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

311–320 of 347 posts

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#311

Post by zanny »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #289
zanny wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. To most users Linux is just as much of a black box as Windows is. Even among Linux fans, the number of people who actually need to customize the kernel is tiny. The number of people who can customize the kernel is even smaller. So where's the freedom? At the OS level, all that's happened is that the lockdown has…

The user of open source, in the absence of the skills necessary to change code themselves, can easily pay any other developer on the free market to do it for them.

You can never do that with proprietary software. If you want something changed or fixed, you must appeal to the singular entity with monopoly access to the source.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#312

Post by zanny »

Sanddancer wrote: post #260
zanny wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The number floated around for XP continued support is $200 per machine per year. Redhat, which is one of the few companies that supports a Linux distro for as long as Microsoft supports their products, charges $49/year for the equivalent of Windows Update, and doesn't have any information whatsoever on extended support. So, for the average customer which wants their desktops to have the same lifespan as XP in order t…

I'm pretty sure Dell and HP provide support on all their Ubuntu machines, as do System76 et al. And they have extended support offerings all the same. Not sure on pricing, though.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#313

Post by _nedR »

simcop2387 wrote: post #21
j_baker wrote: post #17

This is on github. Does this mean that MS is abandoning CodePlex?

From other articles[1] it looks that way. Really makes you think how big github has become. [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/01/15/codeplex_repository_...

To me Github has become a social networking website for developers (bear with me). As a social networking website its sort of half-way between Instagram (instead of sharing pictures you share code) and LinkedIn (It serves as a programmer's online profile ).

As a social-networking website, the most important thing that defines it is the number of users. You could publish your code on Codeplex or Bitbucket, but you would be simply limiting your reach.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#314

Post by UK-AL »

YorkianTones wrote: post #265
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…

For one, it's big. When I was working on part of the UIPlat team for Windows, my private enlistment just included build infra and maybe 5% of the sources and associated tools/tests and it still took up 60+ GB (100+ GB with binaries). I don't think you can just throw it on Github. Two, compatibility. Even if you fix a bug, it usually needs to be versioned in some way to avoid breaking apps that rely on the bug. OS cod…

NT source code was leaked ages ago, most people were surprised it was fairly clean code.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#315

Post by fsloth »

teddyh wrote: post #299
MaulingMonkey wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Proprietary software is immoral It's one thing to laud the common benefits of FOSS, or the ethical gains of charity. These things resonate with me. But I fundamentally disagree with - and as a proprietary software developer, am alienated by - your statement. Is that actually what you mean? My day job - making games - is immoral? A daily dose of evil? If so, this is the kind of attitude that puts me off contributing…

Maybe a car analogy will help: If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? Or are you in effect making your customers helpless, teaching them that they are not, and should not even want to be, in control of their own cars?

DRM and closed source software are not the same thing. Closed source software is commonly used to manipulate open data. Free software facilitates the openness of data and is absolutely essential but it does not make in any way closed source software evil.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#316

Post by Sanddancer »

zanny wrote: post #312
Sanddancer wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number floated around for XP continued support is $200 per machine per year. Redhat, which is one of the few companies that supports a Linux distro for as long as Microsoft supports their products, charges $49/year for the equivalent of Windows Update, and doesn't have any information whatsoever on extended support. So, for the average customer which wants their desktops to have the same lifespan as XP in order t…

I'm pretty sure Dell and HP provide support on all their Ubuntu machines, as do System76 et al. And they have extended support offerings all the same. Not sure on pricing, though.

Software support, not hardware. Patches, etc. RedHat is pretty much the only distro maker that will provide software support for the same timeframe as Windows releases are supported. Ubuntu, you'd have gone through the compatibility testing, upgrade testing, migration, etc cycle at least once more often than Windows, and deployments for anyone with custom software get expensive fast.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#317

Post by pmelendez »

josteink wrote: post #303

Noteworthy from the source: Microsoft does NOT use (unmergable) SLN-files for their projects, but instead scripts-msbuild invocations against specific projects: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/build.cmd#L140 https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/build.cmd#L159 I guess this explains why they saw no need to fix the somewhat broken SLN file-format in the first place, but actually did something abou…

As a wild guess I would say that using msbuild-scripts is the way to go if you have automatic builds in place.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#318

Post by mike_hearn »

fsloth wrote: post #258
m_st wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

May I ask you what your 'particular domain' is? I'm interested in F# but due to lack of a real use case for me I didn't yet start investigating.

In this instance: Desktop, graphics. This from a hobby point of view, though! Which means I have very little time to achieve anything and occasionally don't touch the code in weeks. I've come to write code that is a) trifty b) readable c) works on compile d) leverages type system for composable code that has a specific "correct" way to do things. So I can return to my code, which I've completely forgotten how it work…

You could also check out Kotlin. It's not as strongly functional as F# is but is still pretty nice, sort of a better C# for the JVM. For desktop stuff, JavaFX works OK.

That said, I'm glad MSFT is now competing in the open source/x-platform desktop app space. The Java team can use the extra competition.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#319

Post by nitrogen »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #289
zanny wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. To most users Linux is just as much of a black box as Windows is. Even among Linux fans, the number of people who actually need to customize the kernel is tiny. The number of people who can customize the kernel is even smaller. So where's the freedom? At the OS level, all that's happened is that the lockdown has…

Comments in this thread keep mentioning "most users" or "the average user". But they're not supposed to be the direct beneficiaries of Free Software. We are, and in line with the rule that 80% of users use 20% of features but never the same 20%, it's perfectly reasonable for us developers to expect a feature (open source code) that nobody else will use.

The endlessly apathetic hypothetical "average" user can't see past next week's paycheck, let alone their long-term best software interests. We are the ones who have to look to the future and prepare for it now. Wanting access to source code of core infrastructure is part of that preparation, and "average" users will be indirect beneficiaries via our improved ability to write reliable software.

To add another perspective, constantly targeting "average" is a great way to stay mediocre (see regression to the mean).

Finally, "average" users will benefit immensely from those who are inspired by the ability to tinker at a young age.

Re: CoreCLR is now open source

#320

Post by mike_hearn »

yellowapple wrote: post #208
smacktoward wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There were some potential solutions (like billing SPARC servers and workstations as "Java development/deployment platforms") that Sun started to brush against, but they ran out of time / money / distance from Oracle's sidaM Touch, etc.

Java actually did/does make them money, most obviously through the Ask Toolbar bundling deal (which is why they still desperately cling to it even though it trashes their reputation and people hate it).

They also get commercial support contracts from it.

And they got money from licensing various trademarks, test suites, J2ME and so on.

But yeah - ultimately Sun weren't able to build a killer business out of Java. They had a variety of small revenue streams but nothing that could compete with Windows.

Post reply on HN