Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

So, Microsoft just open sourced most of .NET...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by curaga View Post
    How is planned obscolescence not sinister?
    there is a big difference between dropping a project where you were sole holder and controller of the code (visual basic) and dropping public project. in case of closed one it simply dies and no matter how much its users would like some way to continue it... there isn't one, in case of another project only loses one contributor, while project it self can still thrive if there is a traction.

    stopping contributing to public project is nothing sinister, if there is a community it will live as nothing ever happened

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by beetreetime View Post
      The fact that released it under apache 2.0 and not true copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL clearly shows how hypocritical they are. It shows that M$'s claim of freely .NET is nothing but bullshit. Nothing can be more clear. they will take all the changes made by developers on the Open source version and make their next version closed.

      It's so obvious, only those who are dumb or are proprietary f*&ks can't see it.
      so... eclipse and apache are hypocritical? @.@' there is a reason why so many libs are GPL/LGPL instead of just GPL. but, based on your expressive language it is obvious you need to grow up 1st. then you might realize why GPL only is not possible in many cases

      but, let me indulge you
      - let's say i made super duper awesome contribution and published it as open source where MS takes it and ... closes it? how? my source is still there and is still under license where anyone can use it
      - so, lets say they make next version closed again... does that suddenly makes current not open or stopping to work?

      i'm very conscious in those departments most of the time. and all my development went under ECMA covered parts (.net 2). strangely, there was not one moment when i would feel like something was missing. ok, there were few times when i knew "oh, this could be so much simpler", but most of the time i didn't notice one thing. my apps still worked with current .net on ms and worked with mono on linux and osx.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by beetreetime View Post
        The fact that released it under apache 2.0 and not true copyleft licenses like GPL and AGPL clearly shows how hypocritical they are. It shows that M$'s claim of freely .NET is nothing but bullshit. Nothing can be more clear. they will take all the changes made by developers on the Open source version and make their next version closed.

        It's so obvious, only those who are dumb or are proprietary f*&ks can't see it.
        Apache 2.0 is a GPLv3-compatible license with a patent grant. What's *wrong* with Apache 2.0?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by directhex View Post
          Apache 2.0 is a GPLv3-compatible license with a patent grant. What's *wrong* with Apache 2.0?
          *joke* for one thing... if it was GPL, we could see shitload of funny stories where Stallman demanded they rename them selves to GNU/.Net

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by litfan View Post
            We aren't mono haters. We're people that have been burned by MS in the past by its "embrace, extend, extinguish" policies. They are not to be trusted. They have made half gestures like this in the past.

            Fool us once, shame on them. Fool us twice, shame on us.
            The bit of irony here is that it was Oracle that ended up filing a lawsuit over patent claims on Java. Should everyone stop using Java because Oracle is a litigation-happy company?

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
              What does Microsoft replace .net with?
              Microsoft is already recommending people move away from .net to winrt and html5.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing View Post
                What does Microsoft replace .net with?
                Trash

                Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                Microsoft is already recommending people move away from .net to winrt and html5.
                Winrt is junk while html5 is a good choice (as long as M$ doesn't muck with it)

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                  Microsoft is already recommending people move away from .net to winrt and html5.
                  .NET is subplatform in WinRT.
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime#.NET

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by justmy2cents View Post
                    and no it doesn't tie you to windows. i develop commercial apps that need to run on all 3 platforms and so far... i never booted into anything but linux for development
                    Then, tell us how do you deal with all this widgets idiocy without turning it into clusterfuck. What widget set you're using, to begin with? Somehow dotnet nuts tend to avoid answering "inconvenient" questions all the time. You've got unique chance to tell us your "success story", explaining one of troublesome things around. Come on. Tell us. And no, lie would not work in opensource world. So you better to be honest with us. And IMO Apache license from MS basically means "you're free to do unpaid work and MS is free to close it". Because I doubt you or me would have resources to compete with MS. Not to mention MS haves a long story of backstabbing opensource projects here and there, so only morons would trust to Apache license from MS. Interestingly, unpaid work from morons isn't something valuable and does not helps much. So I fail to see point in fooling and cheating devs. Just not going to work, only causing extra aggravation when devs discover they were tricked to ride dead horse.

                    Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                    .NET is subplatform in WinRT.
                    The only funny issue there is that this WinRT crap is dead horse. MS learned winblows devs that there is only x86 and win32 for ages. The typical result is some win32-only program which can only run on x86 and can't even run as 64-bit app, not to mention ARM. Okay, now its time to face the result. Interestingly, this backfired on MS itself, putting winblows and win devs into disadvantage. Haha, MS shot their own legs! Nice shot!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by beetreetime View Post
                      they will take all the changes made by developers on the Open source version and make their next version closed.
                      So the developers and the end users get to use the improvements. I don't see how this is a problem. If MS chose a copyleft licence like the GPL then they'd simultaneously need to do the same with much of their software. Even if this could realistically happen in a proprietary-happy company like MS, it would be 2025 before the decision was approved by all 36 levels of management.

                      I don't see anything particularly devious about this move; it's perfectly logical. The only reason MS open sources anything is to increase "market" share amongst developers. Otherwise they risk becoming even more irrelevant.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by LightBit View Post
                        Yes, you can continue to use .net...for now. However, it is not the approach recommended by Microsoft, and who knows how long Microsoft will continue to personally support it.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                          Yes, you can continue to use .net...for now. However, it is not the approach recommended by Microsoft, and who knows how long Microsoft will continue to personally support it.
                          Probably for a decade longer than they'd like to. There is an enormous investment in .NET (along with Java) for LOB software, and we know how often that is maintained. .NET 3.5 SP1 and later are tied to their respective Windows releases, so .NET 4.5 will be supported until 2023.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by directhex View Post
                            Apache 2.0 is a GPLv3-compatible license with a patent grant. What's *wrong* with Apache 2.0?
                            That depends on your perspective I guess. The only thing I can think of is that Apache 2.0 is not copyleft, even if it is open source. In any case the patent grant is probably very important in terms of placating users of .NET and its implied patents.

                            Personally, I think the non-/limited-copyleft licenses make a lot of sense in a commercial setting, especially the Apache 2.0 license with its explicit patent grant (in this respect the BSD and MIT licenses show their educational heritage IMHO). The LGPL is workable as well, though a bit trickier to handle in terms of compliance. Apache 2.0 probably works better if you are already a large, well-funded organization and the code you release is not your core (cash cow) business, even if you still intend to leverage it in your products and use it to increase participation in the ecosystem in which you are already an established market leader.

                            In contrast, I would imagine that you'd want to use the LGPL if you're trying to build an ecosystem around your application's/solution's core libraries, because having them LGPL'ed ensures that no competitor can come along and out-innovate you without contributing back to said core libraries. Conversely, the LGPL levels the playing field for other entrants and ensures that no-one can gain an unfair advantage unless they are willing to maintain their own libraries in-house.

                            In my view, it would make a great deal of sense to have a Unix-y base OS stack (however that is defined) licensed entirely under the LGPL, where the base system is defined as a FreeBSD-like, self-contained unit. Note that I said 'stack', which is to say that it is only important as a foundation and not as a product in its own right, just like libraries. The idea is of course to use this foundation to build products in the form of appliances, services and solutions.

                            Having an LGPL-licensed OS stack would ensure a collaborative environment in which to maintain this base stack, while allowing entrepreneurs the legitimate opportunity to explore and grow various niches on top of said stack in the form of both proprietary, open source and copyleft (GPL) solutions. The kicker is that everyone would be free to try to emulate any proprietary solutions using the LGPL base stack and even to make fully GPL copyleft workalikes of the product. This would result in competitive pressure for the proprietary solutions, acting as a balance against monopolistic complacency, which is supposedly what makes competition work in favour of the consumer in a free market. Or maybe I'm just being incredibly na´ve...

                            Anyway, off topic.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
                              Then, tell us how do you deal with all this widgets idiocy without turning it into clusterfuck. What widget set you're using, to begin with? Somehow dotnet nuts tend to avoid answering "inconvenient" questions all the time. You've got unique chance to tell us your "success story", explaining one of troublesome things around. Come on. Tell us. And no, lie would not work in opensource world. So you better to be honest with us. And IMO Apache license from MS basically means "you're free to do unpaid work and MS is free to close it". Because I doubt you or me would have resources to compete with MS. Not to mention MS haves a long story of backstabbing opensource projects here and there, so only morons would trust to Apache license from MS. Interestingly, unpaid work from morons isn't something valuable and does not helps much. So I fail to see point in fooling and cheating devs. Just not going to work, only causing extra aggravation when devs discover they were tricked to ride dead horse.!
                              i know this was bad try on trolling. but, i'll indulge you anyway. p.s. don't worry about my honesty, i don't work for MS, i'm not affiliated with any .Net promoting company. from '94 i didn't own one windows computer and so far i'm yet to see win8 in person. my work is more or less maintaining servers and writing cross platform apps, where i test (or better said, i'm sure it works) other platforms on deployment.

                              and it is not so much about widgets as it is about features. there are 2 kinds of approaches to cross platform. selectively preplanned or panicky porting when product is finished. i'd suggest you watch movies about porting from steamdays. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd8ie...KFtqR9TeZWMPjm the choices you make before you start your product will make you or break you.

                              as for tools. not really important if you were thinking about restrictions in your plans. monodevelop, gtk# (now porting to qyoto)... most of your troubles are not of such grotesque nature, but rather small. how do i store data, how do i access file...


                              now, i'll go further and indulge you even more. if MS would be acting according your words, that would actually be single most dumb business decision of the century.
                              - .net was was closed,... so why open it, just to close it? sure backfire, since it would piss off more of their customers than anyone else
                              - while it was still closed, .net had 2 advantages. lead in features supported by compiler and non clear patent issue caused by ECMA. by opening roslyn, they lost both.
                              i could go on and on how stupid this plan would be, but all basically tell you this "with this move they lost ground and created competition, but they gained larger market"

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
                                They released a lot of libraries, in fact I was surprised. Some of them were released in previous releases but they still count: MVC3, MVC4, DLR, Entity, etc.
                                "a lot" is not "most" as was claimed by the OP. Sure they have released important parts, but many more are still unreleased (WinForms/WPF being most prominent, also mentioned in this thread already). Until then, I can fully understand those who remain skeptic.
                                Originally posted by KernelPanic View Post
                                The bit of irony here is that it was Oracle that ended up filing a lawsuit over patent claims on Java. Should everyone stop using Java because Oracle is a litigation-happy company?
                                It's actually a bit ironic, that by avoiding the GPL'ed OpenJDK and doing a clean-room implementation under the Apache 2.0 license, Google opened themselves to litigation by Oracle. Had Google just used code from the OpenJDK, there would not have been any basis for a lawsuit.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X