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

[Sonadow]

*snip*

Yo Wolf, nice to see you again.

Take my advice: don't waste another second of your precious time on the organism you are talking to.

Notice how he really only shows up when there's Microsoft-bashing involved?

[ClairRichmond12]

Consider it a boon for developers

Consider it a boon for developers,C# my fav language, Working on linux time being

[Filiprino]

I actually completely trust the C# ECMA standard in that it will do what it says it will do: guarantee developers that Microsoft won't sue them.

The thing is that not all of C# is in that ECMA. That ECMA is Old.
Microsoft offers no guarantee against anything. By preserving the leadership of C# development they can force developers to embrace any possible future closed source C# version once they've embraced and extended their current free C#. They'd only have to release a new closed versions with new features and nobody would fork C# and start playing the catch up game for features against the closed C# from Microsoft, like has happened until now with Moonlight, Mono ...

[DanLamb]

Yes, let's just ignore that their developer and tools division has been moving towards being more and more open since 2008

Microsoft developer tools has been moving more open largely because they've lost ground to competition. They fought open web standards, and fought them hard with everything they had, and pumped up proprietary tech like Silverlight. They lost.

They are fighting any competition, including free open source options, to MS Office. At one level, they are supposed to. Office is Microsoft's cash cow and they should fight to preserve that. Some of that is mutually beneficial, they make better products and some people get legitimate value. But they use some of their other tools and standards to promote things like Office and discourage alternatives. They also build cultures in other companies where it is taboo to use a competing standards such as a competing solution to MS Office. That may serve Microsoft's financial interests, and I don't fault them for wanting to make money, but it's not in my interests or the interests of others, and people should act accordingly.

Microsoft is not a company to trust. It's a company you have to avoid if you believe in free (libre) software.

I actually completely trust the C# ECMA standard in that it will do what it says it will do: guarantee developers that Microsoft won't sue them.

I don't trust Microsoft to equally and fairly support competition to MS Office or Windows or SQL Server or .NET or C#/F# even when those competing technologies serve my needs better.

[Luke_Wolf]

Again you persist with the same fallacy. Just because everyone is guilty of some crime, doesn't mean we should treat people the same way for murder or littering.

Except this isn't the difference between murder and littering, it's the difference between someone murdering 100 people, and another murdering 105. That extra person or 5 doesn't count for much when the individual is already guilty of mass murder.

I never claimed google was innocent, so that's beside the point.

You claimed that Google was the victim here, only giving up the information it was forced to give, whereas Microsoft is this big bad asshole who is intentionally going out of their way to give the NSA all of your information, and were pretending that even if Microsoft does give out all of the information that you allege that they're the only ones who do so.

Some companies oppose software patents and support FOSS projects. MS does the exact opposite. MS is one of the most harmful parasites to ever have existed.

Which multi-billion dollar tech company opposes software patents? Also MS does support various FOSS projects you know like the one being reported on in this article.

Not in my country, no. I don't buy phones with carrier subsidies anyway, around here most phones are purchased from stores without carrier subsidies, and we also have legislation that forbids carriers from preventing customers to switch carriers if they so wish.

You might also be interested to know that EU directives not only explicitly allow rooting/jailbreaking of phones, but demand that manufacturers/sellers are not allowed to void the warranty of a phone for rooting/jailbreaking only.

FBI has no jurisdiction in my country.

I don't live in a NATO nation.

If this is all the case WHY pray tell do you care so much about the NSA? hm? Your own local spy agencies should be much more worrisome to you. Or do you consider the NSA to be the MS of spy agencies?

Oh yes because sitting on your lazy ass saying "oh noes we're fucked, we might as well just give in and use microsoft" will obviously get them to stop, oh wait, that's not only not doing anything but actively increasing microsoft's profits, enabling them to fuck us over even more.

So you're just going to sit on your lazy ass, going on about how everything is hopeless and nothing can be done...

Because Microsoft is obviously the source of all these problems, Or oh wait... No it isn't.

Also it's not about laziness, It's about being realistic and learning from the past. It's a fact that whenever there's been outcry the government hasn't shut down these projects and instead has continued marching on with them, and it's not going to matter how loud the outcry is because the government can operate with impunity, even to the point of killing it's own citizens as long as it brands them 'terrorists'.

Furthermore there is no instance of individuals armed with civilian hardware standing up to a modern military, and even the famous Barret loses effectiveness after 1 mile, on top of that taking a master sniper to actually make the shot, which means that the drones are untouchable with civillian equipment while they can drop hellfire missles and blow away any who resist.

Hell even going back to the 1700s the only reason the American Revolution actually succeeded was because we convinced the french to help us, and that was when things were on more equal footing.

The simple fact is that short of the military itself taking things into it's own hands the only thing the civilian populace can hope to achieve in rebellion is their own demise.

We'll see about that if it comes to that.

Unless you've got access to a vehicle mounted or hard emplacement SAM, no you won't. Even the Javellins only reach 15,000 feet less than 1/3 the required distance.

You should better learn your own history. That's really all I have to say about that...

I know it far better than you apparently.

Oh yeah? Then why is microsoft so tightly in bed with NSA? Out of a sense of patriotic duty? Bullshit... information is business like any other. Just look at how facebook operates, it may be enlightening...

Facebook is a datamining company just the same as Google is, so of course they have an interest in selling information. However if Microsoft is as deep in bed with the NSA as you claim, which is dubious at best the reason would be either A). The government said "Do it Or Else..." or B). They wrote them a check under the table. However that does not mean that these businesses wanted the NSA to spy, and lets keep in mind that the beginning of the framework for all of this spying started in the 1950s (as far as public record goes, it's possible that surveillance started even before then) well before Microsoft and friends came into play with ESCHALON. The fact is spying on the public isn't a new business, and the Baby Boomers and "Greatest Generation" are at fault for not nipping it in the bud, before it was too late.

Oh and also, obviously there isn't also any reason why businesses would *want* the government to wage pointless wars on the other side of the world, because the military-industrial-complex is obviously a fairy tale... and oh, businesses obviously never have any reason to *want* to lobby for more draconian legislation for "drugs", "piracy", "patents", "copyrights" etc. Oh no, corporations are all just benefactors who want to provide us with jobs and services and maybe, possibly make a tiny bit of money in the process... they would never do anything sinister or unethical at all.

Obviously all businesses are totally evil and they all want us to wage wars and sell everyone's information away. Oh wait.. No The fact is business as a general whole doesn't want these things, business as a specific sub category such as natural resources or military equipment do want wars, however Jo Tech Company is at best neutral about it and probably doesn't want it to go on.

What you're basically claiming here is that microsoft wants the NSA to be spying on people and is the cause for them doing so which is quite frankly bullshit, because this has been going on since the 1950s.

Oh, and you have some evidence for this I suppose? Again with the same fallacy, if it's not 100% perfect then obviously it's not doing anything... if we didn't have FOSS, corporatism would very likely be even more rampant in global economy right now. There would never have been a free and open internet, it would all have been controlled by corporations right from the start. The very foundations of the openness and freedom of the internet (which is still a thing, despite attempts to throttle it from many sides, despite all the privacy violations and patent threats) could not have ever existed without open standards and open software that allowed for the infrastructure to grow organically...

Are you daft I just listed a half dozen entities that are the embodiment of corporatism utilizing FOSS software, further you're the individual making extraordinary claims that the social movement (as opposed to the pragmatic technical benefits of OSS) is responsible for seriously imparing corporatism so you need to provide proof that this is the case.

Standards and OSS software are simply a pragmatic thing that exist outside of the auspices of the social movement, the social movement doesn't own them, and we had standards committees like ISO and open source (albeit unlicensed) software long before the FSF was a twinkle in Stallman's eye.

Not even getting to the whole wintel thing, obviously that was a thing once, they've since distanced themselves from microsoft considerably though.

Regardless of the past, Intel CPU's and x86 is still the most open common hardware platform available for common use today.

So despite Intel having acted as an abusive monopolist and having been fined for it in the past few years, it's okay to go with them over AMD, because Intel has open drivers (as does AMD). But obviously it's not okay to use .NET despite it being open source because it's a Microsoft technology.

[Luke_Wolf]

Excuse me, what are you talking about?

The part you put in bold, is a limitation on what patents are granted. Which is to say only the ones that would be infringed upon by you using, modifying, distributing or creating a derivative work off of the software, and if you happen to have patents relevant to the technology and write code that would be infringing then you're adding your patents to the pool. However if some of your patents wouldn't be infringed upon by someone doing one of those 4 things (Use, Modification, Distribution, and Creation of Derivative Works) then those patents are not covered by the license.

In any case, you should know about embrace, extend and extinguish. Microsoft could very well release this code, and in a future close C# again making a new version with added features and because Microsoft has you already tied with their technology most of people will probably upgrade to the new closed version which in the short term will be totally incompatible with older versions of C# while programs using C# would have changed progressively to the successive releases of the closed C#.
And GNU Linux will be f*ck*d up again.

So what you want me to believe is that they're going to embrace, extend, and extinguish their own software and that somehow all that .NET is is a plan to harm linux.

Further you want me to believe that after all the effort they took in opening .NET up that they're going to close it back down again.

You also want me to believe that after having reached what is essentially a stability point they're going to totally rewrite the language.

Also even if they did close it we're still in a significantly better spot than we were before they set up the .NET foundation because Mono now has .NET's unit test suite and the official C# and VB compilers, but we'd just be back to where we were before Microsoft opensourced things.

Microsoft is not a company to trust. It's a company you have to avoid if you believe in free (libre) software.

Yes, let's just ignore that their developer and tools division has been moving towards being more and more open since 2008

As for C# being an ECMA standard that's not true. All C# must be an ECMA standard and free of patents but the reality is that the version released in .NET 4.0 is not a standard and is not covered by any open license, patent grant, "community promise", or other agreement. Anything they've added since 2008 (and possibly earlier) is not in the ECMA standard, and may or may not require patent licenses to use.

Then what's this? http://roslyn.codeplex.com/ Please do explain what this is if not the official Microsoft C# and VB compilers under the Apache 2.0 license

[Filiprino]

Maybe you should increase your reading comprehension. IANAL but all that says in a nutshell is that only the patents that cover the work are given under the patent grant by anyone contributing to it, such that nobody can take an unrelated patent and use this as justification as capability to use it without paying royalties.

Excuse me, what are you talking about?

In any case, you should know about embrace, extend and extinguish. Microsoft could very well release this code, and in a future close C# again making a new version with added features and because Microsoft has you already tied with their technology most of people will probably upgrade to the new closed version which in the short term will be totally incompatible with older versions of C# while programs using C# would have changed progressively to the successive releases of the closed C#.
And GNU Linux will be f*ck*d up again.

Microsoft is not a company to trust. It's a company you have to avoid if you believe in free (libre) software.

As for C# being an ECMA standard that's not true. All C# must be an ECMA standard and free of patents but the reality is that the version released in .NET 4.0 is not a standard and is not covered by any open license, patent grant, "community promise", or other agreement. Anything they've added since 2008 (and possibly earlier) is not in the ECMA standard, and may or may not require patent licenses to use.

[DanLamb]

Why do you consider C# a poor language, what are the alternatives and why do you consider them better than C#.

"better" is subjective to opinion and dependent on the task at hand.

For general purpose system/server/app development, the higher level languages are "better" IMO: On .NET F# > C#. On the JVM, Scala > Java. Clojure is on both .NET and JVM and I would say it's better than Java/C#, but I don't know enough about it to compare against Scala/F#. For some tasks, Haskell is a better high level language. Definitely better than C#/Java type languages.

For prototyping many math algorithms, and doing number crunching, Matlab/Octave are great tools. It's more the libraries than the language itself.

For crunching tabular data, and doing plots, R is great. Again, more for the libraries and community than the language itself.

Python is a great competitor to both R and Octave. Again, the language itself isn't terribly special, but the ecosystem of libraries is. I don't like Python for server development.

I don't care much about people dismissing opensource software because it originated at Microsoft. Good for them. It will greatly increase my productivity and possibly my income. That's what I care about.

I agree. Make your own judgments on what tools work best and use them. No one ever agrees on this stuff.

Visual studio does appeal to me (along with Qt Creator, Xamarin Studio/Monodevelop, Android studio, KDevelop, Text editors like notepad++ or Gedit) yet I don't have a Microsoft wired mindset. I Have a mindset that says "Choose the best tool for the job, get it done and move on".

Sure, everyone chooses what they feel is the best, and that decision is completely subjective and varies wildly between developers.

[fscan]

Why do you consider C# a poor language, what are the alternatives and why do you consider them better than C#.

I agree that ASP.NET is a poor web framework. ASP.NET MVC is a bit better but can be a bit inflexible for certain things.

However, I wouldn't dismiss the ASP.NET vNext without looking giving it a try first. So far, it seems to be more lightweight than the predecessors, quite modular (somewhat like Symfony) and is overall a huge upgrade to the current version. I use ASP.NET MVC extensively for client work but would never use it for my personal projects. However, playing around with vNext, I'd choose it over all the current frameworks that I would consider for personal projects specially now that it should "just work" on Mono.

I don't care much about people dismissing opensource software because it originated at Microsoft. Good for them. It will greatly increase my productivity and possibly my income. That's what I care about.

Visual studio does appeal to me (along with Qt Creator, Xamarin Studio/Monodevelop, Android studio, KDevelop, Text editors like notepad++ or Gedit) yet I don't have a Microsoft wired mindset. I Have a mindset that says "Choose the best tool for the job, get it done and move on".

+1 .. although i have to say ASP.NET MVC is much better then ASP.NET (Web) .. haven't looked at vNext in detail yet.

[jayrulez]

This is generally a bad reason to choose products.

Your judgement of what works for you is good. Your judgement of a giant corporation's ethics is probably beyond the scope of a traditional consumer to make a quality judgement.

I object to Microsoft products for two reasons:

- They aren't good. There are better alternatives. C# is a poor language. ASP.NET is a poor web framework. Microsoft Word is a horrible tool for creating documents. Visual Studio is a crusty IDE that appeals to this completely Microsoft wired mindset.
- They pull you into this Microsoft ecosystem.

Why do you consider C# a poor language, what are the alternatives and why do you consider them better than C#.

I agree that ASP.NET is a poor web framework. ASP.NET MVC is a bit better but can be a bit inflexible for certain things.

However, I wouldn't dismiss the ASP.NET vNext without looking giving it a try first. So far, it seems to be more lightweight than the predecessors, quite modular (somewhat like Symfony) and is overall a huge upgrade to the current version. I use ASP.NET MVC extensively for client work but would never use it for my personal projects. However, playing around with vNext, I'd choose it over all the current frameworks that I would consider for personal projects specially now that it should "just work" on Mono.

I don't care much about people dismissing opensource software because it originated at Microsoft. Good for them. It will greatly increase my productivity and possibly my income. That's what I care about.

Visual studio does appeal to me (along with Qt Creator, Xamarin Studio/Monodevelop, Android studio, KDevelop, Text editors like notepad++ or Gedit) yet I don't have a Microsoft wired mindset. I Have a mindset that says "Choose the best tool for the job, get it done and move on".