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?
Whatβs this about? I canβt watch.
Sorry. Hadnβt occurred to me you may not be able to see it (usually itβs me who canβt see things others post! π ).
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? Iβd 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 weβre not getting support for any longer than something which has the same support period for free? Heβs 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 donβt have the option to stay on their stable release for a decent amount of time, even though theyβre 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).
What do you mean with βpaying to useβ .NET/C#? You can use them for free. Or am I missing something?
Theoretically one could simply upgrade to newer long term supported release when old one expires. Shouldnβt break (a lot).
Yes, thatβs his point. That if youβve released your app close to the end of the period, then youβre 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 wouldnβt be faced with that.
