Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re: .NET is NOT “Open Source” .. (Score -1, Troll) 253

Okay, it's MIT licensed, and there's a patent promise - which i personally don't trust, but you're welcome to.

However, what the hell is a "CoreCLR" and how does it help?
I gave up on .NET back in the 2000s when I scoured MSDN for half a day to find out an overview for someone who wants to learn this "dot net" technology. Couldn't find any. I still don't know what they mean by .NET, and I have a feeling the meaning has changed every 2 years.
This is just the bytecode execution runtime, right? As in: no GUI libraries, for one - which makes it useless for porting Windows applications to other operating systems since, well, there aren't many command line Windows applications.

Actually don't bother answering. Honestly, it's been a long while since I cared what Microsoft does. You can make a very decent living as a developer while totally ignoring them.

Comment Re:Liberated? What about the hardware? (Score 1) 229

The GPL is the only license practically that lets you dual-license with a proprietary license.

You can give it freely to people who want to spread it freely, and you can charge people who want to close it. That way, you get a return on your investment either way.

Actually if you're the copyright holder for something you can license it in as many ways as you want. It doesn't make much sense if one of those options isn't GPL though.

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Working...