|
Microsoft has updated its distributed high-scale applications platform Orleans, claiming a 30 per cent increase in performance. "We're still having fun and you're still the one"
Sorry, kind of got to that blurb through a few degrees of separation.
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: its distributed high-scale applications platform Orleans
Never heard of it. 
Latest Article - A Concise Overview of Threads
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Leap allows anyone to sign up, giving them one minute of time on a cloud-connected 2000Q each month. Oh good. Now I can host my blog on it.
|
|
|
|
|
In May, we announced .NET Core 3.0, the next major version of .NET Core that adds support for building desktop applications using WinForms, WPF, and Entity Framework 6. We also announced some exciting updates to .NET Framework which enable you to use the new modern controls from UWP in existing WinForms and WPF applications. Are they still supporting it?
|
|
|
|
|
Depends on how fast your internet connection is, any slower than 20 Mbps and you risk hitting the EOL by the time you've finished downloading it. 
|
|
|
|
|
how are they planning on maintaining the cross-platform nature of core while supporting WPF?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
And WinForms 
Although they say those parts aren't cross-platform, but "via Desktop packs[^]". So, I guess there's a chance for a semi-compatible Linux/Mac desktop in the future?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
Because .net core is a layer in a stack not a single monolithic entity. .net core being able run WPF, is independent of WPF being able to run on other OSes.
Prior situation
[Your App]
[WPF Framework]
[.net Framework]
new situation
[Your App]
[WPF Framework]
[.net Framework] or [.net Core Framework]
what's changed is that .net core 3 has all the language features needed to run a WPF or WinForms application. WPF/Winforms are still windows only because they make large numbers of native win32 API calls. Theoretically, someone could (and almost certainly will) package .net core and WINE to make a single install capable of running WPF on Fruit/Penguin boxes; otoh someone could (and almost certainly) has done the same but using the .net framework instead of .net core.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Today there can only be one version of .NET Framework on a machine.
Absolute nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have 3.5 and 4.x installed on the same machine.
The artificial restriction on not having multiple versions of 4.x installed was introduced when MS released 4.5 as an in-place upgrade to 4.0; we were told this was A Good Thing.
Quote: there is a risk that a security fix ... can break applications on the machine
So now it's better to leave your application running with a framework-level security vulnerability that you might never hear about, than risk possibly breaking it by patching the vulnerability? 
Sure, down-time from a broken application is annoying. But not half as annoying as having to re-build your server after an un-pathced vulnerability was used to destroy it. Or having to pay massive fines because the un-patched vulnerability was used to exfiltrate your users' personal data.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Quote: Today there can only be one version of .NET Framework on a machine.
Absolute nonsense. It's perfectly possible to have 3.5 and 4.x installed on the same machine.
The artificial restriction on not having multiple versions of 4.x installed was introduced when MS released 4.5 as an in-place upgrade to 4.0; we were told this was A Good Thing.
Your history is out of date. This isn't something new they did at the 3.x to 4.0 barrier. They did the same thing between 1.1 and 2.0, and for the same reason; some of the improvements they made were potentially breaking changes to applications. (I ran into this migrating from 1.1 to 2.0, a fancy winforms grid control I used in 1.1 wouldn't compile/run in 2.0; after spending a few days trying to make it work unsuccessfully I cut my losses after discovering that 2.0 included a new grid control that supported all the features I needed.
Theoretically they can do another round of breaking changes/side by side installs to backport the rest of the .net core improvements. (The ones they can't bring to 4.x because they'd break stuff.)
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: They did the same thing between 1.1 and 2.0, and for the same reason;
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here: 2.0 was not an in-place upgrade to 1.1; they could be installed side-by-side on the same machine.
3.0 and 3.5 were based on the same CLR as 2.0, so you couldn't have separate installs of those on the same machine. Perhaps that's what you were thinking of?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Even if they haven't been entirely consistent in their justifications behind what makes something a side by side install (1.2 to 2.0, 3.5 to 4.0) vs in place (1.0 to 1.0, 2.0 to 3.0 to 3.5, 4.0 to 4.5, to 4.6, to 4.7, to 4.8); my point is that as a user of the framework the details behind why they made the decision don't matter.
My point was that they've done both in the past, and I expect they'll continue to do both in the future. My expectation is that potentially breaking performance changes backported from .net core will be the trigger for the next time we get a side by side upgrade instead of an in place one. That or their progress in migrating support for legacy applications to .net core reaches the point that .net core v.future becomes the official replacement for the existing ms framework.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Dan Neely wrote: My point was that they've done both in the past, and I expect they'll continue to do both in the future. My expectation is that potentially breaking performance changes backported from .net core will be the trigger for the next time we get a side by side upgrade instead of an in place one.
I got a response to a question asking about this on the MSDN post. MS said they're not planning on another side by side upgrade for .net framework in the future because of the extra amount of disk space it consumes.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: Quote: there is a risk that a security fix ... can break applications on the machine
specially in Win 10, it can even break the machine itself.  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: In conclusion, this is an amazing time to be a .NET developer. -- Scott Hunter, Director of Program Management for .NET
......
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Several users who lost their personal files after updating have shared their story on Reddit and other places over the last two days, though it’s still hard to know if the issue is really widespread. Well, you probably didn't need those files anyway
|
|
|
|
|
Win 10 was sure that they will love to have their data in the cloud, so it cut all from the pc and pasted it in the cloud. The only minor problem is... that it didn't loged the cloud account before pasting it
Now seriously: One thing is that the elephanting update deletes your configuration reseting it to what MS wants it to be "default" or giving problems with addiotional drivers, but deleting the personal data (if true)... that's way beyond the line. Really sorry about the loss of those people![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
.NET Core 2.0 was released mid August 2017. It has now reached end of life (EOL) and will no longer be supported by Microsoft. Pretty soon they'll stop supporting them before RTM (OK, Windows is already that way)
|
|
|
|
|
they're not gonna gain any traction with core if they don't support it for more than a year...
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
... which is why they have designated long term support version that do get patches for longer. .net core 2.1 is one of them, with support through 2021. Non-LTS support versions are for the people who like playing on the bleeding edge and are willing to live with the pain of constant mandatory upgrades that comes with it.
Is 3 years for an LTS long enough? Dunno, it's shorter than most of MS's other product life cycles, but I'm not sure how it compares with support lifespans for other foss runtimes.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
The people at MSFT have no idea what they are doing...since they dumped all the stuff on github and then bought github as well...
Caveat Emptor.
"Progress doesn't come from early risers – progress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do things." Lazarus Long
|
|
|
|
|
Nested on the servers’ motherboards, the testers found a tiny microchip, not much bigger than a grain of rice, that wasn’t part of the boards’ original design.
Looks like this explains why the DoD, NSA, etc all freaked out a few years ago.
And remember in response to official denials in the article, that TOP SECRET//LEAKED TO PRESS data is still classified and that anyone with knowledge of it via the classified path is still bound by the Go to Jail NDAs they signed.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
You know this is like a typical fake news/advertisement story?
First: What makes you think people on the internet know what
DoD, NSA are? The internet is not something located solely in N.America.
Secondly, your title says:
How China modified servers to conduct espionage I didn't get that answer from your post.
|
|
|
|
|
When workers automate their own duties, who should reap the benefits? "Choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it."
|
|
|
|
|
That's what Robert Heinlein said. There is a chapter in "Time Enough for Love" called "The Man Who Was Too Lazy To Fail."
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
