Microsoft Outs .NET Core 3.0 With Continued Linux Support & Better Performance

[lyoneel]

Somebody recently recommended I try .Net Core and I have to say, I’m pleasantly surprised. I’ve always had a bad impression but it’s actually really good.

that being said, the Linux development environment for it is nowhere near Windows, what with Visual Studio. That makes me sad

rly? what about rider ? and please do not argue that is not free

[oiaohm]

there are many usermode hardware drivers, so i don't buy it

The specifications that have class, namespace and other things in them are normally drivers that only can be implemented in kernel space.

fixed with trivial search and replace

No trivial as you will have to argue with the Hurd of cats todo it because just like you not all the developers will have the same idea on what it should be renamed to. Named as specification sheet kills naming arguements.

that's not standard c++ then

Not current day C++ standard. The current day C++ standard is not written that class only has to process as lower case. So a compiler processing class case insensitive can be a full to current C++ standard compiler with a undefined behaviour.

C++ ABI is not defined by the standard. The C++ standard also failed to include that particular things should only be processed if they are lower case.

The C++ standard is unfortunately swiss cheese caused by its incompleteness. Lot of things are depending that compiler makers do stuff the same way with C++ not do what the standard lets them do.

[pal666]

Not the same problem in usermode.

there are many usermode hardware drivers, so i don't buy it

Yes the word class in Linux kernel is used a huge number of times

fixed with trivial search and replace

By the way some C++ compilers are case insensitive on the word class

that's not standard c++ then

[oiaohm]

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "legally or not". I'm done trying to explain it to you.

No I understand "legally or not".
1) Problem for something to remain long term easy accessible it has to be legal.
2) Problem for something to remain long term maintained it has to be legal as well.

Legally or not is just a excuse people pull out so they can put their head in the sand to the legal problem. This means people are not asking Microsoft to make patent license part more correct.

Really its a smart way Microsoft done it to look harmless.

https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/Documentation/project-docs/copyright.md

The reality is sections of .net are already apache2 license. If Microsoft made the complete code base apache 2 there would not be legal question. If you read Apache2 it does not list a hosting location. So you can modify and mirror the code no problems.

https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT

"Covered Code" means those Microsoft .NET libraries and runtime components as made available by Microsoft at github.com/dotnet/coreclr,
github.com/dotnet/corefx and github.com/dotnet/corert.

See the problem the patent promise in fact details where the source has to come from. This means you make a fork and modify something its not patent promise covered. So this means a third party cannot effectively take over maintainer-ship of .net core.

Yes Microsoft did not list everything in the dotnet github is covered either for example https://github.com/dotnet/core is not listed so not covered by the patent promise. So not all of net core 3.0 source is covered by the patent promise either. Like min useful patent promise would have been like everything under github.com/dotnet is covered but that is not what we have.

Yes we need to be asking Microsoft please give us a proper patent license or just be simple and license the complete thing apache2. Until then it a shared source trap of unmaintainable by other parties.

[coder]

it was written when c++ wasn't available

lol, no. C++ was surely around back then. Not so standard, nor the C++ we know and love today, but it existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B#History

[fuzz]

To be able to provide the source code you need to have copyright. patent and trademark law in alignment. With current licensing around .net and other item so called open source they can serous ally pull the rug out from under them.

It goes like this to screwed.
1) Microsoft takes down hosting.
2) You are hosting Microsoft uses trademark law to say you have to alter the source to remove the trademarks.
3) You remove the trademark stuff from the code as you are legally required todo so making it modified code.
4) Microsoft hits you with the patent license because its now modified code.
5) The source code is gone from the open at this point because you are checkmated.

This is a shared source trap. They share source with you with some clause somewhere to screw you over.


I would not call a lot of what you would called open source as open source. What Microsoft did is shared source. Looks close but there is a functional problem in the licensing that allows Microsoft if they choose to end the source access by force.



Microsoft would not had to do a GPL. Apache or MPL patent grant would have been good enough. If the stuff was under a MIT with a Apache/MPL patent grant we could be sure that someone could keep that source code around forever.

You don't seem to understand the meaning of "legally or not". I'm done trying to explain it to you.

[oiaohm]

I specifically said "Legally or not". Even if they get rid of the project the source code will always be available,

To be able to provide the source code you need to have copyright. patent and trademark law in alignment. With current licensing around .net and other item so called open source they can serous ally pull the rug out from under them.

It goes like this to screwed.
1) Microsoft takes down hosting.
2) You are hosting Microsoft uses trademark law to say you have to alter the source to remove the trademarks.
3) You remove the trademark stuff from the code as you are legally required todo so making it modified code.
4) Microsoft hits you with the patent license because its now modified code.
5) The source code is gone from the open at this point because you are checkmated.

This is a shared source trap. They share source with you with some clause somewhere to screw you over.

This also is not the only project they have open sourced. Don't get me wrong,

I would not call a lot of what you would called open source as open source. What Microsoft did is shared source. Looks close but there is a functional problem in the licensing that allows Microsoft if they choose to end the source access by force.

I wish they would use the GPL. But all this hate just because it's microsoft is childish.

Microsoft would not had to do a GPL. Apache or MPL patent grant would have been good enough. If the stuff was under a MIT with a Apache/MPL patent grant we could be sure that someone could keep that source code around forever.

[fuzz]

Legally you can view the code. Legally due to the licensing you cannot modify it without submitting those modifications to Microsoft. If you modify without doing that you have hope Microsoft does not patent attack you.

Be sides before Microsoft published the source under this shared source. There was a Shared Source Initiative from 2001 where you could have looked at the .net source code with the same restrictions on modification after you signed the NDA.

So all Microsoft dropped was the requirement for you to sign a NDA to see it. Fairly much everyone who requested to see the source of .net and was willing to sign the NDA got to see it.

Really Microsoft has not given you as much as you are making out Fuzz.

I specifically said "Legally or not". Even if they get rid of the project the source code will always be available, which is more important than law (if you even recognize that law). But thanks for ascribing your personal belief system to me.

This also is not the only project they have open sourced. Don't get me wrong, I wish they would use the GPL. But all this hate just because it's microsoft is childish.

[oiaohm]

Legally or not you can take the source code and do whatever you want with it. This was not possible before.

Legally you can view the code. Legally due to the licensing you cannot modify it without submitting those modifications to Microsoft. If you modify without doing that you have hope Microsoft does not patent attack you.

Be sides before Microsoft published the source under this shared source. There was a Shared Source Initiative from 2001 where you could have looked at the .net source code with the same restrictions on modification after you signed the NDA.

So all Microsoft dropped was the requirement for you to sign a NDA to see it. Fairly much everyone who requested to see the source of .net and was willing to sign the NDA got to see it.

Really Microsoft has not given you as much as you are making out Fuzz.

[oiaohm]

but it doesn't mean that c++ is bad for kernel-mode code. it only means that in c++ you have few additional reserved words, they are reserved for user-mode code just as well

Not the same problem in usermode.

i know, naming things is the second hardest computer science problem, but this instance has well known solution with "klass" or "Class" or "class_"

Well known solution that those writing specification for hardware will have used class, klass, Class and class_ in the specification sheet to mean different things.

In usermode you mostly don't have to work with specifications that make you wonder if the person decided they would have a few magic mushrooms before writing it. Manufacture specifications can be that bad so when dealing with those disasters you really don't want to be thinking about is this what I am typing on a reserved world list and what am I going to name this or what did the other person name this.

https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/ident/class

Yes the word class in Linux kernel is used a huge number of times. Yes being able to use class where the specification says class gives you a good chance of guessing what the structure name will be from the specifications. Remember you did not come up with a single solution to not being able to use the for word class. Let alone all the other extra reserved words.

Think this multiplying with each extra reserved word and how developers picking different versions of the word class/the other C++ reserved words can result in not seeing that you have in fact declared the same structure twice so now have duplicate non synced lists leading to major headaches to fix. Yes some of the early Windows NT driver disasters was caused by this so this is not theory.

Increasing the reserved word list does bring it fair share of problems to those working on kernel development by making what should be straight forwards and simple complex having to guess what another person named it and screwing up because of this extra complexity.



Writing drivers for hardware is hard at times and those writing specifications don't make your life easy.

By the way some C++ compilers are case insensitive on the word class. Class, CLASS and class can all solve to the same thing this happens to be C++ compilers compatible with cfront stuff yes that compatibility also takes out class_. So yes klass were valid the Class was not a valid solution if you are going cross C++ compilers. So the C++ restricted word list is a little bigger than people first expect as well.



Kernel space and userspace are different classes of problems. The reserved words in userspace are no where near the same nightmare.