a huge pain to get running under Linux and development of .NET anything is extremely difficult without Visual Studio (which doesn't run on Linux). Not only that but most of the .NET libraries one would use for any given purpose only work on Windows. So even if the core of .NET is open source and cross platform any software written using that platform can only effectively run on Windows.
The open-sourcing and cross-platform development of .NET is an ongoing process that's still in its infancy. Yes, of course it's a pain in the ass right now. Installing git on Windows was also a pain in the ass, and even now it's still basically a prepackaged Linux emulation environment wrapper.
> If it were an antiquated view it wouldn't be so popular!
I don't know: there's more than enough ignorance around for completely absurd views to be popular. Look at Trump ;-)
Microsoft is actually more cross-platform than either Apple or Google. It has stuff on everything from memory sticks to mainframe class servers, and it has a cloud business (which supports Linux, as well as Windows). It has dozens of apps on iOS and Android, not just on Windows.
Office runs on Windows and Mac OS X, in browsers, and there are apps for Android and iOS.
This is such an antiquated view at this point in time. This is the same Microsoft that is taking .NET open-source and cross-platform, including ASP.Next. This is the same Microsoft that just open-sourced their JavaScript engine and integrated it with Node.js. This is the same Microsoft developing the open-source and cross-platform Visual Studio Code. This is the same Microsoft that writes more apps with better user experiences for iOS and Android than it does for Windows Mobile 8 and so far 10.