![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
ASP.NET is a server-side language. HTML5 is a specification for markup that is generated by a server-side language and presented to the web browser. HTML5 is incapable of directly accessing database / etc that you would need server-side code to do. The entire section is basically inaccurate FUD being spread to attempt to undermine windows 8.
Remember when windows 7 was going to leave developers out in the cold too? It went on to annihilate all prior sales records that MS had.
Also, mono / .NET on linux isn't ceasing, it's right here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xamarin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniperfox ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As per many questions and criticisms here and on the Web, I added a paragraph: added to lede: Is this program necessary for my home computer? Seemingly it is not, with exceptions noted. Here is my addition:
Does the average computer user need it? For most non-programmers .Net with it's many megabytes of critical security updates are completely unnecessary on the average home computer -- unless one wants to run .Net code written in programming languages like C#, or chooses certain uncommon plugins, aps, or other software. If a program you have installed was built using .Net Framework, and you uninstall .Net Framework, that program will stop working. [1]
Looking around, it seems obvious from Micrsoft's subtle wording and implications that they want us to think .Net is (or soon will be) needed, and therefore this conclusion will not be appreciated by Microsoft's warriors. If so it may need further defense, evidence and references.
--
68.127.87.211 (
talk)
17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
References
I tried to add a mention to the .NET Framework being also called "NET Fx", and I got reverted saying that "NET Fx" stands for ".NET Framework Extension", which I don't think is the case, and everyone on this talk page (do a search for "fx" on this page) seems to agree it is not. Also, installers for the .NET Framework have always been called "dotnetfx.exe", so that's gotta be something. This said, I think a mention is in order. Especially since "netfx" and other similar terms redirect here, but once you get here the term is nowhere to be seen. -- uKER ( talk) 02:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
1. I see a box saying which version was shipped with which Microsoft OS. Though have read that XP SP3 installs .NET or some componments to run a early .NET software maybe 1.0 or 1.1 (maybe someone could find this out and add it)
2. More important since I came here looking for this answer and why I write here.
What OS can run what versions. Microsoft XP can run all up to and including .NET 4.0 this is known by some people but not for .NET 4.5
Needed is another box added to the page to show these details because I guess most that come here look mainly for this.
87.242.160.125 (
talk)
20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The criticisms are either unattributed or unsourced or are not specific to .NET, but are general drawbacks of intermediate runtime code. It should be replaced with a reception section listing industry reception, both positive and negative. Karpouzi ( talk) 02:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
how to restore the calender event using webparts in vb.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyeugeneraj ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The flag for criticism consisting of drawbacks of .NET's Halt & Sweep garbage collection should be removed, which I will do. This is a characteristic of H&S Garbage collection, and visa-vie languages like C, C++ and other unmanaged (or mismanaged, depending on your point of view) code, is an important attribute of anything running in a .NET environment. The criticism is valid, even if it's not unique to .NET.
It's especially important to point this out as MSFT and it's writers go to great lengths to paint C/C++ etc. as scary rouge code that's running around loose wildly out of control putting your entire organization at great risk. If real programmers who've been managing their own memory for decades and using tools like ValGrind to verify that they have no memory leaks then the world needs to know that effort has a benefit, specifically, no Halt & Sweep memory management. Sorry MSFT, your software isn't above criticism any more than JAVA or any other managed environment.
To be fair, there are advantages to managed code for applications like SOA and SAAS. Both, and a general discussion of garbage collection should be expanded elsewhere. -- Solidpoint ( talk) 00:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying to edit the embedded template is the most horrible eXPerience to me on Wikipedia.org English and I have been blocked for 24 hours. People argued, accused, reverted ... and even reported me. What such an amazing experience to know so many funny buddies here and I learned a lot meaningless things. .Net Framework is a very important fundamental system software layer in enterprise computing system, and a necessary development tool, and so many people love to make their ideas alive with it. But if supporting information on Architecture, ISA (Instruction Set Architecture, such as IA-32, x86-64 et cetera) I mean, could be detailed in the main article or that "wonderful" and "amazing" template, I think that would be much better. I have no attempt to call for storm, just leave it here as a suggestion without further modifiction Janagewen ( talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there some rule of grammar that calls for omitting "the"? 76.121.0.141 ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to rename the second "Security" section to something along the lines of "Reverse Engineering", which is more accurately what this section deals with. While this is technically the "Security" of Intellectual Property, the word "Security" implies a far different meaning when discussing software platforms. Any objections? (I'll have to figure out how to do this without breaking existing anchors)
Secondly: even the first "Design tenents -> Security" section only deals with code authorization, and should probably be expanded to include a more comprehensive picture of what security entails for a platform/ecosystem as large as .Net. Galestar ( talk) 21:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the "Cross-platform software" was added (not based on Mono, but Microsoft's .NET code):
1. "open sourcing the full server-side .NET stack and expanding .NET to run on the Linux and Mac OS platforms. [..] Delivering on its promise to support cross-platform development, Microsoft is providing the full .NET server stack in open source, including ASP.NET, the .NET compiler, the .NET Core Runtime, Framework and Libraries, enabling developers to build with .NET across Windows, Mac or Linux."
2. "Visual Studio 2015 and .NET 2015: build for any device
Built from the ground up with support for iOS, Android and Windows, Visual Studio 2015 Preview makes it easier for developers to build applications and services for any device, on any platform."
1. and 2. are from the same source (and I quote all I saw relevant to non-Windows) and 2. (Visual Studio) is not about the "Core", I just notice Android and iOS, client platforms only mentioned and not Mac OS, while in 1. "server-side .NET stack".
[iOS only supports programs compiled with Xcode.] What can you do - right now - with this code? comp.arch ( talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
All the software in the table such as ".NET Core/CoreFX and CoreCLR" and "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.6", only ".NET Framework redistributable package" (and older "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.5 and earlier") is an exception. Then it is not clear what software is added/or if to make it proprietary.
Source code can be free/open source, but when compiled, not such as with MIT (and MPL, right?) (but not GPL). Is that only the case, that they change nothing just package their "free" software and make it proprietary? Could you do without the redistributable or compile similar yourself and redistribute that?
From the redistributable": "NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS ME, WINDOWS NT 4.0 (DESKTOP EDITION), WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM, WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL AND/OR WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA." makes it proprietary (I didn't read further). This also forbids installing/running in Linux (under Wine) unless you also have a license for Windows you are not using. Seems strange to do this, since they explicitly want to allow Linux now, that they still do not want it free (as in speech). Is this maybe an out-dated EULA? Accessdate was similar to for the other refs.
Patents where not mentioned (would be another way to restrict MIT license), those (original ones) may have expired.. comp.arch ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
For References(1) 1. Thurrott, Paul. "Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 is Now Available". Thurrott. Retrieved 1 December 2015. https://www.thurrott.com/dev/62640/visual-studio-2015-update-1-is-now-available
You can use the update announcement link from Microsoft itself Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2015-update1-vs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015 162.247.71.66 ( talk) 17:09, 1 December (UTC)
After reading the article, I still have no idea of what .NET does and why it is needed. The article seems to have been written for people who already are well versed in computer science, etc. I am not as well versed and expect a Wiki article to be written in easier to understand language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.159.255.226 ( talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In this section it says: "However, this leaves chunks of free space between objects which were initially contiguous. The objects are then compacted together to make used memory contiguous again" In my humble opinion this is wrong. The objective is not to keep used memory contiguous. The object is to prevent fragmentation of the heap of free space. In order to achieve this, the objects need to be moved around in memory.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.98.65 ( talk) 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
The title of this message is more a rhetorical question for complain than an actual question.
So, Microsoft announces plans to make .NET Framework open-source and starts releasing some pieces under a free license. Suddenly, the editors start making things look as if they have always been either free and open-source or a mixed of non-free and FOSS. For example,
revision 650997250 from
2605:6000:ef84:2f00:74cb:5d3c:6ce:c358 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) goes as far as suggesting that .NET Framework source code has been under MIT License for a long time. Even the edit summary reads: " reference source has been MIT-licensed for a while now, as already mentioned". But the adjacent sources say not such thing and when I navigate to
referencesource
So, the next time you wanted to add something that say "it is open-source" or "it has been open-source for a while now", could you please do us a favor and double -check your sources? Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure why it's listed in the table as included with Windows 8.0-8.1 when it... isn't? According to the note. Is it because Windows attempts to conveniently download it if it's needed so it's ".NET 3.5 aware"? I still think these operating systems should be removed though, since I mainly see that table as a reference for developers looking for what's convenient to ship "standalone" and without needing user interaction or risking access right issues. -- — Northgrove 09:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"What disc?"
Any standard Windows installation image would do, be it an OEM disc, retail disc, trial
ISO image downloaded from
Microsoft TechNet Evaluation Center, a non-trial ISO image downloaded from
Microsoft Store or
MSDN Subscription Center or the content of any of the aforementioned dumped into a folder on a disk.
Well, we need source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.107.34 ( talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article the relation between the Base Class Library and the Framework Class Library is described: "BCL is a superset of FCL", meaning that the BCL contains the FCL, right? In another wiki, on the page on the FCL, this relationship is inverted: "The Base Class Library (BCL) is the core of the FCL", meaning that the FCL contains the BCL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Class_Library
So.. which one is it? 2A02:1810:9C29:9B00:707E:5B:99A7:E6AA ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Since .NET Core, Mono, .NET Framework, Silverlight, etc. all share a set of shared principles and architecture (CLR, CTS, memory management, typing, ...), why not break them out into a separate article and reference it. In a second step we could then add a reference from the other implementations like Mono, Silverlight, etc. Thoughts? -- Oaiey ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2015-update2-vs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.122.98 ( talk) 04:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
That says:
... modular, meaning that instead of assemblies, developers deal with NuGet packages ...
I am not d'accord with that description everything of that is wrong. Hence, both (dotnetcore and the old dotnetfx) build assemblies. Also, i can register my dotnetcore assemblies in the GAC and i can deploy my old dotnetfx assemblies via NuGet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.33.246 ( talk) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have read the article over the years many times but now in 2016 I think it needs a big overhaul. Let me reason why:
Like said in the first point: I think the main problem is not the content but the fact that ".NET" should be an own article with the main architecture concepts with sub articles about ".NET Framework", ".NET Core", "Mono", ".Net Micro/Compact Framework", ... which further focus on the individual details.
I am eager to help but since I am not a native English speaker and Wiki Newbie I would need someone helping me a bit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaiey ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
“ | Why does humankind even bother? You wreck everything you've ever made and you start over. Like it'll be any different the next time. | ” |
— Kadaj, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete |
<ref>...</ref>
tags.To understand what .NET Core is, it’s helpful to understand .NET itself. Many people mean “.NET Framework” when they say “.NET,” but there’s more to it than that. .NET is an ECMA standard that has different implementations—.NET Framework, Mono, Unity and, now, .NET Core. This means that many of the experiences are shared between the .NET Framework and .NET Core. However, .NET Core is new, with some different principles in mind.
— Carter, Phillip; Knezevic, Zlatko (April 2016). ".NET Core - .NET Goes Cross-Platform with .NET Core". MSDN Magazine. Microsoft.
Would .NET Framework 4.7 be listable as a preview version? According to the "Windows Features" dialog of Windows 10 Insider Preview build 15007, I have version 4.7 of .NET Framework 4.x, and perhaps it will ship with the "Windows 10 Creators Update" version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeely ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
With .NET Core appearing as 4th most commonly used software framework on the Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2018, would it be suitable to move it's content here to a separate article? Jtaylor100 ( talk) 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
ASP.NET is a server-side language. HTML5 is a specification for markup that is generated by a server-side language and presented to the web browser. HTML5 is incapable of directly accessing database / etc that you would need server-side code to do. The entire section is basically inaccurate FUD being spread to attempt to undermine windows 8.
Remember when windows 7 was going to leave developers out in the cold too? It went on to annihilate all prior sales records that MS had.
Also, mono / .NET on linux isn't ceasing, it's right here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xamarin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sniperfox ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
As per many questions and criticisms here and on the Web, I added a paragraph: added to lede: Is this program necessary for my home computer? Seemingly it is not, with exceptions noted. Here is my addition:
Does the average computer user need it? For most non-programmers .Net with it's many megabytes of critical security updates are completely unnecessary on the average home computer -- unless one wants to run .Net code written in programming languages like C#, or chooses certain uncommon plugins, aps, or other software. If a program you have installed was built using .Net Framework, and you uninstall .Net Framework, that program will stop working. [1]
Looking around, it seems obvious from Micrsoft's subtle wording and implications that they want us to think .Net is (or soon will be) needed, and therefore this conclusion will not be appreciated by Microsoft's warriors. If so it may need further defense, evidence and references.
--
68.127.87.211 (
talk)
17:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
References
I tried to add a mention to the .NET Framework being also called "NET Fx", and I got reverted saying that "NET Fx" stands for ".NET Framework Extension", which I don't think is the case, and everyone on this talk page (do a search for "fx" on this page) seems to agree it is not. Also, installers for the .NET Framework have always been called "dotnetfx.exe", so that's gotta be something. This said, I think a mention is in order. Especially since "netfx" and other similar terms redirect here, but once you get here the term is nowhere to be seen. -- uKER ( talk) 02:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
1. I see a box saying which version was shipped with which Microsoft OS. Though have read that XP SP3 installs .NET or some componments to run a early .NET software maybe 1.0 or 1.1 (maybe someone could find this out and add it)
2. More important since I came here looking for this answer and why I write here.
What OS can run what versions. Microsoft XP can run all up to and including .NET 4.0 this is known by some people but not for .NET 4.5
Needed is another box added to the page to show these details because I guess most that come here look mainly for this.
87.242.160.125 (
talk)
20:44, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The criticisms are either unattributed or unsourced or are not specific to .NET, but are general drawbacks of intermediate runtime code. It should be replaced with a reception section listing industry reception, both positive and negative. Karpouzi ( talk) 02:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
how to restore the calender event using webparts in vb.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antonyeugeneraj ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The flag for criticism consisting of drawbacks of .NET's Halt & Sweep garbage collection should be removed, which I will do. This is a characteristic of H&S Garbage collection, and visa-vie languages like C, C++ and other unmanaged (or mismanaged, depending on your point of view) code, is an important attribute of anything running in a .NET environment. The criticism is valid, even if it's not unique to .NET.
It's especially important to point this out as MSFT and it's writers go to great lengths to paint C/C++ etc. as scary rouge code that's running around loose wildly out of control putting your entire organization at great risk. If real programmers who've been managing their own memory for decades and using tools like ValGrind to verify that they have no memory leaks then the world needs to know that effort has a benefit, specifically, no Halt & Sweep memory management. Sorry MSFT, your software isn't above criticism any more than JAVA or any other managed environment.
To be fair, there are advantages to managed code for applications like SOA and SAAS. Both, and a general discussion of garbage collection should be expanded elsewhere. -- Solidpoint ( talk) 00:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Trying to edit the embedded template is the most horrible eXPerience to me on Wikipedia.org English and I have been blocked for 24 hours. People argued, accused, reverted ... and even reported me. What such an amazing experience to know so many funny buddies here and I learned a lot meaningless things. .Net Framework is a very important fundamental system software layer in enterprise computing system, and a necessary development tool, and so many people love to make their ideas alive with it. But if supporting information on Architecture, ISA (Instruction Set Architecture, such as IA-32, x86-64 et cetera) I mean, could be detailed in the main article or that "wonderful" and "amazing" template, I think that would be much better. I have no attempt to call for storm, just leave it here as a suggestion without further modifiction Janagewen ( talk) 05:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there some rule of grammar that calls for omitting "the"? 76.121.0.141 ( talk) 07:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 05:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
I would like to rename the second "Security" section to something along the lines of "Reverse Engineering", which is more accurately what this section deals with. While this is technically the "Security" of Intellectual Property, the word "Security" implies a far different meaning when discussing software platforms. Any objections? (I'll have to figure out how to do this without breaking existing anchors)
Secondly: even the first "Design tenents -> Security" section only deals with code authorization, and should probably be expanded to include a more comprehensive picture of what security entails for a platform/ecosystem as large as .Net. Galestar ( talk) 21:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I see the "Cross-platform software" was added (not based on Mono, but Microsoft's .NET code):
1. "open sourcing the full server-side .NET stack and expanding .NET to run on the Linux and Mac OS platforms. [..] Delivering on its promise to support cross-platform development, Microsoft is providing the full .NET server stack in open source, including ASP.NET, the .NET compiler, the .NET Core Runtime, Framework and Libraries, enabling developers to build with .NET across Windows, Mac or Linux."
2. "Visual Studio 2015 and .NET 2015: build for any device
Built from the ground up with support for iOS, Android and Windows, Visual Studio 2015 Preview makes it easier for developers to build applications and services for any device, on any platform."
1. and 2. are from the same source (and I quote all I saw relevant to non-Windows) and 2. (Visual Studio) is not about the "Core", I just notice Android and iOS, client platforms only mentioned and not Mac OS, while in 1. "server-side .NET stack".
[iOS only supports programs compiled with Xcode.] What can you do - right now - with this code? comp.arch ( talk) 00:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
All the software in the table such as ".NET Core/CoreFX and CoreCLR" and "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.6", only ".NET Framework redistributable package" (and older "Reference source code of .NET Framework 4.5 and earlier") is an exception. Then it is not clear what software is added/or if to make it proprietary.
Source code can be free/open source, but when compiled, not such as with MIT (and MPL, right?) (but not GPL). Is that only the case, that they change nothing just package their "free" software and make it proprietary? Could you do without the redistributable or compile similar yourself and redistribute that?
From the redistributable": "NOTE: IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A VALID EULA FOR ANY "OS PRODUCT" (MICROSOFT WINDOWS 98, WINDOWS ME, WINDOWS NT 4.0 (DESKTOP EDITION), WINDOWS 2000 OPERATING SYSTEM, WINDOWS XP PROFESSIONAL AND/OR WINDOWS XP HOME EDITION), YOU ARE NOT AUTHORIZED TO INSTALL, COPY OR OTHERWISE USE THE OS COMPONENTS AND YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER THIS SUPPLEMENTAL EULA." makes it proprietary (I didn't read further). This also forbids installing/running in Linux (under Wine) unless you also have a license for Windows you are not using. Seems strange to do this, since they explicitly want to allow Linux now, that they still do not want it free (as in speech). Is this maybe an out-dated EULA? Accessdate was similar to for the other refs.
Patents where not mentioned (would be another way to restrict MIT license), those (original ones) may have expired.. comp.arch ( talk) 14:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
For References(1) 1. Thurrott, Paul. "Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 is Now Available". Thurrott. Retrieved 1 December 2015. https://www.thurrott.com/dev/62640/visual-studio-2015-update-1-is-now-available
You can use the update announcement link from Microsoft itself Visual Studio 2015 Update 1 https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2015-update1-vs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2015 162.247.71.66 ( talk) 17:09, 1 December (UTC)
After reading the article, I still have no idea of what .NET does and why it is needed. The article seems to have been written for people who already are well versed in computer science, etc. I am not as well versed and expect a Wiki article to be written in easier to understand language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.159.255.226 ( talk) 13:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
In this section it says: "However, this leaves chunks of free space between objects which were initially contiguous. The objects are then compacted together to make used memory contiguous again" In my humble opinion this is wrong. The objective is not to keep used memory contiguous. The object is to prevent fragmentation of the heap of free space. In order to achieve this, the objects need to be moved around in memory.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.67.98.65 ( talk) 14:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
The title of this message is more a rhetorical question for complain than an actual question.
So, Microsoft announces plans to make .NET Framework open-source and starts releasing some pieces under a free license. Suddenly, the editors start making things look as if they have always been either free and open-source or a mixed of non-free and FOSS. For example,
revision 650997250 from
2605:6000:ef84:2f00:74cb:5d3c:6ce:c358 (
talk ·
contribs ·
WHOIS) goes as far as suggesting that .NET Framework source code has been under MIT License for a long time. Even the edit summary reads: " reference source has been MIT-licensed for a while now, as already mentioned". But the adjacent sources say not such thing and when I navigate to
referencesource
So, the next time you wanted to add something that say "it is open-source" or "it has been open-source for a while now", could you please do us a favor and double -check your sources? Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk)
16:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm unsure why it's listed in the table as included with Windows 8.0-8.1 when it... isn't? According to the note. Is it because Windows attempts to conveniently download it if it's needed so it's ".NET 3.5 aware"? I still think these operating systems should be removed though, since I mainly see that table as a reference for developers looking for what's convenient to ship "standalone" and without needing user interaction or risking access right issues. -- — Northgrove 09:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
"What disc?"
Any standard Windows installation image would do, be it an OEM disc, retail disc, trial
ISO image downloaded from
Microsoft TechNet Evaluation Center, a non-trial ISO image downloaded from
Microsoft Store or
MSDN Subscription Center or the content of any of the aforementioned dumped into a folder on a disk.
Well, we need source! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.53.107.34 ( talk) 01:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
In the article the relation between the Base Class Library and the Framework Class Library is described: "BCL is a superset of FCL", meaning that the BCL contains the FCL, right? In another wiki, on the page on the FCL, this relationship is inverted: "The Base Class Library (BCL) is the core of the FCL", meaning that the FCL contains the BCL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framework_Class_Library
So.. which one is it? 2A02:1810:9C29:9B00:707E:5B:99A7:E6AA ( talk) 21:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Since .NET Core, Mono, .NET Framework, Silverlight, etc. all share a set of shared principles and architecture (CLR, CTS, memory management, typing, ...), why not break them out into a separate article and reference it. In a second step we could then add a reference from the other implementations like Mono, Silverlight, etc. Thoughts? -- Oaiey ( talk) 13:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
https://www.visualstudio.com/en-us/news/vs2015-update2-vs.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.63.122.98 ( talk) 04:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
That says:
... modular, meaning that instead of assemblies, developers deal with NuGet packages ...
I am not d'accord with that description everything of that is wrong. Hence, both (dotnetcore and the old dotnetfx) build assemblies. Also, i can register my dotnetcore assemblies in the GAC and i can deploy my old dotnetfx assemblies via NuGet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.11.33.246 ( talk) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I have read the article over the years many times but now in 2016 I think it needs a big overhaul. Let me reason why:
Like said in the first point: I think the main problem is not the content but the fact that ".NET" should be an own article with the main architecture concepts with sub articles about ".NET Framework", ".NET Core", "Mono", ".Net Micro/Compact Framework", ... which further focus on the individual details.
I am eager to help but since I am not a native English speaker and Wiki Newbie I would need someone helping me a bit here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oaiey ( talk • contribs) 20:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
“ | Why does humankind even bother? You wreck everything you've ever made and you start over. Like it'll be any different the next time. | ” |
— Kadaj, Final Fantasy VII: Advent Children Complete |
<ref>...</ref>
tags.To understand what .NET Core is, it’s helpful to understand .NET itself. Many people mean “.NET Framework” when they say “.NET,” but there’s more to it than that. .NET is an ECMA standard that has different implementations—.NET Framework, Mono, Unity and, now, .NET Core. This means that many of the experiences are shared between the .NET Framework and .NET Core. However, .NET Core is new, with some different principles in mind.
— Carter, Phillip; Knezevic, Zlatko (April 2016). ".NET Core - .NET Goes Cross-Platform with .NET Core". MSDN Magazine. Microsoft.
Would .NET Framework 4.7 be listable as a preview version? According to the "Windows Features" dialog of Windows 10 Insider Preview build 15007, I have version 4.7 of .NET Framework 4.x, and perhaps it will ship with the "Windows 10 Creators Update" version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BFeely ( talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
With .NET Core appearing as 4th most commonly used software framework on the Stack Overflow Developer Survey 2018, would it be suitable to move it's content here to a separate article? Jtaylor100 ( talk) 15:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)