Today’s MS is not what it was back then. But long memories are not a bad thing, really. If .NET suffers a bit from some unfair perception, perhaps that can remind MS and others what happens when you take an aggressively adversarial approach.
https://github.com/ghuntley/isdotnetopen
The website doesn't even explain what they mean by open.
Nor they explain why they think .NET is not open source.
Further, the twitter posts themselves are still relevant I believe. If someone took over my repo, I'd remember it 3 years later.
So far, there was little demand to write another debugger integration (because, really, the debugger core is implemented in the runtime itself - what vsdbg, NetCoreDbg and Rider all primarily do is consume the runtime API).
I'm baffled by insistent behavior like this. I think it is just alienating people and even if they move ecosystems, the negative impression will stay.
If you engage in bad faith behavior in a technical discussion, can you be expected to conduct yourself acceptably in a professional setting? Unlikely.
This is a discussion about HTTP/3 support of all things. Why does it happen only when someone leaves a briefly positive note on C#? I don't know any other language (besides PHP, to an extent) that gets the same amount of hate.
The link itself is also quite outdated and mainly consists of posts from Miguel de Icaza who's promoting Swift, arguably less OSS language. Take from that what you will.
I should also add that the general public only saw the tip of the iceberg in this entire episode. Miguel spent a lot of time and effort internally trying to right the .NET ship, gradually escalating through management until he finally gave up.
Instead, the complaints you will read here are about what the authors think .NET’s problems are without ever verifying if any of that is true in hopes of making swipes for god knows what reason, because posting something accurate requires knowledge on the subject and the results of a cursory search usually do not support cheap arguments.
(and I see this as an embarrassment because you can learn a lot from doing research instead of repeating the same tired phrases you heard elsewhere)
Speaking for myself, I happen to like .NET from the technical perspective. While both the language and the stdlib have a lot of cruft from days of yore, it can mostly be ignored, and that aside it's a fast runtime with a decently expressive type system giving one considerable flexibility to pick the right tool to model different domains. It also has great tooling around it. But this all is separate from the question of how open .NET really is, and its long-term prospects in that department.
Call it TypeScript++ or just `dot`; rebrand it Microsoft! Look at this thread full of misunderstandings and confusion around modern .NET!
Fanboys are a bit in denial about this.
My bet is this is a pitched battle inside Oracle, and the forces that keep it open have been winning...so far.
> multiple OSS alternatives out there
In my head, when I think Microsoft I think about the stress and anger I feel using Windows, and the OS-level notification I got apropos of nothing a few minutes ago trying to sell me an Xbox Game Pass subscription. The fear of what is going to break in the next forced update. For months now I haven't been able to do a task as simple as take a screenshot on my PC because seemingly the flash effect it plays gets caught in the image and the resulting screenshot has all the colors blown out, so it's mostly white.
So yes, this does color my opinion of how many ecosystems of theirs I want to tie myself too (minimal)
TypeScript though I had no idea about! Good for them!
> GitHub was purchased, which is a bit different.
Do we make an exemption for SharePoint because it, too, is an extension of FrontPage acquired via Vermeer?[0]
At what point does it lose its exemption from "Hate All Things Microsoft"? 10 years? 20 years?
It only matters in the context of it being "ironic" that it is used and favored in the coding community.
Microsoft contributions to Python?
Do they all trigger some weird instant irrational reaction?
I would never have predicted Microsoft would still be developing a (sort of) Github competitor after acquiring Github. Why not plow all of that focus and energy into making Github the best project management system around? Project management in Github is one of the biggest gripes people have - even on Teams and Enterprise.
That said, Microsoft is never going to be able to completely kill Azure DevOps. If nothing else, they'll have to keep it alive for enterprise customers' TFVC source control history.
Surely there's a migration path to git from TFVC? Many large projects successfully moved from CVS and SVN into git.
I'm just surprised that, after 7 years of owning Github, Microsoft hasn't plowed their resources into Github's Projects. It's literally the number one complaint I see regarding project management inside Github - and would likely be an easy way to scale subscriptions for Teams and Enterprise. Heck, today it's still impossible to generate a Burn Down chart without using 3rd party "Apps" or the API.
If you need branch history, or more than 180 days worth of history, the only option is third-party tooling (git-tfs). It seems to work good enough for development purposes (i.e. git blame)... but I'm not sure if it's good enough if we need the history for legal purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguis...
If you write a project in C#, you've committed to it and it's ecosystem. Getting out of there when MS makes a choice you don't agree with is going to be near impossible.
In fact when Microsoft purchased GitHub, quite a few people did leave and close their account. But GitHub already had such a monumental market lead that the departures ended up being a drop in the ocean.
To be honest, I’m still waiting for the moment when Microsoft managed to fuck it all up like they did with Skype.
https://arstechnica.com/security/2024/01/microsoft-network-b...
For a long time, .NET was completely proprietary, and only ran on Windows.
Now it is open source and cross platform, but it is still fighting the momentum of being seen as Windows-only.
they clearly WANT applications written in .net not to be cross platform
If you want a cross platform UI, use WPF with Avalonia. Or if you want something entirely from Microsoft themselves, there's MAUI as an option.
It can, but not easily. As OP has said, it is a wrapper around Win32, and not an opaque one - it literally has stuff like e.g. the Message struct with members like HWnd and LParam.
Mono did try at one point, but they kept hitting edge cases where this kind of stuff would break things. Eventually they gave up and just wrapped Wine. So, yes, if you really really want to run WinForms on Linux, Mono is where it's at. But ... why?
Note that C++, Rust, Go all don't have any kind of standard GUI support out of the box at all.
Case in point: both Teams and VS Code: both web view wrappers.
Some trading shops are still using WPF and some are even using Windows Forms apps still.
HTML is all you need for a cross platform UI.
FTFY
sudo apt-get install dotnet-sdk-9.0
Which means that nothing written in .net will enter the real repository until that changes.
> making it needlessly complex for everyone (including Rust)
have I missed something?
Because I didn't have to do that. Have you considered your distro might be special for reasons that have nothing to do with .NET?
But that's not really what's being discussed in the context of this thread: application servers handling HTTP/3.
To give one example with a particularly large user base, NVidia control center was a WinForms app for a very long time.
These are user-facing applications anyway, not back-end ones which is the more common use-case of .NET (where Linux is the most popular OS).
About back-end - I would repeat my question but I don't want to derail the conversation too far away from the original subject.