Microsoft backtracks: 'We are going to support .NET Framework with ASP.NET Core 2.0'

Microsoft will not, after all, restrict its open-source cross-platform web framework ASP.NET Core 2.0 from running on the Windows-only .NET Framework. There are now two distinct forms of Microsoft’s .NET platform. One is called .NET Framework and runs only on Windows, while the other is called .NET Core and is open source and …

[Jason Bloomberg]

Casting the .NET far and wide

With .NET this, .NET that, and the .NET other, it's getting more confusing than those different Java platforms were.

I can appreciate not everything can support the same thing, one needs subsets to run on more constrained systems and different architectures. What I don't understand is, when stacking frameworks vertically, there isn't (to match .NET Core and .NET Framework), ASP.NET Core and ASP.NET Framework, etc.

Maybe that's just too simple, or perhaps it is because I haven't got to grips with where .NET has gone recently, or I'm just confused. Though I don't believe that's entirely my fault.

[Will 30]

Re: Casting the .NET far and wide

You are confused but it's not your fault.

[cosuna]

Re: Casting the .NET far and wide

The real problem is the lack of accountability.

.NET should've handled in tiers just like Windows with an ultimate deliverable at the end of the road.

For example, you have Windows 10 Home which has some APIs and some functionality.

Then there's Windows 10 Pro, which has others.

Then there's Windows Server.

.NET needs this kinds of direction as a global "plugin" for the Windows Ecosystem. There should be at least three tiers: a) .NET Core b) .NET Core + ASP.NET c) .NET Framework + ASP.NET.

I think that internally I think they had it solved when they created .NET Desktop (.NET Framework + WCF + WPF) and .NET Web (.NET Framework + WCF + ASP.NET) but now, we lost them again.

[scooternusa]

In the undying words of Emily Litella...

...never mind!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but....

"'You do not abandon your users' .NET Foundation chief tells El Reg"

HA HA HA HA HA HA haaa haaaa ha ha ha...... <insert more laughter here>

So, uhm, question... When thousands of developers complain about a drastic change of their developers interface (Visual Studio) and/or one of its disliked features and Microsoft basically does nothing about it other than reversing small bits and pieces and selling that in the next version.... How do you call that?

Oh wait... I get it: I'm talking about developers here, you're talking users. Yeah, that must be it... <sigh>

[bombastic bob]

Re: Sorry, but....

"When thousands of developers complain about a drastic change of their developers interface"

how about the MILLIONS of users who complained about Windows "Ape" "Ape point one" and Win-10-nic?

The idea of Microsoft "NOT abandoning" is JUST as laughable, as demonstrated by your initial reaction.

They won't abandon those who ALREADY AGREE WITH THEM on what the changes should be. That's about it. Everybody else gets to urinate up a rope, or something similar...

[Gis Bun]

Woohoo or Woopie!

[ecarlseen]

An odd new business model.

Microsoft's new business model seems to consist of announcing and / or actually doing things that literally everyone else around knows are completely insane, and then eventually back-peddling. It would be funny if the ramifications weren't so awful for everyone involved.

[a_yank_lurker]

Re: An odd new business model.

It seems more like letting children run the show without adult supervision. Slurp has had too many of these screw ups that one should be looking for a explanation like the upper mismanagement is out of their depth. They are acting like I've Been Moved did a few years ago and if they continue on that trend they will be where their mentor is now.

[bombastic bob]

Re: An odd new business model.

"It seems more like letting children run the show without adult supervision"

Yes. Sadly, YES.

This is the observation of many, that the experienced people at Micro-shaft have RETIRED, that "the new crowd" is in charge now, and it's "their turn" to do things "their way", because everybody BEFORE them must have been WRONG, because they're old, or sticks in the mud, or resist change, or won't learn, or some similar excuse.

minor correction: "It seems more like letting ARROGANT children run the show without adult supervision"

[JLV]

Semantic versioning to the rescue

Couldn't MS solve all this by using semantic versioning? We all know the joke about MS products v1 and v2 being useless and you only taking it up on v3.

In semantic versioning anything before 1.0 is really up for grabs and a shifting sand of behavior that may be changed up to 1.0.

So, this kinda blunder? Easily addressed, by Net Core 0.4 or 0.5 naming. And then we can stop making fun of v1 MS products.

But that's not all. MS can also innovate for semantic versioning. Take Silverlight and other kinds of MS abandonware. They really need a new numbering system indicating they'll quite possibly kill it really soon down the road. I propose starting with negative numbers - a few years down the line bump it up to 0.1 when you are serious about it. Silverlight -2.0, Windows RT -3.0. Windows Phone (7 - 8). Even hardware: Zune -5.0,

Kidding aside, they do deserve kudos for listening and eating crow. MS has a long way to go to restore trust from all the times they cut down branches developers were sitting on. Hopefully this about face is the start of a trend rather than isolated common sense by a few of their upper managers (not holding my breath). Taken individually, junking dead end stuff makes sense. Do it too often however and your aggregate problem is that developers won't trust any of your new tech.

[cosuna]

No confusion, whatsoever

I'm pretty sure nobody at no time has been confused with this .NET Core, .NET Standard, .NET Framework thingy.

I'm pretty sure that everybody needs another useless refactoring effort which will break compatibility for everyone.

My suggestion: Treat .NET Core as Windows 10 and .NET Framework as Windows Server. If you want to target a developer friendly cross platform universe, use ASP.NET 2.0 Core. If you want to target IIS and Windows Server use ASP.NET 6.0 Framework.

The best solution would off course be if Windows Containers get off the ground and we just create Dockerfiles for one or the other.

[Anonymous Coward]

Careful what you wish for

Making .NET core backwards compatible with .NET for Windows will bloat .net core and reduce its benefits to the point it no longer matters. Why not maintain both paths and build a bridge between them? We could then have pure .NET core systems that run fast on any machine. And have .NET Windows provide backwards compatibility? Best of both worlds. Core has trouble running legacy because of dependencies issues. It's all about the dependencies!!!

[Will 30]

Re: Careful what you wish for

This article is about whether or not the new version of ASP.NET ("ASP.NET Core") will run on both the full (old) version of .NET AND the new ".NET Core". This has been the plan for a long time, but for a few days last week it wasn't the plan. But now it is again.

It's not about making ".NET Core" "backwards compatible with .NET for Windows", whatever that means.