Rob Mensching @robmen

@firegiantco CEO & Co-Founder | Benevolent Dictator of @wixtoolset | https://t.co/Irqq1LMRJj for more information robmensching.com Redmond, WA USA Joined March 2008

Tweets

10K
Followers

3K
Following

94
Likes

537

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@raysan5 Feel free to ping me if you have any questions.

0 0 1 40 0

View Details

@raysan5 I wouldn't recommend comparing yourself to millionaires. They have different opportunities. If you're interested in something that any maintainer can do, you might check out opensourcemaintenancefee.org I applied it to my OSS project, and it completely changed my point of view.

1 0 2 61 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@kettanaito Dude, this sounds like me a few years ago. If you want to chat about it, I'd be happy to share my experiences.

0 0 0 43 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@schneidenbach @Aaronontheweb @CordasFilip I wish Stephen would speak, but everything about this reads, "We had to make Office happy". Office has (well, I've not been there for a long time) insane perf guidelines (except for Outlook 😢 ). I could see an in-proc GC as a no-go for Office. Thus, Rust.

1 0 0 37 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@MrPeterLMorris @stephentoub Based on their described use cases and my years at Microsoft, Rust makes the most sense because: a) Office won't want a GC in proc b) C/C++ isn't "safe" anymore Rust is the last language (in use at MSFT) standing.

0 0 1 497 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@Aaronontheweb @CordasFilip @schneidenbach I understand, but I still expect the better answer was Rust for their described use cases, and that's why they picked it. The fact that it reads better to an external audience just makes it easier to write a blog post (but they shouldn't've leaned on single-dev point so hard).

0 0 0 17 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a day ago

@Aaronontheweb @CordasFilip @schneidenbach You may be right but after working with C# AOT I think Rust was simply the best choice. It needed to be a DLL loaded into a pure C++ codebase (Office) and it needs to be "safe" (don't write C++ anymore). C# AOT _could_ fit but Rust fits better. I'd bet $100 that's it.

1 0 0 53 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 days ago

@kettanaito If you want to stay OSS, I added the Open Source Maintenance Fee to my project about 18mo ago and now have 400+ sponsors. It's still a new idea but I think it's working. opensourcemaintenancefee.org

0 0 1 613 2

View Details

Grok @grok

a week ago

Exactly. OSMF lets maintainers activate procurement via a simple EULA on official binaries. Source stays fully FOSS and free to build; the fee hits only revenue-generating orgs above the $10k threshold. Individuals stay free. WiX already proves it works at scale with hundreds of sponsors. Solid complement to automatic registry royalties.

0 1 0 151 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a week ago

@tannerlinsley @seldo I sent this to Laurie because I basically agreed with everything written, but I wanted a solution maintainers could choose without waiting for anyone else: opensourcemaintenancefee.org I think it captures the same goals without needing the registries to do anything. :)

1 0 1 630 1

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

a week ago

@grok @trevorlasn And the Open Source Maintenance Fee shows that maintainers can activate procurement teams the same way with a simple EULA while keeping the project F/OSS. See opensourcemaintenancefee.org

1 0 0 107 1

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@robpalmer2 I left this comment on the original tweet but if you're interested in something in the same vein, check out the Open Source Maintenance Fee. It is working for my OSS project. opensourcemaintenancefee.org

0 0 0 98 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@seldo Have you seen the Open Source Maintenance Fee? It uses a specially crafted EULA to kinda' so the same thing without needing the registry owners to do work. It's working well for my project for a bit over a year now. opensourcemaintenancefee.org

0 0 1 327 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@MohitDev45 Came to a similar conclusion a few years ago. Pushing back with opensourcemaintenancefee.org

2 0 1 82 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@k_cieslak Larry Ellison once said about Gates and MSFT: Now, most people hate to admit they’re wrong, but it didn’t bother Bill one bit. All he cared about was what was right, not who was right. That’s what makes Bill very, very dangerous.

0 0 0 51 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@k_cieslak That's when Allchin (one of the SLT) was tasked with figuring it out (late 2001/2002). My project was the first to be selected for release as open source (2003). Completed April 2004.

1 0 1 51 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

2 weeks ago

@mrwcjoughin @rakyll @satyanadella @Microsoft My understanding is that the change came because partner companies pushed back on MSFT's framing of open source ("Linux is a cancer"). The consent decree was completely separate. None of the stuff MSFT open sourced in the 2000's was consent decree related. They were experiments.

1 0 0 27 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

3 weeks ago

@k_cieslak FWIW, Mono wasn't acquired by MSFT in 2014. The culture shift inside MSFT started more than a decade before that. As I heard it, it was Ballmer who asked the SLT to figure out OSS because they clearly didn't understand it. So, like 2001ish.

1 0 0 25 0

View Details

Rob Mensching @robmen

3 weeks ago

@aarshps @rakyll Yes and at a cost to the VS business. I wonder when we look back in another 20-30 years if it will be considered a good choice. Right now, people seem the think so.