- cross-posted to:
- dotnet@programming.dev
- cross-posted to:
- dotnet@programming.dev
You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
Sorry. Hadn’t occurred to me you may not be able to see it (usually it’s me who can’t see things others post! 😂 ).
In a nutshell it boils down to the release schedule for .NET/C# - which people are paying to use - is too quick with too short support periods. He compares to another language, which is free (from memory I think it was Rust? I’d have to watch it again to see) which has the same short support periods, but is FREE. i.e. what are we paying for if we’re not getting support for any longer than something which has the same support period for free? He’s saying since MS is charging people for this, the support periods need to be longer, specifically security patches. e.g. if someone releases an app near the end of a period, then has only say 6 months before they have to upgrade it already, just to keep getting security patches. People don’t have the option to stay on their stable release for a decent amount of time, even though they’re paying for it. He just wants them to slow down the speed and increase the periods (we all know MS is all about pushing out new features over fixing bugs).
No one is paying for C#. Visual Studio, yes, but that’s not required to use C#.
What do you mean with “paying to use” .NET/C#? You can use them for free. Or am I missing something?
He’s referring to Visual Studio.
Isn’t there a free version of visual studio? The community edition. Or was it ditched away by Microsoft? I used it for my personal projects in the past and never felt the need of paid tools I have at work.
Yes, provided you meet the criteria, so I’m guessing maybe he doesn’t… or maybe he just wants to make the point that MS are earning income from this and yet not providing any more support than a free product is providing.
deleted by creator
Theoretically one could simply upgrade to newer long term supported release when old one expires. Shouldn’t break (a lot).
Yes, that’s his point. That if you’ve released your app close to the end of the period, then you’re forced to upgrade your app right away, even just to keep getting security patches, on top of any bugs you might already be trying to get on top of with your newly released app. Other systems have a longer support period and you wouldn’t be faced with that.
If you look at LTS dates, 6 overlaps 8 by a year. And when it comes to patches, there are two scenarios. One is framework dependant app where you don’t have to do anything. And there is self-contained where you have to update the app - but how else would you patch it - this is the same for every app out there, isn’t it?
Dude says LTS dot net releases should have another 3 years minimum of security updates. I agree with this, can down voters please share your reasons for down voting?
