. NET open-source environment

NDoc is good, but M $ generates a SandCastle, which is basically similar to NDoc. The NDoc project is stopped.
NUnit is very good, especially in the trend of TDD, it is increasingly becoming an indispensable tool, and then vs ide has TestProject, look at Unit Test, the practice is similar to NUnit, I don't know when the NUnit project can be maintained.
What about NAnt? I only know that VS has MSBuild, so I don't know about it.
After a while, I don't know whether there is a future for ORM projects such as nhib.pdf.
There are also many excellent open-source projects. Does it mean that this project is coming to an end when most people think they are excellent projects?

I don't know whether these projects are transferred through cooperation in some way, or are forced to stop due to the development of the situation.
I don't know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for. NET developers and the Development of. NET.

However, open source projects are very useful to me. In doing the same thing, when I had to choose closed commercial software, there was always a constraint.
1. many open-source projects adopt protocols that support commercial purposes + source code modification and re-release, so that you have full control, even if the open-source project stops updating and upgrading, you can do it yourself, you always have the opportunity to satisfy your project needs and solve the problems it produces.
2. the Open Source Code allows you to fully understand any processing details, rather than a black box, to make you feel overwhelmed. If you encounter a big fart problem, you can only take the black box for fun, google, finally, you may have to use technical support. In addition to official documents and the trace/decompilation research and analysis results of cool people, there is not much way to understand the content in this black box, even if it is just a big tool.

For example, I interviewed the Test Project in VS2008 today. The overall situation is the same as SharpDevelop's integration of NUnit. It is easier to start Unit Test debugging in IDE. But the problem is SharpDevelop + MySql.
Problems encountered in this Post:
Developed with NHibernate, MySQL database, and nhibcommand use reflection to create IDbConnection and IDbCommand objects for MySql. Data. For some reasons of Development and debugging, the MySql. Data. dll file must be included in the test directory for reflection to be created successfully.
OK. It does not matter when NUnit is used. You can copy the dll directly to the test directory.
SharpDevelop integrates NUnit by dynamically creating a directory for testing on drive C. When debugging, copy the relevant dll files to this directory, and then start the NUnit plug-in. So I only need to reference MySql. Data in the test project, and select to copy the dll to the local(Copy Local = True)That's all.
The Test project of VS2008 is similar to SharpDevelop. A TestResults directory is created under the directory of the current solution. A sub-directory is created under each running Test, used for the current test. Sub-directory naming rules can be configured on LocalTestRun. testrunconfig of the test project. The problem is that MySql. Data is referenced in the test project and copied to the local device. However, during the test, VS2008 did not copy the dll to the test directory.(Can I kill MySql. Data in GAC? Failed). Then try to directly copy the dll to the test directory, but it is depressing that no matter how configured, a new subdirectory will be created during each test for the current test. Failed to try Setup and Cleanup Scripts and so on, because the test directory has been changing.

Over. This is not a required choice. It is not a key path. But at least we can see the difference between "open" and "black box", like a fly without a head, and finally we can only give in. It is similar to how many difficult cases are to be handled after so many years of work. In contrast, if an open-source project is used, as long as the source code is carefully read and the ideas are thoroughly understood, the problems, big and small, can always be quickly located, and it will be clear if it is too big to be tracked for several rounds.

Black box makes obstacles to users' knowledge acquisition, brings high costs to fault analysis and solution, and its own changes damage the experience accumulated by users, and even fundamentally retries.
Commercial interests are the first development tool and platform. All Users survive under the pressure of business rules, and business rules are relentlessly mapped to the user's innocence. In a Free and Open Source world, regardless of the degree of depth, there is always a spirit of sharing, this is the release of imprisonment. Different open-source protocols only balance freedom, responsibility, rights and commercial interests to varying degrees.