3 ms·

I'll start taking these delusional ravings remotely seriously when authors try to analyze what it would be like to implement the driver stack, the graphics stac

by aasasd 7y ago

I'll start taking these delusional ravings remotely seriously when authors try to analyze what it would be like to implement the driver stack, the graphics stack, the security model etc. on top of a different kernel, and demonstrate that it would change anything for the best. And not just throw away compatibility with twenty years of accumulated software and hardware. So far it's only “MS did a Linux-to-Win layer with questionable performance, it means they could totally do the opposite with negligible loss while keeping drivers for millions of device models working! And compatibility with software that hooks at every point in the Windows APIs! See, Wine does a small portion of that just fiiiine after the twenty six years of development.”

thrower123 7y ago
This sort of thing reminds me of one of my favorite Microsoft UserVoices, which is asking for a Linux version of Visual Studio - hundreds and hundreds of comments from people who are presumably software developers, who seem to think that it would be trivial to port that behemoth of C/C++/.NET/whatever code, with its decades of accumulated cruft, over to run natively on another operating system. devenv.exe isn't even 64-bit yet...
- mehrdadn 7y ago
  The idea of a Linux version does seem ridiculous like you said, but I'm not sure lack of 64-bit is a good example to illustrate it. They already migrated much of VS2008 to .NET when they did 2010, which to me seemed like a herculean feat, for what was quite questionable end-user gain (and I'm being quite generous with that assessment), and .NET should've made architecture-independent easier. Lack of 64-bit just seems to be due to the cost not justifying the benefit rather than the feat itself being so herculean per se.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    The main problem there is that it runs like a dog and thrashes when you have big solutions and get near to 2GB of RAM usage. It's pretty silly on workstations that have 16-32 GB of total memory available. When they first justified the decision not to move to 64-bit a decade ago, it was more defensible, but time has moved on hard, and they've been fighting that decision, moving bits and pieces out of process ever since.
- dagw 7y ago
  asking for a Linux version of Visual Studio I mean they could make a Linux version of Visual Studio, just like the make a Mac version of Visual Studio, it just wouldn't be the same program as the Windows version of Visual Studio.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    This should be possible, as the Mac version is pretty much a coat of paint and a blessed set of plugins laid on top of MonoDevelop. If I had to do serious dotnet work on Linux, I'd probably just use JetBrains Rider instead though.

by aasasd 7y ago

thrower123 7y ago

This sort of thing reminds me of one of my favorite Microsoft UserVoices, which is asking for a Linux version of Visual Studio - hundreds and hundreds of comments from people who are presumably software developers, who seem to think that it would be trivial to port that behemoth of C/C++/.NET/whatever code, with its decades of accumulated cruft, over to run natively on another operating system. devenv.exe isn't even 64-bit yet...

mehrdadn 7y ago
The idea of a Linux version does seem ridiculous like you said, but I'm not sure lack of 64-bit is a good example to illustrate it. They already migrated much of VS2008 to .NET when they did 2010, which to me seemed like a herculean feat, for what was quite questionable end-user gain (and I'm being quite generous with that assessment), and .NET should've made architecture-independent easier. Lack of 64-bit just seems to be due to the cost not justifying the benefit rather than the feat itself being so herculean per se.
- thrower123 7y ago
  The main problem there is that it runs like a dog and thrashes when you have big solutions and get near to 2GB of RAM usage. It's pretty silly on workstations that have 16-32 GB of total memory available. When they first justified the decision not to move to 64-bit a decade ago, it was more defensible, but time has moved on hard, and they've been fighting that decision, moving bits and pieces out of process ever since.
dagw 7y ago
asking for a Linux version of Visual Studio I mean they could make a Linux version of Visual Studio, just like the make a Mac version of Visual Studio, it just wouldn't be the same program as the Windows version of Visual Studio.
- thrower123 7y ago
  This should be possible, as the Mac version is pretty much a coat of paint and a blessed set of plugins laid on top of MonoDevelop. If I had to do serious dotnet work on Linux, I'd probably just use JetBrains Rider instead though.