"Unthinkable"
This was title of Redhat's comment on Microsoft-Suse partnership.
Microsoft and Red Hat partner
61–70 of 177 posts
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would, .NET and the latest C# is awesome and superior to other frameworks, so yes, the fact that can run in Linux is something very atractive.
C# is a decent language if you like imperative programing. .NET MVC, though, is far from impressive. The routing is crap, Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views, and in general it feels like a "let's do Rails in C#", which I really don't see as the future of web development.
You don't need to use ASP.NET MVC (or even ASP.NET at all) when writing something for the web.
And if you like functional programming, use F#. It's pretty great.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#63In the last 5 years we've experimented with Linux on top of hyper-v a few times. The basic I/O, compile & runtime performance was significantly inferior to xen & kvm (didn't bench against vmware, phasing it out due to cost), it wasn't worth any effort to even deploy apps for testing. Therefore I don't see Linux on hyper-v being a compelling option for the cost conscientious technical officer or lead engineer.
With all due respect: I don't buy it. That isn't how the technology works. Compilation in particular would never even hit the hypervisor layer regardless of which one you were utilising. It is CPU/memory bound.
The difference between hypervisors for IO is tiny. They're all slower than native, but vary very little between one another. That's why the manufacturers have all almost given up trying to use performance for comparison, and instead argue value adds/management/automation/cost.
If you really found one specific hypervisor slower than another (regardless of which two), I'd want to look at your exact test conditions since that has never been the case for me (everything else being equal). And even the manufacturers don't argue that point much.
There are plenty of reasons to e.g. pick AWS over Azure, but Hyper-V performance is not one of them. That's just FUD.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but "Red Hat being late" is not a fact, it's placing the burden on Red Hat for getting their stuff running on Microsoft's systems for Microsoft's benefit . "Microsoft was late getting Red Hat on board" is the exact same fact with the opposite spin. No spin would have been "both companies ironed out an agreement allowing their products to be commercially supported when working together, three years after Azure l…
Red Hat could have been one of the first Linuxes on Azure, if it had wanted. But back in 2013, it said: "Red Hat CEO: We don't need Microsoft to succeed" http://www.infoworld.com/article/2614357/linux/red-hat-ceo--... I don't see why you're quibbling about "late". It's a fact that it's more than three years later than a bunch of other versions. But hey, you can have your own spin.
Note how RedHat didn't say that: if you read the actual article (despite being from InfoWorld):
> InfoWorld: Microsoft has a close business relationship with Suse Linux. That seems to be Microsoft's Linux of choice, and the company doesn't seem interested in having the same kind of partnership with Red Hat. Is that a problem for Red Hat?
> Jim Whitehurst: We'd be happy to work on interoperability with Microsoft or anyone else.
So yeah, Microsoft made a specific choice to partner with SuSE. RH said "whatever". Three years later, an agreement was finally struck between the two.
Did RH "come around"? Or did MS finally recognize SuSE is a losing proposition? You don't know and I don't know, but implying one side took action without having any proof for it is, well, spin.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#65Considering fewer enterprises trust Windows 10 with every new headline about how it spies on you, I guess they had no choice but to offer Linux as an option as well.
Also relevant to "Microsoft's love for Linux":
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#66forgetting the cloud stuff for now, this is much more interesting:
"Collaboration on .NET for a new generation of application development capabilities, providing access to .NET technologies across Red Hat offerings, including OpenShift and Red Hat Enterprise Linux, which will be available within the next few weeks."
Xplat .net is coming to RC1 in a couple of weeks (per roadmap: https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/Roadmap) and it's exciting to see that RHEL will support it. It makes sense for Microsoft, traditionally an enterprise company on the backend, to partner with a *nix company with, primarily, enterprise clients on the backend.
If nothing else, the toolset microsoft brings to the table will raise all boats on the -nix side IMO.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would, .NET and the latest C# is awesome and superior to other frameworks, so yes, the fact that can run in Linux is something very atractive.
C# is a decent language if you like imperative programing. .NET MVC, though, is far from impressive. The routing is crap, Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views, and in general it feels like a "let's do Rails in C#", which I really don't see as the future of web development.
>C# is a decent language
Just decent? I dissagree, it is the best language to my taste.
>NET MVC, though, is far from impressive
Tell me what is impressive them, becuase to me is a well stablished, easy to use and learn with static typing, there is nothing better.
>The routing is crap
The routing is highly configurable, by default it mimics Ruby on Rails routing and if you don't like it you can use your own, you have no idea of what are you talking about.
>Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views
Just like in JSP pages you can write Java code, or in ERB pages you can write Ruby code or in EJS pages yu can write JavaScript code, and if you don't like there a re plenty of options.
>which I really don't see as the future of web development
Your personal views are just that, personal, at least inform your self well before making ignorant statements.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
With their release of CoreCLR[1], which combined with the class libraries, I think there is a lot of reason to look at .NET on UNIX. The implementation includes the same JIT and GC that the .NET framework uses, it just cuts out a bunch of bits that likely wouldn't be relevant to people developing server backends (WPF, AppDomains, etc.). For server stuff, .NET is now close to the level of openness and compatibility th…
I think this is the same problem Google had with Motorola. Sure, Google was playing nice. But the OEMs are afraid how long Google would be playing nice until Google decide to favor it's own phone-making division? Same applies here. How long MS is going to play nice before they decide to favor their own platform. Needless to mention, MS's past history isn't going to help much either.
There is some risk that they'll take it back closed source since its MIT licensed (with patent grant) and their CLA[1] gives them a broad copyright license. However, I think with such a high-quality implementation being open source would be hard to put back in the bottle, especially since Mono is already integrating much of the code into their runtime[2]. On the other hand, external contributions to the Mono runtime are MIT licensed so that project could jump back to closed source if Xamarin so desires.
It's important to note that all of this applies to the OpenJDK too[3]. So you are at least no worse off if you make a leap from the JVM.
[1]: https://cla2.dotnetfoundation.org/cladoc/net-foundation-cont...
[2]: http://www.mono-project.com/docs/about-mono/dotnet-integrati...
[3]: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/oca-405177.pdf
edit: word choice
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#69I think this is just ticking a box for Microsoft since I believe you can get RH on AWS. But let's be honest - how many people will perceive any value in stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? Sure if you already have a .NET app, hosting it in UNIX may give you some benefit. But is anyone really going to write an app from scratch with this in mind? I'm skeptical.
The default RHEL on AWS is loaded with a bunch of a crap - supposedly Redhat officially supplies the distro, but one really has to wonder if a single week of engineering time has ever went into this. I mean seriously WiFi-drivers?! [1] https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/review/product-reviews/re...
RHAT is a great business in terms of its stock price but I am not the fan I used to be.
I started w/ Slackware and moved to Red Hat and then Fedora but eventually RH and Fedora became "the Linux that couldn't" when I was installing on either an old or new machine. On the same machine Ubuntu would install just fine.
I run a Windows desktop now and mostly use Ubuntu Linux in AWS, sometimes inside a VM on my local machine. I used to run the RH-derived AWS Linux, but eventually I learned how to do things easily in Ubuntu, such as installing and maintaning an Oracle JVM, that are hard in Red Hat. Definitely an enthusiast could find a solution with RHEL, but having a server OS that "just works" is what you need if you are the guy who splits his time between devops and bizdev.
Re: Microsoft and Red Hat partner
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
With their release of CoreCLR[1], which combined with the class libraries, I think there is a lot of reason to look at .NET on UNIX. The implementation includes the same JIT and GC that the .NET framework uses, it just cuts out a bunch of bits that likely wouldn't be relevant to people developing server backends (WPF, AppDomains, etc.). For server stuff, .NET is now close to the level of openness and compatibility th…
You may be right, I don't know. I suppose the acid test is when YC companies start posting for front-end developers with C#, .NET and UNIX experience versus what's required today, i.e. either node.js, django, ruby, etc.
Why YC companies? There are lots of other startups out there (some of which even using .NET).