Compatibility with apps written for M$ ecosystem is overrated.
Discussions
Ubuntu
-
-
fknight said:Bass said:*snip*
Microsoft could GPL every bit of code they've ever written and renounce all patents and people would still say not to use it because "they still might sue you" or claim it's some kind of trick.
Microsoft could GPL every bit of code they've ever written and renounce all patents and people would still say not to use it because "they still might sue you" or claim it's some kind of trick.
M$ has the opportunity to settle this issue once and for all by sending their .net patents to /dev/null but they CHOOSE not to - instead they give a promise not to sue you similar to the promise not to sue you for using the ribbon in your apps. Now why do they do that? To keep their options open. Patents are the reason why a horizontal ribbon shouldn't be ever implemented in OpenOffice and why this is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. Of course M$ apologists like you defend these M$ 'good will' promises the following argument: since M$ couldn't satisfy everybody no matter what it did then it can just as well screw everybody which is what it has always done.
-
PaoloM said:Ubuntu said:*snip*
Why would it needed to be supported on another OS?! It's a *Windows* driver class! It's like asking why the Linux kernel is not supported in OSX...
Dear Ubuntu, I don't mind discussing with people that have different opinions and affiliations than my own, but I would exepct at least some kind of intellectual honesty to be brought to the table...
As far as I know there was a point in time when the DDK wasn't that freely available (it was at a time when MS didn't use signing for the drivers and they were worried about malware).
It's like asking why the Linux kernel is not supported in OSX...
MS makes their little 'innovations' which are in direct opposition to the best practices established during the last 40 years of UNIX development. And you do not have to bother about going through the signing process for a Linux device driver.
-
RoyalSchrubber said:Ubuntu said:*snip*
Yeah it's unfair, like Nike not supporting Adidas..
And you could say NT has better support for external file systems - as they don't have crazy problems revolving around license of kernel headers and unstable ABIs...
Mark Zbikowski left MS after WinFS didn't make it to Vista. IFS never made it to Windows in the form that was intended by the team who developed it (it was trimmed down as always). Why don't you give me a link to Cairo and all the other failed projects that never made it to Windows. And where exactly is the download for Device Driver Kit? How will I get my driver signed? MS has a patent on IFS and it's not supported on any other OS. That's not what I call developer-friendly.
crazy problems revolving around license of kernel headers
If you want to develop closed source stuff for the Linux kernel then why should it bother me that you are experiencing license problems? The community won't benefit from any of your work anyway.
-
wkempf said:Ubuntu said:*snip*
While you're at it. http://www.eclipse4sl.org/
And this is precisely why folks are irked with your trolling here, IRT "you know it's not a place I go very often". You open your mouth and spread FUD on topics you have no knowledge of. You have knowledge of Linux. How about you be a good advocate and promote it, instead of the trolling and spreading of FUD your known for, hmm?
All of that stuff you were kind enough to link is fairly recent which is the reason I wasn't familiar with it. I'm not a fan of Silverlight just as I'm not a fan of Flash and I hope that in the near future we won't need these things to play a 3 minute video clip in the browser (I mean this is the kind of functionality that desktop apps could perform back in the days of Win95 so there is no reason to take a dependency on any of these technologies for that).
-
wkempf said:Ubuntu said:*snip*
Microsoft has recognized the existence of Mono and C# for Eclipse. Moonlight is linked to by the official Silverlight website (http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/overview/faq.aspx) for crying out loud.
Forgive me for not noticing - you know it's not a place I go very often
-
vesuvius said:wkempf said:*snip*
I guess that the fact that Linux troll will always exist is a given, pretty much as Microsoft fanbois, but the trajectory of the argument always seems to rest upon pre or post-pubescence, though some never escape.
It's almost a case of "let me test these MS fools (supply them with flame bait), just to prove to myself that Ubuntu rules - and that I am right". I will probably be writing a similar post to this in a few years time. Oh well, the predictability of it all!
You are an optimist - don't you know that MS is going to go bust a couple years from now and then there will be no reason for trolling about them any more - there I said it - now you have confirmed in your mind the fact that it's me who is the troll and not you who is the fanboy.
-
staceyw said:cycnus said:*snip*
"With WPF and Silverlight, there is a real possibility that .Net can push the boundaries of Windows and get installed on Linux and Macs. That may not represent the wishes of Microsoft for a Windows-only world, but I believe that this shortsightedness is very limiting to the development of .Net, and by extension also limits what software companies can offer to their own Customers."
1) I don't understand. MS has purposely made sure SL *works on Linux and Macs - that is one of the primary pillars of the SL. So this argument does not even make sense. They *want SL to work on Linux and Mac browsers. If it did not, nobody would invest in developing content for SL because a lot of browsers could not run it.
2) I think people are mixing issues. Suites on IP in linux have nothing to do with c# or mono. AFAICT, MS has had nothing but props and help for Mono - they want to see it work. As long as they follow the c# ECMA spec, what could they sue over? IMHO ms would do as much as possible (short of handing over code) to get mono strong and going. I might even suspect at some point, VS would have an option to target Mono as a framework and test in a VM opened on F5. IMO, that is the only way many developers would have time or resources to do a mono RTM (make it easy for them).
Face it, stallman does not want anyone to use anything MS came up with. It is such an immature mentality, it boggles the mind.
I think that the hell will freeze over before MS supports any of the following: SharpDevelop, Mono, C# for Eclipse, Wine, non-native file systems etc. (by support MS style I mean recognizing their existence). All it takes is to look at their record and it's clear it won't happen any time soon.
-
LeoDavidson said:wkempf said:*snip*
Yeah, that may be true. When compiling Rockbox under GCC I remember it was horribly slow. I wasn't sure if that was because Cygwin was implemented in an inefficient way, 'or if GCC's compiler for the CPU I was targeting wasn't very optimized, or if it was just inherently slow to translate between the two APIs given the way GCC used them.
Most of all, though, I don't really want the complexities of two OS instead of one. (I know Cygwin isn't as complex as a second OS but hopefully what I mean is clear: It's a lot of extra configuration and knowledge to take on board just to run one or programs.)
You claim it's big. Let me show you how much the default installation + some of the additional packages I've added take:
- size of the archives: 225 items, totaling 44.5 MB
- size of the installation: 10,440 items, totaling 164.3 MB
That's not big by OS emulation standards no matter how you want to spin it.
-
wkempf said:Ubuntu said:*snip*
He said nothing moronic. Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't make what he said moronic. But, continue to troll here. We love it soooo much. Moron.
Go ahead and take cheap shots at me because I dared to call a guy a name for acting like a d*ck. I don't want the thread to go off-topic so I leave it at that.
