Microsoft to developers:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform, adds new development capabilities with Visual Studio 2015, .NET 2015 and Visual Studio OnlineHackerNews Discussion

MIT license is a nice touch.This is one of those things that even if they had wanted to do it before, steve ballmer and bill g couldn't have pulled it off after all the stuff they said about linux.

QuoteMicrosoft Corp. reinforced its commitment to cross-platform developer experiences by open sourcing the full server-side .NET stack and expanding .NET to run on the Linux and Mac OS platforms. .NET on linux, no way, at least historically.First you have to port COM to Linux. MS tried it on Sun UNIX all those years ago.I could be wrong.

You are, .NET has nothing to do with COM they've always been uncoupled, you can expose .NET to COM or interop with existing COM but they are not reliant on one another.Heck Mono is 10 years old... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

QuoteOriginally posted by: HansiYou are, .NET has nothing to do with COM they've always been uncoupled, you can expose .NET to COM or interop with existing COM but they are not reliant on one another.Heck Mono is 10 years old... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)1. Prove it. e.g. have you ever used ATL and its ITExtendibility2 interface in Excel? CCW and RCW wrappers are great, but that irrelevant.2. Mono... yeah, I forgot that Does anyone use it?

QuoteOriginally posted by: Cuchulainn1. Prove it. e.g. have you ever used ATL and its ITExtendibility2 interface in Excel? CCW and RCW wrappers are great, but that irrelevant.No need, nothing you've named is a part of .NETQuoteOriginally posted by: Cuchulainn2. Mono... yeah, I forgot that Does anyone use it?Yes. It's not big but it's used. Unity and MonoTouch are most likely the biggest use case currently.QuoteOriginally posted by: outrunMaybe they just forked mono and rebranded it as MS, hence the MIT license?Nope, seperate but Mono plan on incorporating both. http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2014/Nov-12.htmlYou'll be able to pick per project: MS .NET, Mono .NET, YourOwn .NET or ThirdParty .NET:http://www.hanselman.com/blog/Announcin ... unity.aspx

Yes, somewhat at least in terms of the CLR vs interpreter/VM. It less so maps back to these in terms of .NET vs the standard libs for these languages I'd say.But then again VS supports both Python (Iron) and now Node.js as an IDE so they're open to it. The former with existing access to .NET and most likely the latter with one in the 2015 variety of VS, haven't checked up on it.

I was at the Visual Studio event this week and it was bloody sad, certainly compared to the Android one the week before.There was a buzz at Londroid, the Microsoft event was competent yet dull, not a single new or especially interesting thing.For a decade it has been demented to charge for Visual Studio when there are free quality alternatives that lead you away from Windows.A big thing within that has been the shit documentation in VS. Time was when no platform of any kind had better developer docs than Windows. Some of you will laugh at me for saying this, because it's so flagrantly untrue now.But Windows still owns the corporate desktop and isn't budging any time soon.

Any scraps you can throw at us concerning the C++/CLI?

QuoteATL and COM are not .NET, those are native.. NET is managedNo kidding.My original point was that to get .NET on Linux, you will need get COM working first. It will be a huge challenge IMO. Will VBA and Excel be ported to linux?

QuoteOriginally posted by: CuchulainnQuoteOriginally posted by: outrunATL and COM are not .NET, those are native.. NET is managedNo kidding.My original point was that to get .NET on Linux, you will need get COM working first. It will be a huge challenge IMO..... nope.