391–400 of 561 posts
This is a good move if they're hoping to entice Eclipse users on *nix to migrate from the JVM ecosystem to CLR.
Deploying Windows programs on FreeBSD is one thing but if they want to grow their developer base, they need to target programmers who don't run VS on Windows.
Wow. I seriously don't know what to think anymore. What is their end game? Which platform are they hoping to become / remain dominant in? Don't get me wrong---I'm as happy as the next guy about this. VS is the only tolerable language-dedicated IDE, if they take 25% of their VS engineering mantra to this it will be better than almost anything else. But where does it end? I am clearly so not in touch with my inner mba.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixelmator team ?
If I'm not mistaken those guys appeared on the scene back in 2006/2007. They showed off Pixelmator at WWDC and it went down pretty well but that's still their only product, apart from an iOS version. I guess another way to look at it is this: If you had an idea for a desktop app today, would you decide to write for Mac first using a proprietary language Swift and proprietary SDKs like CoreData or would you pick C# an…
I used Visual Studio in the late 1990's and got used to the GUI IDE. I did a lot of work in Classic Visual BASIC before the Dotnet era.
I see they are open sourcing the CoreCLR and now Visual Studio Core. I gave the Linux version a quick look over, extracted the zip file to a directory and ran the ./Core program. It loads quick enough, most likely because there isn't much there.
I have to remember that this is the Post-Microsoft era, and Microsoft has to reinvent itself in order to survive. Microsoft knows the Hacker and Startup community uses OSX and Linux, and many have migrated away from Windows. Microsoft knows they like open source projects, so Microsoft open sourced Visual Studio and CoreCLR to have them ported to Linux, *BSD Unix, and Mac OSX.
Why Microsoft never made a version of Visual Studio for Linux or OSX is beyond me. We got Mono for a while, but it was always behind the Windows version. There was DotGNU but I lost track of where they were at.
If anyone is wondering how Microsoft earns money from open source projects, they will always sell books on it and also certification for it. Like Xamarian they can always buy out the company that forks it and makes a better version of it that is cross platform.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pixelmator team ?
If I'm not mistaken those guys appeared on the scene back in 2006/2007. They showed off Pixelmator at WWDC and it went down pretty well but that's still their only product, apart from an iOS version. I guess another way to look at it is this: If you had an idea for a desktop app today, would you decide to write for Mac first using a proprietary language Swift and proprietary SDKs like CoreData or would you pick C# an…
Who are some big C# developers that create major applications consumers (Not enterprises) use everyday?
You mentioned the paucity of major OSX/iOS developers, but I'm not sure the case isn't the same for C#/.NET.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
By design, Nadella is getting credit by design for 'overnight changes' many years in the making. Windows 10 reflects the strategic decisions embodied in Vista. Ballmer owned enough stock that along with Gates' backing Microsoft could produce a largely incompatible new version of the Windows OS and Wall Street could like it or lump it. Gates and Ballmer have been divesting Microsoft shares and the new company is behol…
I don't know if he is an idiot but it is under his watch that someone signed off on windows 8, thinking hum, customers are going to love that.
Steve Jobs on the other hand already learned in 2002 that the desktop GUI won't work on a mobile device and set out to create a new GUI for mobile devices that led to the iPhone and iPad that was different from the Macintosh GUI. I think Steve Jobs saw the Windows XP based tablets that Microsoft made and their Windows CE smart phones that basically used the desktop GUI and how it just didn't work out.
Microsoft has almost always bet everything on the new Windows version. It doesn't always work out for the best. Some companies still use Windows XP because their business software breaks in Vista and above because of API changes. Microsoft no longer supports XP, but it is still in use around the world.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny thing is most MS devs seem to think that asp.net is on its way out.
There's ASP.Net and there's ASP.Net MVC. They're very different beasts, even though the latter is/was built upon the former. ASP.Net probably is on the way out, but MVC is not.
WebForms and MVC and WebAPI were different stacks that ran on top of asp.net to deliver different functionality. WebForms is the old school stuff and was great at what it did (which was replicate the winforms ability so desktop developers could rapidly create webapps) and serves millions of businesses today.
WebForms is still being supported but now finally seems to be removed from future roadmap. MVC and WebAPI have been combined together now. The latest stack is ASP.NET MVC 6 running on top of ASP.NET 5 running on top of .NET framework 4.6
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The push to open source started under Ballmer and has been gaining momentum the past few years. You saw some of the very early open source work debut when Scott Guthrie open sourced ASP.NET MVC 2 in 2010. He (Guthrie) blogged a few times about evangelizing open source in Microsoft, and given today's news, he gained quite a bit of traction over the years. It also helped that ASP.NET MVC is a pretty sold web framework…
Funny thing is most MS devs seem to think that asp.net is on its way out.
The layers are ASP.NET MVC 6 running on ASP.NET 5 (the web framework) running on .NET Framework 4.6 (the core libraries).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is he wrong about the GPL? Yes, even if he was talking about the GPL when he said "open source software", he would be wrong. (And if he meant the GPL, he would be wrong in using the general term "open source software" in referring to it, even if his statements were accurate for the GPL.) > It actually does what he is talking about by design. No it doesn't. He says "if you use any open-source software, you have to m…
He directly referenced Linux which is famously under GPLv2. You can argue with this wording if you like, but his observation is spot on and it's obvious to those are not unduly biased that he was speaking about the GPL and the licenses that were similar to it.
"Open source is not available to commercial companies" is about as factually incorrect as any statement in the English language can aspire to be.
[1]: http://johnhaller.com/useful-stuff/open-source-license-popul...