3 ms·
"Open" does not mean that Microsoft can't make commercial tooling for .NET. Nobody is forcing folks to use VS Code, nor should Microsoft be forced to contribute
by GiorgioG 3y ago
"Open" does not mean that Microsoft can't make commercial tooling for .NET. Nobody is forcing folks to use VS Code, nor should Microsoft be forced to contribute unlimited resources to "open" projects. There are community editions of Visual Studio that folks are free to use. Alternatively, JetBrains makes Rider, my IDE of choice for doing .NET development on Mac/Linux.
- capableweb 3y agoIf you constantly use "Microsoft <3 Open Source" as your main marketing method for reaching developers and then continues to push the platform you own further and further away from FOSS, people are bound to be upset at your methodology. Seems Microsoft has learned nothing.
- dr-detroit 3y ago[dead]
- janosdebugs 3y agoSmall correction: Visual Studio community is only free to use if you are a small company (250 PCs or 1M in revenue) plus a few other exceptions. https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/de/license-terms/mlt031819/ https://visualstudio.microsoft.com/de/license-terms/mlt03181... Regardless, Microsoft is free to do what they want, including licensing parts of a software as open source while keeping other things closed source, but their loud marketing around .NET being fully open source has caused other projects (like Godot) to move from Mono to .NET. If .NET turns out to not be open source in practice because you can't compile it for Windows without proprietary stuff, then that will be damaging to the projects using .NET for open source development. Here's to hoping that I just horribly misunderstood everything and this is not the case.