Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 00:03 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 545639
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by lucas_maximus on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:01
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
RE[5]: Comment by shmerl
by Laurence on Tue 18th Dec 2012 13:10
in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by shmerl"
RE[4]: Comment by shmerl
by ze_jerkface on Fri 21st Dec 2012 08:49
in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by shmerl"
But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway.
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway.
They are paranoid about their enterprise profits which is where .NET is heavily used.
Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.
It's mostly a trick play to attract LAMP developers. Open sourcing MVC is a low risk to their business model. It is related to MVC being a poor fit for existing client .NET applications. They didn't suddenly find the open source gospel for a single technology.
Disclaimer: I am skeptical of Microsoft, open source gospel, and women.





Member since:
2011-08-26
I agree with you. I still don't understand why .net is not open sourced yet. I understand about Windows or Office. But why .net is not open source yet?
Open sourcing it is not going to affect their business anyway. Even in case of Asp.net MVC is open source but Asp.net is not. Confusing.