Something that is one time closer to us than the moon is right here, on top of us. Something that is six times closer (an absurd statement that has no real meaning) would consequently be five times further away than the moon, but in the other side?
1/6 of the distance is not six times closer!
Well, the detecting is the difficult part. If we find one on collision course, and given just a little bit of time, deflecting an killer asteroid is bordering on trivial. No need for major "heroic" stuff like blowing it up. We can slow it down (by putting a big enough mass behind it) or speed it up a little (by racing a big enough mass in front of it). If we do so early on, it'll miss by a significant factor. If the asteroid is far enough out away, the mass needed to slow/speed it sufficiently is easily put into orbit and then shot out to the problem object.
Why is this going to do you no good? Detecting an asteroid is quite difficult, deflecting one once we detect it is trivial if we detected at a reasonable time before intended impact.
They always do. The olden days were not. Stop pining for something and some-time that never was.
My first computer and foray into programming was on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, but I do not suffer from the hallucinogenic notion that those days were oh-so-good. To "your" friend who pines for the days when he could buy Photoshop outright, tell him to put a sock in it. When it was for sale, he could not afford it. "Nobody" could. Also, until Turbo Pascal came around, a development environment cost more than we kids could afford even if selling a sibling.
So, in your mind, what is.Net Core then? Scott Hanselmann is a Microsoft developer and evangelist, he works on the Microsoft Web platform. Here's an article he wrote when the Microsoft Team decided to change the name of the.Net Framework version 5 to.Net Core 1.0. So, yes, according to Microsoft, the.Net Core supersedes the.Net Framework, but Microsoft will, and must, maintain the Windows specific version of the.Net Framework.
.Net Core is the.Net Framework. It was created to do two main things, tidy up stuff and go cross platform. This was the main goals from the start. It supersedes the version 4 (the fact that it was originally named.Net Framework 5.0 should be a hint). Microsoft called.Net Core.Net Framework 5 until the first release candidate. Renaming it to.Net Core is one of those things that development organizations do every now and then. I am sorry that your religious hatred is so important to you that you are incapable of using Google.
Now, as I said, it is critically important for Microsoft to maintain the legacy.Net Framework since it is Windows specific and contains features that are not easily portable to a cross-platform framework. It is still a legacy framework however, and even though it will co-exist with the new release of the.Net Framework, called.Net Core, it is not meant to be used for new application development except where the Windows specific features are required.
Where's the link to Microsoft?
A couple above. Also, you can try this which will give you a wiki that, among other things says: "ASP.NET Core is a free and open-source web framework, and the next generation of ASP.NET, developed by Microsoft and the community. It is a modular framework that runs on both the full.NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform.NET Core.". Is there anything you are still wondering about? If you don't know how to use Google, please ask an adult.
So the fact that Microsoft is maintaining old versions of.Net, the 4.x branch is the old version,.Net Core is the successor to.Net 4, and was called.Net 5 in earlier releases. Try to take a look at the current situation please. Now,.Net core is not yet as fully featured as.Net 4, it does take a bit of work to completely re-work a framework the size of.Net, but at the current point in time,.Net Core is a fully fledged out framework, and can replace.Net 4 for most things apart from WPF.
Where has this been stated, explicitly, and not just in your own mind?
OK, let me elaborate..Net Platform, the Windows specific framework, will continue to exist. It has to. The reason is simple, some of its technologies are only available on the Microsoft platform. WPF is, for example, built directly on top of DirectX, and DirectX is a Windows only technology..Net Core is cross platform and therefore can not utilize WPF. So porting WPF to.Net Core is both pointless and relatively expensive. For cross-platform applications one should use either HTML-based technologies, Xamarin Forms (which is similar to WPF but cross-platform) or UWA or any other cross-platform. There are on the other hand a large number of applications already written with Windows-specific technologies, so dropping the legacy version of.Net is not an option. Quite the opposite, Microsoft is surely going to continue to maintain it for the foreseeable future. If nothing else, Microsoft are quite good at maintaining backwards compatibility.
So, as a developer you have a choice, you can develop new apps with.Net Core (which used to be called.Net 5 early on in the development cycle) or you can chose to go with the legacy stuff. If you do, it's an active choice you make. You can also mix and match the two, something I do in two of my current applications only because Oracle has so far not released drivers for.Net Core:.Net core can call.Net code, so no problem. Once Oracle release drivers for.Net Core, for web apps, or cross platform apps,.Net is no longer needed.
So, yes, while Windows specific.Net is going to receive continued maintenance, that has no bearing on.Net Core, which does supersede.Net 4.
If you exercised your brain cells, you'd realize that you'd be much more likely to violate somebody patent by adopting their framework and programming language which is steeped in patents.
Sigh. So, instead of gathering information about a topic, you resort to personal insults? Cool. How old are you? Thirteen? And a religious zealot to boot. Get well soon. In the mean time you can read this article on the topic.. It basically states that yes, if you adopt.Net as a platform, there is nothing Microsoft can do vis-a-vis patents. If you, on the other hand, want to create a new version of.Net where you remove features from the.Net Core platform, you are not protected (you can extend it to your hearts content and be protected).
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our religious beliefs, shall we?
The same way they added Windows extension to Java which they didn't own
They didn't. Microsoft created their own version of Java, called J++. It wasn't Java, and it wasn't extended. Now, of course, Microsoft could do the same thing to.Net, they could create a new product, call it.N++ and try to peddle that over.Net. Do you have any reason to believe that something like that,.N++ would fare any better than J++? It wouldn't. The only reason to believe it would is a strong case of clinical paranoia.
Read up on your history. This is classic Microsoft strategy
Here's a tip for you. Rather than sitting around reading up on ancient history, get out and see how the world is today. Microsoft hasn't exhibited this kind of behavior for more than 15 years. In relationship to.Net, they have no ability to do any of this since Microsoft is not in control of.Net anymore.
How is MS 2016 different from MS 1997?
MS 2016 is one of the most prolific contributor to open-source projects.
MS 2016 is open-sourcing vast amounts of their own software in the development space. The C# compiler environment, F#,.Net. Typescript
MS 2016 is developing some of the more interesting technologies emerging today. Angular 2 is entirely Typescript, and MS 2016 included things in Typescript based on input from the community, for example from Google
MS 2016 is has spent significant resources on Linux, the Linux subsystem for Windows etc.
MS 2016 probably has the best development environment for HTML/SPA/Javascript/Angular style applications, Visual Studio Code. It's progressing faster than competitors, has excellent tools, and is open source and free. As in beer and speech.
I know you religious zealots tend to be stuck in the distant past, but quite frankly, it's a stupid attitude. I have developet commercial Java apps since the late 1990s, and never had any love for Microsoft. Today Microsoft has the best development tools, a runtime environment and a development (.Net, C# and F#) that blows anything in the Java camp out of the water, and the best open source contributions outside of that of Linus, of any company in the world, with perhaps the exception of IBM. I'd pick Microsoft over Oracle every time.
By using one of their patents that don't conform to a spec
Hmmmm, so, if I use the.Net Framework to build something that uses a Microsoft patent, then Microsoft can sue me, but if I use Java to do the same they can't? Seriously dude. If I violate someone's patent, I am in violation of that patent, what framework and programming language I use to do so is irrelevant.
The.Net Foundadtion is a 501(c) organization is the steward of the.Net framework going forward. The licensing only puts forward minimum requirements, no restrictions on extending etc. In reality, Microsoft is no longer in the drivers seat of the.Net framework. Every aspect of the.Net core framework is under MIT license. As is Mono. The ASP MVC stuff is under Apache etc.
MS has in reality relinquished any control of the.Net framework, but not retroactively to older platforms. What else can they do to give away the control? Where could MS sue anyone for extending the.Net framework?
You are aware that the term "Mac computers" includes the MacBook Pro right? The recent release of the MBP is a travesty, and anyone buying one needs to be admitted to a mental institution.
They didn't (there was nothing technically inferior about J++, in fact, on the Windows platform it easily ran in circles around Java)
diluting the value of the brand?
They didn't
Now, making a Windows-specific version of Java wasn't a brilliant idea in the spirit in which Java was created, and as a Java developer back then I wouldn't go near Visual J++ (see, no Java) since we deployed mostly on Sun and later Linux. On the other hand, the few times we tried, for fun, porting some of our stuff to Visual J++, we were a little miffed (or perhaps envious) at how much more performant J++ was than Java. Microsoft did Java, performance wise, much better than Sun. As did IBM by the way. Thankfully the IBM JVM ran on Linux so we didn't have to suffer the Sun JVM (which improved much later in the game).
Now, hiring Anders to take on C# was a brilliant move. C# is better than Java in every single thinkable and imaginable way. This isn't strange. C# has been maintained by a small team around Anders, Java has been "maintained" by a committee similar to the USSR Politburo, and when I say "maintained" I actually mean "forgotten". Thankfully things in Java land has improved a little in that regard, so Java is starting to play catch-up, but it's a little late and it's a little short. Also, with the shenanigans of Oracle lately, relying on Java for serious projects at this point in time might be a tad dangerous..Net and C# is now (astonishingly) a safer bet than Java. In addition to being superior in just about any imaginable way.
Then later they add "extensions" or changes that forces you to move to the Windows platform if you want to use the latest features which are only available on Windows
Just curious, considering Microsoft doesn't own.Net, how would they go about doing that? Ah, perhaps you did not know. You are ignorant. Stuck in 1997. Grow up.
t can do full screen grabs, capture all keystrokes, capture packets..
Woooooooo they are coming for you. Want to buy a tin-foil hat. An anti-anti-matter gun that can vaporize the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal? Perhaps an invisibility blanket. You can find it all at http://paranoindmoronshop.com
Nothing has changed. This is classic embrace, extend, extinguish.
I hope you don't work in the computer industry. Your ignorance level is staggering. Here's a tip for you: Microsoft doesn't own.Net. It couldn't pull an Oracle even if it wanted to. It's time to pull your ignorant ass out of the 1990s, the world has changed a lot since then.
Slashdot Mirror
Something that is one time closer to us than the moon is right here, on top of us. Something that is six times closer (an absurd statement that has no real meaning) would consequently be five times further away than the moon, but in the other side? 1/6 of the distance is not six times closer!
Nah, we just need to speed it up a little or slow it down a little and it will miss us by a lot.
Well, the detecting is the difficult part. If we find one on collision course, and given just a little bit of time, deflecting an killer asteroid is bordering on trivial. No need for major "heroic" stuff like blowing it up. We can slow it down (by putting a big enough mass behind it) or speed it up a little (by racing a big enough mass in front of it). If we do so early on, it'll miss by a significant factor. If the asteroid is far enough out away, the mass needed to slow/speed it sufficiently is easily put into orbit and then shot out to the problem object.
Why is this going to do you no good? Detecting an asteroid is quite difficult, deflecting one once we detect it is trivial if we detected at a reasonable time before intended impact.
It doesn't.
It doesn't. It means more robots at work but not more people.
Didn't work. Was junk.
Turbo Pascal 3-4 back in the 80's (had OO before anything else back then)
Are you saying Turbo Pascal had OO before anything else? That's a patently absurd statement.
So I am sure you are tired of hearing about Newton's laws too then.
...better
They always do. The olden days were not. Stop pining for something and some-time that never was.
My first computer and foray into programming was on a Sinclair ZX Spectrum, but I do not suffer from the hallucinogenic notion that those days were oh-so-good. To "your" friend who pines for the days when he could buy Photoshop outright, tell him to put a sock in it. When it was for sale, he could not afford it. "Nobody" could. Also, until Turbo Pascal came around, a development environment cost more than we kids could afford even if selling a sibling.
You should see a shrink about your paranoia. I am serious.
The current situation is as I described
So, in your mind, what is .Net Core then? Scott Hanselmann is a Microsoft developer and evangelist, he works on the Microsoft Web platform. Here's an article he wrote when the Microsoft Team decided to change the name of the .Net Framework version 5 to .Net Core 1.0. So, yes, according to Microsoft, the .Net Core supersedes the .Net Framework, but Microsoft will, and must, maintain the Windows specific version of the .Net Framework.
.Net Core is the .Net Framework. It was created to do two main things, tidy up stuff and go cross platform. This was the main goals from the start. It supersedes the version 4 (the fact that it was originally named .Net Framework 5.0 should be a hint). Microsoft called .Net Core .Net Framework 5 until the first release candidate. Renaming it to .Net Core is one of those things that development organizations do every now and then. I am sorry that your religious hatred is so important to you that you are incapable of using Google.
Now, as I said, it is critically important for Microsoft to maintain the legacy .Net Framework since it is Windows specific and contains features that are not easily portable to a cross-platform framework. It is still a legacy framework however, and even though it will co-exist with the new release of the .Net Framework, called .Net Core, it is not meant to be used for new application development except where the Windows specific features are required.
Where's the link to Microsoft?
A couple above. Also, you can try this which will give you a wiki that, among other things says: "ASP.NET Core is a free and open-source web framework, and the next generation of ASP.NET, developed by Microsoft and the community. It is a modular framework that runs on both the full .NET Framework, on Windows, and the cross-platform .NET Core.". Is there anything you are still wondering about? If you don't know how to use Google, please ask an adult.
Yeah, let's disregard all behavior for the past 12-15 years, and cling to the reality of the late 1990s. Your preferred deity bless you!
Still [microsoft.com] is.
So the fact that Microsoft is maintaining old versions of .Net, the 4.x branch is the old version, .Net Core is the successor to .Net 4, and was called .Net 5 in earlier releases. Try to take a look at the current situation please. Now, .Net core is not yet as fully featured as .Net 4, it does take a bit of work to completely re-work a framework the size of .Net, but at the current point in time, .Net Core is a fully fledged out framework, and can replace .Net 4 for most things apart from WPF.
Where has this been stated, explicitly, and not just in your own mind?
OK, let me elaborate. .Net Platform, the Windows specific framework, will continue to exist. It has to. The reason is simple, some of its technologies are only available on the Microsoft platform. WPF is, for example, built directly on top of DirectX, and DirectX is a Windows only technology. .Net Core is cross platform and therefore can not utilize WPF. So porting WPF to .Net Core is both pointless and relatively expensive. For cross-platform applications one should use either HTML-based technologies, Xamarin Forms (which is similar to WPF but cross-platform) or UWA or any other cross-platform. There are on the other hand a large number of applications already written with Windows-specific technologies, so dropping the legacy version of .Net is not an option. Quite the opposite, Microsoft is surely going to continue to maintain it for the foreseeable future. If nothing else, Microsoft are quite good at maintaining backwards compatibility.
So, as a developer you have a choice, you can develop new apps with .Net Core (which used to be called .Net 5 early on in the development cycle) or you can chose to go with the legacy stuff. If you do, it's an active choice you make. You can also mix and match the two, something I do in two of my current applications only because Oracle has so far not released drivers for .Net Core: .Net core can call .Net code, so no problem. Once Oracle release drivers for .Net Core, for web apps, or cross platform apps, .Net is no longer needed.
So, yes, while Windows specific .Net is going to receive continued maintenance, that has no bearing on .Net Core, which does supersede .Net 4.
If you exercised your brain cells, you'd realize that you'd be much more likely to violate somebody patent by adopting their framework and programming language which is steeped in patents.
Sigh. So, instead of gathering information about a topic, you resort to personal insults? Cool. How old are you? Thirteen? And a religious zealot to boot. Get well soon. In the mean time you can read this article on the topic.. It basically states that yes, if you adopt .Net as a platform, there is nothing Microsoft can do vis-a-vis patents. If you, on the other hand, want to create a new version of .Net where you remove features from the .Net Core platform, you are not protected (you can extend it to your hearts content and be protected).
But hey, let's not let facts get in the way of our religious beliefs, shall we?
The same way they added Windows extension to Java which they didn't own
They didn't. Microsoft created their own version of Java, called J++. It wasn't Java, and it wasn't extended. Now, of course, Microsoft could do the same thing to .Net, they could create a new product, call it .N++ and try to peddle that over .Net. Do you have any reason to believe that something like that, .N++ would fare any better than J++? It wouldn't. The only reason to believe it would is a strong case of clinical paranoia.
Read up on your history. This is classic Microsoft strategy
Here's a tip for you. Rather than sitting around reading up on ancient history, get out and see how the world is today. Microsoft hasn't exhibited this kind of behavior for more than 15 years. In relationship to .Net, they have no ability to do any of this since Microsoft is not in control of .Net anymore.
How is MS 2016 different from MS 1997?
I know you religious zealots tend to be stuck in the distant past, but quite frankly, it's a stupid attitude. I have developet commercial Java apps since the late 1990s, and never had any love for Microsoft. Today Microsoft has the best development tools, a runtime environment and a development (.Net, C# and F#) that blows anything in the Java camp out of the water, and the best open source contributions outside of that of Linus, of any company in the world, with perhaps the exception of IBM. I'd pick Microsoft over Oracle every time.
The .NET Framework is Windows-specific
was
has a propriety license
had
and is not included as a Foundation project
and has been superseded by the .Net Core framework
By using one of their patents that don't conform to a spec
Hmmmm, so, if I use the .Net Framework to build something that uses a Microsoft patent, then Microsoft can sue me, but if I use Java to do the same they can't? Seriously dude. If I violate someone's patent, I am in violation of that patent, what framework and programming language I use to do so is irrelevant.
The .Net Foundadtion is a 501(c) organization is the steward of the .Net framework going forward. The licensing only puts forward minimum requirements, no restrictions on extending etc. In reality, Microsoft is no longer in the drivers seat of the .Net framework. Every aspect of the .Net core framework is under MIT license. As is Mono. The ASP MVC stuff is under Apache etc.
MS has in reality relinquished any control of the .Net framework, but not retroactively to older platforms. What else can they do to give away the control? Where could MS sue anyone for extending the .Net framework?
You are aware that the term "Mac computers" includes the MacBook Pro right? The recent release of the MBP is a travesty, and anyone buying one needs to be admitted to a mental institution.
but the next version of Visual Studio will surely require it
Nope. Works fine without it. Also, the OSX version runs great on my MacBook Pro.
As for Microsoft, we'll never know ... They can be trusted just as much as Oracle.
Ah, but unlike Oracle with Java, Microsoft doesn't own .Net. Google has basically the same rights to .NET as does Microsoft.
The devil is in the details. If Google had did to .NET what they did to Java, do you think they would have been covered?
Yes. They would. Oh, and Google is part "owner" of .NET, you knew that right?
The promises are limited in scope
Nope. Not limited.
Using Sun's trademark without permission?
They didn't (there is no "Java" in "Visual J++")
Selling something inferior to Sun Java as Java
They didn't (there was nothing technically inferior about J++, in fact, on the Windows platform it easily ran in circles around Java)
diluting the value of the brand?
They didn't
Now, making a Windows-specific version of Java wasn't a brilliant idea in the spirit in which Java was created, and as a Java developer back then I wouldn't go near Visual J++ (see, no Java) since we deployed mostly on Sun and later Linux. On the other hand, the few times we tried, for fun, porting some of our stuff to Visual J++, we were a little miffed (or perhaps envious) at how much more performant J++ was than Java. Microsoft did Java, performance wise, much better than Sun. As did IBM by the way. Thankfully the IBM JVM ran on Linux so we didn't have to suffer the Sun JVM (which improved much later in the game).
Now, hiring Anders to take on C# was a brilliant move. C# is better than Java in every single thinkable and imaginable way. This isn't strange. C# has been maintained by a small team around Anders, Java has been "maintained" by a committee similar to the USSR Politburo, and when I say "maintained" I actually mean "forgotten". Thankfully things in Java land has improved a little in that regard, so Java is starting to play catch-up, but it's a little late and it's a little short. Also, with the shenanigans of Oracle lately, relying on Java for serious projects at this point in time might be a tad dangerous. .Net and C# is now (astonishingly) a safer bet than Java. In addition to being superior in just about any imaginable way.
Then later they add "extensions" or changes that forces you to move to the Windows platform if you want to use the latest features which are only available on Windows
Just curious, considering Microsoft doesn't own .Net, how would they go about doing that? Ah, perhaps you did not know. You are ignorant. Stuck in 1997. Grow up.
t can do full screen grabs, capture all keystrokes, capture packets..
Woooooooo they are coming for you. Want to buy a tin-foil hat. An anti-anti-matter gun that can vaporize the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal? Perhaps an invisibility blanket. You can find it all at http://paranoindmoronshop.com
Nothing has changed. This is classic embrace, extend, extinguish.
I hope you don't work in the computer industry. Your ignorance level is staggering. Here's a tip for you: Microsoft doesn't own .Net. It couldn't pull an Oracle even if it wanted to. It's time to pull your ignorant ass out of the 1990s, the world has changed a lot since then.