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

211–220 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#211

Post by tracker1 »

brudgers wrote: post #170
zodiac wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ok. Show me a business case analysis.

I'm pretty sure the likes of Dell, Lenovo, Asus, NVidia and AMD would simply fork Windows for their own usage, and stop paying licensing... that would mean huge gaps in Microsoft's income... bad idea.

Opening .Net up, I feel is for a couple reasons. First, keeping developer mindshare. Second, Keeping Azure as a first-class platform for deploying .Net code. Third, reducing costs within Azure division that are tied to Windows' licensing. The fact that it's probably the right thing to do, is probably farther down the list.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#212

Post by brudgers »

JetSpiegel wrote: post #209
brudgers wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A closed source project can license closed source technology and save development costs while avoiding putting 1.0 code for an edge case into their core product. The exchange of money helps keep the interest in support, maintenance, and extension by those who first developed the technology.

Open source projects can also release v1.0 with bugs, it's not like there is some Open Source Police stopping you from doing that. You can also pay for support of open source software, and that benefits everyone and not just the company that happened to have money to invest in it.

There's still money licensing Fortran libraries that have been around for decades. They are fast and good and cheaper than achieving the same levels of fast and good from scratch. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with using some gem written over a weekend of craft beer. It just may not make sense to bet a business on it even when you can read the source code

StackOverflow is an example of why the choice is beneficial. The source code being proprietary is irrelevant because the content is Creative Commons.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#213

Post by rdtsc »

doodpants wrote: post #112
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.

When it comes to propaganda from large and powerful entities, usually it help to reverse the meaning to really understand the message.

"Developers,developers,developer" = Fuck developers,need more profits next quarter.

"We brought peace and democracy to country " = We seriously fucked it up for years to come, and installed a brutal puppet dictator.

"We are not evil like those other mean companies. We will do good in the world" = The main products are the users, who's information it sells it its real users. Have colaborated and been in bed with corrupt governments all across the world.

The list goes on. It is a rather fun heuristic. And once you know about, you'll start seeing it more often.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#214

Post by tracker1 »

saosebastiao wrote: post #160

So I'm still a little fuzzy as to what this means. Is this basically the same thing that Mono is trying to provide? Would it now be possible to have the F# front end link to the CoreCLR backend on Linux?

I'm pretty sure mono is intending to replace parts of itself with coreclr...

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#215

Post by rdtsc »

yellowapple wrote: post #202
logn wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fra…

> Oracle Er, no. The entirety of Oracle's dabbling in "open source" has been by shaking free software products out of the rotting carcass of Sun Microsystems and - in many cases - adding those products to the grave (see also: OpenSolaris, OpenOffice, various others). The exceptions - namely MySQL (which wasn't a Sun product) and Java (which is still doing reasonably well) - are few and far between. Oracle Linux certa…

> Oracle Linux certainly exists,

It is funny. At some point Redhat said "screw those guys" and started obfuscating its patches to the kernel (Oracle Linux was based on RHEL's code which was open source) to make it harder for Oracle to apply and create the (what was seen as) a competing Enterprise Linux Distro.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#216

Post by tracker1 »

pron wrote: post #179
jvickers wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There has been a lot of interest. There are thousands upon thousands of big applications out there built on Swing, you just don't use them, because Java has never caught on in desktop consumer apps. But JetBrains' IDEs are based on Swing, as is NetBeans, and they look great.

I think looking great is entirely subjective.. I think that the JetBrains' IDEs look horrible... the skinning as it stands is inconsistent at best. They are cross platform.. but even looking like something built with bootstrap+fontawesome would look better. VS looks awesome (tends to run like ass though) by comparison.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#217

Post by girvo »

Moto7451 wrote: post #70
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.

Silverlight's implementation of WPF runs on OS X already so presumably a lot of the ground work, at least for an OS X port, exists. I'd buy a copy of VS for Mac in a heartbeat.

Same. I haven't run windows in 7 years, but Visual Studio is still one of the best IDEs I've ever used. I'd gladly pay for it if it was released on OS X/Linux, although that's somewhat contingent on the plugins that I want running on it too.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#218

Post by jussij »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #205
WorldWideWayne wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I don't see why everything needs to be open source. I think this goes back to one of the core tenets of free and/or open source software: the user should be able to know, control, and modify exactly what their machine is doing. If the source is not available you're just running a black box and praying that it will do what the person who gave it to you claims it will do.

I suspect for the average Windows user they don't care what their machine is doing. They just want it to work.

That black box model has been with Windows from day one and it hasn't stopped Windows owning 90% of the PC market.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#220

Post by zanny »

jussij wrote: post #218
jsprogrammer wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see why everything needs to be open source. I think this goes back to one of the core tenets of free and/or open source software: the user should be able to know, control, and modify exactly what their machine is doing. If the source is not available you're just running a black box and praying that it will do what the person who gave it to you claims it will do.

I suspect for the average Windows user they don't care what their machine is doing. They just want it to work. That black box model has been with Windows from day one and it hasn't stopped Windows owning 90% of the PC market.

Wanting your machine to work is also caring what your machine is doing.

I'm sure the IRS is kicking themselves for running XP for over a decade, building up such an extreme dependency on it that they are now paying huge sums of money for Microsoft to continue to support them.

The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. It is in Microsofts business interests to make sure it works, but they also want you paying them money while maintaining control of your computer.

But when it does break, your only option is the true owner of your computer, who will milk you for all you are worth, because you are now trapped. You don't know you are in a cage until you want out.

Post reply on HN