Microsoft to release the source code for the .Net Framework Libraries?



  • WoW, I never ever thought I'd see such a day when MS would release their source code like this. Guess this is gonna amke our lives that small bit easier.

     



  • The fine print reads "for the .NET 3.5 and VS 2008 release later this year." So, just like everything else with Microsoft, you will need to keep up with the treadmill and pay your annual tax to get this [i]oh so charitable[/i] offering to the community... right?

    Fire and motion...



  • Microsoft have made all their source code to Windows available for several years now. It's under a "look but don't touch, and your soul is now ours" license, and they really do use that to control everything your company does from that point on, but it's there.

    This is just a regular "look, but don't touch" license. They've done it before for several things. It's not really very interesting, and if the source is like their usual fare, it won't be particularly useful; most of it is quite incomprehensible.

    It's mostly just a PR gimmick. 



  • @djork said:

    The fine print reads "for the .NET 3.5 and VS 2008 release later this year." So, just like everything else with Microsoft, you will need to keep up with the treadmill and pay your annual tax to get this [i]oh so charitable[/i] offering to the community... right?

    Fire and motion...

    Hey dork. Did you read the entire article cited, instead of just immediately going into MS-bashing mode? From the link above:

    You'll be able to download the .NET Framework source libraries via a standalone install (allowing you to use any text editor to browse it locally).

    If you were capable of reading with comprehension, you would have easily understood that what you cited above (taken completely out of context) instead means that the release will coincide with the .NET 3.5 and VS 2008 release later this year.

    Back to /. for you, script kiddie.


     



  • @KenW said:

    Hey dork. Did you read the entire article cited, instead of just immediately going into MS-bashing mode? From the link above:

    You'll be able to download the .NET Framework source libraries via a standalone install (allowing you to use any text editor to browse it locally).

    If you were capable of reading with comprehension, you would have easily understood that what you cited above (taken completely out of context) instead means that the release will coincide with the .NET 3.5 and VS 2008 release later this year.

    Back to /. for you, script kiddie.


     

    And you don't think it will be the source [i]for[/i] the .NET 3.5 release?

    I read the article and understand that it means exactly what it says. .NET 2.0 is still quite active and it would be great to be able to debug [i]that[/i] from source, since most of the people I know aren't planning on switching to 3.X any time soon. My last job (< 6 months ago) was still working in 1.1!



  • They'll be releasing code for 2.0 AND 3.0/3.5.

    The 3.0 version doesn't modify 2.0 in any way, it just adds four more "smaller frameworks" (WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpaces) to 2.0. So when he says they'll be releasing code for System.IO, System.Data, System.Web etc., it's code for .NET 2.0.



  • [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]

    They'll be releasing code for 2.0 AND 3.0/3.5.

    The 3.0 version doesn't modify 2.0 in any way, it just adds four more "smaller frameworks" (WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpaces) to 2.0. So when he says they'll be releasing code for System.IO, System.Data, System.Web etc., it's code for .NET 2.0.

    [/quote]

    Good to know. I didn't realize 3.0 didn't bring any changes to what was already in 2.0. So 3.0 is just 2.0 + WPF etc. ... :D



  • @asuffield said:

    This is just a regular "look, but don't touch" license...

    It's mostly just a PR gimmick. 

    Actually, it's more of a "debug, but don't touch" sort of thing.   There were plenty of times back in my MFC days where being able to step into the libraries was a huge benefit for figuring out just what the heck was going on inside; this seems to be the same deal. 

    -cw



  • Yeah, but was it really necessary to start with? I could already use reflection to see what was happening inside the framework assemblies already. I even posted the decompiled code for the Stack class before (translated from IL to C#):



  • @asuffield said:

    Microsoft have made all their source code to Windows available for several years now. It's under a "look but don't touch, and your soul is now ours" license, and they really do use that to control everything your company does from that point on, but it's there.

     I have never heard of this; I'm assuming it's only offered to corporate customers through a special contract?  I could never go anywhere near Microsoft's code since I do systems programming for a competitor.

     Honestly, I've respected Microsoft for creating user friendly software and dominating the marketplace.  But with the Vista release and Dr. Evil-esque moves like this, it's like Microsoft is becoming a parody of itself.
     



  • @mountain said:

    @asuffield said:

    Microsoft have made all their source code to Windows available for several years now. It's under a "look but don't touch, and your soul is now ours" license, and they really do use that to control everything your company does from that point on, but it's there.

     I have never heard of this; I'm assuming it's only offered to corporate customers through a special contract?  I could never go anywhere near Microsoft's code since I do systems programming for a competitor.

    You need to either be an MVP (ie, random "professional" who does what he's told and keeps to the party line), a government, a hardware manufacturer, or on an enterprise-level license contract. You would be effectively banned from working for such competitors if you had used it.



  • @djork said:

    [quote user="Renan "C#" Sousa"]

    They'll be releasing code for 2.0 AND 3.0/3.5.

    The 3.0 version doesn't modify 2.0 in any way, it just adds four more "smaller frameworks" (WPF, WCF, WF, CardSpaces) to 2.0. So when he says they'll be releasing code for System.IO, System.Data, System.Web etc., it's code for .NET 2.0.

    Good to know. I didn't realize 3.0 didn't bring any changes to what was already in 2.0. So 3.0 is just 2.0 + WPF etc. ... :D

    [/quote]

    I think they're is also some minor modifications to some of the classes, just mainly bug fixes where it may have been possible to exploit buffer overflow problems with some of the already existing classes. Functionality and use is exactly the same, just fixed up to prevent exploitation. And as far as uses for reasons for switching to .Net 3.5, as far as I can see the main updates are focused on web developers, so unless your using this new functionality or Silverlight, then you'll prob be not setting your eyes upon .Net 3.5 for now



  • 3.0 only adds to 2.0 without modifying it, and 3.5 brings corrections to both 2.0 and 3.0. Also, if you look into 3.x, you'd see it almost seems they forgot all about web developers. Except for WPF, which allows you to do sites in a technology which is meant to compete with Flash, there is almost nothing new to web development. They turned ATLAS into AJAX.NET, or ASP.NET with Ajax, to make up for that. The other novelties in 3.x include CardSpaces, which you can check in your control panel if your Windows is up to date, WCF, which makes communication between apps easier (you stop using raw remoting and sockets and start using components that look like web services instead) and WF, which helps you design apps using a visual workflow editor. There is more to 3.x than what I said here, though, but these are the things that had the most impact to me.



  • WPF is both more and less than a 'flash competitor'.   

    It's a new graphics sub-system for Windows -- and if you're using Vista, then you're already quite familiar with it. It has a web-deployable version (Silverlight), but it doesn't have the same sort of design tools as Flash, though it does have some interesting tools of it's own.  It's a competitor in terms of offering a richer graphical experience on the web, but generally if you're working as "a flash developer" you're not going to find silverlight/wpf encroaching on your turf too terribly much for a few years at least.

    -cw



  • @mountain said:

    @asuffield said:

    Microsoft have made all their source code to Windows available for several years now. It's under a "look but don't touch, and your soul is now ours" license, and they really do use that to control everything your company does from that point on, but it's there.

     I have never heard of this; I'm assuming it's only offered to corporate customers through a special contract?  I could never go anywhere near Microsoft's code since I do systems programming for a competitor.

     Honestly, I've respected Microsoft for creating user friendly software and dominating the marketplace.  But with the Vista release and Dr. Evil-esque moves like this, it's like Microsoft is becoming a parody of itself.
     

     

    As most of the source DLLs for dotnet provided by Microsoft are not obfuscated, you can easily decompile them and view the source on your own. All you need is a decent tool like Lut Roeders's Reflector and your good to go.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.