Talk:.NET

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Support lifespan column[edit]

Please add a support lifespan column to the table of .net versions to clearly show the duration from the first release of a version to it final end of support date. Some of the major .net core versions, such as 2.0, have just over 1 year of support. IT auditors will flag any software running on unsupported frameworks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D591:5F10:6C0D:6DAA:C399:9FD2 (talk) 19:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

"Unlike most free and open-source software projects, Microsoft collects telemetry when using the software.". This does not belong in the definition of an subject but would maybe go in a seperate section, and probably expected in a section that would then be covered in all pages over all sofware products.

It is quite irritating to see wikipedia wide on every software article the same kind of remarks from open source fanatics and most often in a definition part. It reads always as "someone is enormously frustrated and wants to let the world hear how bad something is by having readers read this as part of the definition of a concept". While obviously there are hundreds of subtopics that could be added to a concept of which "telemetry" (whatever) could be one.

In short: this is not something as part of a definiton and secondly the frustration shines through the words by putting it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.80.205.220 (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that whole sentence is unnecessary to the article and is just someone grinding their axe. I went ahead and removed it. 2600:1700:211:98D0:F0BA:EFC6:F1B3:B6D9 (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Only GUIs on Windows with .NET Core[edit]

Re:

"... cross-platform successor to .NET Framework ... With .NET Core 3 the framework will get support for development of desktop application software"

But only on Windows? The implicit suggestion that .NET Core, because it is touted as cross-platform, will allow (.NET) GUI applications to run (natively) on Linux is probably not true.

That part is (intentionally?) often left out (or placed far down in the text) by Microsoft, but should it be left out here?

--Mortense (talk) 17:25, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect .NET to here[edit]

When .NET 5 releases, I think .NET should redirect to this page (or maybe this page be renamed to .NET and .NET Core redirect here). Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The way it's structured now is confusing. PerLundberg (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think it should rather be renamed/moved to .NET since this is the new official name. .NET Core should be a redirect to .NET for the old name. However, it requires an admin to do that. Ghettoblaster (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It actually does not require an admin to accomplish such. Many rights have been so called "unbundled". I am sure someone with WP:PMR could accomplish such renaming/moving without issues (e.g., anyone of the hundreds of accounts from Special:ListUsers/extendedmover). 50.53.22.81 (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've moved pages before and it did not work in this case because I guess the target name already exists. It will probably be a multi-step move or something. Somebody with more experience should do it then as I have no time to look up the best practice in this case. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You do not have the rights to perform such a move when the target already exists. A user with WP:PMR can move pages without leaving a redirect and as such can move things around so as to effectively swap the names of the article and the redirect. Since a move request has been opened (see #Requested move 24 November 2020), you should probably wait for consensus to be achieved. If there was not an open move request pending, I would suggest you be WP:BOLD and tag the redirect .NET with {{db-move|.NET Core}} putting it into Category:Candidates for uncontroversial speedy deletion effectively flagging it for speedy deletion/moving by someone with rights to accomplish such. 50.53.22.81 (talk) 01:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2020[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Overall, it's not clear that this is the long-run primary topic of .NET. It may be best to reevaluate this in the future, however. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 13:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


.NET Core → .NET – .NET Core has been officially renamed .NET with its newest version. .NET currently redirects to .NET Framework, which is being deprecated in the future. intforce (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and instead move .net (disambiguation) to .NET (or .net) as it's am ambiguous term with no primary topic. Iffy★Chat -- 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this article then? It remaining on .NET Core is factually incorrect, as it is simply not called .NET Core anymore. –intforce (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support as per discussion above. Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Iffy, looks like there is no primary topic for .NET. ".NET Framework" has actually more views (See [1]). Vpab15 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since .NET redirects to .NET Framework, that's not surprising. However, if you include all the stats since 2015, there is a clear downward trend for .NET Framework. Regarding the primary topic argument, if we look at .net (disambiguation), there is .net (the TLD - note the different capitalization), .NET Core, .NET Framework (soon deprecated), .NET Strategy (deprecated), an obscure file extension, .net magazine (former name), .NET Passport (former name) and .NET Messenger Service (former name); as far as I see it, this is no ambiguous term. So it comes down to this: .NET Core is now officially called .NET. .NET Framework is not only being deprecated in the near future, it is called .NET Framework and not .NET. As such, in my opinion, .NET Core should be moved to .NET, with a notice about .net (disambiguation) on the top. The alternative, which is moving this article to .NET 5 (once again, this article will have to be moved, as it is simply not called Core anymore) and keep moving it every major release, makes little sense to me. intforce (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think .NET Core satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Looking at google books results (see [2]), the vast majority seem to refer to .NET framework. Vpab15 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I think you are missing the point. Of course Google Books will return more about the .NET Framework, it's more than 18 years old after all. .NET (Core) is relatively new technology – the first version was released in 2016 and only the latest version dropped the Core. The point is, .NET Core is the successor of the old .NET Framework. You simply do not choose an soon-to-be-deprecated version to be the primary topic. –intforce (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I do believe .NET should belong to a Microsoft article and other ".net" things can be disambiguated at .net (disambiguation) or .NET (disambiguation), however, .NET Framework and .NET Core are different CLI and .NET Standard implementations. I agree they are both developed by Microsoft but Microsoft has developed other such implementations as well, e.g., Rotor, .NET Compact Framework, .NET Micro Framework, etc. And of course there are implementations that have not been developed by Microsoft, e.g., DotGNU, Mono, etc. As such .NET is more of a Microsoft brand associated with the CLI and .NET Standard. I would not be opposed to .NET becoming a brand article in a similar way as Pentium is. —Uzume (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there is currently only one product or brand called .NET and none that is called .NET Core. Ghettoblaster (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Consolation stewardship"[edit]

"...a conventional ("bazaar"-like) open-source development model under the consolation stewardship of the .NET Foundation."

What is "consolation stewardship"? Is this a consolation prize? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.18.47.206 (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 June 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to .NET per nom as the proper and now-common name of the subject. Concerns about potential confusion with TLD have been addressed: no one ever types the TLD in all-caps. No such user (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

.NET Core → .NET – .NET Core has now become .NET Angelangeles94 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence provided that anything has changed since the last request. Vpab15 (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. .NET Core literally doesn't exist as a current product anymore. ".NET" is only used as a name for the successor product, and ".NET Framework" is used to specifically refer to the predecessor framework. It's as simple as that. Microsoft has made this very clear, and most developers already know this difference if they've touched the product at any point within the last year. If anyone comes here looking for something else, we could instead use a Template:About or Template:Distinguish at the top of the article. There's no need to keep an outdated article name, and no need for a dedicated disambiguation page when there are clear names for other topics. That are reinforced pretty much everywhere except this site. Brian Reading (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as per discussion above. Ghettoblaster (talk) 17:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed. This seems confusingly similar to .net, and no argument has been made as to whether this is the primary topic for all possible meanings of .NET, which currently redirects to a disambiguation page. BD2412 T 04:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BD2412  Mysterymanblue  21:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to .NET (software framework) to address the name change issue and the primary topic concerns. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support without any doubt. My simple proposal: .NET --> this article, .NET Core --> redirect to .NET. The .net article will remain indipendent, and keep including a for other uses pointing to .net (disambiguation) and .NET --Kar.ma 09:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. .NET has become the WP:COMMONNAME for the subject of this article. I disagree strongly that this would seem confusingly similar to .net – no one ever types the TLD in all-caps. See also .com and .COM. Also, like many have said before, the subject of this article has been renamed and there is no longer any product named .NET Core. intforce (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. Pretty much everything that intforce stated - .NET is the WP:COMMONNAME for the specific subject, as Microsoft moved to that name for the software framework / APIs with .NET 5 in November 2020. .NET Core in its current state no longer exists, other than to refer to older .NET Core versions, e.g. 3.0. With .NET 5, Microsoft killed off both the .NET Framework, and .NET Core - therefore I see it best to move this article to .NET, and we can just add a template at the top of the page to point to the .net article if people are instead looking for the TLD. I honestly see nothing wrong with moving the article to .NET due to this, especially considering how common .NET is. - Kamran Mackey (talk to me · my contributions) 20:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Added support for Android and iOS[edit]

.NET 6 was announced and added support for Android and iOS. The article currently lists only Windows, Linux, and macOS. Should we list them now or wait for the final release on November 9th? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiMan3 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Architecture[edit]

The section about the a architecture states the following:

„ .NET supports four cross-platform scenarios: ASP.NET Core web apps; command-line/console apps; libraries; and Universal Windows Platform apps.“

To my understanding, UWP-apps are not cross-platform. One can neither create nor execute such apps on OSX nor Linux. 87.176.238.149 (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK this is referring to UWP bring able to run on PC, Smartphone, HoloLens, and Xbox and on IA-32, x86-64, ARM32, and ARM64 (see: Universal Windows Platform). Ghettoblaster (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported/confusing statements re .NET 4.0[edit]

It addresses the patent concerns related to the .NET Framework

I interpreted this statement to mean there was a (perhaps conditional) patent grant from Microsoft, but a quick search turned up empty. Maybe the intent behind this statement was something different entirely. The statement should be rephrased and ideally cite some kind of "legal" opinion by a notable expert or body. Example citations I would consider acceptable for the "patent grant" interpretation include statements from the FSF, a standards organization or stewardship foundation which requires patent grants, or a notable legal opinion. I am, however, not up to speed with WP guidelines; this is not a call to ignore them. It is perhaps best to remove the statement altogether. I prefer to leave this decision up to more seasoned editors; I hope my use of the "citation needed" template attracts them. 2A02:908:4F2:ED80:91D0:8827:90F2:B068 (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge. I don't believe any patent grant has been issued by MS, so .NET as a whole remains susceptible to patent trolling by MS. The license of .NET (MIT) may imply patent grants but there has been no confirmation of this by the company, and as MIT was drafted before the implementation of software patents, it means that you can release patent-encumbered software under this license.
The FSF, as far as I checked, hasn't given any statements regarding any patent grant whatsoever. A Trisquel thread (https://trisquel.info/en/forum/net-core-open-source) mentions this link http://endsoftpatents.org/2014/11/ms-net/ where they explain and I quote
"And last comes the question of an implicit patent licence. Since Microsoft have released the software under a free software licence (the MIT/X11 licence), giving all users the freedoms to use, study, improve, and share the software, have they thus implicitly promised not to sue the users for doing this things? As far as I know, there’s no case law on this. I’ve heard that this idea might work in the USA but might not work in the UK, but I got it from an unreliable source and I don’t know his sources. In short, it’s not something you can rely on, but if you’re accused of patent infringement it might be worth a try.
This patent licence looks fine for users of the code published by Microsoft, but its protections disappear very quickly for those who wish to modify or re-use the code."
I have seen no argument against this article either by MS or any other legal entity. So I can only assume that the new .NET compiler does not, in fact, addresses the patents concerns raised by .NET Framework, but that's how I interpret it. TheRaveMaster (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:.NET&oldid=1194779708"