This article is pretty well linkbait. Following up to the actual post by the MS team reveals Linq to SQL isn't being killed--they're just choosing Linq to Entities as their preferred solution.
"We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well," is not remotely the same as killing Linq to SQL.
Aside from the fact that the original post is a huge troll, there are plenty of open source Linq extensions (which is what Linq to SQL is.) Take a look at the codeplex.
Mono actually has a plug-compatible Linq to SQL, AND it has its own DB drivers.
Even if you were so hopelessly dependent on Linq to SQL that you couldn't trivially port to Microsoft's newer persistence solution, you're still not up a creek.
This reminds me of the furor that came up when some bozo claimed that MS was dropping OpenGL support in Vista, when in fact all they were doing was retooling their driver architecture... there was a tremendous amount of misinformation about that floating around, and naturally most people just gravitated toward the anti-MS version without bothering to find out whether or not there was any truth behind it.
5 comments
[ 34.4 ms ] story [ 513 ms ] thread"We are listening to customers regarding LINQ to SQL and will continue to evolve the product based on feedback we receive from the community as well," is not remotely the same as killing Linq to SQL.
At least in open source you can fork the project.
[edit: format]
Even if you were so hopelessly dependent on Linq to SQL that you couldn't trivially port to Microsoft's newer persistence solution, you're still not up a creek.