Open Source Software Seeping Into the .NET Developer World
146
dp619 writes "In an interview, Microsoft Regional Director Patrick Hynds says that avoidance of open source components by a large part of the .NET developer population is abating. '...While some may still steer clear of the GPL, there are dozens of FOSS licenses that are compatible with Windows developers and their customers,' he said. Hynds cites NuGet, an open source package management system was originally built by Microsoft and now an Outercurve Foundation project, as an example of FOSS libraries that .NET developer are adopting for their applications. Microsoft itself has embraced open source — to a point. It has partnered with Hortonworks for a Windows port of Hadoop, allowed Linux to run on Windows Azure, and is itself a Hadoop user."
Get in on the action? (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should Google and Apple be the only ones that make gobs of money leveraging Open Source? Microsoft wants to join the party.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but the company that once called it a "cancer" is going to have a hard time reconciling its culture to it - especially since Microsoft relies on proprietary software for its very existence. Sure they do make (and mostly give away) some FOSS software, but it's very little and you really have to look for it.
I suspect that the best Microsoft could do is to try and hijack existing FOSS projects and slather on a proprietary UI, or some sort of glue to tie to loosely to products they already make.
Inciden
Re:Get in on the action? (Score:4, Insightful)
They called Linux a cancer, not open source software. They've used BSD software before. BSD folks are just fine with it, so there's no 'hijacking' involved.
Re: (Score:3)
It's sixes, given that OSS was the target for Ballmer's ire:
"Ballmer was trying to articulate his concern, whether real or imagined, that limited recourse to the GNU GPL requires that all software be made open source.
"The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source,"
ref: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ [theregister.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Which is of course a lie. Just because I have GPL software on my Windows machine, does not mean I have to make any software I write open source.
I don't even have to make it so if I compile a C program with the gcc - a GPL compiler. It explicitly says this in the license. [gnu.org]
The same applies to any GPL program - using it does not make the works you create with it GPL as well.
Just a massive bit of FUD. Ballmer should be thankful that there have been open-source developers writing programs that work on Windows, in
Re: (Score:2)
Not angry about it... I actually find it funny.
Re:Get in on the action? (Score:4)
Re:Get in on the action? (Score:4, Informative)
Are Linux and Open Source Un-American? [linuxjournal.com]
Here is a bit . .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL does not work like a disease, because a disease propagates regardless of the desires of its host, or the newly infected people. GPL, on the other hand, is something that you decide to use (or not to use) of your own volition.
Re:No, they falsely called the GPL license a cance (Score:4, Informative)
Tell that to everyone that decided to fuck a girl (or guy, if that's your proclivity) with herpes.
You'd have a point if, before you fucked her, she handed you a "HERPES PUBIC LICENSE" that explained the risks and conditions of a quick unprotected bang.
Re: (Score:2)
Did your mom get a brochure when she was raped?
Did your parents have any children who aren't cowards?
Re: (Score:2)
Some cancers are started by viri.
Re:Get in on the action? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft is not quite a single monolithic entity, and different product units can and do have very different perspectives on FOSS. Developer division, in particular, is pretty much forced to deal with it, just because of the wide acceptance of it in the customer base today. Which is precisely why most FOSS you see coming out of MS does come from DevDiv, and a good chunk of that are various frameworks (e.g. ASP.NET MVC or Entity Framework). It's also catching on somewhat for other products - Python Tools for Visual Studio is one prominent example there, and is probably a better example of what a FOSS MS project should really be, since it goes beyond just publishing the code (under Apache license), and also takes external contributions.
(disclaimer: I am a developer on the Python Tools team, so you may I assume that I am correspondingly biased)
The other part of the company that has strong market pressure to be FOSS-friendly is Azure. If you want to compete with AWS and Google, you have let customers run things other than the usual 100% MS .NET/IIS/Windows stack, in various combinations - at the very least, people need Java and PHP (and more exotic stuff like Python and Node.js) for apps, and many also want Apache (or other server) rather than IIS, and Linux rather than Windows. Then they want the cloud service (storage etc) APIs to be available in those languages in client apps, as well.
On the other hand, I would be surprised to see a FOSS version of Windows or Office anytime soon - simply because most people buying and using it don't really care one way or another, so there's no incentive to strongly consider it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Cringeley (I think) wrote a column once that opined that Microsoft should just make Windows into a desktop environment for Linux, thereby gaining the services of a huge community of excellent kernel developers. It made a kind of sense.
Re: (Score:2)
I think Azure needs to be FOSS-friendly to survive, but I'm surprised that you would consider Python / Node.js "exotic" as a web platform.
Reddit and Django both came out in 2005.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exotic relative to Java and PHP in a sense that it has far fewer deployments in relative figures. Also, websites like Reddit are typically not the kind of people you see shopping for cloud services. It used to be targeted mainly at enterprises, and those guys usually do Java (because everyone does), .NET (because every MS shop does, and they're one), or PHP (because it's cheap).
Times a-changing, though, and these days "cloud services" also includes simple web hosting, where a much broader audience come
Not new (Score:2)
MS Research released GRETA under an open source license back in 2003.
DevDiv released WTL under an open source license back in 2004.
Re: (Score:2)
MSR is a whole different kettle of fish. And yes, they have been doing FOSS for a long time now, and contributing to it, too - GHC (the Haskell compiler) is one prominent example, with two lead developers being paid by MSR pretty much to work full time on it.
WTL was the first non-MSR codebase so released, if I recall correctly. But it wasn't really a coherent project, more like a dump of the code that could be useful for others. Heck, it didn't even have documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
WTL was actually a MS library which supposed to be released with Visual Studio 7.0. However, Visual Studio 7.0 became VS.NET. Native stuff like WTL was put on the backburner and DotNet stuff became priority. Hence WTL was scrapped from the release and Nenad (lead dev) convinced DevDiv to release it under a FOSS license.
GRETA was developed by Eric Niebler who used to work for MSR. He then moved to DevDiv to work on Visual C++ libraries and at that time released GRETA under a FOSS license. Eric then quit Micr
Re:Get in on the action? (Score:5, Informative)
Sure they do make (and mostly give away) some FOSS software, but it's very little and you really have to look for it.
ASP.NET [codeplex.com], Entity Framework [codeplex.com], and Rx [codeplex.com] are all non-trivial Open Source projects by Microsoft which I use daily at work. They are all under the Apache License 2.0, not one of those ridiculous "shared source" licenses. They make use of existing third-party Open Source libraries. They manage the projects in the open and accept contributions from non-Microsofties.
Additionally, Microsoft has embraced NuGet, a third-party dpkg/apt for .NET libraries which has thousands of projects in it. It's integrated into the latest Visual Studio, and Microsoft uses it as their primary distribution point for nearly all of their Open Source projects.
Microsoft has a pretty shitty history when it comes to Open Source, but they really have turned over a new leaf on the subject. I think they've come to realize that it's better to foster than to dictate -- you're still using their product (.NET) in the end, after all. Some purists won't be happy with that, I guess.
Re: (Score:3)
I think they've come to realize that it's better to foster than to dictate
I think they've come to realize that absent a functional monopoly, they're going to have to manipulate rather than dictate.
Re: (Score:3)
This article, and the "viral" comments about open source, always remind me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vz-MepaJCM4 [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Google makes money selling advertising. They spend money on open source project some of which are use to make awful emasculating mobile phones.
I've never seen one of these, but I'll start up a collection to buy you one so that you don't breed...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Twenty years too late.
.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:4)
Long favored? Most people that I've known doing .NET work are wired into the frameworks Microsoft developed, glued on thier own proprietary bits and called it a day. Can you please leave some feedback on these very popular community driven OSS efforts in the .NET umbrella (outside of Mono which is a re-implementation of Microsoft's API's), becase quite frankly, I've never heard of any.
Re: (Score:2)
NHibernate is probably the single most popular community-driven FOSS project specifically targeting .NET.
Generally speaking, most people will use whatever comes in the standard library, proprietary or not - just because it's less of a hassle to begin with. That said, some standard frameworks have gone FOSS themselves - ASP.NET MVC, for example, and Entity Framework.
Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:5, Informative)
How about these to name just a few?
Plus tons more available on:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Git was chosen to be integrated with Visual SVN.
Re: (Score:2)
As a long time Java & .NET dev I can attest to the quality of some of those projects. NUnit for one is better that the Java version it was originally based on. I'd also add Moq which is a great mocking library.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dapper, Json.net, NancyFX, Nhibernate, Automapper, Ninject, Castle, PetaPoco, Lucene.Net, Nlog, log4net, Elmah...
You obviously don't look all that hard.
Re: (Score:2)
Long favored? Most people that I've known doing .NET work are wired into the frameworks Microsoft developed, glued on thier own proprietary bits and called it a day. Can you please leave some feedback on these very popular community driven OSS efforts in the .NET umbrella (outside of Mono which is a re-implementation of Microsoft's API's), becase quite frankly, I've never heard of any.
Go check out codeplex. As a .NET developer, we've been using lots and lots of open source .NET libraries from there for many years. The .NET open-source community is very active and it has always been so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hardliners aren't going to show respect to an audience that uses tools fundamentally centered on non-Free platforms. What led you to think otherwise?
Has it? It's done a marvelous job of killing integration of .NET technologies
Re: (Score:2)
I have been a .NET developer for about 9 years, and I am a little dumbfounded by this article as I have integrated opensource whenever I could, whether from codeplex (or github) or codeproject. Of course, if you are developing an application, you are not going to incorporate one of the few libraries that suicidally licenses itself as GPL, forcing you to do the same with your entire application -- you are going to stick to LGPL and BSD type licenses. This is not .NET specific -- any real app developer doin
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously there is some .NET open source. But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the .NET community and then spread from there. For example F# is cool but that is fundamentally a port to .NET permanently tied to Visual Studio. Most of Microsoft's rather excellent open source initiatives that aren't specifically exclusively for the Windows stack don't use .NET.
So what has the .NET open source community done in your opinion for which they are being u
Re: (Score:3)
So what has the .NET open source community done in your opinion for which they are being under rewarded?
How about ASP.NET MVC, Web API and Razor [codeplex.com]? The ASP.NET MVC framework is a modern and high quality web development framework with excellent support for test driven development, dependency injection and fine grained control over handling of requests and responses at every level of the stack. Combine this with clean separation of concerns, easy integration with client side javascript and RESTful handling of URLs and you have a top tier web development platform to rival anything offered by the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
All of these are Microsoft projects, though. They did not come out of the community.
Re: (Score:2)
They did not come out of the community.
The grand parent asked, "what has the open source community done", not "what originated completely from within the community". I mentioned the ASP.NET MVC project because the team at Microsoft benefited substantially from community input and even directly from the contrib branch of the project and I believe that the quality of the work is largely under appreciated outside the .NET world. If you look through the code you can see that many contributions, or code based upon ideas and concepts that first appe
Re: (Score:2)
It misses the criteria I listed above about coming out of the community. If that were to go the next step and say be available for Apache then yes it would meet the criteria.
That being said, I agree it is nice to see some .NET open source.
Re: (Score:2)
It misses the criteria I listed above about coming out of the community.
I remind you that the question was originally phrased as, "what has the open source community done" not "what originated completely from within the community". Making contributions to improve an existing project, regardless of where it originated from, is a time honored tradition in open source and ASP.NET MVC has definitely benefited from community contributions. See previous reply for examples of projects that did originate from within the community, especially the dependency injection frameworks.
Re: (Score:2)
The original was me, "But I have to say I'm hard pressed to think of many (any) open source projects that came out of the .NET community and then spread from there." I specifically there was open source .NET but that the .NET community hadn't played a large role, certainly not consistent with their size, in the wider open source community. And this came in response to the idea that the open source community wasn't strongly supportive of .NET.
Your example is a Microsoft driven product which has 0 impact o
Re: (Score:2)
For example F# is cool but that is fundamentally a port to .NET permanently tied to Visual Studio.
FYI, not only F# runs on and can target Mono, but it's an officially supported platform for them by design - and they actually test against it.
If you want one large .NET project that came from the community and is fairly widely used, it would probably be NHibernate.
Re: (Score:2)
Did NHiberante come out of the .NET community is used outside?
As far as F# and mono that's good. A strong target app for mono where people on both sides are supportive is useful.
Re: (Score:2)
Did NHiberante come out of the .NET community is used outside?
To be honest, I'm not even sure what the "is used outside" requirement even means. It definitely did come out of the .NET developer community, and it is used in it. It would be tricky for it to be used outside of the .NET community, because it's a .NET library...
Re: (Score:2)
That's what I figured. To get used outside people would need to build another library based on its interfaces... it that was used with a different technology. Hibernate becoming NHiberante might be an example of this in the other direction.
Re: (Score:2)
How many open source libraries does the typical .NET web project use?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, the patent laws are a problem but Microsoft has already made legally binding promises not to litigate their patents on core technologies...
Legally binding promises? How can you tell their promises are legally binding?
Microsoft has an history of using proxy corporations to do its dirty work, so it can insulate itself from direct legal reprisals. Do you have some proof that they closed down that possible avenue for themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Legally binding promises? How can you tell their promises are legally binding?
The Microsoft Open Specification Promise [wikipedia.org] is what's called a "covenant not to sue". Such covenants have legal precedent here in the United States and have been held as binding by the courts.
Microsoft has an history of using proxy corporations to do its dirty work, so it can insulate itself from direct legal reprisals. Do you have some proof that they closed down that possible avenue for themselves?
Anyone can sue anyone at anytime and for anything, simply by paying the filing fees of the court. Nobody can guarantee that third parties, patent trolls especially, wont jump out of nowhere and sue you. However, it's a bit of a stretch to lay the blame for the limitations of our legal system here in the United States at M
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone can sue anyone at anytime and for anything, simply by paying the filing fees of the court. Nobody can guarantee that third parties, patent trolls especially, wont jump out of nowhere and sue you. However, it's a bit of a stretch to lay the blame for the limitations of our legal system here in the United States at Microsoft's feet.
No one has done that, and you are clearly being disingenuous because you cannot possibly not know about Microsoft's repeated use of puppets to attack their targets, most famously having bankrolled the SCO lawsuits.
Re: (Score:2)
most famously having bankrolled the SCO lawsuits.
No, the investors behind BayStar did that, to the tune of $106 million. Microsoft paid a paltry $6 million for a "license" to settle the matter and sit out the main engagement between SCO and IBM. It was a business decision by Microsoft to not lose any more money than they had to. It probably cost IBM more than $6 million to ultimately win the case. Everyone involved in the SCO lawsuits, with the exception of the attorneys, lost money. The investors at BayStar lost money, although it's hard to feel sorry fo
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody can guarantee that third parties, patent trolls especially, wont jump out of nowhere and sue you.
That's not what I was talking about.
I'm talking about non-practicing entities that sue everyone using patents they get from Microsoft. And/or corporate entities that sue everyone, but that depend solely on Microsoft (or Ballmer, or Gates) for most of their funding, or revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about non-practicing entities that sue everyone
Which is the definition of "patent troll". If you want to blame someone for the present legal situation surrounding patents, blame the US government for running a broken system and the attorneys who take advantage of it.
using patents they get from Microsoft.
You do realize that Microsoft has a very paltry number of patents as compared to say IBM or now Google, right? I'm not sure, but if I had to guess I would bet that very few of the patents that end up in the hands of non-practicing entities were originally granted to Microsoft or passed throu
Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, writing software for a living for a target audience using 90% of the computers out there is idiotic. Especially if that's part of the 99% of the target audience that's used to actually paying you for your software.
You might not agree with closed source software, but calling folks idiotic for writing software for a large market you can get paid for writing software for is..... idiotic.
Re: (Score:2)
You might not agree with closed source software, but calling folks idiotic for writing software for a large market you can get paid for writing software for is..... idiotic.
What else do you call people selling out their future for a momentary benefit today?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I write some closed source proprietary programs. I also write some open source programs. If the source code is out there, free for anyone to use, it's open source. It doesn't matter if the OS it runs on is not. The code is free for anyone to use modify, or translate to run in the language and on the OS of their choice. It's open source.
It's not a false claim. It's just doesn't live up to the unreasonable expectations some people want to use to keep strictly to their own personal 'pure' definition of o
Re: (Score:3)
If closed code is using open code to modify there own software, then that open code used should remain in public view for others programmers to re-work.
The open code is always open. If it's written with the BSD licence and someone wants to fork away a proprietary version, that's fine. The original open code is still there, and viewable by the public for anyone to use and re-work.
GPL advocates seem to always talk like it magically disappears or something. It doesn't.
Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)
That's not our beef with it - our problem with choosing BSD-style licenses for our code is not that the original code disappears, it's twofold
i) We granted the freedom to use our code to the person receiving our software. We'd like the person receiving it to be good enough to do the same.
ii) We put effort into the code - possibly a large community has put in many man hours of work. It doesn't seem fair that a corporation could take that code, roll it into a product, and make a profit selling it, without contributing to the community that created it in the first place, but that is what BSD permits.
Incidentally, GPL permits this too - it's all about distribution of the software. If a corporation builds software on GPL code, they only have to share their changes with whoever they distribute to. That could be themselves, or just their customers.
What GPL doesn't permit is that you forbid the recipients of your software from redistributing it, and it doesn't allow you to withhold the source code from them. BSD style licenses allow you to add these restrictions, GPL does not.
So corporations love BSD licenses because it lets them get something for nothing, with no obligation to give anything back. There are still benefits in contribution to BSD licensed projects - like a reduced overhead, why maintain your patches when the community will do it for you?
I work for the UK government in software development - I happen to think that GPL is an appropriate license for all government-funded software. If the people are funding it, all the people ought to be able to continue to benefit from it. Of course, corporations don't see it this way and refuse to play ball if you mention it - so the most common license we use is APL2. It irks me that they get a free ride from my taxes. That's not capitalism, that's socialism - for corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because of different standards. In the FOSS world, an unmaintained project is considered dead, gets removed from the repositories and people are very hesitant to download and install it. On Windows, I've seen folks running some installer from 2004, which always makes me cringe a little, but they simply shrug it off with "I need that functionality" and everything's fine.
Note that code which hasn't changed for a decade can be perfectly "fresh" if there is a maintainer who checks compatibility with newer
Re: (Score:2)
So?
If software isn't important enough for someone to at least maintain a shared copy of somewhere, why should I care that it goes away? Somone selling software that does something similar must be better enough that folks are willing to pay for the difference.
If it's under the GPL then it won't be in the private code anyhow, so no loss. If it's under BSD, then the BSD author is fine with it. So there's no real problem. Just folk getting their panties in a bunch because other folks didn't agree with them
Re: (Score:2)
. But folks paying for the difference may be doing so because a) of awareness/marketing (see those repackaged LibreOffice sales) and b) it's 1% better (the improved part) than the original, yet the seller is entitled to 100% of the revenue.
And if users don't think that 1% is important enough to warrent the money, they'll use the open version instead. And if they are willing to pay extra for that 1%, it must be a critical 1% someone has provided. If no one is willing to at least maintain the original on a
Re: (Score:3)
The intention of releasing open code by programmers, is for others to re-work it, but they want that re-worked code to stay open.
See, you were doing good with the first part of the sentence. Then you veered off. The second part of your sentenc is what *GPL* programmers want. Not what all open code programmers want. People who like BSD, and many other of the licenses out there, are just fine with folks forking off proprietary code if they want. The open code they have written is still always out there
Re: (Score:2)
The open code they have written is still always out there for others to use/fork/enjoy.
GPL, especially V3 with the tivoization clause, protects the user. The user will be able to rebuild the distribution. BSD protects the programmer. The programmer will be able to use the code. But only the GPL delivers something the user can use.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, I guess all the users using OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and MacOS must not actually be using anything. Oh, wait, they are using those products just fine. And continuing to modify the open source BSD code in them for new versions.
Re:.NET Developers Have Long Favored Open Source (Score:4, Interesting)
Whatever their desires may be, programming for a platform where open source has been intentionally denied even the possibility of existence and calling it open source
In what sense open source has been "intentionally denied even the possibility of existence" on .NET or Windows?
If you want to contribute to mankind you need to do it in a form that can be legally parsed by newcomers without paying licensing fees.
You mean, like Mono?
Re: (Score:2)
This applies to most FOSS projects that have a non-open equivalent. It would be very ill-advised for, say, KDE to take contributions of someone who worked on the Windows shell. Or for Firefox to take code from a guy who did Safari. It's not illegal per se, but it does open a legal can of worms that can be sufficiently argued against you if it ever comes to litigation, and the question of "stolen code" comes up. Mono guys are just being upfront about this.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh my! Did they kill anyone of each other's family?
This story of hate, love and enemies in software industry is pathetic. Human beings always look for differences to start a fight (race, language, religion, borders, country, skin color, city, ...) and now the programming languages they use!!!
Re: (Score:2)
What do you call codeplex then
Notice the use of the phrasing, "hasn't always". Codeplex was launched in May of 2006, four years after the initial public release of the .NET Framework. Microsoft has definitely done more to embrace open source in recent years, but it wasn't always that way. That was my point.
Re: (Score:2)
CodePlex was actually the 2nd or 3rd attempt by Microsoft to create an open source community. In particular, they had a site called "gotdotnet" prior to that, and I seem to recall another one that I can't remember the name of.
They also supported sites like CodeProject and others that were oriented around open source tutorials and what not.
In Hynds' cite... (Score:2)
What aversion to open source? (Score:5, Informative)
I see no evidence that .NET developers have an avoidance of open source. The linked article actually seems to present evidence to the contrary. Paraphrasing here:
Q: Why have .NET developers been slow to adopt open source?? .NET Framework community and based on my experience these shops are very cautious about incorporating open source libraries because the licensing...
PH: The open source movement is not incompatible with the Microsoft development world...commercial software developers represent a big constituency among the
So what they are really saying is that *commercial software developers* are hesitant to use open source because of licensing issues. That is probably true. That problem is not specific to Microsoft .NET developers, but spans languages and operating systems. That is very different from saying that .NET developers have not been averse to using open source. They use open source far more than their VB and C++/Windows API wielding predecessors. Here is a short list of open source projects I have used at commercial software companies off the top of my head:
log4net, sharpdevelop, nhibernate, nunit, nant, cruise control.net, all the Microsoft Patterns & Practices stuff, ninject, ...
Re: (Score:2)
The article completely misunderstands the ecosystem.
No more people avoid open source in the .NET world than in other ecosystems. The difference is that in the .NET world, people avoid third party tools in general. If its built in, its ok. If its not built in and it doesn't come from Telerik, forget it.
The main difference here is that the standard .NET distribution now includes a ton of third party tools, and for the most part they're free, so for the most part they're open source.
I mean, the list you gave a
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that in the .NET world, people avoid third party tools in general. If its built in, its ok. If its not built in and it doesn't come from Telerik, forget it.
Well put. That makes me thing about the Entity-Framework versus NHibernate:
..but very very very small minority wil use nhibernate over Entity Framework, even though nhibernate is vastly superior (part of it is its harder to use, but the main thing is, its not built in...)
And you conveniently mentioned that same thing. Here's our story on this:
It is the quintessential example of the Microsoft open-source ecosystem. My team evaluated NHibernate but some team members were concerned about using open source. So years later, I then evaluated the EF and sold the team on using it specifically because it came with Visual Studio. It turned out to be a mistake. While the EF is a great product, it has bas
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why the best option is to shell out for LLBLGEN. It costs money, but you have your cake and can eat it too. Its honestly superior to Nhibernate (but you can use Nhibernate with it at worse, it has support for it), and you get commercial support.
But yeah, NHibernate is better than EF. The only issue is junior devs have problems with learning it... and the community (especially the guy that manage the project) is extremely abrasive. So had you gone for it originally, someone in your team would have poin
If I understand this article correctly (Score:2)
Avoid because of quality and licensing BS (Score:2)
I generally avoid ALL 3rd party code and libraries, free or not, due to relatively poor quality. I find most 3rd party stuff to work well for the specific intent it was designed for, but most 3rd party libraries fall over the moment you need to customize something. I've struggled to "fix" retail 3rd party code just as much as open source code, and find in general that the time "saved" by fixing someone else's code could be better used to create a optimized and direct component specific to your needs.
Also,
Re: (Score:2)
There are plenty of open source .NET libraries, too. Quite a few are, in fact, ports/forks from Java - NHibernate being one prominent example.
Re: (Score:3)
Quite a few are, in fact, ports/forks from Java - .NET being one prominent example
TFTFY :-)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
its not so much stolen code we're talking about here, its (lets be frank) the GPL. If you embed GPL-licenced code into your project, your closed-source project instantly becomes open-source due to the licence agreement you agreed to when you embedded that GPL code.
Most commercial companies take a dim view on this, obviously. There's no problem with it, but if you don't want this arrangement, the the simple answer is not to use that GPL code. Write your own!
But, if a "rogue" programmer puts that code in ther
Re: (Score:3)
What I ask people who spout FUD about the GPL is what do they think would happen if I included some of Microsoft's proprietary code into my product and it was later discovered? Do you
Re: (Score:2)
opensource is now infesting more and more cells of the corporate body, and chemo won't cut it
Well, what's wrong with that?
Don't know if it's the developers or dotnet (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I dont think that is a result of either the developers or .Net, and more a result of your investigations. Most of my apps are multithreaded, as are the things I look at - and it got a whole lot easier with Task, async and await.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if it's the developers or dotnet, but I've still never seen a multithreaded dotnet app. That's inexcusable when some of them probably even had a multicore handheld gaming console such as the Nintendo DS in their early years at school.
Its probably just the code you're looking at, or how you're interpreting the code you're seeing. In aggregate, I'd say I very rarely see any software making good use of threading, and its dramatically rarer still to see it implemented correctly. Java code, broadly speaking, I've seen the worst threading-related code in -- probably because it makes it seem easy to use, but doesn't actually do much to make it easy to do correctly.
Its actually gotten markedly better with .NET with the advent of the parallel fr
Re: (Score:2)
With one geophysical program it was running for over four hours on one core of an eight core machine while the user had to wait. The task was something trivially done in parallel as done by all other software of that type.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something is only open source when the copyright owner affixes an open source license upon it. Reflection and bytecode disassembling has zero to do with it being open source or not.
That is the simple fact of the matter. No zealotry about it.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that any different from disassembling any other executable?
open source does not mean "source code is easy to get" it means "a license that allows the the source code to be used freely in an open way".
Simply disassembling code does not give you a license to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because I get paid $120k a year to develop proprietary .Net code. You can be a moron and only write code you "believe" in, or enjoy a comfortable life writing code for the "man" so you can go home and write code for yourself using whatever you like.