Re: Windows upgrades
I wrote -
> MS is aggressively opening up the source of the .NET stack.
and two people downvoted it.
How'd you feel now, suckers?
4790 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Nov 2009
It's not even true. The 3.x runtime will happily run code compiled against 2.0 unless the idiot who wrote that code has explicitly told it not to run without 2.0.
3.5 will run any previous code. 4.6 will run any 4.x code.
The maximum number of .NET framework versions you need is two. So we have learned that for Hans, "two" equals "a gazillion".
> In IBM's case they're still supporting an OS that was shipping before Bill flunked college.
That goes two ways. IBM don't support any codebase older than 9 years without special (expensive) arrangement. I know this because the company I work for has just upgraded rather than enter into such an arrangement. Now, the name "DB2" may be older than 9 years - the version is not.
SlackWare, Suse and RedHat do not support "OSes that predate Microsoft's NT 3.51" - they support more recent iterations.
If I were judging MS the way you judge IBM et al, I could say "Microsoft have been supporting this single OS (Windows) since September 1981" but that would be disingenuous at best so I won't. I would be obliged if you'd show others the same courtesy.
> There's always been a fear that they will, purely from their track record.
What, a track record of supporting operating systems longer than any other vendor and development frameworks for - if we count the switch from Sun to Oracle as a new owner, which it is - longer than any other vendor?
About the only framework MS ever axed without legal pressure (JScript) is Silverlight and as I recall, all the massed ranks of El Reg commentards laughed at Silverlight because it was stupid and M$ and clearly shitty M$ stuff and useless.
Does my memory fail me?
> embrace, extend and extinguish
Oh fuck off with your FUD unless you can find a way to Embrace Extend Extinguish the Apache 2 license.
Here's a hint - lots of people would make a lot of money if you can so it's probably been tried.
And by the way - I very much doubt that you're older than I am unless this is elderly paranoia we're witnessing. Have you gone racist as well?
You don't have to get involved if you don't want to.
You could sit here with with the other trolls and complain about proprietary software, conveniently ignoring all those annoying facts. I rather hope you do, actually. That means there'll be less competition for cross-platform .NET developers.
Personally, I'm rather looking forward to using C#5 on linux without having to step back a version or two to the last stable mono stack.
FUD FUD FUDdy FUDdy FUD.. you do love your FUD don't you?
Because this is either a) ignorance or b) outright lies. .NET framework versions used to be cumulative - 1.1 will run 1.0 assemblies without issue, 2.0 will run 1.1 and 1.0, 3.0 will run 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0 and 3.5 will run 3.0, 2.0, 1.1 and 1.0*
With 4, they started moving toward the Core model and you're going to need the 3.5 framework if you want to run anything earlier than 4.0. So that's two versions. Which, according to your post in another thread is a "gazillion". Or you're a liar.
*The essential caveat here is that if you are a truly shitty programmer then it is entirely possible that you've written your assemblies to check for a specific framework version and refuse to run without it. Does that sound like you, Hans 1?
I don't think it does. I think you just prefer making shit up.
Do a full backup and then update your ROM using this thing
Nokia firmware updater to whatever's latest.
That should fix any firmware issues.
the usual calls for MS to support XP forever because they should! Because your car gets serviced for free every year forever after you buy it (or something)! And because all those people who think the NHS is a special case because it's so lovely already give up all their time working for the NHS for free because it's so lovely, obviously.
Keep going, Jasper.
Two reasons -
1. It really irritates Steve Davies 3 which can only be good
2. We need you on point to balance out Orlowski's loathing of Google and Gavin Clark's hatred of Microsoft*.
(*To judge from podcasts, this is basically down to an inability to pronounce "Microsoft" or indeed, understand anything about software. I have no idea what Google did to Orlowski).
Only one of those options is any bloody use on a tablet, smartarse.
Even then it fails as a productivity device because "productive Android" is right up there with "honest politician".
Anyway, regarding the story, it might be hilarious if it were true, which it isn't. Nice red-top job, El Reg.
> Adding C++-style objects to the language will spoil the system for those who like it and fail to satisfy you because the old stuff will still be there. AND you'll have to produce a detailed specification for how the two systems relate. (Oh joy!)
Not really - Typescript manages this with dynamic typing and the Any type.
> Been good enough for the Army for many years
From experience, the Army is a bugger for making up stupid words.
"Surveil" though, is particularly ugly and unnecessary and leads to abominations like "we surveilled him for five days" which is not only ugly but also effectively unpronounceable.