Can you remove ads from the documentation?(github.com)
github.com
Can you remove ads from the documentation?
https://github.com/dotnet/docs/issues/45996
10 comments
$company docs promotes $company products shocker!!1!!
Isn't .NET supposed to be a separate non-profit foundation with no ties to M$? Why aren't they also advertising Rider and Jetbrains' AI tooling?
Maybe (but probably not)? These docs are not on some .net foundation site, they are on https://learn.microsoft.com/ so...
Is it? I never heard that. It's cross platform, but definitely and obviously strongly tied to Microsoft.
The very first word you see on the .NET foundation page [1] is "INDEPENDENT" in giant lettering. Also, at least on my screen, funnily enough Jetbrains has a bigger logo at the bottom than MS does, so surely the docs should also talk about Rider & Junie or whatever their AI stuff is called, right?
To be clear, I'm being facetious, I think everyone is aware MS has their slimy tentacles very deeply dug into .NET and that's the whole issue.
[1] https://dotnetfoundation.org/
To be clear, I'm being facetious, I think everyone is aware MS has their slimy tentacles very deeply dug into .NET and that's the whole issue.
[1] https://dotnetfoundation.org/
Isn’t it convenient that every time someone mentions they don’t use C# because of the ties to Microsoft, C# evangalists claim that it’s independent, but now it suddenly is a Microsoft product?
Just wait until the poster finds references to Visual Studio in .NET documentation!
visual studio gets a pass because you need an editor/IDE to write/test/run code in the first place, so you might as well have docs for a popular one. I'd be peeved if they were blocking the community from contributing docs for competing IDEs (eg. Rider), or they were adding plugs for random ancillary services (eg. github or azure app service).
Oh I see it "gets a pass". In other words, this is purely an arbitrary measurement because the poster felt a certain way on a certain day.
These are quotes from resolved comments in the review to a similar but slightly earlier PR[1], from the same author, to the one that introduced the specific mention referred to in the issue[2].
And that's why these suggestions to use Copilot probably don't belong in the docs: their intent was to promote a product.
(To be fair, in the first comment quoted above the reviewer asks that the Copilot section be moved to the end of the document, prioritizing teaching the user about the actual feature the article was about).
One additional problem, already pointed out by others, is that Copilot seems to be the only AI tool showcased in the docs. Besides suggesting the intent of these suggestions is purely promotional, this reflects poorly on an organization that should be independent from Microsoft.
[1] https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/42357 [2] https://github.com/dotnet/docs/pull/42625