Microsoft Takes .NET Open Source

[RobDog888]

Didnt see a thread yet but this was posted an hour ago:

http://techcrunch.com/2014/11/12/mic...ross-platform/

and

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/openn...ault.aspx#home

Thoughts?

[dilettante]

Only time will tell what it means in practice.

For all of the hooting and hollaring, Mono had been around for years in various forms and in the end never really mattered much at all. Perhaps this will be different.

[Nightwalker83]

Opening up Visual Studio and .NET to Every Developer, Any Application: .NET Server Core open source and cross platform, Visual Studio Community 2013 and preview of Visual Studio 2015 and .NET 2015

Makes me wonder how .Net application are going to work on OSX, etc?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Personally to me this looks like a good first step.

This is great -

Visual Studio Community 2013 - will be a free unrestricted version for use for hobbyist or even for small organisations, as you can use VSC 2013 for up to 5 developers if you are a small business for free ( small business defined as < 250 PC's OR < $1million Turnover) which is a big step in the right direction.

This is good but ....

The .Net Server side Framework will be OpenSource and ported fully for Linux in conjunction with Mono team, and will also be ported for OSX so you can write apps for OSX, Linux and Windows all from Visual Studio.

....... This currently only affects the Server Side .Net Framework, i would like to see them do the same with the Client Side Framework too, as then you will be unrestricted in creating apps of all types across the 3 platforms.

[RobDog888]

I know I havent been following the versions of VS lately but which version are they talking about for free use by hobbiests and small businesses? VSC 2013, what does the "C" signify?

I think its a first step in a much bigger plan to dominate the world -_-

[techgnome]

C stands for "Community" ... I suspect it's a new edition that's coming out - Visual Studio Community. It's in the link NW linked to. And NSA just talked about it too.

-tg

[RobDog888]

Got time to read the article NW posted. So why create yet another version os VS which sounds the same as Express unless Express is dead?

How is MS going to make money if they give the farm away for free. No one will buy the milk anymore lol

[techgnome]

It sounded like it's more than just Express... it actually sounds like they are releasing the Professional edition as part of this. What we're going to see is two product lines: Ultimate and Community, with VSC taking the place of Express, Standard & Pro.

At least that's how I took it. It might also be that hte Community edition is the OS version, while MS will still build & maintain Express, Standard & Pro... *shrug*

-tg

[dilettante]

They wouldn't make moves like these or the Windows 8.1 OEM-giveaways (with Bing!) on small-screen devices without strong motivation. I suspect the main one has been the rapid loss in market share over the past several years.

But this isn't much more than preaching to the choir. I can't see it changing anyone's minds, so one can only wonder how long all of it can be sustained.

[Gruff]

There are many reasons Mono failed to become all it could be.

When I dabbled in it the Mono compiler failed often, had no intellisense in the IDE and no native graphical form interface. Most of the development was on the C# side and the VB side lagged woefully far behind.

I do not know how robust it is today.

[Shaggy Hiker]

They shouldn't be trying to make money off the development tools. I've always thought they ought to give that stuff away for free, and the Express version confirmed that. They can still make a fair amount of money off of selling DevTools + Goodies, which is all that the paid versions of VS amount to these days.

The point of development tools isn't to make money for the company producing them (at least not in the case of Apple, MS, or Google), it's to get more people writing apps for your OS. If MS priced VS out of the reach of hobbyists, the next big thing would go to a different platform that gave them development tools that were cheaper. There are LOTS of those out there, especially for Android. MS has no big rival for VS anymore. Instead, they have a bunch of little rivals that aren't all that wedded to Windows. That's the bigger threat that MS is probably trying to address. They want people developing for Windows, using Windows, relying on Windows, and so forth.

On the other hand, they are talking about open source for Linux and Max, so it isn't all about Windows, but it could still be all about MS. This could be simply competition to get more people using .NET and trying to starve out competitors. They may not be so much thinking that people will abandon Windows, as that people who write for .NET are still in their constellation.

Whatever it is, I like it. Competition is great, but having a skillset that sudenly takes on broader appeal without me doing squat is even better for me.

[RobDog888]

But MS has been giving VS Express away for years. Perhaps they should have the higher dev versions available for a much reduced rate to put it into the hands of the masses for Windows prices. I mean who can afford to buy $5000 software just to develop on and hope you can recover that expense with the products you are writing with it. The ROI will be pushed out for a long span when you add the development time and developer salaries.

So make it free and open source so it can drown out the competition but then you need to replace that lost revenue with revenue from somewhere else. Where? Did Bill donate his entire fortune to fund MS for another 30 years?

[Shaggy Hiker]

I would guess that the bulk of the sales of VS are currently two sources: Academic, for which there are also discounts, or people like me who have some company buy it for them. The cost of that software is just the noise in the total contracts we sign with the agencies that fund our work. Compared to the gouging we get from certain hardware manufacturers, the cost for a subscription is tiny. We don't go for the full version, though, and probably don't really need whatever version we are currently getting (I haven't been keeping up on that, I just know that we went to a simpler subscription in the last cycle).

[Nightwalker83]

.NET Core is Open Source

[NeedSomeAnswers]

So why create yet another version os VS which sounds the same as Express unless Express is dead?

Express Editions are Dead, they are to be replaced by VS 2013 Community edition (which will be a single version rather than different ones for C# VB.Net e.t.c).

Reports seem to suggest that there would be little difference between it and the full professional edition apart from the licencing restrictions (so extensions for instance like re-sharper will work with the community edition).

They are essentially making Visual Studio FREE for small businesses.

As for making the .Net server side stack open source and cross platform what they are doing essentially is making it possible to make web and mobile apps using .net work across all the different web and mobile platforms.

All that leaves is .Net desktop development as the only part which will still ONLY target Windows.

For all of the hooting and hollaring, Mono had been around for years in various forms and in the end never really mattered much at all. Perhaps this will be different.

Yeh but Mono was not a full working version of .net on Linux, it has a fair amount missing, so far this promises to be a full working version of the .NET server stack.

I think these are all good announcements, you could argue that they should have done this a few years ago, but Balmer never seemed to really get Open Source.

[MikiSoft]

They can open-source .NET, but can't VB6!

[esposito]

They can open-source .NET, but can't VB6!

They are not open-sourcing .NET out of generosity. They are doing it for purely commercial reasons. They have no interest in giving away VB6 because their final target is to channel the developer into their new platforms.

[Shaggy Hiker]

Yeah. Businesses are rarely altruistic, and MS has never been accused of that.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

They can open-source .NET, but can't VB6!

Erm yep they can and have made that choice.

They are not open-sourcing .NET out of generosity. They are doing it for purely commercial reasons.

Of course its a business decision they are after all a business and not a charity.

In this case though at least they appear to be making a good business decision, which should benefit both Developers and Microsoft

[Nightwalker83]

In this case though at least they appear to be making a good business decision, which should benefit both Developers and Microsoft

How do you mean?

[NeedSomeAnswers]

How do you mean?

Well i am sure i have already made these points earlier in the thread so i will repost them

- Visual Studio Community 2013 (which replaces the Express Editions and doesn't have the restrictions) - Free for hobbyists, individual developers and crucially for Small businesses.

- As for making the .Net server side stack open source and cross platform what they are doing essentially is making it possible to make web and mobile apps using .net work across all the different web and mobile platforms.

As far as i see it these announcements are good for developers, and will in the longer run be good for MS as they will encourage more developers to there platform, and more companies to use there tools.

[SJWhiteley]

Since the Mono project really didn't get a huge following, I think making .NET open source really isn't a big risk for MS but executes a calculated gesture of good will. I don't expect a OS X .NET compiler of any use any time soon. We will still be using MS .NET rather than Bob's .NET. Open Source done right (for example the JavaScript libraries, like JQuery) is a very good thing for the developer community. Linux got into so many variations that it just got silly; like a graveyard of rusted out cars.

But it will generate a [good] stirring in the fringes, and generate a better understanding of how the framework works for those who really want to know.

[szlamany]

Well i am sure i have already made these points earlier in the thread so i will repost them

- Visual Studio Community 2013 (which replaces the Express Editions and doesn't have the restrictions) - Free for hobbyists, individual developers and crucially for Small businesses.

- As for making the .Net server side stack open source and cross platform what they are doing essentially is making it possible to make web and mobile apps using .net work across all the different web and mobile platforms.

As far as i see it these announcements are good for developers, and will in the longer run be good for MS as they will encourage more developers to there platform, and more companies to use there tools.

As a small independent software vendor this announcement might have an impact of future decisions I make.

Currently I've taken most of my UI work into browsers for flexibility. My only MS reliance is the backend code running under IIS.

I've also got a potential new Winform type UI that I was looking to go with a non-.Net solution (maybe C++ talking directly to api's).

[dilettante]

I think this could be the start of Microsoft divesting themselves of the entire .Net stack.

I would expect them to continue producing Visual Studio for a while, but even that effort might move over into Eclipse plugins as time goes by or thown out for others to take on.

Future versions of Windows will probably have applets and such all written in either C++ or HTML5 with JavaScript.

That doesn't mean .Net goes away as such, but you may have to go to a Xamarin or somebody else to get generic, mainstream .Net development tools and frameworks.

[georgekar]

I read it today...and this is something I expected (and I wrote some days before announcement). But I surprised for a step ahead, to make Net as a platform for all OS. I have a linux (although I use it for one year), and my opinion is that have some raw benefits, you can lost the window manager if you do nasty things with command line but you have always the system and all drivers loaded so you can download and reinstall any window manager...without loosing your data and programs, from command line. Windows are more known and embedded to new PCs so Microsoft can sell without loosing profits, and it is hard to be break down now, so the easy restore of linux not needed (for many windows users). So the open source Net for all OS aren't for a straight profit from Os sales (although any good from Microsoft can raise the sales automatic). For what profit given an open source Net? For all, because an open source Net makes all programmers to involve the code to something better. So I don't think that we see Bob's Net but we will see some newer versions that represent the today level of knowledge. And this is the scope, as I understand..to neutralize knowledge in an area of tools and environment, and then the people's focus goes to application generation, for the programmers and the application use for the users. Users are lot but not programmers...
And where is the money?? This is obvious...The money for this "sacrifice" for Microsoft can come for trusties downloading of apps. So any user can get an app but how can trust a noname app? So Microsoft...."lab" I supposed can do for some cents this two things...check and describe the app and give a trusty site for downloading.
Another think is about the big content holder (movies, songs, data for any scope)...that wants to spread it everywhere but with an efficient way, a way that users choose by interaction in the process of development, for customization the final app. The content holder can make more money from streaming when the user uses an app that give him what he wants. Maybe Microsoft investors also are in that field;

[FunkyDexter]

even that effort might move over into Eclipse plugins

What on earth would give you that idea?

Microsoft aren't "divesting" themselves of .Net, they're strengthening .Net's hold on the development community. By making it freely available to small companies they strongly encourage those companies to continue to use it under a paid model if they grow. The idea is to push other development platforms out of the market by dominating the small developer market. It's standard "loss leader" marketting and is no different to what they've been doing with express editions for years - it's just a different (and slightly freindlier) way of packaging it.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think this could be the start of Microsoft divesting themselves of the entire .Net stack.

Microsoft aren't "divesting" themselves of .Net, they're strengthening .Net's hold on the development community. By making it freely available to small companies they strongly encourage those companies to continue to use it under a paid model if they grow.

Yep agreed, it doesn't look like they are getting rid of .Net at this moment, if anything it looks like they are trying to strengthen its position.

Time will tell how successful this is and if this is just the start of what i hope are further developer friendly moves by MS.

It's standard "loss leader" marketing and is no different to what they've been doing with express editions for years

It is significantly better than express editions though, which is we are being honest wasn't really a good enough offering.

[FunkyDexter]

It is significantly better than express editions though

What's it offering that Express didn't? I haven't followed this particularly closely but it looked to me like it was mostly just about combining the languages so you don't have to get each one separately. I'm guessing they've chucked in a bunch of the preoductivity features as well but they generally did that with each new revision of express - they generally just trailed a revision or two behind the paid version.

I personally don't see this as MS giving up anything that was making them significant revenue before. They've made life easier for small developers but they were mostly using express anyway.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

What's it offering that Express didn't?

Extension support
- which also means that you can download the - Visual Studio Installer Projects Extension and create Setup projects !

That is the most significant thing

[szlamany]

I believe EXPRESS also doesn't handle web site development the same - options are missing in how you can work that type of project.

[SJWhiteley]

I believe the express editions were more than enough for most projects. You can do some real heavy duty lifting without any of the features that were present in the Professional and above editions. I think this may be why MS are 'divesting' themselves of the express editions. I've used the 'free' versions since VB5, but having said that, I currently use VS Professional for day to day programming.

I do think Dev Tools should be free when provided by the OS manufacturer, but I'm sure the business structure of Microsoft is a little different, and cannot support such a path. Even so, most companies are ok with the several hundred to tens of thousands they spend every year on dev tools with Microsoft. The ROI is still large.We all like 'free' but sometimes you get what you pay for.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I believe EXPRESS also doesn't handle web site development the same - options are missing in how you can work that type of project.

I believe the express editions were more than enough for most projects. You can do some real heavy duty lifting without any of the features that were present in the Professional and above editions.

This is from wikipedia - "Visual Web Developer Express lacks certain features, such as the Accessibility Checker, the ability to create standalone class library projects, third-party add-ins and macros."

For web projects in particular the Express edition was hobbled.

I do think Dev Tools should be free when provided by the OS manufacturer, but I'm sure the business structure of Microsoft is a little different, and cannot support such a path.

Have you actually read this thread?

One of the main points in the thread is how MS are now going to be giving there dev tools away for free !!!!

Visual Studio Community 2013 is basically Visual Studio Professional with different licencing conditions!

[dilettante]

[QUOTE=FunkyDexter;4792277]Microsoft aren't "divesting" themselves of .Net, they're strengthening .Net's hold on the development community.[QUOTE]

Wishful thinking aside, it is becoming very clear to Microsoft watchers that something is up. You might be right but don't be surprised when this cigar blows up in your face.

Not Dumping .NET - Microsoft's Method seems like a much clearer-eyed opinion with this series of subheads:

This has to be good news doesn't it?
What the gods wish to destroy they first open source.
Which is it in this case?
Microsoft in the past was strongly opinionated.
So the trust in .NET and its long term future declined.
Suddenly .NET looks like it's part of Microsoft's future plans.
At the moment it is difficult to tell if Microsoft is serious about .NET or just wants rid of it.
Now we have news that there will be a new version of WPF and its going places.
We will have to see how quickly things progress to get a measure of how much interest Microsoft has in .NET.
Windows on mobile is pretty much dead, but Microsoft on mobile has a really good chance of succeeding.

So what you have there is a True Believer trying to put the best face on it while admitting the stars do not augur well at all for .Net's future at Microsoft.



Microsoft Open Sources .NET? seems to take a similar view that this isn't really open sourcing at all.

[FunkyDexter]

this isn't really open sourcing at all

I think there's two separate issues: 1. switching from express to community and 2. open sourcing.

I'm pretty comfortable with my stated position on the first. I think it's just marketting speak. From what folks have said in this thread I think the only real difference is increased convenience. Extension Support, stand alone class libraries etc were all things you could live without if you were a small developer and you probably did if it saved you shelling out for a licence. I think think MS offering some of that stuff for free is great but I don't see it as a fundamental shift in their position.

The open sourcing issue is more interesting becuase it does look like a fundamental shift but, as yet, I'm not taking any of the articles about it particularly seriously. There's always an army of pundits on hand to tell you that every move MS makes is the inevitable final nail in their coffin just as there's a similar army of pundits on hand to tell you that it's the next big thing and will shine a coming dawn on all things Bill. I don't see it as them divesting themselves of ongoing development of the language though as, apart from anything, they're not accepting updates to any of it. So any future advances will either come from MS themselves or they're going to have to take a step further into open sourcing.

Why are they opening it up to read? I can't see a single killer reason. My guess is that they feel their intellectual property is safe enough even if it's freely visible (it's kind of like the debates on VB6 vs VB.Net in that regard) and it does offer some benefits. It means advanced developers can delve right down into the core if they need to. It means there's an increased chance of some open source project picking up the cross platform ball and running with it (though I personally doubt it and I suspect MS probably doubt it too). And it paints MS as a caring, sharing member of the development community, whether they actually are or not.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Wishful thinking aside, it is becoming very clear to Microsoft watchers that something is up. You might be right but don't be surprised when this cigar blows up in your face.

Dilettante, because of you negativity about almost any MS move, that when they do something genuinely interesting your first thought is to look at the negative.

So what you have there is a True Believer trying to put the best face on it while admitting the stars do not augur well at all for .Net's future at Microsoft.

I read the 2 articles you posted which were both from the same site, but from what i have read they are not in the majority as to there take on MS's latest changes, they have a point about being a bit wary as some of them have been burned before by some MS decisions which make people more cautious but for me this does feel a bit different.

It appears that there has been a bit of a culture change since Balmer has left the company, i always though he was a hindrance to MS.

I thought this article certainly shows some of that culture change.

And this from Linux.com

The open sourcing issue is more interesting because it does look like a fundamental shift but, as yet, I'm not taking any of the articles about it particularly seriously.

Yeh look it is early days yet we cant be certain about what is going to happen BUT all the main guys at MS all seem to be speaking form the same hymn sheet, and for me it just feels like a more positive step for Developers than i have seen MS take for a very long time. Time will tell how this works out !

Finally

i don't see it as them divesting themselves of ongoing development of the language though as, apart from anything, they're not accepting updates to any of it.

All the main guys in MS have said that there will continue to be MS teams developing the various pieces of .net BUT they will also be accepting changes form the Open Source community.

Scott Guthrie has this to say..

Open Sourcing the .NET Core Runtime and Libraries

Today I’m excited to announce that we are going even further, and will be open sourcing the .NET Core Runtime. This will include everything needed to execute .NET code – including the CLR, Just-In-Time Compiler (JIT), Garbage Collector (GC), and core .NET base class libraries.

We are releasing the source under the MIT open source license and are also issuing an explicit patent promise to clarify users patent rights to .NET. This morning, we published the public repository on GitHub where the project will be hosted: https://github.com/dotnet/corefx

Today’s source release includes many of the newer core .NET framework libraries (ImmutableCollections, SIMD, XML and MetadataReader). These libraries are fully open, and are ready to accept contributions. Over the next several weeks and months we will continue to transfer source (including the Core CLR which is not there right now but in the process of being moved) into the repository and likewise make it open for contributions.

[SJWhiteley]

Have you actually read this thread?

One of the main points in the thread is how MS are now going to be giving there dev tools away for free !!!!

Visual Studio Community 2013 is basically Visual Studio Professional with different licencing conditions!

and yet we have had the express editions for many years. Because they give away a tool for free does not mean they give away their development tools for free. Pay attention to the real world.

Pro, Enterprise, etc. are still costly for a lot of people, and the community edition, while appears to have a more lenient licensing, is still restricted.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

and yet we have had the express editions for many years. Because they give away a tool for free does not mean they give away their development tools for free. Pay attention to the real world.

Pro, Enterprise, etc. are still costly for a lot of people, and the community edition, while appears to have a more lenient licensing, is still restricted.

Can you tell me what restrictions you think are on the community edition?

Who do you think these lots of people who still have to pay are?

Because if the only point your making is that business over $1m turnover and 5 dev heads have to pay then i made that point earlier in this thread in post 4. - here i quote myself...

Visual Studio Community 2013 - will be a free unrestricted version for use for hobbyist or even for small organisations, as you can use VSC 2013 for up to 5 developers if you are a small business for free ( small business defined as < 250 PC's OR < $1million Turnover) which is a big step in the right direction.

the reality is this announcement means no individual should be paying for Visual Studio.

You do appear to not have read the thread still!

[szlamany]

I for one am looking forward to not having to purchase VS editions. Up until recent versions of express you could not work with solutions that had multiple projects - that's caused me problems...

I'm lucky that my customers give me access to MS SQL Developer's edition - for when I get a 10 GB database and SQL Express doesn't handle that.

What's this I hear about WPF coming back to life in the mind of MS??

[FunkyDexter]

BUT they will also be accepting changes form the Open Source community.

OK, that really is interesting. I'm willing to bet they're still going to keep a tight control over what's in and what's out but accepting contributions at all is a huge step or MS. I'll be particularly interested to see the outcome of this:-

are also issuing an explicit patent promise to clarify users patent rights to .NET.

That'll be where you see whether this has a real commitment behind it.

By the way SJW and NSA, you two have an amazing ability to run each other up the wrong way while basically saying most of the same things. Just sayin'

I personally think there will always be some difference between what MS will offer for free and what they'll offer on the most expensive paid for licence and the free license will always lag an iteration or two behind. So there'll be some wizzy but not strictly necessary features in Enterprise 2015 (or whatever's next) that won't be in Community 2015 but will turn up in Community 2016 or 17. That's just a no brainer on their part and no different to how almost every company operates. What this represents to me is a narrowing of that gap for now. Whether that narrowing is permanent or temporary remains to be seen.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

By the way SJW and NSA, you two have an amazing ability to run each other up the wrong way while basically saying most of the same things. Just sayin'

The thing is i actually think SJW normally has good things to contribute (as long as we are not talking about politics ), even when i disagree with him. I actually quite like a good argument (can't you tell), it would be boring if everyone came on here with the same opinions.

I get frustrated sometimes when i have been saying something for a whole thread and then people comment without even bother to read it properly.

I personally think there will always be some difference between what MS will offer for free and what they'll offer on the most expensive paid for licence and the free license will always lag an iteration or two behind. So there'll be some wizzy but not strictly necessary features in Enterprise 2015

So far the only thing they are saying that will be missing is some Office tools projects, which to be honest we can all do without anyway.

Azure!, all of them (Guthrie / Nadella and Somasegar) are all banging on about Azure, and i think that seems to be the direction of travel. They want to give more access to dev tools, so they can then sell Azure service on the back of it.

Also Nadella was head of Azure previously....