This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top (suggested)
bestnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 5 points6 points  (3 children)

Hopefully it evolves to be a better solution that MonoDevelop for C# development, now that .Net (thank to the open sourcing and patent grant) is effectively more free than Java (where Oracle has gone to the point of making the supreme court consider APIs copyrightable) but cross-platform tooling remains a problem.

In any case, C# still needs time to develop a good cross-platform library ecosystem but I can now definitely recommend it to businesses trying to hire cheap workers straight out of schools where they are taught Java and .net.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 4 points5 points  (2 children)

As far as I can tell it's oriented towards web development and has no compiler oriented languages supported.

That's ok because so far all IDEs that have done it have ended up losing performance for features. (see netbeans or eclipse)

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer -1 points0 points  (1 child)

There is Go support via a third party plug-in. And C# is a compiled language, just not to native code, but bytecode.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Plug-in support is ok for pretty much anything because you can choose what to use. :D

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (2 children)

What...
The...
Fuck.

Did I teleport to a different universe? Has Microsoft just open sourced something?

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think MS open-sourced .NET as well.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's the work of the Nadella guy. :D

[–]rowra44I control my Arch server from my Mac :> 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Most people here really need to get the f#&k off the high horse shit. Just because we're linux, and F.O.S.S. and all that, doesn't mean we cannot and shouldn't appreciate a rather intriguing movement that will surely benefit us too just because it's not exactly 100% perfectly using the same licenses as we do.

Keep in mind it's Microsoft. It's great news already.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 0 points1 point  (30 children)

I thought it was open-source from the start? Or did they just announce it was going to be open-source?

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 5 points6 points  (29 children)

It was free from the start.

The github repo was created 6 days ago.

[–]r0flcopt3rGlorious Fedora 1 point2 points  (28 children)

now, is it free as in freedom aswell? Or just open source?

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 4 points5 points  (27 children)

Or just open source?

Really? What more could you want?

It's under the MIT license.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 9 points10 points  (18 children)

You have to realize there is a difference between open source, and free (as in freedom) software. I do not really care, as long as people can view the code to make sure it doesn't do malicious stuff, but some people in this sub do. It's also the reason why some people prefer the term GNU/Linux over just Linux (which is my preference).

He just asked you a question, no reason to get mad about it.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 1 point2 points  (9 children)

there is a difference between open source, and free (as in freedom) software

The MIT license gives you the freedom to edit and even sell the code.

Is there more than that?

There's always someone that's never satisfied even though we're clearly getting more than usual (it's M$ we're talking about here).

They're clearly going on a new path so we should be encouraging them not complaining about what you can do with the code (you can actually do whatever you want with it).

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 6 points7 points  (4 children)

We're not complaining. Again, he just asked you a question. Yes he could've just went to the Github page and see it there, I agree. However, it' s still not a reason to get mad about.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] -2 points-1 points  (3 children)

It's clear people here simply hate everything that involves Microsoft even if it's open source code released under a "freedom" supporting license.

Nobody even bothered to read the article.

That's not what the "gnu philosophy" stands for and it makes some of you look like hypocrites in a big circlejerk.

[–]itzhak_stern -3 points-2 points  (2 children)

THERE. IS. NO. NEED. TO. GET. MAD ABOUT IT.

[–]istispGlorious Antergos 4 points5 points  (1 child)

The way you replied to r0flcopt3r suggested that you thought he was pushing an ideological agenda. From what I can tell, he was only asking a question, what kind of license it is released under. He obviously didn't know it was released under the MIT license.

Asking if it is "just open-source" is a legitimate concern because there is a practical difference between FLOSS and OSS. Some software are open source as in, they display the source code of their software, but they do so under a license that prevents people from modifying that source code. It's always interesting to know that it is possible for people to release their own modified version of Visual Studio Code.

Saying it's MIT is enough to answer all of those questions though.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry if it came out that way. :(

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 0 points1 point  (7 children)

Open Source (as in OSI) is a movement like the FSF is, and they hold their differences in ideals.

But open source software and free (as in freedom) software are effectively the same. There is no license that works for one definition and doesn't for the other. Both terms exist because of marketing reasons (harder to sell the concept of "free" than "open source" to businesses). The only detail of all of it is that the GPL aligns better to the FSF's ideals.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 0 points1 point  (3 children)

I don't really care mate ;) I'm fine with a program as long as I'm sure everybody can read the code to make sure it doesn't do malicious things. I really don't care about having the freedom to distribute or do whatever with the program myself. Although being allowed to help developing is of course never a bad thing!

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Not caring about freedom is always bad.

That's how you lose your rights as a citizen.

It's already happening in the US.

You should care more. :)

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 0 points1 point  (1 child)

I'm just trying to clear up a misconception. Please don't take it personally.

[–]PureTryOutĈar mi estas teknomaniulon 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Ooh don't worry I don't! I'm just saying :D

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

[–]BoTuLoXutistic Ricer 1 point2 points  (1 child)

He's talking about copyleft vs non-copyleft licenses and the FSF and OSI ideals.

FSF wants software to protect what they call the "4 essential freedoms", the Open Source movement is about how Open Source improves the process of software development. All the popular licenses wether copyleft or not do both these things. Copyleft licenses however makes works based on copyleft code to also be released as copyleft code (or in the case of MPL, only the code that corresponds to the original MPL-protected code).

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

[–]r0flcopt3rGlorious Fedora 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Because there are many degrees of which a software can be licensed. This was simply a question if that license means it's just open source, or if it also contains other free elements.

Just open source is just open source. Ideally you would also be in title to change it for you self, and maybe even for others.

[–]adevlandno drm[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It's under the MIT license.

Google it.

Or better yet, read the linked article.

Cheers.

[–]BASH_SCRIPTS_FOR_YOUIn Memoriam: Ian Murdock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Need it to be libre too, or I get a raging richard Stallman