.NET Core 1.0 released today
-
So, .NET Core 1.0, ASP.NET Core 1.0, and Entity Framework Core 1.0 were released today for Windows, OSX, Linux, and Docker.
Visual Studio 2015 Update 3 was also released today, which can build .NET Core apps.
Hopefully this means we won't see randomly changing APIs any more.
-
@powerlord said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
for Windows, OSX, Linux, and Docker
Just for kicks, let's replace all four of those with Windows:
for Windows, Windows 10, NT, and Microsoft Excel
-
-
I read it without the "Core" and assumed @fbmac was up to his usual shenanigans.
-
@ben_lubar said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Just for kicks, let's replace all four of those with Windows:
That confused me too.
For Windows, OS X, Linux, and slightly-other-Linux.
-
@blakeyrat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
slightly-other-Linux
It's not even that - it's a program that runs on Linux OSes.
-
@powerlord For various definitions of "release" and "1.0"...
-
@dcon For whatever reason, it's only the runtime that has a 1.0 download. I assume this will eventually be fixed.
-
@blakeyrat With CLI commands! - I can imagine you getting very sad and/or angry with this release.
To give you an idea, once you have the SDK installed, you can type these three simple commands for your first “Hello World” app. The first generates a template for you for a console app, the second restores package dependencies and the last builds and runs the app.
dotnet new dotnet restore dotnet run
-
@fbmac Why does a "hello world" console app need to "restore package dependencies", this release is horseshit. What possible "package dependencies" could it have?
-
@blakeyrat There is even the shitty suggestion of piping a URL directly to a root shell
sudo sh -c 'echo "deb [arch=amd64] https://apt-mo.trafficmanager.net/repos/dotnet/ trusty main" > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/dotnetdev.list'
Microsoft is now an almost fully opensourcey company, you'll be assimilated.
-
Disregard that, I didn't read that line with any attention, it's just adding a repository to apt
-
@fbmac said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
sudo sh -c 'echo "deb [arch=amd64] https://apt-mo.trafficmanager.net/repos/dotnet/ trusty main" > /etc/apt/sources.list.d/dotnetdev.list'
E_FILE_NOT_FOUND
@fbmac said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Disregard that
No. I will regard it however I like!
-
@Tsaukpaetra I wonder if after I install that repository Ubuntu won't bug me to upgrade to Windows 10
-
@fbmac said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@Tsaukpaetra I wonder if after I install that repository Ubuntu won't bug me to upgrade to Windows 10
No, but Windows 10 might start bugging you to upgrade to Ubuntu!
-
@blakeyrat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@fbmac Why does a "hello world" console app need to "restore package dependencies", this release is horseshit. What possible "package dependencies" could it have?
See the list of dependencies too. Apparently pretty much the whole .NET is a NuGet package now.
I'm guessing you should be able to pull them separately, so that for example if you don't need LINQ, you just don't include it as a dependency.
-
@powerlord said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Visual Studio 2015 Update 3 was also released today,
5 minutes in and barely any movement from the progress bar. I'll report back
whenif the installation finishes.
-
@Placeholder when I installed it, the beginning and end of the progress bar were the only things I saw. The middle doesn't seem to exist.
-
@ben_lubar It would be nice if they broke the "Configuring your system. This make take a while" section down so it was a little more obvious that things were actually happening.
-
24 minutes on a 2016 laptop with a SSD, not including the restart.
-
@Placeholder On mine, the installer reached around 66% before it died because it ran out of disk space on the C drive.
Fun fact: Neither temp space or my Visual Studio install is on C and C had 24GB free before it started.
Even more fun fact: Running the Visual Studio uninstaller (vs_community.exe /uninstall /force) did not free up the space it had eaten on C, even when using the Update 3 version of it.
So, now I get to hunt down all the shit Upgrade 3 installed to remove it.
-
@Placeholder it's funny that I read that and thought "whoa, that's really fast"
-
hey, it gets even better
fbmac@laptop:~/dotnet$ dotnet run Could not resolve coreclr path
-
@Maciejasjmj Basically that, yes. To the best of my knowledge, the application itself starts its own local .NET instance as well.
-
@blakeyrat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@fbmac Why does a "hello world" console app need to "restore package dependencies", this release is horseshit. What possible "package dependencies" could it have?
LeftPad class library?
-
My experience so far.
This was copy-pasted directly from MS-s website (more or less).
I love those HRESULT-s. Always fun to go with that into the ever-changing maze of Microsoft support sites and try to find what's wrong.
-
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
ln -s /opt/dotnet/dotnet /usr/local/bin
-
Seems to have worked. Don't ask me about
ln
syntax and switches, fuck me if I know without studying the man page for like 5 minutes.
-
It's depending on
libicu52
, but for some reason, that can't be installed on debian testing and Ubuntu. Of course, this was never stated anywhere in their instructions.Fuck them. Once MS fixes their shit, I'll give it another try.
-
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
for some reason, that can't be installed on debian testing and Ubuntu.
Might that be because it's already there?
I have no interest in .NET and have never run its installer, but this is a Debian Testing installation and it appears to have libicu52.
-
Installed update three and core, and vs crashes when you open the editor on one of the files in a core project...
Vs code seems to work, I guess? But core's only ui support so far is web afaik...
-
-
@cartman82 Actually
# apt search libicu52 Sorting... Done Full Text Search... Done libicu52/now 52.1-8 amd64 [residual-config] (none)
Hmm... Don't have time now, I'll look into this tonight.
-
@cartman82 Oh, it's an executable file. NVM. (Self-)
-
@blakeyrat said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@fbmac Why does a "hello world" console app need to "restore package dependencies", this release is horseshit. What possible "package dependencies" could it have?
It needs to bring in the code that makes the program suggest installing Windows 10 on launch.
-
@cartman82 the site say it supports 14.04
Didn't work on mine, but maybe you can try inside a dorker. It says it supports dorker there.
-
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Seems to have worked. Don't ask me about
ln
syntax and switches, fuck me if I know without studying the man page for like 5 minutes.... it seems so typical of microsoft to give write permission to the executables that make up their dot net core 1.0 release to LITERALLY ANYONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE MACHINE!
-
Wow, if this thread is representative of the average user experience, this might be the least stable release of a popular piece of software on Linux since KDE 4.0.
-
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
It's depending on libicu52, but for some reason, that can't be installed on debian testing and Ubuntu.
It fucking installs itself into /opt but still depends on certain libraries being installed in /usr?
Fucking hell, Microsoft, have you ever read a single tutorial on Linux packaging? Or are you just hacking shit together until it works on the lead dev's machine?
-
@asdf said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
It fucking installs itself into /opt but still depends on certain libraries being installed in /usr?
Yeah, idiots!
-
@Jaloopa I you'd ever packaged anything for linux, then you'd know
/opt
is meant for third-party software that ships with its dependencies included and doesn't depend on the distribution's libraries. The other option is to create one package for each distribution, install your binaries into/usr/bin
, your libraries into/usr/lib
, the rest into/usr/share
* and let the package manager install the dependencies.*Of course, you have to make sure that the names of your binaries/libraries don't collide with those of any other package in the distribution's archives. Which is why you should always install into
/opt
if you develop commercial software for Linux.
-
@asdf sounds complicated. They should just make an msi
-
@Zecc said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
It needs to bring in the code that makes the program suggest installing Windows 10 on launch.
I hate to Blakey here, but "LOLOL WINDOWS 10 UPGRADE" is getting pretty old.
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Seems to have worked. Don't ask me about
ln
syntax and switches, fuck me if I know without studying the man page for like 5 minutes.... it seems so typical of microsoft to give write permission to the executables that make up their dot net core 1.0 release to LITERALLY ANYONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE MACHINE!
... @accalia, that's what symlinks' permissions always look like. They resolve at the other side.
-
@asdf said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Fucking hell, Microsoft, have you ever read a single tutorial on Linux packaging? Or are you just hacking shit together until it works on the lead dev's machine?
That's why they are so deep into containers.
TIL if you're not skilled enough with dev ops, just take your hodge-podge dev setup and shove it into a docker container. Then you can sell your newly made turd as "scalable" and "modern", and denigrate those who actually know how to deploy their software properly.
-
@Jaloopa said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
They should just make an msi
Just build a .deb and an .rpm package which install all your dependencies and your program into
/opt
and you're done. A package is just a zip archive with some additional metadata files, it's super-simple.Edit: To use a Windows analogy:
/opt
is basicallyC:\Program Files\
.
-
@heterodox said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
I hate to Blakey here, but "LOLOL WINDOWS 10 UPGRADE" is getting pretty old.
Imagine how "old" it is for people who just want to keep using their Windows 7 system without having to worry about what trick will Microsoft pull next.
-
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
TIL if you're not skilled enough with dev ops, just take your hodge-podge dev setup and shove it into a docker container. Then you can sell your newly made turd as "scalable" and "modern", and denigrate those who actually know how to deploy their software properly.
Not sure how you "TILed" that last part, as I haven't seen any denigration of package maintainers here.
-
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
@cartman82 said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
Seems to have worked. Don't ask me about
ln
syntax and switches, fuck me if I know without studying the man page for like 5 minutes.... it seems so typical of microsoft to give write permission to the executables that make up their dot net core 1.0 release to LITERALLY ANYONE WHO HAS ACCESS TO THE MACHINE!
that's the permissions for the symbolic link
-
@heterodox said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
... @accalia, that's what symlinks' permissions always look like. They resolve at the other side.
@fbmac said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
that's the permissions for the symbolic link
rassum frassum..... so i havent had my morning tea, not chased that damn chicken out of my yard yet....
still, i wouldn't put it past M$FT to make some part of .net core accidentally world writeable leading to some malware rooting your box by overwriting a DLL that they shouldn't have been able to write to.
-
@accalia said in .NET Core 1.0 released today:
still, i wouldn't put it past M$FT to make some part of .net core accidentally world writeable leading to some malware rooting your box by overwriting a DLL that they shouldn't have been able to write to.
Really? I kind of would; have they done anything like that recently?
I have about 1000 lbs of Nessus scans to go through today and I don't think I've seen anything on the writable module permissions, writable service permissions, etc. list from Microsoft in ages.