Open.NET — .NET Libraries Go "Open Source" 310
An anonymous reader writes "whurley just posted a blog about Microsoft's announcement To Make .NET Libraries available under a crippled 'Open Source' program using their new Microsoft Reference License. The post includes the official pr doc from Microsoft as well as several points about how this really isn't open source. One example: If a developer finds a bug in the code, rather than fixing it themselves and submitting a patch to the community they'll be encouraged to submit feedback via the product feedback center."
.NET is already open (Score:5, Informative)
If you're interested you can check out the free tool here: http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/ [aisto.com]
Thanks, open source spin doctors (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Could be worse (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wise move by MS (Score:2, Informative)
1. There is the Mono framework which can host
2. There is the Silverlight framework which can host Silverlight apps on MacOS and soon to be Linux.
Just like MFC (Score:5, Informative)
The original 1991 team that developed the Microsoft Foundation Classes 1.0 (to go with the first Microsoft C++ compiler, and even before the first C++ Visual Studio) was planning to go completely "closed source." It makes sense from a library point of view to close access to the implementation, and only offer the interfaces in header files. However, I was one of the folks on that team that felt that since this was the first "thin" wrapper on the C Win32 API, it was more important to show just how thin that wrapper was, and to offer visibility into the MFC implementation. It wasn't "open source" but it was "source provided as documentation." You could still build MFC on Borland's Win32-ready compiler, in fact. Since I myself was fairly experienced with Win32 but not with C++ (as was the target market), I felt this was a reasonable compromise.
Before you throw eggs at me, let me point out that I then left that group before they invented CDocument and all the ugly MFC hell that has become associated with bloat. Before CDocument, it was essentially a reasonable alternative to STL with some HWND wrappers. Afterwards, the command-routing and OLE-managing framework turned almost any MFC app into a real rats' nest of unmaintainable spaghetti. I still wrote apps in MFC, but I have less and less stomach for it, in the rare instances I must develop Win32 at all.
Re:Could Be Better (Score:3, Informative)
Try adding an RTF box onto a form and messing with a selection (for instance setting it to bold), the old method would allow the other font attributes to remain, now you change the font styling for the entire selection: bold italic font size etc.
Without calling back to the COM interop or recursing each character on a hidden control you are screwed.
Printing is geared towards the developer being given a piece of paper to print on and informing
It is too easy for the IDE to trip itself up and get in your way, from freezing for minutes on end to just getting things wrong (errors when reopening a form you know the code is valid for).
The actual core language is wonderful, but there are lots still wrong with the interface and libraries.
Slashdot spin at its finest (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft fully acknowledges that this code is to be released under MSRL, "Microsoft Reference Licenese", which Microsoft does not claim to be an open source license (it is not one of the Ms licenses that were submitted to OSI).
But the code is still valuable as it eases debugging. This similar to Microsoft's providing the source code to ATL, MFC, and their CRT. Much of this code was already available under Rotor2, but now we get lots more code, including WinForms and WPF, and more will be rleased in the future.
And it's not just code, but Microsoft including integrated debugging of
See here for detaitls:
http://weblogs.asp.net/scottgu/archive/2007/10/03/releasing-the-source-code-for-the-net-framework-libraries.aspx [asp.net]
Re:Could Be Better (Score:2, Informative)
Good or bad, things are different for developers in
VB.Net is not VB6, despite how much work MS put into making it look the same.
The ignorance on here surprises even me! (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=8C09FD61-3F26-4555-AE17-3121B4F51D4D&displaylang=en [microsoft.com]
It contains the C/C++ source for the CLR, CSC and C# source for the Framework that compiles on FreeBSD, Windows and OS X. There are PPC/ARM/x86/x86-64 ports in the code.
It can and will be run anywhere.
Re:Could be worse (Score:4, Informative)
Re:"Shared" Source (Score:2, Informative)
Nice FUD try, though.
Re:Can I view the code? (Score:2, Informative)
"Open source" meaning "access to the source code" is a total misconception...much like people take "free software" to mean "gratis software" when it really means "libre software".
Try actually reading the Open Source Definition before making idiotic comments.
Re:.NET is already open (Score:3, Informative)
The reflector re-generates source code based on the IL. But there's no guarantee that its the SAME source code. It is perfectly possible and reasonable to have two different sources compile to the same IL. Now they're not going to be drastically different, but they can be meaningfully different. But you're always going to lose some information content when compiling down to IL.
In addition, the VS.NET debugger will grab symbols for the source code as well, which allows the debugger to link directly to the exact line in the source code so you can step through it and see meaningful variable names in your locals window and such.
Lastly, with the reverse engineering of the reflector tool, you always lose comments, and you very easily lose the 'intent' of the software, as expressed by its original source code (which will almost certainly be different than the source code the reflector emits).
Re:Wise move by MS (Score:1, Informative)
I don't have to imagine it, it's happening. Google for "sivlerlight mac" some time.
Re:Try to understand whats going on please (Score:2, Informative)
Beside that it has been quite easy to see the