Scott Hanselman

You should definitely do a show with the Windows compatibility guys. I'd be very interested in hearing that one!

I was so disappointed that you mentioned Cory Doctorow. He's one of those guys who wants to change copyright so that filesharing is legal. Essentially, he thinks that everyone should have to give away their work - just like he does. (Of course, he also earns side-income by giving talks, playing "internet guru", among other supplementary income.) In the end, he ends up being stubborn about legitimizing piracy - and he's even promoted books to teach people how to pirate without getting caught.

Good info, I didn't know a lot of that, just that I enjoyed his book.

What a great episode!
Thank you guys, you made my day

Loved it. Loved it. Loved it.

Great cast. Am going to have to go through your other ones now.

Hey Scott, great episode. I had a lot of fun listening to you and Richard.

One point you discussed that I feel strongly about was MVC being opensourced. I totally agree when you say: "Why open the source? Well... Why not?".

I work with .Net for quite a while now but I come from an open source background. I know that most programmers will never look at this code, but for others, the ones that will take a pick at the code, this will be a great chance to learn. I love looking at other peoples code, I learn a lot and it really makes me a better programmers beacuse I can see other approaches to a problem differente than mine. Granted that the code doesn't need to be open sourced for you to have access to the code. In fact I look at the .Net framework every now and then and I know it's not open.

Being open also allows Microsoft to have feed back on it's code based on what people are doing with it. If someone forks the code and this version gains a lot of momentum maybe it's time for ms to take the same direction, right? Also I don't think of this versions of competition to ms since most of companies I know that choose .Net over Java do it because of the support that ms offers. These forked versions won't be supported by ms and I think that a lot of companies will choose to stick with the official version.

Another point in favor of open source is that when you find a bug you can take immediate action. You correct, compile and distribute while you way to ms to distribute an official patch. I had a problem like this with Spring.Net a while back. I found a bug fixed resolved my application issue instantly. I then contacted the Spring.Net guys about the bug. They were incredibly fast to respond to my problem and the fix was realeased within a short period of time. If I had to wait for that to be realeased however, it would have been a real inconvenience for our project.

Thanks to everyone that is making these changes possible at Microsoft. This is good for me as a Developer, for my clients, for the community and for Microsoft.

I thought it was interesting when you talked about "why open source Window? what could come of it?", and then almost immediately segued into talking about how much old backwards compatibility is built into Windows. You talked about how much work goes into maintaining that (there is a team dedicated to it), and also how it'd be nice if Microsoft could enjoy the luxury that Apple has of just breaking compatibility.

With an open source Windows, I might be able to set some flags in the build file and compile my own version that doesn't contain 20 years of legacy support, when I know I'm not running anything older than 5 years.

With an open source Windows, the "crowd" could maintain all those tiny hacks needed to keep VisiCalc running.