Originally posted by jrch2k8
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
.NET Core 1.0 Released
Collapse
X
-
The only scenario that I personally imagine I'd benefit from this is by it progressing development in mono or wine, assuming I understand that this would partially help them with some core functions.
Other than that I'm happy to keep it as away from FOSS as possible, proprietary on Linux is another story.
The only temptation Microsoft has put out is grabbing a Surface Book Pro and installing Arch Linux on it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SteveOC64 View PostHave a read of this shit and laugh :
Thanks again, that doco is brilliant.
your target runtime requires at a minimum :
- 3 x .dll files
- 2 x .so files (note the subtle difference between Dynamic Link Lib vs Shared Object ... your Hello World needs both !!)
- something else called 'corerun' that could be an .ELF file, or could be anything at all ???? Who knows ???
This is Genius !!
Comment
-
Huge .NET fan here. So I'm a little upset you guys aren't excited about it. That said, FreeBSD support mostly works and isn't advertised as fully functional though it may be. Biggest things ahead are ARM32 and ARM64 support.
you can apt-get on Debian and yum on RHEL.
I don't get the CoreCLR failures you are seeing Gentoo guy.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
I had no trouble rtfm and installing dotnet on Fedora 23. Said "Hello" to "Hello World", then tried installing Visual Studio Code. No joy, a raft of errors when trying to
$ cd ~/.vscode/extensions/ms-vscode.cpptools-0.4.2/
$ /usr/local/bin/dotnet restore --configfile NuGet.Config --infer-runtimes
$ Error: System.Threading.Timer 4.0.1-rc3-23803 provides a compile-time reference assembly for System.Threading.Timer on DNXCore,Version=v5.4, but there is no run-time assembly compatible with fedora.23-x64.
One or more packages are incompatible with DNXCore,Version=v5.4 (fedora.23-x64).
But its Brand New Stuff, so I'll wait a week or two before trying again. It's not like all my Emacs/Gcc/Gdb/Qt projects are desperately crying for change.
Comment
-
Originally posted by xnor View PostYes, but they evidently cannot expect users to be able to read. Do you have the dependent packages installed? Do you have a distribution/version that is supported by their binary packages? (You can also always compile yourself...)
I guess without the comfort of a package manager and the work of package maintainers you'd conclude that no software was tested before its release?Rob
email: [email protected]
Comment
-
Originally posted by dotnetlover View PostHuge .NET fan here. So I'm a little upset you guys aren't excited about it.
Comment
-
Nah, it is standard practice assuming you target only binaries to the system. But the source released, I guess, in order to allow other people develop it, isn't it? So they ought at least to make sure it would compile on that target system.
Comment
-
Originally posted by dotnetlover View PostHuge .NET fan here. So I'm a little upset you guys aren't excited about it. That said, FreeBSD support mostly works and isn't advertised as fully functional though it may be. Biggest things ahead are ARM32 and ARM64 support.
you can apt-get on Debian and yum on RHEL.
I don't get the CoreCLR failures you are seeing Gentoo guy.
As to what you've said it is certainly a very interesting development that shall have some very profound effects on the industry, Microsoft pointed out in their blog that Samsung has started some massive investments into it, which could be for their smartphones but it could also be for their embedded products like their washers and refrigerators. Either way Microsoft is finally managing .NET correctly, and other companies including Red Hat are responding.
Originally posted by Hi-Angel View PostNah, it is standard practice assuming you target only binaries to the system. But the source released, I guess, in order to allow other people develop it, isn't it? So they ought at least to make sure it would compile on that target system.
- Likes 2
Comment
Comment