Microsoft Open Sources CoreCLR, the .NET Execution Engine
253
An anonymous reader writes: As part of Microsoft's continuing project to open source the .NET framework, the company has announced that CoreCLR, the execution engine for .NET Core, is now available on GitHub. CoreCLR handles things like garbage collection, compilation to machine code, and IL byte code loading. The .NET team said, "We have released the complete and up-to-date CoreCLR implementation, which includes RyuJIT, the .NET GC, native interop and many other .NET runtime components. ... We will be adding Linux and Mac implementations of platform-specific components over the next few months. We already have some Linux-specific code in .NET Core, but we're really just getting started on our ports. We wanted to open up the code first, so that we could all enjoy the cross-platform journey from the outset."
Let the microsoft bashing begins! (Score:5, Interesting)
Because, you know, open sourcing by the devil has to be evil! :-)
In all seriousness though, does this make .NET more open than Java? In other words, RMS-acceptable?
Re: (Score:2)
Because, you know, open sourcing by the devil has to be evil! :-)
Hey, better late than never ... worked out with that whole Internet thing, huh? :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's MIT licensed it's probably a bit too open for him.
Re: (Score:3)
Since it's MIT licensed, FSF can fork it and place it under GPL (not sure if v3 would work, but v2 should).
Re: (Score:2)
If it is the devil that is open sourcing it, by definition it has to be evil. Whether Microsoft is the devil is debatable though.
Overton Window (Score:2)
RMS occupies a point of morality that makes far fewer compromises than most people are willing to do. He has a great deal of moral authority, and he's been pretty oracular in the past. No one else is willing to make the same choices, but it's not necessarily important.
What is important is that he keeps on moralizing. Because it makes positions nearer to that (with acceptable compromises) seem more normal. [wikipedia.org] So far it's working great. The crazier he gets, the more sane the rest of us sound. Well, not that I th
RMS & 'morality' (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am aware of the Open Source / Free Software split. I also know that MIT/X11 is not a copyleft license. Let's not confuse this issue with facts. I don't really care what license they're releasing it under. That Microsoft can do this, not to a chorus of enraged howls, but to people pooh-poohing it as "too little too late," means that software freedom has won. I'm just saying though, it's probably a little premature to take RMS behind the shed. Winning is one thing, but there's no kill like overkill. Persona
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that free distribution makes it difficult to impossible to make money on software *distribution*, this does NOT mean that it is now impossible to make a profit while producing software!
One way is to profit from other aspects of the technology ecosystem. This includes selling support (or "patches/enhancements delivered for a price") for software, which is plenty profitable if you ask Red Hat. Another approach is to sell things that are inherently not copyable at zero cost, like hardware. I d
Re: (Score:2)
You're talking about software consumers, like say, a CAD design company which uses CAD tools to make things. I'm talking about companies that make software for such customers to use, like a Cadence or an Autocad. These companies would consume millions of people-hours in creating the software that their customers need, and the reason they have high costs such as per CPU licenses is that they have a limited list of customers to begin w/.
In this model, let's say Acme Software creates a program and sells i
Okay so it is snowing and freezing outside (Score:2)
....but I didn't know I live in hell. No flying pigs or raining frogs though, so maybe we're good.
.NET applications on Linux? (Score:2)
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
MS likes Linux as a server, on Azure.
Re: (Score:3)
It looks like Mono has support for WinForms [mono-project.com]. I've never used it though, and usually used GTK# for GUI development on Linux.
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is not WinForms, but WPF [mono-project.com]. An increasing amount of applications use WPF because WinForms is considered 'deprecated' by Microsoft and people are encouraged to use WPF instead, which is the new 'hot stuff'.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Sorry no, WPF is the new Silverlight. Microsoft wants you to use HTML5+js (which isn;t much different from XAML+c# anyway).
They are pushing Cordova now, the Visual Studio addin that gives you support for that can do you cross platform GUIs (and on phone) and they are saying its the best way to create "Metro" apps. Expect more of this rather than WPF that is crippled partly by poor performance and partly by infghting between the Microsoft teams.
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why I don't like developing for Microsoft's stack. They seem to want to throw everything out every few years and start over.
Then again, it seems like the web business is like that, too. Damn. Doesn't anyone write non-disposable code any more?
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep in mind that, even with new APIs introduced, the old stacks still continue working just fine. WinForms or WPF apps will still run on Windows desktop machines decades from now, just like native Windows applications are still using Windows API calls written decades ago.
Also, despite rumors to the contrary, WPF is still being actively developed [msdn.com], although it's probably fair to say it's "peaked" as a technology, and is now transitioning into a maintenance mode. I'd have no qualms about creating a new WPF project tomorrow - so long as you know you're only targeting the Windows desktop. There are benefits to using a mature technology, and WPF is pretty mature at this point.
You really only need to use the new stack (WinRT) if you're planning to do cross-platform stuff across the entire Windows ecosystem (Metro/Surface/Mobile).
disposable vs non-disposable (Score:2)
This is why I don't like developing for Microsoft's stack. They seem to want to throw everything out every few years and start over.
Not that different from the Java FOSS cornucopia. And in many ways, it is better than the design-by-committee-slow-as-molasses thing we have with JEE and the JCP.
Then again, it seems like the web business is like that, too.
A lot of it is ego and developers OCD/fixation with trying new technical things (as opposed to solving business problems with economical, yet maintainable solutions.)
OTH, a lot of the churn is due to external pressures of competition. You put something on the web, someone is already competing with you.
Then you have catch up at worst, or out-in
Re: (Score:2)
Congratulations, you described the software engineering world in general. Tried JavaScript, Ruby or the JVM world lately?
You -may- be ok with Python, i guess. But even that depends on what version you're looking at.
Re: (Score:2)
WPF, in contrast, completely rebuilds the software stack in favor of a more cleanly separated MVC-ish a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is nothing like Sun switch from AWT to JFC, or Oracle switching from JFC to whatever they're calling the GUI framework-de-jour.
Re: (Score:3)
I do... but then my customers are public sector (police, EMS) who can;t afford to keep replacing their systems every few years.
This is why I advocate multiple tier applications, like the MVC boys but without their "all-in-one project" mentality. Then you can write your server side stuff in a mature, reliable language and give some kids an API that they can use to build flashy GUIs in flash or javascript or whatever fashionable toy they like this month.
And, strangely enough, everybody is happy with this appr
Re: (Score:2)
It's astonishing to see every thread is controlled by SystemD.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
WinForms is not "deprecated". They merely introduced what they thought would be its replacement (WPF). The replacement was inadequate because:
- It was only marginally compatible with existing WinForms code
- It was radically different and required scaling a very steep learning curve, which is detrimental to development deadlines. This slowed its adoption drastically.
- It didn't offer anything truly useful that couldn't be done with WinForms and a lot of glue code (developed decades ago, and is now battle-har
Re: (Score:2)
No, it really isn't. A substantial segment of the community assumed it would be deprecated when MS started heavily pushing WPF. Given that WPF has been around for 8 years now, it doesn't appear to be the "WinForms"-killer some thought it would be.
That being said, WinForms all but officially in "maintenance-only" mode. I would be seriously surprised to see new features. However, this is different than being deprecated.
There are signs that WPF is also he
Re: (Score:2)
I have, on a fairly simple .NET app. Worked fine. But I can't claim exhaustive testing...
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:.NET applications on Linux? (Score:4, Funny)
If you declare the right folder scheme,
What does this mean? Create directories? Or is this some strange disease you get along with mono?
I will believe it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Or they stop trying to license patents they hold on technologies that Linux uses. [blogspot.com] That would be a great gift for FOSS.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would MS want to gift anything to FOSS as a whole? This isn't a case of joining one huge orgy, you can participate in open source in very select ways and areas without ever intending to support the entirety of the movement.
Too Late Really (Score:3)
Xamarian Mono [wikipedia.org] or it's predecessor Ximian Mono. This is both a good and bad thing because while they're releasing the code, why aren't they working with Xamarian since they've already got a cross platform .NET environment? Or is this the old Microsoft with the Embrace, Extend, Eradicate mentality we're seeing here?
I've used Mono for a long time and while it doesn't have all the frameworks, it's great if you want to C# code and go cross platform. It's still .NET 4 compatible and things like WPF aren't in there so YMMV
Re:Too Late Really (Score:5, Informative)
The .Net CoreCLR is a rewrite of the .Net CLR from the ground up to support the specifics of the vNext project, so the Xamarian project isn't a good fit for this either as they would still need to start from scratch. Xamarian will still cover the entire CLR as it currently does (with some exceptions to the base class libraries), while the CoreCLR platform is a hugely stripped down and optimised runtime designed to be deployed with individual apps.
For example, at the moment you deploy a .Net web app to IIS and it uses the .Net runtime installed server wide (in the GAC). With Mono, you deploy it to Apache and tell Apache to use the Mono runtime - but that is still Apache wide, so you can't run a second version of Mono without running a second instance of Apache configured specifically.
In vNext, you deploy your web app and it comes with everything it needs to run - application code, CLR, Katana (or other OWIN implementation) and even a choice of web servers which are not dependent on the target server. This means you can run different versions of .Net for different applications, and can upgrade some without affecting others - because upgrading .Net is now as simple as redeploying the site. It also means no heavy dependency on IIS or Apache.
Thats why its not an adaptation of Xamarian, because the two are quite different - however, at the recent NDC where they announced all this, they did announce much closer ties with Xamarian to work on Mono as the full implementation of .Net cross platform, so Xamarian aren't being left out to dry.
Re: (Score:2)
This is both a good and bad thing because while they're releasing the code, why aren't they working with Xamarian since they've already got a cross platform .NET environment?
There's nothing about about competition in OSS. If the license is truly open then they'll be able to use any bits of the code they want. So, is it?
Re: (Score:3)
The CoreCLR is under the MIT license, is that open enough for you? Mono is a mixture of MIT X11, GPL, LGPL and commercial, so it looks like Xamarian can take from the CoreCLR but CoreCLR can't take from Mono.
Re: (Score:2)
Xamarin*
Re:Too Late Really (Score:4, Informative)
Xamarian Mono or it's predecessor Ximian Mono. This is both a good and bad thing because while they're releasing the code, why aren't they working with Xamarian since they've already got a cross platform .NET environment?
An interview with Miguel De Icaza (creator of Mono and co-founder of Xamarin) on that very question: .NET released from its Windows chains... but what ABOUT MONO? [theregister.co.uk]
Microsoft
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know, maybe the first step in co-operating is to release what they have and then see what they can share? Or perhaps they want there to be multiple .NET CLRs available to provide some diversity.
Maybe it is part of an evil plot, but it's a bit early to leap to that conclusion.
Just think... (Score:3)
Just think if MS would have done this over a decade ago when they released C# / .NET. It could have nearly replaced Java. I could see 3rd party "standards" created for widgets that would be cross-platform (like Swing, etc, for Java), that people could use to create their cross-platform windowed GUI type apps. The formal Windows APIs would be used for people wanting to create full blown Windows-only apps. However all the core functionality (non-gui stuff) would be cross-platform and if written properly could have driven both the "Swing"-ish community created GUI, as well as the official Windows GUI stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is, let say they do that. Then what. Developing something like that is hard, takes really smart (read: command a high salary) people, tons of project management resources, etc. Thats a lot of dough.
You get some good will and dominate the market, but that won't repay anything. Almost anyone still using Windows who doesn't do it for legacy reasons (that is, people who have been using Windows and can't go through the trouble of switching) on the server, does so because of .NET.
So you'd have .NET all
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the .NET 2.0 runtime is still available even in Windows 8.1 and Server 2012 R2 it is just not installed by default. So even if you have a .NET 1.1 application you can still run it without recompiling/porting to .NET 4.0.
.NET applications for various purposes and ever single one of my .NET 1.1 and 2.0 applications compiled under .NET 4 with no changes
Although I have to say I have written quite a few
In other news... (Score:2)
In other news, Oracle has announced that they're working on a new version of Java.
Dubbed vNExT, it's supposed to provide a much faster VM than the classic JVM,
Unfortunately, to take advantage of it, you have to recompile your Java code with the new "Joslyn" compiler, which isn't quite done yet.
Including ".NET Native"? (Score:2)
Does this include ".NET Native", where they compile ahead-of-time using the same backend Visual Studio uses for C++? [msdn.com]
The CLR is actually good technology... (Score:3)
It's relatively nice as far as VMs go, better designed than the JVM. This was a piece of good engineering work from Microsoft and I'm glad they're opening it. Welcome to the new world, MS guys. You don't seem to be acting quite so black and white anymore. Good on you.
And to the naysayers... well, it's a start. Be kind.
Cancer? (Score:3)
Does this mean Microsoft has developed cancer?
Seriously, while recent moves in this regard have been good, only a fool would ignore history. Microsoft, for as long as it has existed, has done countless morally dubious things in order to maintain control. The history is all right there for the googling. Just because they do a couple Good(tm) things doesn't magically mean they have suddenly realized the errors of their ways and are doing a 180. You can't erase ~40 years of assholry.
Based on the moves Microsoft has done lately, I will move my needle from "completely distrust" to "MAYBE it's not a trap" but still nowhere near the realm of "trustworthy"
Re: (Score:2)
And on a more serious note, what is the actual license the code is released under?
Re:How many... (Score:5, Informative)
Where did this myth that looking at code would expose you to legal issues come from? Has any court case actually gone through which hinged on a developer "poisoning" themselves for all eternity by looking at a competitors code base? I certainly haven't heard of any - even the original Compaq team did clean room implementations of the IBM Bios purely as a legal belt and braces, it wasn't based on any legal rulings in place.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it was brought up in the Google v Oracle case where they had their little legal tantrum over Java copyright.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, followed that very closely, developer poisoning was not part of that case.
Re:How many... (Score:5, Informative)
https://github.com/dotnet/core... [github.com]
https://github.com/dotnet/core... [github.com]
If you weren't so hung up on flogging a dead horse for mod points, MS has covered patents and licensing in the codebase itself.
Re:How many... (Score:5, Informative)
Promissory Estoppel makes it legally binding, new CEO or not.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't go using these sources in anything not a .NET runtime or application running on a .NET runtime. Even if you think it might help Python, Ruby, or some other application in some other language. It's open, but not really.
Re: (Score:2)
You could say the same about any GPL code - its open, but not really, because I can't use it in something non-GPL...
Re: (Score:3)
Except that people are willfully ignoring the massive patent exception to the MIT license. Even you gloss over it. At least the terms of the GPL are clearly spelled out, you don't know what will happen if you intentionally or even accidentally cross Microsoft's very limited patent grant.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, that promise is legally binding? I don't think so. And CEOs change.
Yes, it is binding. Legal estoppel is the term. It is used when you act in good faith on a promise. It is in fact one of the strongest contract types you can imagine, because it is considered a one-sided contract that you do not even have to accept (like you do with e.g. license terms). If you can show that you acted on the promise, a patent case against you will be dismissed.
Re:Oh look, it's the Java killer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Aren't guys like you tired of bitching about Microsoft... for fucks sake, they are in the process of releasing their entire toolchain (from the bottom up) under the MIT licence.
mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
Aren't guys like you tired of bitching about Microsoft... for fucks sake, they are in the process of releasing their entire toolchain (from the bottom up) under the MIT licence.
Parent is actually insightful. Naturally, I didn't RTFA, but the summary should have mentioned the license. I assumed this was yet another MS "open source" release under one of their shitty proprietary licenses (you know, the kind of "open source" that is so restrictive it practically comes with an NDA).
Using a Free license like MIT actually makes this more than an empty gesture. Yes, I actually confirmed the LICENSE.txt on the github project is MIT License.
Re:mod parent up (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay, I'll bite: how many entities has MS sued for .net patent violations on the subsequent versions, as you referenced? It's been the better part of a decade now, right? No doubt they have sprung their trap...?
Also, how many cases have there been where a copyright license like MIT has been retroactively revoked (I mean, that would be the textbook application of promissory estoppel).
Re: (Score:2)
But but but, it doesn't matter if Microsoft NEVER went through with the vague and veiled threat StormReaver came up with, IT'S STILL A FRIGGIN TRAP!!! And if you didn't see it the fault is on you and a pox on your family for all eternity....or something, I guess...
Re:mod parent up (Score:5, Informative)
I will give MS the benefit of the doubt in this one. Good for them, and for the cause of Free Software.
However, about your rhetorical question:
Okay, I'll bite: how many entities has MS sued for .net patent violations on the subsequent versions, as you referenced? It's been the better part of a decade now, right? No doubt they have sprung their trap...?
I'll answer: I don't know, but MS doesn't need to sue when half of all Android devices worldwide paid extortion [arstechnica.com] money to MS [microsoft.com] to the tune of USD 28 billion in confidential settlements, and it refuses to disclose which exact patents it is using for (extortion) licensing.
IMHO, the trap has sprung, and has bitten a lot of people. So yes, some distrust in MS is well warranted.
Re: (Score:2)
how many entities has MS sued for .net patent violations on the subsequent versions, as you referenced? It's been the better part of a decade now, right? No doubt they have sprung their trap...?
Ah, they're just deepening the trap, waiting for the day when they can take over the world. They may look like just another company trying to make money with their product, but just you watch.
Next you'll believe that the Soviet Union was dissolved and communism dead! Ha, yet another sucker, falling for the Red Army
Re: (Score:2)
There is ALWAYS a hidden trap in any apparently-friendly action Microsoft takes.
Yes, and there will always be someone who sees a conspiracy in everything they do. Let's assume their real conspiracy is to make money. Is it possible that with new management and changing business conditions (e.g., dominance of Google and Apple in mobile), that their true conspiracy might actually work out for the "net" good?
If not, we need to seriously consider what folks like Redhat are really up to with their so-called support "open source"...
Re: (Score:2)
I agree that MS has no real interest in making Linux more attractive to users. But maybe they could end up doing that in some small way as a side-effect of what they're really trying to accomplish. In this case, perhaps they are widening the .net ecosystem (for their own selfish purposes) but that may benefit Mac and Linux users in some way.
If they're wildly successful, though, maybe Linux in the form of Android would suffer. But I don't think see how more openness in .net and more competition in the mob
MIT license is GPL-compatible (Score:2)
Because [the MIT license is] not "Stallman Approved."
The license of X11 is "Stallman approved" in the sense that it's a GPL-compatible free software license [gnu.org]. But FSF's favorite non-copyleft license is the Apache license version 2.0, which has stronger patent guarantees in jurisdictions with software patents.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If one is gonna go non-copyleft, why would one bother about what the FSF thinks?
Because someone might want to know what FSF's legal counsel thinks about the sort of protections a particular free software license offers to users of software distributed under that license and its compatibility with other widely used free software licenses.
Also, when you say GPL-compatible license, are you talking GPL2 or GPL3?
Both GPLv2 and GPLv3 are compatible with the X11 license. Only GPLv3 is compatible with the Apache license, version 2.0.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad "entire toolchain" doesn't include nice things like their C/C++ compiler and runtimes :(
Re: (Score:3)
The .NET runtime and compilers are unique, though, so it makes much more sense to open those up.
Other platforms have fine C/C++ compilers. The MS compiler is not needed there. All you have to do is write ANSI C/C++ and - yay! - you're portable. In fact, note how Microsoft is actually working to improve other compilers' integration with Visual Studio, so they can more easily target Android and iOS, which is very cool.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The GPL would have put a lot of other people off - part of the point of the CoreCLR is so you can push out a custom CLR with your own app.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Its a tool to be used, nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Copylefted would at least allow all the different bespoke language runtimes to remain compatiable with each other
Um, what?
Say I decide to update the CLR to add the ability to define parameters on the new() generic type constraint. That would fundamentally break compatibility of apps that rely on the new functionality.
Nothing about putting that out under MIT vs. GPL would make a difference in such compatibility. What makes a difference is placing a dependency on the change.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it had been GPL i might have cared.
Because the only "free" license options that matter are the ones you care about. Yes Comrade Commissar, we will comply with your thought police party line or whatever #fileitunderomfgurdumb
Re: (Score:3)
Given that you haven't stopped using the tired $ = S replacement in "Microsoft" almost 12 1/2 years after it was summarily called out as being childish and stupid (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2002/07/22/m) I seriously doubt your "5 years after" claim.
Re:Oh look, it's the Java killer... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh look, it's the Java killer... (Score:4, Interesting)
Not this time, the new guy has decided that selling Windows is no longer the lock-in platform that makes us all buy Microsoft stuff.
Now, the Microsoft stuff they want use to all buy is services, and that means they have to supply said services across every platform possible.
So, open source .NET in the hope that it'll be cheaper to port it (ie you'll do it for them) and then all those lovely .NET apps that use things like Azure and Microsoft Ads will be ported to Linux and Mac and Microsoft can reap the revenue from more people consuming their services.
Its the same story really, only this time the lock-in has shifted slightly away from Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Satya Nadella comes from the services side of microsoft. Not the side that wants to sell everyone a Windows 8 and Office 2015 license.
Microsoft as a company is getting more hip and I really welcome their approach. They're finally catching up to, and surpassing, Apple in terms of sharing software.
Reminder that Apple gave us CUPS, WebKit and a few other things. Apple could finally catch back up and release Swift under the BSD license. If I'm understanding things, Swift is more than just a vanity language. It'
Re: (Score:2)
Not this time, the new guy has decided that selling Windows is no longer the lock-in platform that makes us all buy Microsoft stuff.
Now, the Microsoft stuff they want use to all buy is services, and that means they have to supply said services across every platform possible.
So, open source .NET in the hope that it'll be cheaper to port it (ie you'll do it for them) and then all those lovely .NET apps that use things like Azure and Microsoft Ads will be ported to Linux and Mac and Microsoft can reap the revenue from more people consuming their services.
Its the same story really, only this time the lock-in has shifted slightly away from Windows.
That's not lock in. You described a company doing what it takes to extend the market in which they can compete in. That's fantastic. Of course they have a plan to make money out of this move, but that's a perfectly legitimate and ethical way of doing so.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
There's already a very strong Java killer on the market.
Its name is Oracle.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't blame they as that's where it looks the money will come from but I don't like it because I like my software to stand alone and not depend on third party components.
That's why I love Windows 7: I paid once for it a
Re: (Score:3)
You nailed it on the head. MS can only benefit by getting developers to push their product. By making it available on all platforms they will maintain and even grow the DEV base they have. I've developed in many platforms and I have found that for businesses MS offers the best set of tools. Migration from one version to another has always been smooth for me especially if I continue to work with the same .NET Framework version. Even migrating from one major .NET version to another is usually smooth.
The beaut
Re: (Score:3)
God forbid Microsoft be the one to do something cool.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
They'd better not give up on Windows. With OSX and Linux both being Unix-like, NT is the only major alternative OS for Unix-haters.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not anymore. Unix-haters now have this systemd operating system designed for them.
Re: (Score:2)
/thread
It really seems that's what's going on.
Re: (Score:3)
The new Windows is the cloud, or Azure as they call it. They want you to write your GUI for a mobile/web/whatever device and then have it connect to all-Microsoft stuff on Azure, along with Microsoft adverts and Microsoft appstore etc.
They've basically stopped believing that Windows is the only platform that gives them lock-in. Now all platforms will be lock-in!
Re: (Score:2)
It's not they're giving up Windows. The entire PC desktop market is slowly dying and many things it did are now being done on tablets and phones and elsewhere instead.
PC will become developers' and designers' workstation and nothing else, so Microsoft is probably trying to make its development toolset as popular as possible. It's the only area which won't be affected in foreseeable future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the cost of doing business in the US - you have to expect being sued.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know shit about Fortran. I do Android, iOS and (embedded) Linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how all the Microsoft boosters are too afraid to post with their actual account names attached.
Probably afraid that their posting histories would reveal them to be the paid shills they really are. "Billly Gates" and "phantomfive" for example.
Or maybe they are afraid that by just talking about Microsoft products in a positive manner, they would automatically be tagged as shills by shitheads like you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now make the whole Visual Studio suite available for free to home users.
You might want to check out Visual Studio 2013 Community Edition... It's the same thing as VS2013 Professional; it's free until your "hobby" has 5 employees or $1 million in revenue
Re: (Score:2)
Now make the whole Visual Studio suite available for free to home users.
They did... The 2013 Community Edition was released a couple months ago and includes all the languages and even supports the Visual Studio plugins. It's not Ultimate, but can do pretty much everything a home user would need. The older express versions have been free for years too but didn't support plugins.
Re: (Score:2)
Orders of magnitude cheaper if you don't count the devs maybe... $0 in tools and software license, vs a few thousand for something fairly large, when your engineers + AWS (or data center, or whatever) cost you tens of millions, makes a minimal difference.
That said, it really isn't surprising. Its just incremental. Their devtool division has been slowing going toward this for years now.