Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CoreCLR is now open source

blogs.msdn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#111

Post by rodgerd »

Nelkins wrote: post #48

I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…

> Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already).

I seriously doubt piracy of Windows is a huge concern in most markets; MS will still be making a lot of money from Dell, HP, Lenovo, et al selling their stuff.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#112

Post by doodpants »

fsloth wrote: post #65

De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. What the hell happened. It's like Skeletor became He-Mans best buddy all of a sudden and started helping everyone. I'm thrilled. The MS tooling is really, really good and the only thing stopping me from committing to the stack fully has been it's lack of open sourceness (vendor lock in is still feasible but getting less of an issue). Edit: Pardon the…

> De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love.

Kind of ironic, what with Ballmer's "Developers developers developers..." spiel.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#113

Post by tormeh »

mackwic wrote: post #107
bigdubs wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Device drivers can be divorced from the core os.

They are divorced from the core os. Windows is a microkernel and the drivers run in userland since vista. It's a completely different matters.

It's not really a microkernel, but a hybrid. Isn't the drivers the only thing that runs in userland?

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#114

Post by stefantalpalaru »

stinos wrote: post #83
ixtli wrote: post #61

Even more reason to port all of your C/C++ code to CMake. I'm excited to see upstream contribution from MS.

Exactly, CMake getting more traction like this should be good. I know quite some devs who're like CMake? Why don't you just use good old Makefiles? and then struggle with it's syntax and/or fail to provide working Windows or even Mac builds of their software simply because they stick with plain makefiles. (don't get me wrong, they work fine, just not so much for cross-platform projects)

The alternative is not plain Makefiles, but Autotools: https://autotools.io/index.html

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#115

Post by mackwic »

adl wrote: post #106
phkahler wrote: post #80

It's actually Free Software, not just open source. MIT license.

I'm familiar with the philosophical differences between Free Software and Open Source. But in this context you seem to imply that there are practical differences i.e: Not all Open Source licences are considered Free Software in the practical sense. If that is the case, could you provide an example?

The open-source academical licences are a good example. For example, part of the Win32 kernel are open for academic and are heavily share between the classes, but the limitations are here.

For instance, this licence: http://opensource.org/licenses/AFL-3.0

It provide free usage, studying, display, publishing, but also explicitly says that some of the part could be binaries (machine-readable), you can't sell anything derivative, and the licence is personal with no right to give the licence to anyone else.

So, you can consult and modify in the frame of your academical work, but no more.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#117

Post by pmontra »

I wonder how this strategy is going to affect the bottom line of Microsoft. People writing with CLR languages are deploying web apps mainly (or only) to Windows now. They're going to have an option to deploy to Linux soon. This means less revenues from OS and DB licenses, so it looks bad. Do they expect a large number of people leaving Java, Node, Python, Ruby and picking up C# because of the Linux deploys? Those people would probably have to buy Windows and VisualStudio licenses to code in C# in a VM or just ditch Macs for PCs. More desktop licenses could make up for lost server ones but if I googled well a server costs more than a desktop. Or maybe they're playing a longer game: open source as much as they can, hope some network effect builds up, find out how to profit from it. In the medium term they might be losing money tough. Am I missing something obvious?

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#118

Post by wesnerm2 »

robwilliams wrote: post #97
chriscub wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny thing is that internal to Microsoft, most devs don't use Visual Studio as an IDE. Maybe as an editor or a debugger, but there are a lot of build systems out within Microsoft and most of them don't plug into Visual Studio. IMO, open sourcing Visual Studio itself is not all that interesting vs. open sourcing the .NET platform.

I work at Microsoft and everything is done through Visual Studio (C#, C++, Javascript, X++, etc.). Where is VS not used inside Microsoft?

I worked at Microsoft Excel 15 years ago and Visual Studio was only used as a debugger. Visual SlickEdit was the editor and compiling/building was command-line based. Each group is different.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#119

Post by [deleted] »

Nelkins wrote: post #48

I would be curious to see the effects of completely open-sourcing Windows. Businesses would continue to use it, because it's Microsoft and they want enterprise support. I think it would get even more love than it already does from the development community. Piracy of Windows is already rampant, so they're not really in a worse position from that (plus I think that most people who can pay for Windows do so already). F…

[deleted]

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#120

Post by jvickers »

lubos wrote: post #101
frik wrote: post #3

Next step, WinForms

Java Swing turned out to be a failure because it didn't look native on any platform. I would recommend something like Eto.Forms ( https://github.com/picoe/Eto ) which is an abstraction over native GUI toolkits (WPF, WinForms, GTK+, Cocoa) Works really well and mature.

My impression of Java UI components was that they looked boring and old-fashioned. It's a subjective judgement, but I guess others would have thought that way too. If Java Swing or other parts of the Java UI toolkit looked better than many native GUIs then there would have been more interest.
Post reply on HN