7 ms·

I think this is just ticking a box for Microsoft since I believe you can get RH on AWS. But let's be honest - how many people will perceive any value in stack

I think this is just ticking a box for Microsoft since I believe you can get RH on AWS. But let's be honest - how many people will perceive any value in stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? Sure if you already have a .NET app, hosting it in UNIX may give you some benefit. But is anyone really going to write an app from scratch with this in mind? I'm skeptical.

adrianlmm 11y ago
I would, .NET and the latest C# is awesome and superior to other frameworks, so yes, the fact that can run in Linux is something very atractive.
- jnericks 11y ago
  This, I've recently been writing more Java lately and I miss C# quite a bit
- mercurial 11y ago
  C# is a decent language if you like imperative programing. .NET MVC, though, is far from impressive. The routing is crap, Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views, and in general it feels like a "let's do Rails in C#", which I really don't see as the future of web development.
  - edgyswingset 11y ago
    You don't need to use ASP.NET MVC (or even ASP.NET at all) when writing something for the web. And if you like functional programming, use F#. It's pretty great.
  - adrianlmm 11y ago
    >C# is a decent language Just decent? I dissagree, it is the best language to my taste. >NET MVC, though, is far from impressive Tell me what is impressive them, becuase to me is a well stablished, easy to use and learn with static typing, there is nothing better. >The routing is crap The routing is highly configurable, by default it mimics Ruby on Rails routing and if you don't like it you can use your own, you have no idea of what are you talking about. >Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views Just like in JSP pages you can write Java code, or in ERB pages you can write Ruby code or in EJS pages yu can write JavaScript code, and if you don't like there a re plenty of options. >which I really don't see as the future of web development Your personal views are just that, personal, at least inform your self well before making ignorant statements.
    - jenscow 11y ago
      > Your personal views are just that, personal As is yours, so why bicker? C#/.NET is also my favourite, but it's not the be-all and end-all of web development. It might be the best for all of your projects, but not for everyone else. It has it's flaws, like everything else, and I'm happy for you that you haven't used it (or anything else) for long enough to discover them.
      - adrianlmm 11y ago
        Anyone is free to use the tool/framework of their preference, but not to make ignorant statements about other frameworks w/o even knowing them.
        netheril96 11y ago
        The points you are refuting are all subjective evaluations, not objective facts. If he were wrong on objective facts, then it would be reasonable, albeit impolite, to call him ignorant. But he isn't.
  - apalmer 11y ago
    C# and .Net the framework is objectively 'good'. ASP.Net MVC, is very subjective. It definitely is very 'weird' from the perspective of being on a static language platform but embracing 'magic' over standard type safety. I will give you routing though, i dont really think it 'sucks' but i have lead development teams using MVC for years... whenever a new developer who isnt familiar comes on board, the most significant 'learning curve' is the routing... i am not really a fan myself but i understand what the value proposition is...
    - cmdkeen 11y ago
      But because it is .Net you have all sorts of libraries which bring you type safety if you want it. Things like T4MVC and Typelite combined with Entity Framework give me compile time impacts of impacts anywhere in my stack from the DB downwards. If you're writing projects measuring in the person-years of effort then these tools are vital, if you're writing something smaller then the "magic" is quite nice.
    - mercurial 11y ago
      It's not a problem of learning curve, it's that when you come from something like Jersey, it feels very limited.
      - adrianlmm 11y ago
        Jersey is a framework for REST services, the equivalent would be MS Web API, not ASP.NET MVC.
        mercurial 11y ago
        That's really a weird way of thinking about it. As something like Dropwizard demonstrates, it's a very good base for a web framework. Take Spring's routing, if you prefer, even that is better.
        adrianlmm 11y ago
        Why is weird? you do spect that Spring MVC gives you a full Restful experience?, it can give you a good REST experience, but is not for that, the same case with ASP.NET MVC is not spected to give a premier example is RESTFul services that is why Web API exists, and as someone who has used both, Java and .NET, I can tell you that Web API is simpler and as powerfull.
creshal 11y ago
With .NET being open sourced, they're probably hoping on a wider ecosystem developing around it.
forgotpwtomain 11y ago
The default RHEL on AWS is loaded with a bunch of a crap - supposedly Redhat officially supplies the distro, but one really has to wonder if a single week of engineering time has ever went into this. I mean seriously WiFi-drivers?! [1] https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/review/product-reviews/ref=dtl_prp_reviews_read_more?ie=UTF8&asin=B007ORSS8I#_39EHYSB2KKP3X https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/review/product-reviews/re...
- PaulHoule 11y ago
  RHAT is a great business in terms of its stock price but I am not the fan I used to be. I started w/ Slackware and moved to Red Hat and then Fedora but eventually RH and Fedora became "the Linux that couldn't" when I was installing on either an old or new machine. On the same machine Ubuntu would install just fine. I run a Windows desktop now and mostly use Ubuntu Linux in AWS, sometimes inside a VM on my local machine. I used to run the RH-derived AWS Linux, but eventually I learned how to do things easily in Ubuntu, such as installing and maintaning an Oracle JVM, that are hard in Red Hat. Definitely an enthusiast could find a solution with RHEL, but having a server OS that "just works" is what you need if you are the guy who splits his time between devops and bizdev.
- avar 11y ago
  What would be the benefit of slowing the release process of RHEL on AWS by pruning it down to the bare essentials? Is redundant stuff like WiFi-drivers & firmware really taking that much space that it matters?
  - CaptSpify 11y ago
    maybe, maybe not. What that tells me though, is that they didn't sit down and say: "Here's how we optimize this to work for the cloud". I can't say other distro's do either, but it seems like something they should do
    - avar 11y ago
      I don't think they should. This way lies madness. You want e.g. the kernel & packages to be pruned down to only have the things needed for each cloud host? That means that for N cloud hosts Red Hat would have to potentially build N different patches for any update or security fix. Now you can't certify software to run on "RHEL 7" anymore, it has to be "RHEL 7, assuming it has XYZ, which some cloud hosts don't". It can be done, but it's a huge hassle, it's much easier to just ship the same distro to everyone. Space is cheap.
johncolanduoni 11y ago
With their release of CoreCLR[1], which combined with the class libraries, I think there is a lot of reason to look at .NET on UNIX. The implementation includes the same JIT and GC that the .NET framework uses, it just cuts out a bunch of bits that likely wouldn't be relevant to people developing server backends (WPF, AppDomains, etc.). For server stuff, .NET is now close to the level of openness and compatibility that the OpenJDK enjoys. If you like C# or F# better than Java, there is plenty of reason to switch. [1]: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr
- technofiend 11y ago
  You may be right, I don't know. I suppose the acid test is when YC companies start posting for front-end developers with C#, .NET and UNIX experience versus what's required today, i.e. either node.js, django, ruby, etc.
  - edgyswingset 11y ago
    Why YC companies? There are lots of other startups out there (some of which even using .NET).
    - technofiend 11y ago
      Ah, great question. I sort of view the YC guys as cutting edge, i.e. willing and able to adopt new and sometimes still changing technology. In contrast to a Fortune 500 shop which in my humble opinion is unlikely to adopt a wholesale change to a new technology.
  - serge2k 11y ago
    No, the acid test is if the big companies that have invested heavily into java start to adopt .net in meaningful ways.
    - johncolanduoni 11y ago
      Well, if they've got large existing Java codebases, I suspect the chance of the enterprise crowd investing in any new language is roughly zero.
cwyers 11y ago
> how many people will perceive any value in stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? That's not the point of this. MS is positioning Azure as the cloud for enterprise. Azure can run a bunch of hosted services you had to administer yourself (Active Directory, Office 365, etc.), it can run any Windows server apps you had, and now it can run enterprise Linux apps on the most popular enterprise Linux distro. So if you're a company that has Office, Active Directory and an Oracle database running on RHEL, you can move your everything into Azure.
outside1234 11y ago
The idea is not to run .NET on Red Hat. Its to run anything on top of Red Hat on Azure. Azure is far bigger than just Microsoft's stack.

adrianlmm 11y ago

I would, .NET and the latest C# is awesome and superior to other frameworks, so yes, the fact that can run in Linux is something very atractive.

jnericks 11y ago
This, I've recently been writing more Java lately and I miss C# quite a bit
mercurial 11y ago
C# is a decent language if you like imperative programing. .NET MVC, though, is far from impressive. The routing is crap, Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views, and in general it feels like a "let's do Rails in C#", which I really don't see as the future of web development.
- edgyswingset 11y ago
  You don't need to use ASP.NET MVC (or even ASP.NET at all) when writing something for the web. And if you like functional programming, use F#. It's pretty great.
- adrianlmm 11y ago
  >C# is a decent language Just decent? I dissagree, it is the best language to my taste. >NET MVC, though, is far from impressive Tell me what is impressive them, becuase to me is a well stablished, easy to use and learn with static typing, there is nothing better. >The routing is crap The routing is highly configurable, by default it mimics Ruby on Rails routing and if you don't like it you can use your own, you have no idea of what are you talking about. >Razor is designed to encourage you to dump C# straight into your views Just like in JSP pages you can write Java code, or in ERB pages you can write Ruby code or in EJS pages yu can write JavaScript code, and if you don't like there a re plenty of options. >which I really don't see as the future of web development Your personal views are just that, personal, at least inform your self well before making ignorant statements.
  - jenscow 11y ago
    > Your personal views are just that, personal As is yours, so why bicker? C#/.NET is also my favourite, but it's not the be-all and end-all of web development. It might be the best for all of your projects, but not for everyone else. It has it's flaws, like everything else, and I'm happy for you that you haven't used it (or anything else) for long enough to discover them.
    - adrianlmm 11y ago
      Anyone is free to use the tool/framework of their preference, but not to make ignorant statements about other frameworks w/o even knowing them.
      - netheril96 11y ago
        The points you are refuting are all subjective evaluations, not objective facts. If he were wrong on objective facts, then it would be reasonable, albeit impolite, to call him ignorant. But he isn't.
- apalmer 11y ago
  C# and .Net the framework is objectively 'good'. ASP.Net MVC, is very subjective. It definitely is very 'weird' from the perspective of being on a static language platform but embracing 'magic' over standard type safety. I will give you routing though, i dont really think it 'sucks' but i have lead development teams using MVC for years... whenever a new developer who isnt familiar comes on board, the most significant 'learning curve' is the routing... i am not really a fan myself but i understand what the value proposition is...
  - cmdkeen 11y ago
    But because it is .Net you have all sorts of libraries which bring you type safety if you want it. Things like T4MVC and Typelite combined with Entity Framework give me compile time impacts of impacts anywhere in my stack from the DB downwards. If you're writing projects measuring in the person-years of effort then these tools are vital, if you're writing something smaller then the "magic" is quite nice.
  - mercurial 11y ago
    It's not a problem of learning curve, it's that when you come from something like Jersey, it feels very limited.
    - adrianlmm 11y ago
      Jersey is a framework for REST services, the equivalent would be MS Web API, not ASP.NET MVC.
      - mercurial 11y ago
        That's really a weird way of thinking about it. As something like Dropwizard demonstrates, it's a very good base for a web framework. Take Spring's routing, if you prefer, even that is better.
        adrianlmm 11y ago
        Why is weird? you do spect that Spring MVC gives you a full Restful experience?, it can give you a good REST experience, but is not for that, the same case with ASP.NET MVC is not spected to give a premier example is RESTFul services that is why Web API exists, and as someone who has used both, Java and .NET, I can tell you that Web API is simpler and as powerfull.

creshal 11y ago

With .NET being open sourced, they're probably hoping on a wider ecosystem developing around it.

forgotpwtomain 11y ago

The default RHEL on AWS is loaded with a bunch of a crap - supposedly Redhat officially supplies the distro, but one really has to wonder if a single week of engineering time has ever went into this. I mean seriously WiFi-drivers?! [1] https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/review/product-reviews/ref=dtl_prp_reviews_read_more?ie=UTF8&asin=B007ORSS8I#_39EHYSB2KKP3X https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/review/product-reviews/re...

PaulHoule 11y ago
RHAT is a great business in terms of its stock price but I am not the fan I used to be. I started w/ Slackware and moved to Red Hat and then Fedora but eventually RH and Fedora became "the Linux that couldn't" when I was installing on either an old or new machine. On the same machine Ubuntu would install just fine. I run a Windows desktop now and mostly use Ubuntu Linux in AWS, sometimes inside a VM on my local machine. I used to run the RH-derived AWS Linux, but eventually I learned how to do things easily in Ubuntu, such as installing and maintaning an Oracle JVM, that are hard in Red Hat. Definitely an enthusiast could find a solution with RHEL, but having a server OS that "just works" is what you need if you are the guy who splits his time between devops and bizdev.
avar 11y ago
What would be the benefit of slowing the release process of RHEL on AWS by pruning it down to the bare essentials? Is redundant stuff like WiFi-drivers & firmware really taking that much space that it matters?
- CaptSpify 11y ago
  maybe, maybe not. What that tells me though, is that they didn't sit down and say: "Here's how we optimize this to work for the cloud". I can't say other distro's do either, but it seems like something they should do
  - avar 11y ago
    I don't think they should. This way lies madness. You want e.g. the kernel & packages to be pruned down to only have the things needed for each cloud host? That means that for N cloud hosts Red Hat would have to potentially build N different patches for any update or security fix. Now you can't certify software to run on "RHEL 7" anymore, it has to be "RHEL 7, assuming it has XYZ, which some cloud hosts don't". It can be done, but it's a huge hassle, it's much easier to just ship the same distro to everyone. Space is cheap.

johncolanduoni 11y ago

With their release of CoreCLR[1], which combined with the class libraries, I think there is a lot of reason to look at .NET on UNIX. The implementation includes the same JIT and GC that the .NET framework uses, it just cuts out a bunch of bits that likely wouldn't be relevant to people developing server backends (WPF, AppDomains, etc.). For server stuff, .NET is now close to the level of openness and compatibility that the OpenJDK enjoys. If you like C# or F# better than Java, there is plenty of reason to switch. [1]: https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr

technofiend 11y ago
You may be right, I don't know. I suppose the acid test is when YC companies start posting for front-end developers with C#, .NET and UNIX experience versus what's required today, i.e. either node.js, django, ruby, etc.
- edgyswingset 11y ago
  Why YC companies? There are lots of other startups out there (some of which even using .NET).
  - technofiend 11y ago
    Ah, great question. I sort of view the YC guys as cutting edge, i.e. willing and able to adopt new and sometimes still changing technology. In contrast to a Fortune 500 shop which in my humble opinion is unlikely to adopt a wholesale change to a new technology.
- serge2k 11y ago
  No, the acid test is if the big companies that have invested heavily into java start to adopt .net in meaningful ways.
  - johncolanduoni 11y ago
    Well, if they've got large existing Java codebases, I suspect the chance of the enterprise crowd investing in any new language is roughly zero.

cwyers 11y ago

> how many people will perceive any value in stacking a Microsoft technology (.NET) on top of UNIX? That's not the point of this. MS is positioning Azure as the cloud for enterprise. Azure can run a bunch of hosted services you had to administer yourself (Active Directory, Office 365, etc.), it can run any Windows server apps you had, and now it can run enterprise Linux apps on the most popular enterprise Linux distro. So if you're a company that has Office, Active Directory and an Oracle database running on RHEL, you can move your everything into Azure.

outside1234 11y ago

The idea is not to run .NET on Red Hat. Its to run anything on top of Red Hat on Azure. Azure is far bigger than just Microsoft's stack.