4 ms·
Well, if anything it's more 'meta' than the content of the article. But I suppose you just wanted to highlight it rather than pose it as a question :)
by Insanity 8y ago
Well, if anything it's more 'meta' than the content of the article. But I suppose you just wanted to highlight it rather than pose it as a question :)
- walterbell 8y agoIt’s a real question. It makes no sense that Microsoft would impose a hard requirement, they only need to make Visual Studio more convenient for open-source Linux developers, which should be trivially easy in comparison to any Linux embedded CLI toolchain. If you’re Microsoft courting the open-source community to the the tune of $7.5B purchase of Github, and you are releasing the first Microsoft Linux kernel, why would you unnecessarily mandate the tying of Linux to a Windows toolchain, when you’re already going to win/earn a voluntary tie by competing on usability? What you want is developers voluntarily porting their Github embedded Linux open-source projects to Visual Studio. New Microsoft should have a chat with vestiges of Old Microsoft.