3 ms·

> It will never happen. Some people probably said that about the .NET framework. Now almost all of it (the new stuff anyway, and minus Visual Studio) is fully

> It will never happen. Some people probably said that about the .NET framework. Now almost all of it (the new stuff anyway, and minus Visual Studio) is fully open source.

javajosh 11y ago
That happened when they realized that dev mind share is (far) more valuable than tooling revenues.
- hyperliner 11y ago
  Not just any Dev mindshare, but that mindshare that translates into hard dollars (monetized through some other means like Azure).
pksadiq 11y ago
Making something open source != making something GPL. .Net is licensed under MIT/X11 I think. If someone is licensing something under GNU GPL, they are also giving away their intellectual property/patent rights (or what ever they call that) to any software developed in GPL, which Microsoft is never ever going to do. MIT/X11 license is not giving other developers and users such a patent protection from its original developers.
hyperliner 11y ago
The framework was not an independently monetized piece of work for Microsoft. One the .Net / J2EE battles were settled, there was no need to keep it closed source.
TheRealDunkirk 11y ago
Not this again. .NET is still primarily useful for developing GUI applications. None of that is available on Linux; only the language and the web stack. And, while most devs think C# is a perfectly usable language, quite frankly, IMHO, ASP.NET and EF aren't even in the running compared to other toolchains for web development on Linux. If MS would make the GUI libraries available, then and only then would it be a game changer.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  A) From my equally anecdotal experience, non-HTML GUIs are going the way of the dodo as a business investment. So, "primarily useful for developing GUI applications" citation needed. B) Modern MS-RSL "reference source license" is now OSS compliant. The remaining difference between .NET Full Framework's Reference Source and what's happening with .NET Core is .NET Core has moved development to the open and Github as primary development platform. .NET Core is the future and .NET Full is "stable". C) One example: http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#PresentationFramework/src/Framework/System/Windows/Window.cs,e438dc91640a8d15 http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#PresentationFramework/... There's nothing stopping you from using the Reference Source today to build your own WPF fork (or, let's face it, you probably mean SWF). You can even start with Mono's existing mostly-there cross-platform SWF or Moonlight codebases and save a bit of time. You know why you don't hear about lots of people doing that? I'm fairly certain it is because no one is building cross-platform GUIs in anything but HTML(5) these days.
  - WorldMaker 11y ago
    ...or Xamarin.Forms, which is its own beast and a rather different direction.

> It will never happen. Some people probably said that about the .NET framework. Now almost all of it (the new stuff anyway, and minus Visual Studio) is fully open source.

javajosh 11y ago

That happened when they realized that dev mind share is (far) more valuable than tooling revenues.

hyperliner 11y ago
Not just any Dev mindshare, but that mindshare that translates into hard dollars (monetized through some other means like Azure).

pksadiq 11y ago

Making something open source != making something GPL. .Net is licensed under MIT/X11 I think. If someone is licensing something under GNU GPL, they are also giving away their intellectual property/patent rights (or what ever they call that) to any software developed in GPL, which Microsoft is never ever going to do. MIT/X11 license is not giving other developers and users such a patent protection from its original developers.

hyperliner 11y ago

The framework was not an independently monetized piece of work for Microsoft. One the .Net / J2EE battles were settled, there was no need to keep it closed source.

TheRealDunkirk 11y ago

Not this again. .NET is still primarily useful for developing GUI applications. None of that is available on Linux; only the language and the web stack. And, while most devs think C# is a perfectly usable language, quite frankly, IMHO, ASP.NET and EF aren't even in the running compared to other toolchains for web development on Linux. If MS would make the GUI libraries available, then and only then would it be a game changer.

WorldMaker 11y ago
A) From my equally anecdotal experience, non-HTML GUIs are going the way of the dodo as a business investment. So, "primarily useful for developing GUI applications" citation needed. B) Modern MS-RSL "reference source license" is now OSS compliant. The remaining difference between .NET Full Framework's Reference Source and what's happening with .NET Core is .NET Core has moved development to the open and Github as primary development platform. .NET Core is the future and .NET Full is "stable". C) One example: http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#PresentationFramework/src/Framework/System/Windows/Window.cs,e438dc91640a8d15 http://referencesource.microsoft.com/#PresentationFramework/... There's nothing stopping you from using the Reference Source today to build your own WPF fork (or, let's face it, you probably mean SWF). You can even start with Mono's existing mostly-there cross-platform SWF or Moonlight codebases and save a bit of time. You know why you don't hear about lots of people doing that? I'm fairly certain it is because no one is building cross-platform GUIs in anything but HTML(5) these days.
- WorldMaker 11y ago
  ...or Xamarin.Forms, which is its own beast and a rather different direction.