4 ms·
I'm surprised Microsoft still isn't pushing .NET 6 (and the MSVC runtime, for that matter) to everyone with Windows Update. They're not very large, most consume
by TillE 3y ago
I'm surprised Microsoft still isn't pushing .NET 6 (and the MSVC runtime, for that matter) to everyone with Windows Update. They're not very large, most consumers will want them, and picky enterprises could opt out.
It's an odd annoyance that Windows developers have to deal with.
- formerly_proven 3y agoCongruent with runtimes (both .NET and native) for Microsoft languages always being kinda weird. "Uh yeah don't use that CRT in %WINDIR%, that's not supported! Everyone need to bring their own... but not as loose DLLs, that's not allowed! Use the MSI package and install it whenever!" (I think most of those restrictions have been removed in the last couple years, and MS also settled down on VC++ ABI and VCRT changes and introduced UCRT in Windows 10, so)
- Uvix 3y agoThey push updates to .NET if it’s installed. I can understand them not installing if it’s absent, because there’s no good story for what to do when that version goes out of support. If they leave it, then customers have insecure unsupported software on their systems; if they remove it, they’ll break apps that depend on it.
- pjmlp 3y agoBecause the modern way is to ship it with the application and preferably use trimming.
- electroly 3y agoGetting your thing adopted as a Windows component and distributed by Windows Update is a common trap for Microsoft developers. It's always a mistake if you're in some DevDiv or random app team instead of the Windows team. Windows is the slowest-moving product that Microsoft has, and users don't install updates. Hitching your wagon to Windows means no two users will have the same version installed, and getting people to update .NET via Windows Update is a nightmare. God forbid the Windows team decides to stop supporting a version of Windows that is still commonly use in industry; they'll never get a .NET update again. As a user, think about how annoying it is to get a message saying you need to run Windows Update before you can start an application. Totally unnecessary own-goal for the team that decided to ship their independent component in Windows Update. It's way easier to either 1.) go self-contained, or 2.) use the on-the-fly .NET download for a framework-dependent build. I absolutely think they made the right call removing current .NET as a Windows component. The annoyance was far greater when .NET Framework was part of Windows.