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

181–190 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#181

Post by sekasi »

benreic wrote: post #7

Quick link to what I think is the most interesting class in the CLR: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/src/mscorlib/s...

Admittedly, I've never been big in C#, but I'm AMAZED by how much repetition string comparison there is.

IE: Environment.GetResourceString("ArgumentOutOfRange_Index")

The string there is in multiple areas of that class, and the same behavior is displayed for all of them. Wouldn't logic suggest everything such as above would be moved in to a constant repository for clarity and also less potential human error for future additions?

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#182

Post by thinkpad20 »

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…

> insufficient documentation

That may have been true at the time, but the documentation for OpenXML is actually very good. It's incredibly detailed -- I think the standard is somewhere around 5000 pages, and fairly readable. Of course, I haven't ever actually had to write my own implementation (thank god).

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#183

Post by adolfojp »

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…

Making ASP.NET Windows Server only wasn't driving Windows Server sales, it was destroying Windows (and Visual Studio) as a developer platform, and thus, ensuring that no one had any motivation to develop for Windows Phones and tablets. It was a certain path to irrelevance.

Making ASP.NET Linux deployable ensures that Windows stays in the hands of developers. Making Azure Linux friendly ensures that Microsoft can take a slice of that market. And pushing Universal Apps and giving Visual Studio Community and Windows 10, an OS that allows Universal Apps to run on the desktop, for free motivates developers to fill up the app store.

This decision was inevitable and IMHO a huge step in the right direction.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#184

Post by JeremyMorgan »

scrollaway wrote: post #172
doodpants wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. Kind of ironic, what with Ballmer's "Developers developers developers..." spiel.

Indeed. For someone who understood the problem, Ballmer sure missed out on understanding the solution.

Depends on how you look at it. Microsoft has been good to developers since the Gates area. They always understood the importance of developers for their OS, as long as you pay for the privilege.

The biggest difference now is all the stuff they give out for free.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#185

Post by lawl »

brudgers wrote: post #161
mahyarm wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When your debugging code, being able to see all of the code in the stack trace is valuable alone.

Good debugging tools that filter out the irrelevant are perhaps better. Odds are that any time you break out the debugger the fix is in your code not Windows, Linux, the JVM etc. That's not to say those things don't have bugs, only that they are orders if magnitude more debugged than most code under development.

I worked with a closed source stack in the past (java).

Even if the bug wasn't in our code, it was really helpful to see what's going on inside, helped us figure out why something didn't work a lot of time. Making false assumptions, passing stuff in a different format than the system expects etc.

We all, always worked with a decompiler in eclipse, just because it really did make life so much easier sometimes. And well, of course, sometimes there really was a bug in the stack, and finding a workaround is much easier when you know what's going on.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#186

Post by ctvo »

mrpippy wrote: post #150
xanadohnt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

Yes, because those organizations on the MS stack were all running the Express edition and didn't have MSDN licenses, right?

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#187

Post by nightski »

mrpippy wrote: post #150
xanadohnt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

If you have > $1M in revenue or > 250 PCs I hope you can afford a $99 VS upgrade license...

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#188

Post by gtirloni »

cm2187 wrote: post #159

Should we expect more zero days against .net as a short term effect of the source code becoming available?

Very few people here are qualified to inspect the code in such short notice and look for dangerous code. I think any answer to this question is going to be pure speculation.

Since it's very easy to decompile .NET binaries and Windows has been a traditional place for crackers and what not, I think that code base is very well inspected already.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#189

Post by dragonwriter »

mrpippy wrote: post #150
xanadohnt wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 dev…

> 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.

I doubt that there were ever significant numbers of developers in enterprise organizations using Express Editions anyway. If you are doing serious business, the cost of paid licenses (and MSDN subscriptions) is generally justified if you are going to be using MS technologies.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#190

Post by logn »

WorldWideWayne wrote: post #123
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 a…

How would that hurt Microsoft?

There aren't many people who have bought MS software for years and are now excited to use a fork or their own build. Even assuming that some other mega corp comes along and offers world class support/service and their own fork, it still probably wouldn't hurt MS much.

Most small companies would have released their code as GPL (versus MIT as the case here) to limit the risk of a fork fragmenting everything (not being able to merge forks back in or make everything compatible). But in Microsoft's case, because of their size, few companies could hope to make a better version than MS. Further, MS makes money in lots of ways and this isn't a zero-sum game for them. They'll profit immensely from a more open ecosystem. Companies such as IBM, Apple, Google, and Oracle already have proven it's possible to be profitable with open source.

Post reply on HN