Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Microsoft To Open-Source .NET, Bring It Officially To Linux

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

  • #21
    Originally posted by Michael_S View Post
    Agreed.

    Plus, I think having .NET and Java in more competition with each other is better for everyone. It will push the two language communities to keep improving their respective languages. It will also discourage Oracle from filing more copyright lawsuits against Java implementations - because it will just drive companies onto .NET.

    (Edit) I think the real sign here is that Microsoft really wants to foster interest in Windows by removing costs for potential developers. It makes sense to them.
    Insofar as I've understood .Net is a platform and not a language like Java. Maybe you were meaning JVM?

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by BlackStar View Post
      MIT license *and* a patent promise. Can you feel the winds of change?

      Mono is being updated as we speak (incomplete implementations will be replaced by the end of the week). Lots of partying at Xamarin and Unity3d too!
      DirectX implementation will be very useful replacing wine because of increasing perfomance in games.

      Comment


      • #23
        Only useful for WineNet like WineMono, but useful anyway.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
          Can someone explain me please: How is this beneficial for Microsoft? Why are they doing this?
          Not sure, but I can't help but thinking about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish"

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by nanonyme View Post
            Insofar as I've understood .Net is a platform and not a language like Java. Maybe you were meaning JVM?
            As a programmer, when someone says "Java" I think "Java+JVM". When someone says ".NET" I think C# and VB/F#/Some other language/A cat and a sink/ running through the CLIR on some sort of bytecode VM.
            Maybe I'm the only one that thinks like that (though you can run other languages on the JVM like Groovy+Scala) - Java means JVM implied.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by mvniekerk View Post
              2. Java is a major platform in Enterprise services
              Java is a piece of shit.

              Comment


              • #27
                Originally posted by mvniekerk View Post
                As a programmer, when someone says "Java" I think "Java+JVM". When someone says ".NET" I think C# and VB/F#/Some other language/A cat and a sink/ running through the CLIR on some sort of bytecode VM.
                Maybe I'm the only one that thinks like that (though you can run other languages on the JVM like Groovy+Scala) - Java means JVM implied.
                Thank you. I think the same way.

                Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
                Can someone explain me please: How is this beneficial for Microsoft? Why are they doing this?
                1. Microsoft is still the biggest source of .NET training and .NET support, and the most popular source of .NET development tools. So getting .NET to be more widely adopted on and off Windows increases their customer base.

                2. Java (and the JVM) is very popular for development and server deployment for many reasons.
                2a. Developers can develop on any operating system that runs a developer workstation and deploy on any operating system that runs on the server. Now Microsoft can offer the same thing.
                2b. The Java developer tools, compiler, and virtual machine are free on any platform. Now again, Microsoft can offer the same thing.

                3. Microsoft is moving towards making more money from hosted services (Office 365, Windows Azure) and less from software licenses.
                3a. It's more profitable for them to get $100 per year from you for an Office 365 license that you access from a web browser on Ubuntu Linux or from Chrome OS than to have you buy a Windows laptop and Office Home directly. So promoting Windows is now less important than promoting Office 365 subscriptions.
                3b. Windows Azure makes Microsoft money based on customer hardware utilization. Microsoft makes the same profit no matter whether the customer is renting Ubuntu Linux virtual machines or Windows Server 2012 virtual machines. So if making .NET free for Linux gets more customers onto Windows Azure, it just boosts their revenue.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Kemosabe View Post
                  Can someone explain me please: How is this beneficial for Microsoft? Why are they doing this?
                  This is my guess.
                  Microsoft has lost the grip on consumer devices and need something to get a grip there.
                  By getting .NET more used on other platforms would help getting more apps and programs working in the growing consumer device market.
                  Microsoft needs a better ecosystem in that market and i think Microsoft hopes that .NET will lead the way.
                  Microsoft would gain if other devices used .NET and developers developed more .NET for all platforms.
                  I think we will see a lot of changes in Microsoft in the coming years since it needed it Microsoft wants to continue being a big player, and i also think that the new CEO will do it.
                  But i don't think Microsoft will be able to take a bigger piece of the consumer device market.
                  Last edited by Nille_kungen; 11-12-2014, 03:31 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by parched View Post
                    Not sure, but I can't help but thinking about "Embrace, extend, and extinguish"
                    I doubt it, because I don't see how the third step is possible when it is licensed under the MIT license with a patent promise. Anyone can fork it and distribute their own version if they want to.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      There was a technical reason for me preferring Java over .NET and that was the fact that it was designed for multiple versions of Windows with other platforms being an afterthought. .NET requires the Portable Executable format and also mixes bytecode and machine code in the same binary. If they are going to base it on an existing format, they need to change the file's header and/or suffix so it can be easily distinguished from the original format. Java does this, .NET doesn't.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X