3 ms·
".NET stack to OSS" This does not make any sense whatsoever since e.g. ASP.NET MVC is OSS. Why don't you say ".NET stack to JVM stack"? Because it doesn't make
by CmonDev 13y ago
".NET stack to OSS"
This does not make any sense whatsoever since e.g. ASP.NET MVC is OSS. Why don't you say ".NET stack to JVM stack"? Because it doesn't make your choice sound intrinsically better?
- taude 13y agoYou don't run your ASP.NET MVC on Linux boxes, though. On non-IIS web servers, and likely you use SQL Server and the LINQ libraries....unless you'r using Mono (which has a lot of hurt involved to do so, especially once you start getting in with external libraries that your application might depend on). in general, when people mention ".NET STACK", they're talking about the whole-shebang, not a single library that might happen to be OSS when the other 100 libraries you're dependent on aren't.
- dragonwriter 13y ago> This does not make any sense whatsoever since e.g. ASP.NET MVC is OSS. ASP.NET MVC is an open source framework, sure, but the .NET platform, as such, is not OSS. (Some parts of the MS .NET ecosystem are open source, and there are open source alternative implementations for some parts, but that doesn't make the platform OSS.)