jcwelch wrote: They'd be in shock for six months, since it would be the first piece of native Linux software to come from Microsoft, what ever? If they want the Linux community to use this, then why NOT take the first step. Sure, the hard core folks will reject it, but then, they're not using WPF/E *anyway*, so there's neither any hope there or loss. But for the people who aren't fanatics, (and yes, they exist in the Linux community), why not do a bit of bridge - building instead of making them do all the work? I mean, what have you got to lose?
A lot of human resources that could be allocated elsewhere, that's what they have to lose.
Right, because getting more people to use Microsoft technology, regardless of platform is such a stupid idea that spending any time, effort and money on it is just dumb. Far better to continue with the hugely successful PR campaign of "Use Windows or suffer".
Whichever one works better. You're confusing "Linux User" with "Raving Stallmanite". I admit, it's an easy thing to do, but that's about as accurate as saying that all people who use Windows pray to Ballmer every morning and treat his words as absolute gospel. If Microsoft comes up with a kick-arse WPF/E implementation for Linux, hell yes I'll use it. I use Word because it does what I need better than anything.reinux wrote:It's less likely that people will ultimately choose to use WPF/E if its implementation is written by Microsoft than it would be if it were written by a third party, whom they'd trust. Would you as a Linux user rather use WPF/E if it were written by Novell or by Microsoft?
reinux wrote:Last time I checked, most of the Linux community folk were "hardcore folks that aren't using WPF/E *anyway*". I don't know why you'd write anything for them then.
Last I checked, the ones in the enterprise were pragmatists selecting the best tool for the job.
Rotor was not even close to what Mono is, and sat stagnant for how long, until Microsoft revved it into a...that's right, you guessed it, "requires Windows" tech. Gee, I can't IMAGINE why people ignored it with such sterling support. Meanwhile, Mono has actual product being built with it that runs cross-platform, something that Rotor doesn't.
Mono's developer forums discourage even using Rotor code as a reference. It has nothing to do with platform compatibility.
And of course, you can show that the sole reason for this is rampant Stallmanite ravings, right? Links please.
However, you ignore the man thrust of my statement: Why is Mono a *mystery* to the guy working on a cross-platform CLR? If he'd said, "We looked long and hard at Mono, dissected it, and there are just things we need that would be faster to do ourselves in this case", that would be different. But Mike said that he really didn't know much about Mono, so there's no possibility that there was a technically qualified decision made in not using Mono. That leaves a limited number of possibilies, and I'll bet "Political" is real high up on the list. If that's the case, then just say so and move on. But to not be familiar with it? Again, what kind of bubble does the WPF/E team live in?
Hahaha. Ever heard of a "job"? It's something that happens in the grown-up world a lot... well, maybe not all the time in opensource.
Why, yes, I have one. Been an IT manager for almost 20 years now. And as part of that job, I'm expected to be up on all the various technologies and implementations that affect what I'm working on. It's called being knowledgable about your field, and it's a sign of someone with a clue.
reinux wrote:You get too busy to be looking over your rival's shoulders all the time. Which is good, because you want to stay focused. If they come up with some groundbreaking technology, sure, but this man's busy implementing a standard that's already set in stone.
Nonsense. According to him, the full runtime's not even demonstratable yet. That's not even close to "set in stone".
That doesn't explain why Microsoft consistently jiggers the BoF votes at the PDC to make sure Mono doesn't get any space. It also doesn't account for actual commercial products being written with Mono. But I guess if it's not developed in Windows, it doesn't exist to Ballmer.reinux wrote:And until Novell proposes business to Microsoft one way or another (other than just having their devs email Microsoft with some questions about Mono), it's just another "cool project" on their watch. Especially when it's constantly being tinkered with by anonymous programmers.
reinux wrote:Differing ideologies, to say the least.
So because Macromedia made a dumb decision, Microsoft shoult too? I wasn't aware that 12-year-old peer pressure methodology was how development decisions were made at Microsoft, although it would explain much.
It doesn't matter if the Mono C# compiler works or not, because it's pretty much carved in stone that all WPF/E dev MUST BE DONE ON WINDOWS. Not that the WPF/E team knows anything about Mono, so even if it had been an option, they wouldn't have known. I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft made using the WPF/E runtime contingent on developing the application with VS on Windows via the EULA or some required support library that can only be used in VS. When it comes to Ballmer's rabid "DEATH TO LINUX" POV, I'd not be surprised at all if he very specifically ordered that Mono not be an option.
Listen to yourself talk, man! Take a deep breath and think!
I am. I'm basing this on the reaction Ballmer has every time Linux or any kind of work done on !Microsoft Platforms. Hell, he can't even be bothered to say something nice about the MS Mac BU when it's mentioned at an INTERNAL MEETING. Instead, he instantly has to start bashing the iPod. When Ballmer changes his tune, then assuming rampant paranoia and immaturity as the reason for all Linux - bashing from him will no longer be applicable. Until then, if the shoe fits, wear it.
reinux wrote:Macromedia's decision wasn't a dumb one, it was a wise one. In fact, it was probably their only option. Developers don't grow on trees, not even for Microsoft. You don't just throw all your resources in every direction.
You expect Microsoft to write a designer for OS X, Windows AND Linux? ...wow.
No, I expect them to design the spec so that it can be implemented in existing !Microsoft implementations of C# and the rest, and to work with the people who are doing the most work to make that happen. Partnering works with Open Source people too. What
I do not expect is for Microsoft to require that all WPF/E development be done in VS on Windows.
By that logic, then either Microsoft shouldn't be doing the Mac OS X port either, or that work should be done by the Mac BU, since, out of everyone at Microsoft, they know the platform best. From what I saw in the video, the newest Mac BU intern knows Mac OS X better than Harsh, and he's doing the port. Again, when your lead porting dev admits to being essentially unfamiliar with the platform he's writing the port for? Not a confidence builder.reinux wrote:Besides, from what's known about Mono, I think it can safely be said that Microsoft expects Linux people to do the work of porting for the platform they know best, Linux.
reinux wrote:If anything, I expect Xaml to be ECMA standardized the way C# was. If you don't think so, well that's up to you but I could hardly call it an educated guess.
Standardized and open are not in fact the same thing. You can say they are, but I'd hardly call that a factual statement.
Right...and people wonder why I have no confidence in Microsoft announcements until the product is available for sale. They don't even have a demo-able runtime available, yet anyone's supposed to take their predictions of testable code seriously? Ummm...try again.
Even earlier than Microsoft has anything to show, you've decided you're not going to even put any thought into anything you say about it.
Gotta stop making impossible expectations.
Everything I say, I've based on the vaporous dog and pony show I've seen. Microsoft's release reliability outside of the Xbox and the Mac BU is nonexistant, and they have a history of minor cross-platform dog and pony shows that just never seem to get finished. So when I see real product that's really usable, I'll take it seriously. Until then, it's Active X for the Macintosh v. 2