Originally posted by halfmanhalfamazing
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
So, Microsoft just open sourced most of .NET...
Collapse
X
-
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostMicrosoft is already recommending people move away from .net to winrt and html5.
Comment
-
Originally posted by justmy2cents View Postand 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
Originally posted by LightBit View Post.NET is subplatform in WinRT.
Comment
-
Originally posted by beetreetime View Postthey will take all the changes made by developers on the Open source version and make their next version closed.
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
-
Originally posted by LightBit View Post.NET is subplatform in WinRT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Runtime#.NET
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostYes, 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
-
Originally posted by directhex View PostApache 2.0 is a GPLv3-compatible license with a patent grant. What's *wrong* with Apache 2.0?
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
-
Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View PostThen, 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.!
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
-
Originally posted by ciplogic View PostThey 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.
Originally posted by KernelPanic View PostThe 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
Comment