.Net Framework and Visual Studio Now Available

DJ-Dodger writes "The Microsoft Blogs are all buzzing with news that the .NET Framework 2.0, Visual Studio.NET 2005 and Sql Server 2005 have released to manufacture. Michael Swanson's blog has a nice run down of what's available now and what's coming. The short version: MSDN Subscribers can download everything now, everybody else can pick up their copy after the November 7th launch." The .Net framework is downloadable from FileForum.

Comments

Great...

[rtkluttz]

Great... more tools MS programmers can't use correctly.

There are still major companies out there that can't code an application that works correctly out of the box on a multi user operating system.

Standard reply... "Gotta be an admin to run our software". I know I can audit and give an application what it needs to run... but why should I have to??? Why can't most windows programmers get it through their thick skulls how to code software that a non-admin can use?

Re:Uh-oh.

[Jacco de Leeuw]

So Open Source is out, eh?

You are lumping together Open Source, freeware, public domain etc. as "shareware". Nice spin. Company policy?

Re:Is it free?

[malraid]

Normally the express version lacked a compiler, so you could only run interpreted. This means, no deploying, no runing your programs outside VS. Not sure about this version, but that's a BIG lack of feature.

Re:C# Not Cool

[amightywind]

Check out the "unsafe" keyword in C# and then get back to us.

LOL! Leave it to Micro$oft to make "unsafe" a language keyword. That one is definitely not in C++. How about "buggy" or "dubious"? Are they reserved words too?

Or C++ Managed Extensions, which by the magic of .NET can interoperate perfectly with C#.

Chortle. "Interoperate" and "perfectly" are not words ordinarily associated with Micro$oft products.

Re:Uh-oh.

[Jacco de Leeuw]

You completely missed the sarcasm.

By contrasting commercial software with "shareware" you overlooked Open Source etc. Besides, most shareware software is in fact commercial.

You could have said: "VS2005 can be used for commercial as well as non-commercial software". Or: "... for closed source and Free and Open Source".

I did not comment on your VS2005 strategy, I just noticed something about using the word "shareware" by you and your colleagues at Microsoft.

Re:Cool!

[aminorex]

You seem to have overlooked the fact that the suit was settled in Sun's favor because Microsoft violated its licensing terms in an effort to break the cross-platform capability of Java.