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

141–150 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#141

Post by ptx »

brudgers wrote: post #89
dkarapetyan wrote: post #24

I really like the new Microsoft. Ballmer was really trying to run the company into the ground.

Think about all the things that Wall Street has said Microsoft should do over the past decade. None of them was "more open source." All the groundwork was done by Ballmer. It had to be because now that he and Gates have reduced their ownership stake and are no longer the two largest shareholders, Wall Street's flavor of the month ideas cannot be ignored. The 'new' Microsoft has been building at least since they hired…

> They moved Office to an open file format.

Or rather: When OpenDocument was standardized by ISO and threatened to create demand for open, common, standardized interchange formats, they created a similarly and confusingly named XML version of their existing format, with insufficient documentation to allow complete third-party implementations, and pushed it as a competing ISO standard, using tricks such as (accidentally, I believe they said) encouraging partner companies to join standards bodies just for the vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_Standards_Institute#The...

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#142

Post by brudgers »

ptx wrote: post #141
brudgers wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think about all the things that Wall Street has said Microsoft should do over the past decade. None of them was "more open source." All the groundwork was done by Ballmer. It had to be because now that he and Gates have reduced their ownership stake and are no longer the two largest shareholders, Wall Street's flavor of the month ideas cannot be ignored. The 'new' Microsoft has been building at least since they hired…

> They moved Office to an open file format. Or rather: When OpenDocument was standardized by ISO and threatened to create demand for open, common, standardized interchange formats, they created a similarly and confusingly named XML version of their existing format, with insufficient documentation to allow complete third-party implementations, and pushed it as a competing ISO standard, using tricks such as (accidental…

That's the way standards work. OpenDocument did not meet MicroSoft's needs. They were the one with a massive investment in an existing code base and customers who would be best served by feature compatibility. So they used the same process to create something with equal legitimacy.

As Grace Hopper said, the great thing about standards is there a are so many to choose from.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#143

Post by vardump »

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.

As someone who has done Windows driver development, I can assure you drivers run at ring0, kernel context. Not in userland (except maybe some USB device and printer drivers).

At least this was still true in Windows 8.1.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#144

Post by Someone »

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.

Some Windows drivers run in user space, but many run in kernel space (https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff... shows Windows has kernel drivers; the some/many distinction is my guesstimate, based on the fact that anything that needs to process data fast benefits from being a kernel driver)

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#145

Post by joelthelion »

smacktoward wrote: post #124
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.

Sun didn't have Azure.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#146

Post by voyou »

mackwic wrote: post #115
adl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

I'm not sure if you linked to the license you intended to - the license at that link doesn't seem to include any of the limitations you mention. If it did include those limitations, I don't think if would qualify as an open source license, either.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#147

Post by pmontra »

usea wrote: post #127
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.

This might be the answer, but it's going to become part of distributions so I could run .NET on Linux on AWS or on my own VPS hosted anywhere. I can't see any reason why Amazon won't provide a Linux .NET image to boot from. Obviously MS can try to provide better and faster images for their Azure servers, maybe even their own distro. I can't wait to see Microsoft Linux Server 2018 :-)

Prices for cloud servers are falling, so do they really plan to take part to a race to the bottom? I remember this discussion from November https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8582096

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#148

Post by pmontra »

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.

I never tried C# but I did code in Java with vim and emacs. Not a nice experience. Java more or less requires an IDE. I assumed C# would be the same but I could have assumed too much.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#149

Post by ptx »

jvickers wrote: post #120
lubos wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup, it was different and it was worse. And full of bugs, particularly w.r.t. focus-handling, which even Sun's own (presumably correctly written) Swing applications were afflicted with.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#150

Post by mrpippy »

xanadohnt wrote: post #126
adrianlmm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

> Additionally, full-blown Visual Studio is totally free now.

Not exactly. Anyone inside an "enterprise organization" (according to Microsoft's arbitrary definition) is even worse off than before, because Microsoft won't be releasing the Express editions any more.

From http://www.visualstudio.com/products/visual-studio-community...

Here’s how individual developers can use Visual Studio Community:

- Any individual developer can use Visual Studio Community to create their own free or paid apps.

Here’s how Visual Studio Community can be used in organizations:

- An unlimited number of users within an organization can use Visual Studio Community for the following scenarios: in a classroom learning environment, for academic research, or for contributing to open source projects.

- For all other usage scenarios: In non-enterprise organizations, up to 5 users can use Visual Studio Community. In enterprise organizations (meaning those with >250 PCs or > $1 Million US Dollars in annual revenue), no use is permitted beyond the open source, academic research, and classroom learning environment scenarios described above.

Post reply on HN