Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft ASP.NET vNext Is Open-Source, Runs On Linux

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by jrch2k8
    well if C# was a properly compiled language with proper memory management
    Originally posted by jrch2k8 View Post
    well i prefer C/C++ always
    One reality check for this person, please.

    You do realize that C# has one of the most advanced memory management implementations available? If not *the* most advanced memory management? The only thing that could even come close to that is Java's memory management...and as far as I remember that was more of a 'it's not fucking up too much' situation.

    C/C++ don't have any memory management implementations. You've to do everything yourself, which usually leads to security holes.

    Comment


    • #22
      So M$ wants us to prefer ASP over PHP by using commercial xamarin? I think Mono is not updated to the latest Xamarin version? Is C# now as open as C++ and fully supported on Win/Mac/Linux?

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by phoronix View Post
        Phoronix: Microsoft ASP.NET vNext Is Open-Source, Runs On Linux
        From a user's perspective:
        So it runs in Mono but not actually directly on Linux. Uuuh, Mono. No wonder Icaza comes back to life here. And ... wasn't anything ASP related the stuff that was just garbage in most browsers but IE? Whenever I saw anything with asp / apsx in a website I could be sure something would go wrong.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          I'm not sure why you come across as being so confrontational about this, but there are plenty of good reasons to be wary of anything coming out of MSHQ. I'll freely grant that they've made some missteps lately that weakened their position in the market - but they're still plenty strong. And it was they, not we, who practically invented the phrase "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt". Moreover, I can, at your request, give you link upon link of the most evil of proclamations coming from Redmond. They're not pretty, but I didn't make 'em up.
          Sure most companies have done plenty of harm, however Sun Microsystems set up an entire baseless FUD campaign around .NET involving Microsoft having patents on .NET and that it was some sort of virus they were going to turn around and use to sue linux developers, despite the fact that it was Sun Microsystems that had the track of suing people over Java, and not really doing any standardization until very late in Java's life, meanwhile Microsoft went all the way through ECMA, set up a community promise, and their .NET division has basically lead the rest of Microsoft in terms of being open source, and they've finally gotten to the point where they have opensourced the language compilers themselves, and have stated that if they see a need for it they'll open source their BCL and possibly even their JITer. Their only "crime" here is that they didn't make their implementation of .NET portable, and instead had Novell develop a version for linux under restrictive terms that they then significantly loosened. You're just being utterly paranoid here if you think that there's anything more sinister going on here than wanting to expand the usage of .NET


          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          What's going on now isn't blind hatred of the company, but the result of a LOT of ill-will they've cultivated throughout the years. Microsoft is a dog with a dubious history of biting. Now they're playing nice, or at least it seems so. But there are those who don't trust them. And now we're getting to the meat of my issue with your position.
          There's plenty of blind hatred, mostly coming from Sun Microsystems and Apple fanboys, but it's Sun Microsystems fanboys not people who just don't trust them that spread the anti-.NET FUD

          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          You claim that "Microsoft haters" are just ripping the poor company to bits for No Good Reason. (This next thing is a bit of an extreme example, but bear with me, as I believe it illustrates my point in a way I think you will readily understand.) I ask, would you trust your rapist? He violated you in public and made serious threats against you and your family in the process (not to mention giving you an extended hospital stay), but he's Born Again now and he's found Jesus and everything and he's really sorry for what the "old him" did. Oh, and he did just rough a guy up outside your house because he owed him money, but it wasn't you or anybody you know, so it's okay. You're safe. So are you going to invite him into your home for dinner and board games? I think the only reasonable answer is "no."
          Except they're nothing like a rapist at all, they're a company that (legitimately) sees GPLed and other copylefted software as a threat to their business because the GPL 'infects' the software license of the code ensuring that it's open source making it impractical to sell software as opposed to support contracts, when their entire business model revolves around software sales. They're perfectly fine with BSD-type licenses because they can share that common base without having to make their components that use them open source and thus impractical to sell. Now their position of having an effective monopoly meant that they could and have wielded their monopoly powers against this "threat". Which is exactly what your document say when you actually stop to understand them.

          So what makes .NET different? Well it's not actually a product that they sell, Microsoft gives away their various compilers as freeware as well as a basic version of their IDE, while making sales on variants of the IDE with more features, as a result there is nothing for them to lose by open sourcing .NET however due to the current software patent mess they like everyone else is forced into building up a pool of patents surrounding .NET in order to defend itself against Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) in case they tried to sue over .NET. As ridiculous as it is, they gave a community promise and then put C# and VB as well as significant chunks of the .NET library under Apache (which means that even if they wanted to be aggressive on suing over .NET they can't). Also the decision to go this route came from Anders Hejlsberg, and one of the VPs and was okayed by Satya Nadella, not really anyone evil.

          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          My point here is that Microsoft wrote checks against their good will that they're now having to cash. They were flagrant, brutal, and intentionally damaging to Linux and OSS in general.
          Linux and the GPL, yes. OSS in general, not that I'm aware, and the FUD against .NET stems from a completely different source: Sun Microsystems.

          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          They claim ownership (as in present tense), of parts of Linux and Android and are collecting "royalties" through strong-arm tactics without even going to court - they're doing that today. Please understand that we don't mistrust them because they're Microsoft, we distrust them because of what they've done. Please don't rant and rave against someone not loving your favorite company, person, or thing by claiming they didn't come to their position honestly. Doing so makes you sound unintelligent.
          They're far from my favorite company, in fact I don't have a favorite company and think having one is stupid. What I take issue with is asinine idiotic FUD by various parties against superior technology, particularly when it's coming from Sun Microsystems who has about as much basis to talk as Adobe, which is to say none.

          And when it comes to Apple and Sun Microsystems fanboys they do hate Microsoft simply because it's Microsoft and thus a superior competitor to their horrible products.

          Originally posted by Larian View Post
          On a different and personal note, I'm not a fan of Oracle or Apple either. I use CUPS because it's the only game in town of which I'm aware, and Oracle doesn't have a single byte of their code on my machine.
          Do you have Java, MySQL (in any variation), Libre/Open Office, or Virtual Box installed? If so then you're directly running their software, also are you running a linux kernel? because oracle is the #8 contributor to linux.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by Larian View Post
            And it was they, not we, who practically invented the phrase "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt".
            I have to disagree there, the GNU community lives and breaths on painting possible (many times not probable) worst case scenarios as justification for their cause. See: 10 million threads gpl vs bsd

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by Luke_Wolf View Post
              Libre/Open Office [...] installed? If so then you're directly running their software
              I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure that LibreOffice was forked as soon as Oracle obtained OpenOffice. Maybe they merged some of the changes that were made by Oracle after the fork happened, but it seems to me that they (The Document Foundation) made some pretty significant changes after the fork, and merging any changes by Oracle (if they even wanted to) would probably be more work than it's worth.

              The code that was written prior to the fork does not automatically become 'theirs', so if you're using LibreOffice, you aren't using much Oracle code, if any.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by mike4 View Post
                So M$ wants us to prefer ASP over PHP by using commercial xamarin? I think Mono is not updated to the latest Xamarin version? Is C# now as open as C++ and fully supported on Win/Mac/Linux?
                Microsoft wants us to prefer a reasonably solid language and decent framework over something that has been called a fractal of bad design.... The horror

                Also Mono is staying open source and up to date, the main problem is that the packages have gotten out of date with the various distros due to miscommunication on Mono's part, due to what was marked as stable.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Desiderantes View Post
                  You should take a look at Vala, it's a well done C#
                  Vala is a source-to-source programming language: it translates itself to C. With Vala you can write C#-like code with C-like performance.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by Detructor View Post
                    One reality check for this person, please.

                    You do realize that C# has one of the most advanced memory management implementations available? If not *the* most advanced memory management? The only thing that could even come close to that is Java's memory management...and as far as I remember that was more of a 'it's not fucking up too much' situation.
                    Who cares? C# applications are usually bloated piece of software which wastes many CPU cycles for nothing. They're also memory hungry without any sane reason.

                    C/C++ don't have any memory management implementations. You've to do everything yourself, which usually leads to security holes.
                    And C/C++ programs provide superior performance and use much less memory than C# counterparts. The C/C++ applications are also much more professional, because real world developers don't write anything in Crap#.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      Originally posted by Nobu View Post
                      I'm not certain, but I'm fairly sure that LibreOffice was forked as soon as Oracle obtained OpenOffice. Maybe they merged some of the changes that were made by Oracle after the fork happened, but it seems to me that they (The Document Foundation) made some pretty significant changes after the fork, and merging any changes by Oracle (if they even wanted to) would probably be more work than it's worth.

                      The code that was written prior to the fork does not automatically become 'theirs', so if you're using LibreOffice, you aren't using much Oracle code, if any.
                      They bought out Sun Microsystems, therefore the copyright and therefore code automatically belongs to them regardless of forking date. Also pretty sure that Oracle contributed to openoffice before the fork. Now if LibreOffice completely ripped out all the code and replaced it all that would be different, they haven't gotten to that point yet. Also after Oracle donated Open Office to Apache, they reforked off of the Apache version in order to relicense the code under a different license.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X