.NET is just a runtime, not problematic at all, and definitely doesn’t deserve to be lumped in with ads, spyware, and AI.
post
Microsoft is not going to remove .NET to attract software developers when they want developers to use .NET. Not having access to software that uses .NET probably wouldn't be a good trade off for how little removing it from Windows would do to make Windows lighter.
.NET is arguably one of the better things to come out of Microsoft. The CLR only runs when a .NET application is running so it’s not bloat, and it’s pretty lightweight as far as a VM goes with JIT. It’s well documented, has public standards, is cross platform, and released under MIT.
I’m a Unix/Linux greybeard so I’ve no real skin in the game. But given how C# has become the defacto cross platform game development language of choice for both Godot and Unity engines, .NET deserves a little credit.
C#/.NET is easily the best thing Microsoft makes.
I realize the bar is pretty low.
Its so nice C# can run in Linux :).
At work, we joke that MS will eventually get tired of the OS game and just throw Windows tools on top of Linux and call it. Then just become a SaaS provider for everything else. Not WSL like legit linux kernel with Windows.
To quote Steve Ballmer; "DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPERS [...] DEVELOPERS. YES!".
If you want Windows Lite then you might as well commit to Linux.
Plenty of YouTube videos on tons of different distros for anyone to find their starter distro that's similar to Windows.
the fact that you list .net shows you dont have the knowledge to make this claim
Windows losing noticeable numbers of users is a huge net gain for society. Hopefully it continues, regardless of Microslop's actions.
The author of the blog is living in dreamland. Microsoft will never release Windows Lite because, to management, Windows is a conduit for AI and subscriptions.
Linux is the answer.
Realistically, who would even buy Windows Lite? What advantage would it have over regular Windows AND Linux systems?
A Windows that could run Office and Adobe software for work without giving the user brain damage? Sounds like a nice idea, maybe could even compete with Mac.
I might buy it to play one of the few games I have that just can't run on Linux
What is wrong with .NET, it's very useful when running applications which require it which of course is basically every application in a corporate environment.
But yeah all the other things are fine.
I'm fairly certain this post is specifically excluding corporate environments
I also don't quite understand the dislike of dotnet, though. I mean I don't like it either, but idk why
.net (core) is a mature framework and collection of great languages that work really well, perform really well, and is truly cross platform and open source. It's the best thing Microsoft offers.
Microsoft needs to die.
What's wrong with .NET?
Nothing, bias from the .NET Framework days probably
I don't really know what it is, but I do know that a whole bunch of stuff doesn't work if you don't have it installed. That and Java.
It's just a framework for some code (usually that written in C#) to run on. It's not a windows only thing either. Just that on Linux if it's required it'll just get installed via the package manager, so you won't see the usual GUI installer that is often packaged with some games (even though you might already have it installed).
It used to be VB.net and other such stuff. It WAS pretty terrible. Ive had to pick apart some pretty horrendous applications. Then Mono/C# popped up and a lot of community effort went into making everything better. It helps that .net stole a LOT of functionality from Rails/Django/etc... and make it much easier for devs to do actual work on it.
The problem is when we talk about .net it could be a huge combo of tech from the last 10+ years. The newest iteration is fine. Its fast at least with C#.
Everything from .NET Core onwards has been a blast to work with in my opinion. And it got even better when .NET 8 came out and I've genuinely been excited for every major release since.
So a Microsoft product got good after it became open source?
Yep, it's arguably the best thing they've done and still currently do I'm actually surprised the core .NET team haven't been corrupted yet. I always find it funny that all of the bigger guys that show off the new features and improvements in their preview showcases never use windows.
Sadly the Visual Studio and VS Code team seem to have been corrupted though because 95% of all new features for those always seem to be centered around AI. I use Rider personally now, and Im looking forward to eventually moving over to that for work at some point too.
I personally like C# and NOT .net...but im a weirdo.
I'm curious, how do you go about using C# without .NET?
Its been a couple of years. Is mono still a thing? Or was it eaten up by .net core? If its still a thing than Mono. We did that for a couple of one off apps back in the day.
If I had to redo it, i would probably just use core on Linux and call it a day. Maintainability is better than purism anyways. Again all my opinions.
Actually if you want my full opinion, I would probably use python to create a proof of concept real quick...then have it remade if it needs to be faster in go/rust/whatever the rest of the team knows :)
You need to abandon windows. You know their goals. You know they can't be trusted. Stop giving them chances to get it right and fuck you.
Do i have news for you, youll need .net.
Either for windows stuff, or for your games ( most likely launchers )
Microsoft is losing Builders fast.
Good.
This is why Microsoft needs Windows Lite.
No, Windows needs to lose more users. Hope they never change.
10 years ago I would have said maybe. Now? Practicly everything that you run on Windows will run, in some form or another, on Linux. Even the hard to crack gaming is now becoming a non issue. There really is no point in Windows any longer.
I had no idea how easy gaming had got since my last attempt with Linux. That was until the most recent Microsoft bugs erased all my files... I was so enraged I didn't even try to recover them, I just installed linux mint. Found out I could indeed play the couple games I've been holding on to windows for. Haven't booted windows since.
Microsoft is now offering Azure Linux.
Good luck with that. Linux is what you are looking for and it's here already.
Micro$lop wants to become what IBM was. They want corporate money and subscriptions. They hate users anyway.
But here's the big problem: stripping all of the terrible shit out of Windows doesn't make it better than Linux, it just makes it less bad than Windows is today.
For anyone running anticheat games Windows is the only option. Windows being utter shit might one day get them to give up these games just so they could ditch Windows. Which I'd welcome, but Microsoft probably doesn't.
Some anticheat games, yeah.
The vast majority of games, including most multiplayer games (and many with anticheat) work just fine on Linux today thanks to Proton, and even MacOSX is starting to catch up with GameHub.
For the few games that don't work right now, I can easily imagine someone filling the gap with a Windows dual boot partition (or even just a PS5).
I don't think I'm exaggerating when I say that Linux is closer to being what we need it to be today than Windows is. Windows has a lot of work to do, and even then it'll never be quite as open or computer geek-friendly as Linux. I don't see a good path forward for Windows, especially as casual users more deeper and deeper into mobile ecosystems.
If a "lite" version removed their ability to spy on you they'd have to charge you $4,000/year for the privilege, just to make up the difference.
I'm a 30-year ex-Windows developer - started with C/C++ briefly, moved to Java for a few years, and then to C#/.NET for about 23 years. Good riddance to Microsoft Windows. The keyboard shortcuts may be forever ingrained into my reflexes, but I'd rather use Linux or MacOS.
No concerns about .NET however. It's a cross-platform development framework and works well. It's also quite fast now.
Modern. Net is portable and fast, yes. But .NET framework is (mostly) not portable and it's tied to the version of Windows is on. We'll see when Microsoft decides to EOL it but so far it has not been announced. It's not getting more than security updates now, as far as I know.
We're converting everything we can (mostly web apps) to modern .Net (formerly core) so it can run on Linux. I may be stuck on Windows at work for the office apps, but my code runs on Linux.
.NET Framework specifically - yeah. That's on life support. .NET Core is likely to be around for a long time. I spent the last few years at my former employer working on transitioning our server-side business layer components to .NET Core so they could run in Linux containers. Someone else got to deal with the Kubernetes aspect - thank goodness.
Now I usually avoid thinking about any of that. (Oops.)
Good call. I'm getting mired in the k8s side right now and we have dozens of small web apps that need upgraded and a couple beefier framework apps that need essentially rewritten. Unfortunately I can't escape lol.
We an ecosystem I overall like .net core and I agree it will stick around. I just can't wait to get off IIS and into Linux even if that means complicating things with kubernetes.
.NET Core is likely to be around for a long time.
You wish.
I spent the last few years at my former employer working on transitioning our server-side business layer components to .NET Core so they could run in Linux containers. Someone else got to deal with the Kubernetes aspect - thank goodness.
Why bother? Just to keep paying MS?
Why bother? Just to keep paying MS?
Scalability was the primary reason. An application running on physical Windows-based servers can't quickly scale up and down, leading to higher hosting costs due to everything scaled to maximum capacity at all times. Or, more often, leading to slow performance and lost revenue due to the customer not wanting to pay for maximum hosting capacity at all times. So the customers want scalable cloud hosting. And when losing a customer often means a loss of millions of dollars in revenue for my former employer, they want to keep those customers.
A secondary goal is increasing the speed of deployment for new customers. Scripting the entire environment - including servers, network, storage - can make it very fast to spin up a new customer or testing environment. That can be done without .NET, of course, but .NET Core is the obvious next step for a large distributed enterprise product suite that is (was) already running on .NET Framework.
.NET Core isn't a primary platform for desktop or mobile client applications. It is very common as a hosting platform; that is likely to continue.
when Microsoft decides to EOL
Will never happen. The freaking VB6 runtime is still supported in Win11, and there's a mountain of .NET Framework code still out there.
Framework 4.8 still gets regular security updates, and will for years to come.
Yeah I'm not holding my breath. It will be around for a long time.
A couple of things I could see changing that would be a) Microsoft in financial trouble, b) AI both making it harder to keep up with security bugs, and making it easier to migrate away from legacy systems.
The chances of .net framework being among the first to go is slim though.
There's no money to get or data to sell from that though, so it's not gonna happen.
why would they? the telemetry, spying and bloatware is the whole idea for them. At least for regular users. We are the product and the data they harvest from us and ads they force on us is the point. And why would they care, majority of people just sticks with whatever was presented to them first. No matter how much bloat and spyware they add, majority will never care enough to do anything about it because it doenst directly affect them beyond slowing the computer down, which they think will be solved by buying a new one.
The closest thing is LTSC, but Linux is easier to deal with imo
and developers
Windows developers largely use Windows Server or Enterprise, neither of which have telemetry, spying, ads, or AI, depending on group policy.
I'm a little confused by the inclusion of .NET. Most Windows developers actively use that.
Closest thing to that is using Windows Enterprise. Here is previous PSA of mine...
00000
PSA, for people sticking to Windows:
You can get a reasonable level of privacy by installing Windows Enterprise via RUFUS, which also has options for removing restrictions during installation. Massgravel is used to activate your copy of Windows, the Github also having .ISOs for you to use with RUFUS.
ShutUp10 is a piece of software that goes a step further, allowing you to toggle off many bad things, uninstall Microsoft's AI, and gives a description of what you are tweaking does. The premium version also automatically applies your settings at all times, reverting Microsoft's constant tweaking of your settings.
Lots of games, especially indy games, rely on .NET, like Stardew Valley, and Terraria.
I'm building a gaming PC that's gonna run Linux. To prep, I install my distro of choice (CachyOS) on an old laptop to check it out. It was fantastic. I'm confident saying, unless there's a very specific outlier reason, you don't need Windows anymore.
Good on ya it's a shame tons of popular games require Windows for their anti-cheat software to work
A lot of, perhaps all of, those games are predatory money extractors that are deliberately designed to be as addictive as possible, just like a casino.
Sticking to Windows to play them is like saying you need a car, because there are no bus stops near the casino. True, but should you really be going there in the first place?
I was going to push back on your point here, but then I couldn't think of a game that makes a good counterpoint.
Before they enshitified all the sports games, I would have pushed back a bit and comparer running Windows for a specific game to emulating an Atari for nostalgia.
But actually, the last good version of many of those sports games probably runs in Wine now anyway.
One pushback - there's still community on some of those very shitty games. I understand people not wanting to leave their gamer group behind.
Of course, my gamer group all moved to SteamDeck.
I was going to push back on your point here, but then I couldn't think of a game that makes a good counterpoint.
The Finals, Battlefield 5 (amazingly it has no loot boxes), Helldivers 2, Arc Raiders, all have anti-cheat so need kernel level access, but they're not predatory.
Hah! They don't care about "builders" or users. They care about business. Specifically large enterprises the have too many people to care about a single employee's individual productivity.
Microsoft caters mostly to them and is quite good at that.
But if you're an end user, gamer, or individual consumer, just move to Linux already. They don't care about you.
Yeah, the proprietary software grift is all about extorting companies with legal liability, hostage data, etc.
Some of Microsoft's corporate products are actually quite good, if very boring. I would love it if Linux had some version of Active Directory, although Microsoft's attempts to cloudify it are a very annoying. Fortunately you can just ignore that, at least for now.
They also get a lot of credit for releasing VSCode for free as well.
windows lite
So you mean Linux? No telemetry? No ads? No AI? No .net? Also just works? Also free? Also free as in beer?
Yeah, people need Linux
fuck, they need that to retain business customers.
It's becoming ridiculous how much lost time there is at work because of Microsoft bullshit. Teams doesn't work, OneDrive doesn't sync, Outlook won't find anything for you, all of the office programs are becoming more difficult to use and slower...
I've got a team of about a dozen people and we probably lose an entire person's work day every single week just to Microsoft bullshit. not even regular issues, just straight up bullshit that shouldn't happen.
if I weren't so busy, I'd be looking into switching my team to Linux. but at some point it's going to get bad enough and I'm going to be low enough on work (lol okay not likely) that I'll be able to properly investigate a transition. Microsoft is the weak point of pretty much every process at our company.
except for excel. that's still doing okay. not great, but okay.
It's almost as if having a monopoly means you don't have to ensure your services work properly.
This is because they constantly need to "develop" it to give it new "features" and "improvements". Bitch, Office peaked at 2007-2010, move onto innovating somewhere else.
If you think its bullshit that shouldnt be happening open a bug report. Its more than likely a skill issue because office is pretty simple to manage
I fill out a good number of reports. I can't always be bothered to do it, and they probably don't read them anyways because of the swearing
it's not my job to do QA on their shitty products
and our IT support doesn't know what causes some issues or how to resolve them either, so it's not likely a user skill issue.
if you're not coming across issues with Microsoft products, it's more than likely that you're simply not actually using them
The only real issues I come across are issues with their new features like intune stuff on mac. The core stuff all work pretty reliably with little to no maintenance and have great documentation. The only complaints I ever see/hear for teams, onedrive and 365 apps are users being dumb or caused by device issues. There are of course microsoft outages (often) but they fix themselves most of the time.
I will never forget the bewilderment I felt the first time the File Explorer crashed -- and that hasn't been the only time. Forget Office, they can't even get the start menu to work properly. Call it feature rich if you like, but of any modern OS they are the furthest away from the core stuff working reliably in my experience.
explorer crashes all the time. I would never act like windows isnt a piece of shit. But we're not talking about windows here we're talking about the 365 suite and enterprise suite of services which are pretty easy to say they're stable and easy to manage.
Well, the original comment was about Microsoft products, which includes the OS. I understand if you say you meant to only refer to the Office software as "core services", but "we" are talking about Microsoft products and I would argue their flagship OS is the corest of them all, and as you said it's garbo.
Hm, sounds shilly.
Shilly because im not jumping on the baseless criticism train? Seeing linux users act this way makes me embarrassed to be one. To talk so much shit about teams and office being full of issues and hard to maintain is just delusion. If that standard was ever applied to us we'd be cooked.
Nah, Windows is getting terrible. I had to delete AI.exe and aimgr.DLL to get performance back in the office suite. Updates try to out it back, and I know as soon as its deployed because everything runs like crap. And there's Onedrive that locks up the system while it syncs a newly written local PC file to the cloud. Like it should immediately write local, and sync in the background but it waits for the commit back from one drive
My armchair diag is that you're causing your own issues by doing things the wrong way. Disable it via policy not by deleting random files. How could onedrive lock a computer up syncing a file that doesnt even make any sense since it does write it local and sync in the background. It sounds like you were trying to save to a network folder or sharepoint maybe.
I couldn't find a policy for the ai. Exe, but when it's deleted the PC runs fine.
No on the network, we don't have typical network shares.
It's my C drive, and file explorer locks up until sync has happened. Because I see the spinning sync icons, as soon as sync has happened to one drive the file is accessible and apo saving it gets a commit back that it happened and is functional again. These are some of the problems, but there are tons more.

top 98 comments