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


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

    staceyw said:
    contextfree said:

    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:

    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:

    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:

    "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.


    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:

    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:

    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.

  • What Linux needs to improve for the desktop

    W3bbo said:
    Bass said:

    I agree. Especially since Office 2007 came out. Did you know it doesn't have a "Designed for Windows XP" badge because it doesn't meet Microsoft's own criteria? Windows Media Player 10 is another one.

    On the subject of Gnome's HIG documents: Gnome apps are a very small part of what's on offer for Linux (or any environment where Gnome is the desktop), there's still competition from KDE and programs that use their own GUI toolkit. Then there's the problem of playing catch-up with yourself: Gnome redid their visual design guidelines (especially for toolbar and icon art) sometime in 2005 which suddenly rendered pretty much everything obsolete.

    For true Linux cohesion, KDE and Gnome are going to have to enter Thunderdome, there's just no other way forward.

    Gnome and KDE have different philoposphy of what makes a good UI, Gnome is all about simplicity, they count the # of interactive widgets on a window. Something like more then 5 (not including OK/cancel) in most windows is considered too complicated. Smiley Basically Gnome says: simple = usable. It's like the Google doctrine.

    KDE is more of opposite. They think giving as much power as possible in the GUI is the best way to do usability. Because you know, if some feature isn't click-able to someone maybe you made their experience less usable. So typically KDE apps are more widget heavy, with less white space then Gnome apps.  KDE says functionality = usable.

    KDE in general is less HIG crazy, I believe they do have a HIG, but a violation of the HIG is a serious thing in Gnome that could get your app kicked out of the official Gnome desktop. Really my experience with Gnome development is the core team takes consistency to an almost religious level, which pisses some people who don't like the rigid UI guidelines. This also made Manip's post almost funny to me. Hell Gnome ships their own web browser partly/mostly because Firefox violates the HIG, and they won't have that kind of blatent UI abuse in their desktop. Smiley

    I don't know who is right, they might both be in a way (there is no right answer to usability IMO), but total consistency between KDE and Gnome isn't going to happen. You might as well ask for consistency between Mac OS X and Windows, it's about as likely. Scared

    I agree it's a problem though, but not something that could seriously imbede the Linux desktop. I think there are more problems like hardware drivers and software compatability that are far more serious. Linux STILL doesn't work with a lot of hardware, it's been getting better, but it's doesn't support as many consumer devices as Windows does. And applications are a problem, I think Linux needs Win32 support, but unfortunately Win32 is so huge it's a monumental task. If Linux had good hardware drivers and perfect Win32 support I think it would take off quickly.

  • What Linux needs to improve for the desktop

    ManipUni said:
    ZippyV said:

    I am comparing two items I launched that look entirely different and work entirely different. The reason why is besides the point.

    Linux doesn't need to be like Windows or OS X to be successful but it does need to be like its self. It needs a set of standards both in look and behavior that work across the board.

    PS - That is also a huge misuse of a Dialog Box.  A Dialog Box exists either to inform the user or to request spesific input. That is clearly a full application since it is requesting at least a dozen pieces of information.

    I can't agree with you on this, Gnome actually has a HIG, a UI that all applications should follow. Not everything follow the HIG but most applications do.

    Windows doesn't really have one, every app including from the same vendor seem to feel the need to reinvent the UI. Actually I feel Windows is extemely confusing OS to use for computer newbies. Computer illeterates tend to  stay in the 1-2 apps they know because there is no consistantcy. I can give some examples of this if you don't believe me.

    I gave my mother a Ubuntu computer and she somehow figured out how to use F-Spot, Firefox, the File Manager, and all kinds of other stuff without even me telling her what to do, and I think the HIG has a lot to do with that. All the apps that are part of the Gnome desktop share the same UI design.

  • What Linux needs to improve for the desktop

    Erisan said:
    Bass said:

    Closed source drivers are bad because Xorg and Linux devs have no clue what the hell they are doing

    No, they don't care about closed source drivers.


    If distro supports closed source software it is their job to keep the drivers working.

    Well the reason they don't support closed source drivers is because they have no way to know what they are doing. If they were open source they could perhaps fix the bugs. At least that's the way I see it.