Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Common Language Runtime To Be Cross-Platform
axlrosen alerts us to a Microsoft sleeper announcement from Mix07: a version of its Common Language Runtime will be available cross-platform. The Core CLR shows up as part of the Silverlight SDK that Redmond is open sourcing. From the blog posting: "The biggest Mix '07 announcement made on opening day of this week's show was one that Microsoft didn't call out in any of its own press releases: Microsoft is making a version of its Common Language Runtime available cross-platform. The CLR is the heart of Microsoft's .Net Framework programming model. So, by association, the .Net Framework isn't just for Windows any more."
i speak for myself and those who like what i say.
Any discussion about Microsoft supporting ANYTHING outside of Microsoft Windows is a waste of time. They will NEVER support anything outside of Microsoft Windows for any reason other than to make those others look like a joke. This is because EVERYTHING Microsoft does is to maintain and protect the Microsoft Windows monopoly and has little to do with profits. After all, approximately 30% of Microsoft profits come from the Windows Desktop, 30% from MS Office, and 30% from Microsoft Windows Server. Everything else is just using those profits to hold down the threats to Windows and that includes court costs, lobbying, etc.
So, this crossplatform Silverlight crap is all about stopping Adobe Flex/Flash from growing into a platform. It is already VERY capable as a client platform and BECAUSE it is crossplatform(the real one, not MS-crossplatform) they must stop it at all costs.
CLR is a hammer against the competition and MS Silverlight is also. BFD, it's meaningless unless you're a Microserf and then you already believe crossplatform == MS-Crossplatform which => Windows forever. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
What disturbs me more is that the term "open source" has been co-opted and soiled by the FSF. The FSF doesn't have a trademark on the term, and the basic meaning of "open source" can be intuitively discerned as "source code which is publicly viewable", implying absolutely nothing about the license under which it's published.