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

121–130 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#121

Post by adrianlmm »

pmontra wrote: post #117

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 peo…

> Those people would probably have to buy Windows and VisualStudio licenses to code in C# in a VM or just ditch Macs for PCs.

No, they can code in Linux using Vim if they want.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#122

Post by mackwic »

tormeh wrote: post #113
mackwic wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't think so, the windows manager is also in userland. It's not the most documented thing, and it depends on what are "the things" of windows, there are many. :)

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#123

Post by WorldWideWayne »

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…

I don't see why everything needs to be open source. People who simply don't like Microsoft will not use it just because it's open. Quite the opposite I think - they'd probably immediately fork it and provide an alternate download in order to hurt Microsoft.

Are foreign governments a big market that Microsoft has lost a lot of customers from? I don't think so. The vast majority of the potential market for Windows is already running Windows, so I don't see what they'd really have to gain. The small but loud minority of open-source zealots won't be happy until every single Microsoft product is open.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#124

Post by smacktoward »

pmontra wrote: post #117

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 peo…

> 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.

That was Sun's strategy for Java; it didn't work out well for them. Java became huge, but Sun never did figure out how to make a dollar from it.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#125

Post by evincarofautumn »

daeken wrote: post #14
simfoo wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From their GetHashCode(): // We want to ensure we can change our hash function daily. // This is perfectly fine as long as you don't persist the // value from GetHashCode to disk or count on String A // hashing before string B. Those are bugs in your code. hash1 ^= ThisAssembly.DailyBuildNumber; I'd love to hear the story behind this one :D

I don't know the story, but the logic behind it is simple: If you want to guarantee no one depends on GetHashCode staying static between runs of an application, change it all the time.

But now I can circumvent this hack by xoring with ThisAssembly.DailyBuildNumber again. :)

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#126

Post by xanadohnt »

adrianlmm wrote: post #121
pmontra wrote: post #117

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 peo…

> Those people would probably have to buy Windows and VisualStudio licenses to code in C# in a VM or just ditch Macs for PCs. No, they can code in Linux using Vim if they want.

Additionally, full-blown Visual Studio is totally free now. Win10 is practically free or totally free (if upgrading from a valid Win8).

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#127

Post by usea »

pmontra wrote: post #117

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 peo…

They're betting a lot on Azure, so not all people who switch to Linux servers will be lost customers. They can still run their Linux servers on Azure.

I don't pretend to understand the calculus of the decision, just offering this point you may have overlooked.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#128

Post by zodiac »

brudgers wrote: post #86
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…

Who is going to support 20 million lines of code other than Microsoft employees as amateurs bungle their way through thirty years of patches for backward compatibility wrapped around stupid and clever things OEM's and third party developers did to get their code to work? It's not like Linux because there isn't a team of experienced volunteers already working on the code base and the Windows code base contains a lot f…

You're right, it would be hard to contribute to such a codebase. I think the benefits of open sourcing Windows aren't really "developers will start contributing to it" as much as "developers will start reading the source code". Microsoft would continue supporting it.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#129

Post by mackwic »

stefantalpalaru wrote: post #114
stinos wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

AH ! That was a nice joke, have my upvote. :)

For the curious: http://voices.canonical.com/jussi.pakkanen/2011/09/13/autoto... (tldr: autotools won't work on windows, you need a shell emulator, like cygwin, and gcc)

Premake is nice, also. But CMakes tend to work better for a big project.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#130

Post by xanadohnt »

huragok wrote: post #54
Delmania wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure they will migrate Visual Studio. First they'd need to move WPF, which is implemented in DirectX. Second, Visual Studio and MSDN are still profitable. Third, there's the Omnisharp project that;s working on providing support for the more common IDEs on linux. In fact, there's nothing stopping people from making Eclipse and IntelliJ plugins.

I wonder how long it will take a courageous developer to port WPF to OpenGL.

This has been asked about for nearly as long as Mono and WPF have been in coexistence. I would say there's very little chance this will happen. However, a recent update in the WPF world is MS has actually been ramping their WPF team back up after it looked like it would suffer the same fate as Silverlight. So who knows?
Post reply on HN