Wine-Mono Won't Bother With .NET 5.0 - The Official Microsoft Binaries Should Work Fine

[Alexmitter]

(Was .NET core originally Xamarin? If so, going from an OSS replacement to the actual defacto version is huge.)

No, dotnet core originates in silverlight, another C# implementation but smaller and crossplatform. Also was the browser plugin that people didn't like.
Basically exactly that, C# but as a replacement for flash.

[Weasel]

Is it just me not being a native speaker or is this article confusing to others as well? Is .NET 5.0 breaking compatibility or does it just work? The way I understand the article it sounds like ".NET 5.0 breaks everything and is too hard to support. Just install it, it's supported right out of the box."

Old .NET versions and wine-mono aren't going away. They'll still be required to run apps compiled for them.

.NET 5.0 can simply be installed alongside if any apps need it. It doesn't "replace" it like so much of pathetic Linux userland that breaks compatibility.

[Awesomeness]

But in this case, I think, the problem is that you are not a software developer, so maybe you don't understand what the devs are saying. From a dev's point of view the changes between this new version and the older versions is too much, so in their mind it is not worth to spend all those resources just to provide a fully open source (and buggy) replacement to the official release. From a user's point of view it "just works".

Oh, that makes sense.

It doesn't "replace" it like so much of pathetic Linux userland that breaks compatibility.

No idea what you're talking about but under Linux (I guess it's a POSIX convention) libraries have the exact version number as part of their names (e.g. libstdc++.so.6.0.27) and of course allow parallel installation of multiple versions.

[Weasel]

No idea what you're talking about but under Linux (I guess it's a POSIX convention) libraries have the exact version number as part of their names (e.g. libstdc++.so.6.0.27) and of course allow parallel installation of multiple versions.

I phrased that wrong, so I can see your confusion. I was referring to the distros userland, since they tend to remove old packages. And usually, unlike on Windows/Wine, you can't just "take an old package and install it" on a new distro. It won't work.

[Awesomeness]

usually, unlike on Windows/Wine, you can't just "take an old package and install it" on a new distro. It won't work.

Windows applications usually bundle dependencies. Linux applications can do the same. Sure, that's an insane approach but it's possible.

With Flatpak things got easier. Apps can just depend on an older fdo runtime.

[Weasel]

Windows applications usually bundle dependencies. Linux applications can do the same. Sure, that's an insane approach but it's possible.

That's false, they bundle dependencies not part of the system libraries, or redistributables only (runtime or directX). Did you see how many DLLs are in system32?

gdi32 from 3 decades ago is still there, despite newer APIs being introduced. gdi32 has syscalls, so no, you cannot even bundle it with an app, since its internal implementation varies by Windows version. Is it too much to have this dedication on Linux userland?

[Awesomeness]

Is it too much to have this dedication on Linux userland?

Three decade old crap: Yeah, I hope so.

For sane things I already answered: Flatpak should have this covered.