> Using Microsoft's stack, you develop your applications the same way, using the same libraries, and the same protocols, regardless of whether you are deploying to your own server or to Microsoft's. Most of Microsoft's competitors require you to rewrite applications to get them to work on the cloud.
The key phrase being "using microsoft's stack".
Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional. When they become usable, I can run them on my server.
I recall reading here that the project making an open version of Google's stack is being helped by google. If that is the case then it isn't quite the same.
Because it helps adoption of their API. They will be the premium provider for their platform, and the bigger it gets, the more business they get. Plus many businesses won't consider a technology that has only one vendor, so having an open alternative opens doors.
The original claim was that users benefitted from open alternatives. Is there any reason why users don't get those benefits if the "closed" source helps provide those alternatives?
I note that open alternatives to the Microsoft stack were seen as a good thing, yet alternatives to the Google stack are somehow second class because Google helped.
Is it fair to mention that some of the alternatives to the Microsoft stack were developed with some help from Microsoft?
The key phrase being "using microsoft's stack".
Open source versions of other cloud stacks are already somewhat functional. When they become usable, I can run them on my server.