dotnet-docker VS sdk

This cool method lets you whip up optimized apps that get along swimmingly with Docker. Neat, huh? --platform values. Take a peek at this sample to see the pattern in action!

You can also use the .NET Docker images to run (or build from source and then run) .NET applications.

Sadly, lots of dotnet apps still out there. Luckily, there's a container for that too!

A search of "alpine 3.17 ssl" brings up this link that shows the same error.

Actually, it looks like I am a bit out of the loop, and there is an official .NET runtime for Linux, so you can use it like any other Linux docker images. Looks like there are examples here: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker

It is good that you are thinking about security 😊. there is an issue in dotnet repo here https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/issues/1772 that have hardened examples.

You can use .NET without using ASP.NET Core (yes, the names are confusing right now, they dropped the "Core" suffix for the platform but did not drop the suffix for the web framework). Microsoft publishes a Docker image for .NET for when you just want to run some compiled CIL, but they also provide a Docker image where it includes .NET and ASP.NET Core for when you run a compiled ASP.NET Core web app. (https://hub.docker.com/_/microsoft-dotnet/)

Keeping the whole Maritime theme alive with Docker (and Kubernetes), I jumped into the sea of Docker Hub with millions of containers and found out that Microsoft hosts all the .NET related container images as .NET by Microsoft registry.

ARG OPENCV_SHARP_BUILD_TAG=2 ARG SDK_VERSION=6.0.202-bullseye-slim-amd64 ARG RUNTIME_VERSION=6.0.4-bullseye-slim FROM syamaner/opencvsharp-build:$OPENCV_SHARP_BUILD_TAG AS opencv # Given we are building a .Net application, the build does not have to be in the target architecture. # Reference: https://github.com/dotnet/dotnet-docker/issues/1537#issuecomment-755351628 FROM mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/sdk:$SDK_VERSION as build ARG TARGETPLATFORM WORKDIR /src COPY . . # Select the correct RID for the target architecture. # run dotnet publish as usual and pass the RID. RUN if [ "$TARGETPLATFORM" = "linux/amd64" ]; then \ RID=linux-x64 ; \ elif [ "$TARGETPLATFORM" = "linux/arm64" ]; then \ RID=linux-arm64 ; \ elif [ "$TARGETPLATFORM" = "linux/arm/v7" ]; then \ RID=linux-arm ; \ fi && \ dotnet publish -c release -o /app -r $RID --self-contained false # Copy the application as well as native dependencies to the final stage and build the final image without any unnecessary files. FROM mcr.microsoft.com/dotnet/runtime:$RUNTIME_VERSION as final WORKDIR /app # Copy opencv sharp native binding and runtime dependencies. COPY --from=opencv /artifacts/ /usr/lib/ RUN ldconfig COPY --from=build /app/ /app/ ENTRYPOINT [ "dotnet", "/app/OpenCVSharpBenchmarkApp.dll" ]

[DllImport("libc")] private static extern uint geteuid(); public bool IsCurrentProcessElevated() { if (RuntimeInformation.IsOSPlatform(OSPlatform.Windows)) { // https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/blob/v6.0.100/src/Cli/dotnet/Installer/Windows/WindowsUtils.cs#L38 using var identity = WindowsIdentity.GetCurrent(); var principal = new WindowsPrincipal(identity); return principal.IsInRole(WindowsBuiltInRole.Administrator); } // https://github.com/dotnet/maintenance-packages/blob/62823150914410d43a3fd9de246d882f2a21d5ef/src/Common/tests/TestUtilities/System/PlatformDetection.Unix.cs#L58 // 0 is the ID of the root user return geteuid() == 0; }

> There's definitely things they tried to improve on that... weren't really improvements. The way "assemblies" are matched in .NET is much more sophisticated- the goal there was to try to kill DLL hell. It evolved into the Global Assembly Cache, which is sort of the Windows Registry of DLLs. Not a huge fan of those bits.

The Global Assembly Cache did not make the jump to the modern .NET (Core). There was the thing called `dotnet store`, but it’s broken since .NET 6: https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/24752

The assembly redirection hell has also been greatly reduced there.

I do the same.

I have a small write-up here: https://chrlschn.dev/blog/2023/10/end-to-end-type-safety-wit...

You get end-to-end type safety (even better once you connect it to EF Core since you get it all ways to your DB).

With this setup with hot-reload (currently broken in .NET 8 [0]), productivity is really, really good. Like tRPC but with one of the most powerful ORMs out there right now.

[0] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/36918

Noticed an open issue just now.

You're thinking of https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

That's a twisted and wrong narrative

Unity like refers to a Editor driven approach

Unity became popular with its moonscript language (javascript like), they then ditched it to focus on C#, but what propelled unity to what it is today is the Editor driven approach, not c#, not DOTS

They are forced to transpile C# to C++ via IL2CPP as a result to target consoles/mobiles

C# is a disease when it comes to console/mobile support

It's a substantial dependency, quite heavy

And you are not free of unity like fuck ups, it's a microsoft language after all:

https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/22247

And let's not forget when they changed the license of their debugger overnight to prevent people from using it in their products (jetbrains for example)

And them deprecating open source tooling to a proprietary/closed one for vscode (c# devkit)

Let's be careful when we recommend evil as an alternative to evil ;)

The script can be found at the end of the thread here https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/8742

Another difference you might be surprised by is that the .NET tooling by default collects various data from your system and sends it to Microsoft [1]. If you want to avoid this (and still want to use .NET) you'll have to make sure that the environment variable DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT is set in all contexts before touching anything.

[1] https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/6145

SDK Pull Request

Pretty sure the final file referenced here https://github.com/dotnet/sdk/issues/8742 is the one I am thinking of.