Entries:
Comments:
Posts:

Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements

Discussions

Bass Bass Knows the way the wind is flowing.
  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    staceyw said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    It can't do WinForms and never will, but I don't need it to do Winforms.  I am going to buy into the xaml thing and do the vectors and invest the grey matter to move to the next step.  I would love a native 3.5 .net experience everywhere, but that is not going to happen anytime soon from perspective of current clr.  However, when you really look a SL, you see it is not really a web based.  It is client based.  It loads xaml from a path, and renders it all on the client side.  With OOB support, you also see you could deploy on cd as a normal app with no web needed and you start to see a different animal and the current lines get blurry.  There is no technical reason most other libraries could not be added (save the hw issues, sockets, sound, etc) over time.  

    The problem is largely security here. We had the ability to execute pretty much abitrary code from the web browser with IE6, but that led to the spyware disaster then we still feel today. Silverlight spyware could become a problem if it gets too much features, and it's a problem if it has not enough features. Basically, you can't win either way.

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    staceyw said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I have no bones with Mono.  I am just looking into the future a bit.  When you look where SL has come from v1 to v3 in a fairly short time, one can see how more platforms and more features would be natural and expected.  V3 has a lot of goodness already.  Currently, it is hard to see where you hit the wall.  I think there is enouph going on that the argument will change from push to pull.  Instead of MS spending resources on pushing to different platforms (which does not scale well for any company namely because you can't be expert at everything), platforms vender will write hooks and extentions to support a SL layer.  Maybe there is or could be a thin HAL layer that venders could write.  Because of its dot net roots, adding feature libraries (i.e. wcf, 3D, GPU etc) becomes a much lower bar for MS and deployment.  Maybe Mono, for example, could become the experts in this HAL layer for all these other platforms to allow both Mono and SL and .Net to run.

    To  me I think the web's power and persistance lies in it's sheer simplicity. HTML is simple text based markup you can use Notepad and no compiler to work with. The HTML code is everywhere, it's very hard to "hide" your HTML code from your website vistors. Looking at web site source is how I first learned HTML. Didn't need a book. I think that's just the genius of it.

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    staceyw said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I have no bones with Mono.  I am just looking into the future a bit.  When you look where SL has come from v1 to v3 in a fairly short time, one can see how more platforms and more features would be natural and expected.  V3 has a lot of goodness already.  Currently, it is hard to see where you hit the wall.  I think there is enouph going on that the argument will change from push to pull.  Instead of MS spending resources on pushing to different platforms (which does not scale well for any company namely because you can't be expert at everything), platforms vender will write hooks and extentions to support a SL layer.  Maybe there is or could be a thin HAL layer that venders could write.  Because of its dot net roots, adding feature libraries (i.e. wcf, 3D, GPU etc) becomes a much lower bar for MS and deployment.  Maybe Mono, for example, could become the experts in this HAL layer for all these other platforms to allow both Mono and SL and .Net to run.

    I can tell you one thing SL3 won't do: WinForms. There are thousands upon thousands of WinForms apps in production.

    Personally I am not a big fan of web applications. I don't think too much "rich functionality" or programming logic really belongs on the web. It gets too rich you get security issues like ActiveX. So we have security measures now. But because of this in the end of the day it kind of feels like you are artificially limiting yourself in a web application; even SL or Flash. I know SL3 will support a Adobe AIR style offline mode. But hey, so does .NET it of course supports an offline mode Smiley. And Silverlight is just a subset of .NET. I rather code for .NET directly and not be limited. Just my opinion.

    But yeah the web is changing everything and TBH we are going to see LOTS AND LOTS more web apps in the future hell I think most people like live in their web browser already. But I want no part in this! Smiley Get off my lawn!

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    staceyw said:
    contextfree said:
    *snip*

    SL3 with out-of-browser support and beyond will essencially make all this moot.  A dev will be able to deliver apps on all supported platforms and not worry this stuff because it is supported by ms.  c#, f#, VB.net, or any language that can produce IL.  Does bring to question how mono will then provide value.  One can write to SL once and have it run everywhere and not have to worry about porting to mono (or other) for example.

    Mono pitchmen mode activated!

    Mono is much bigger then Silverlight, it's (trying) to create the entire .NET framework and then some. And Silverlight "multiplatform" means only two platforms: Windows and Mac OS X. There is no other technology that brings C#/.NET to more platforms and devices then Mono. Mono runs on so much more..

    Mono runs on Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, Mac OS X, iPhones, Android Phones, Wii game consoles, processor arches: ARM, MIPS, SPARC, POWER,x86 and x64. And that's just the beggining.

    Also Mono is especially suitable for writing video game engines (nevermind XNA) and highly scientific applications: it supports SIMD instructions, something that .NET currently does not. And it has some features like C# interactive evaluation that .NET will only get in .NET 4.0

    Mono is also open source. In fact it's 100% open source: you can look at, and even modify the source code for the entire Mono project, and not get the men in black on your a$$ for daring to. Free distribution. Free modification. No compromises.

    Mono is also very modular. You can customize Mono down to the method level (without actually modifying the BCL) making it especially suitable for embedded development. You don't need to make comprises based on what some arbitrary defined "edition" tells you can do. It can scale all the way down and all the way up, one codebase, any functionality you need. No worrying about the differences between Compact, Micro, Macro, Enterprise editions or whatever.

    If you want a .NET framework with full C# 3.0, Linq, Generics, WinForms 1.0 and 2.0, ASP.NET 1.0 and 2.0, interactive shell, Silverlight + more, an intergrated and extremely powerful plugin framework (Mono.Addins), and you want this framework to support Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, and dozens of other devices and platforms. And you want it to be free both in the sense of charge and of freedom: you have only one option. The Mono option. Smiley

     

    Now for some cheesy marketing slogans:


    Mono. It's .NET. Everywhere.

    Mono. The one option for multiplatform .NET. (One = Mono; ha ha ha)

    Mono. The code monkey wet dream.

    Mono. RAD development wherever development takes you.

    Mono. It doesn't need a marketing slogan.

     

    End Mono pitchmen mode!

     

    Disclaimer: I do not work for Novell or in way affliated with the Mono project. I'm just a bit of a fan. Smiley

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    contextfree said:
    Bass said:
    *snip*

    I think SkyDrive is going to be moved to the Live Framework in the future, so you could probably program against that?

    I think Live Mesh is suppose to be programmable or something. Honestally it's hard to keep track of all of Microsoft's overlapping web services on any given day. Smiley I like SkyDrive because it's not some crazy buzzword filled file storage system of strangeness. It's just a drive. In the sky. SkyDrive. Too bad it doesn't have an API. Sad

  • Distributed Version Control for Visual Studio - Suggestion

    LeoDavidson said:
    Ubuntu said:
    *snip*

    That is absolutely massive by "stuff added on to an individual installer/application just to get it to run when you don't care about emulating an OS and just want the damn app" standards, no matter how you spin it. That's an order of magnitude larger than most apps.

    As I said, I don't want to emulate another OS. I just want to run some additional tools/apps to get a job done. I would never choose an app which requires Cygwin if there's a similar alternative which doesn't.

    Would you consider using a source control system for Linux which required WINE when you could use one which didn't and still met your requirements?

     

    I use Git as my primary VCS. I do most of my development on Visual Studio + Windows. I'll tell you the secret! I run Windows in a virtual machine on top of a Linux host. All my projects are stored on a shared folder which is actually on the host machine. Any time I want to commit changes I just minimize the VM and go into a terminal and type "git commit -m "blah blah changes blah blah"".

    I'm no expert in Git but I notice it's ridiculusly fast. Commit takes like a second or less. But really everything about git, updating and what not, just feels really fast. That plus the DVCS functionality makes me like it a lot more then SVN.

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    RoyalSchrubber said:
    Ubuntu said:
    *snip*

    "If you want to develop closed source stuff for the Linux kernel then why should it bother me that you are experiencing license problems?"

    That's not what I call developer-friendly.

    On WinFS. When you say it didn't make it it sounds like it was almost done. WinFS couln't be done in time, not didn't make it.  No other OS has anything not even slightly similar to WinFS, transition of NTFS to WinFS would be of the same magnitude as transition of MS-DOS 1.0 sigle-directory FS to MS-DOS 2.0 directory tree FS. They would need to change every application to take advantage of new FS paradigm.

    But all this isn't connected to the original question of whether MS supports non-native filesystems or not. I don't know why you brought this up, are you trying to make it look like you adressed my points by stating irrelevant facts and in this way steering away from your failed argument (like, dare I say, you often do) ?

     

    "IFS never made it to Windows in the form that was intended by the team"

    How the team wanted it is irrelevant. IFS is stable, kernel mode driver framework that allows you to use custom FS in Windows. It's unfortunate that you have to sign drivers, but the fact that you can download and use ext3 driver for free on x86 and x64 means it isn't that much of a problem. Also you can have ZFS in NT kernel, but you can't on Linux kernel, meaning MS is more relaxed about licensing.

     

    And where exactly is the download for Device Driver Kit?

    WDK is available for free afaik. http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/DevTools/WDK/WDKpkg.mspx

    How will I get my driver signed?

    Dunno. How do I get linux driver in linux tree?

    MS has a patent on IFS and it's not supported on any other OS.

    Linux kernel headers are GPLd and are not supported in any other kernel that is also not GPLd. So linux equivalent of IFS is also not supported on any other OS.

    There.

    Sorry to distract from this the argument..

    Many Linux file systems are implemented using FUSE (Filesystem in USErspace). FUSE is a file system driver API that is supported in most *nix operating systems. The file system drivers run completely in user space. It's a very simple API, something like 6-7 (core?) functions, with bindings to just about every language out there including .NET (via Mono.Fuse). There are hundreds of such file systems publically available, from primative WinFS-like expirements to turning your blog into a file system.

    I once tried to write one for SkyDrive but failed. Sad The problem with SkyDrive is there is no public API, so to implement any kind of abstraction you have to screen scrape, and it can be difficult to do this (although not impossible).


    Anyway, back to the arguing. Smiley

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    RoyalSchrubber said:
    Ubuntu said:
    *snip*

    I often don't agree with you, but I think the possibility of MS suing is like epsilon - larger than zero..

    In the same way AT&T could sue Linux developers because they maybe own patents related to unix. Does that mean we should abandon Linux because AT&T might sue?

    Still, MS suing over Mono would be monumental, as not only would it cause incredible harm to some foss projects, they would also lose  any goodwill that they seem they've been trying to get in foss comunity with open sourcing some of their projects and supporting some open technologies. It would also mean that they can forget about their standars if they chose to randomly sue guys that implement their standards, so it would also hurt their projects like OOXML.

    That said, maybe I'll start GTK# project in not that distant future, I want it to be cross-plaform but it seems C# is the only sane option. I don't want doing C(++) for desktop application (memory safety), Java is generally lame (event system!), python and ruby are slow (and I don't like languages that are not in the end compiled to machine code, it feels dirty) and any functional language works like communism (on paper). If MS sues I'll rewrite it in Vala, but I won't touch it now as it's (imo) not mature just yet.

    If Microsoft sued Mono or Mono users I think it would breed some bad will among their own loyal developer base. From what I seen you know people invest a lot of time learning .NET and those who do, they like Mono because it increases the scope of what they can target, even people who traditionally use only Windows have some kind of comfort that their professional knowledge isn't forever tied to one platform. So I think it would be a very bad idea.

    But Mono would be the easiest FOSS target to sue, I think.They can try to sue the Linux kernel users but even with all the patents Microsoft owns they really don't own fundemental UNIX and operating system technology. They might be able to knock FAT32 out of the kernel or something, but whatever. With Mono they can be much more destructive. That's what everyone is scared about, it's possible that Microsoft could pretty much kill Mono with the sheer number of .NET related patents they possess. They might also use the copyright angle, say that Mono uses stolen .NET code or something, basically pull a SCO.

    I don't expect Microsoft to do this, because as I said despite Mono probably being the easiest target it's also one of the more dangerous ones to target from a PR sense. Microsoft may have a monopoly on operating systems but they are far from having a monopoly on development frameworks, and suing Mono could seriously hurt .NET as a whole.

  • Resource based economy, would it work?

    Lunaya said:
    magicalclick said:
    *snip*

    If everyone throughout the ages believed like most of you do, there would never be a lightbulb or a telephone or any of the technologies you enjoy daily. Try hard, I know it is hard but just try to imagine that no one needed anything.  How could greed exist?  How could crime exist? You don't need to be raised in a world based on income or possessions or any of the monatary things that greed or crime are a part of.  It could happen and it could be eutopia but not if no one is willing to make it happen.

     

    I think there are people in the world who rather suffer if it means they are suffering less then everyone else. They rather be a one eyed man in a world of the blind, because then they are king. To these people, suffering is a good thing, total dysoptia is a good thing. If a "resource based economy" would ever succeed, these kind of people would have to be fought.

  • Stallman warns against C# and Mono

    contextfree said:

    My impression is that MSFT has been deliberately ambiguous about the patent situation.  They're trying to simultaneously get developers to think they won't need licenses and some businesses to think they will.  (sort of reminds me of the US' "one China" policy)  I don't think it's too unreasonable of Stallman et al. to call them out on it although as someone who likes both .NET and Linux, and really appreciates Mono, I wish the situation were better.

    BTW speaking of Tomboy (of which I'm also a big fan), it runs on Windows now and the recent 0.15.1 developer release appears to fix whatever problem prevented 0.14.x from installing on W7 for me.

    I agree. This whole "neener neener you violate our patents but we don't tell you which patents you violate" business from Microsoft is pathetic. It shows they aren't really interested in "protecting their IP" but rather to spread Fear, Uncertainity, and Doubt (FUD) about their competition using unsubstantiated legal threats. It's really a pretty disgraceful and shady tactic, and I wouldn't mind if the EU or some other entity punishes Microsoft for doing it.


    That said, I think the Mono project is awesome and I hate all the FUD it is getting. Mono brings a high quality development platform to Linux and it's a shame I think this type of FUD (from the Linux camp) is scaring people away from Mono. In fact I think the Linux desktop will get hurt because of it.