The standard .NET C# compiler and CLI run on and build for Windows, MacOS, and Linux. You can run your ASP.NET webapps in a Linux docker container, or write console apps and run them on Linux, it doesn't matter anymore. As a .NET dev I have literally no reason to ever touch Windows, unless I'm touching legacy code from before .NET Core or building a Windows-exclusive app using a Windows app framework.
kogasa
joined 2 years ago
Ok, there's no such thing as native Windows apps for Linux, but there are cross platform GUI frameworks like Avalonia and Uno that can produce apps with a polished identical experience across all platforms, no electron needed
It's fully cross platform with .NET Core and later.
Nice pic
I've felt like this since 2020. I think it just stopped recharging. Is that a thing? Might need to ask about changing my meds.
Some of it looks like topology. The curvy horizontal lines turning into curvy vertical lines are symbols relating to the Kauffman bracket, which belongs to knot theory.
https://encyclopediaofmath.org/wiki/Kauffman_bracket_polynomial
I'm with you until the lockin. How does that happen?
Yeah, specifically for something like coreutils I can't see the malicious endgame that is suggested by others here. Is the fear that a proprietary version of cat or pwd or printf takes over the ecosystem and then traps users into a nonfree agreement? Or a proprietary coreutils superset that offers some new tool and does the same thing? Or a proprietary coreutils that generates profit for businesses without attribution to the developers? What would stop anyone from just writing their own proprietary set of tools to do the same thing now, even if uutils didn't exist? Clearly not much, since uutils did exactly that (minus the proprietary bit).
I personally don't see a compelling reason to change to MIT, but I also don't see the problem.
It depends on if you use the "relay" feature. If your server is accessible from the outside it shouldn't be using this though.
There's not much coherent algebraic structure left with these "definitions." If Ωx=ΩΩ=Ω then there is no multiplicative identity, hence no such thing as a multiplicative inverse.
autism creature
I have heard this phrase used to describe Yippee Mans. I googled "yippee" and one of the first results was from nationalautismresourcs.com so it checks out: https://nationalautismresources.com/blog/what-is-the-yippeetbh-creature/
It's real projective space