Page 6 of 32 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 315

Thread: Why Mono Is Desirable For Linux

  1. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    https://github.com/SupergiantGames/MonoGame

    Google Native Client port of Mono(Game), as used for the browser version of Bastion.
    Which is a fork of Mono(Game). Come back when its merged into Mono(Game).

    Also there are a several features that I want that cannot be implemented because NaCl do not support them.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by frantaylor View Post
    ...
    They sold "Active X" and "Silverlight" and ... as "solid professional application development environments,
    ...
    FAIL! (I want to shout too!).

    Active X, COM, DCOM are all the same thing. Direct-Whatever are just a collection of purpose-specific Active X APIs. The model is essentially unchanged since mid 1990's. Windows is still built on Active X, just under different names. .NET is a great big wrapper around Windows/Office/IE/etc Active X core.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    I just don't understand this.

    Why is Mono the magical wedge to fear?

    Why isn't the Linux kernel, over which Microsoft have sued e.g. TomTom over, the wedge?
    ...
    I don't know exactly, but my spidey sense tells me it is the wedge that MS will use.

    Nobody said the spidey sense is rational.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    347

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    I don't know exactly, but my spidey sense tells me it is the wedge that MS will use.

    Nobody said the spidey sense is rational.
    The wedge they'll use isn't the one they've sabre-rattled about in the press... it's the one where they've invited key developers to conferences, released millions of lines of source code under FOSS licenses, etc?

    Ingenious!

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by elanthis View Post
    Because it would take fucking years, hundreds of developers, and hundreds of millions of dollars to rewrite millions of lines of code for no immediate end-user marketable gains.

    Welcome to real life, buddy. Only hobbyists rewrite their entire desktop stack every few years just to appease non-users.
    Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

    The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

    Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,064

    Default

    Wow, total pile of crap.
    Mono is terrible. Not primarily because of legal threats. Because it has a highly destructive side-effect.
    When a software developer wants to be LAZY, they simply do not implement a non-windoze version. They say instead "we only support gaybuttfu*kingbalmer, if you wanna get with a girl, you can always try wine or mono, otherwise bend over and take it." Now if you happen to be gay and like taking it up the arse, power to you, this solution may satisfy you. For everyone else though, it means that software just doesn't work the way that satisfies you, and software developers are in no way motivated to actually support your preferred paltform.

    The ideal solution to this problem, is the use of cross-platform development tools. This makes support of all the different platforms... as easy as supporting ONLY ONE.

    EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT I've ever seen in support of MONO has boiled down to either LAZYNESS or IGNORANCE. Mono solves NEITHER.

    The ONLY thing that solves BOTH is FORCING software developers to actually support more than balmer.


    Oh, and I argue with list of points made at top of article;
    - Oracle was attacking Android's Java for copyright issues (no patents, sic!)
    **** THEY LOST!!!!!

    - Apple attacked Android too, an open platform

    No, Apple attacked SAMSUNG over features/characteristics added BY SAMSUNG, in particular, "rectangle with rounded corners" -- does not apply to Android, only Samsung.

    - Microsoft attacked TomTom for using extFat format in their GPS devices
    Serves tomtom right for being retarded.
    Yes, this point actually DOES support "MONO SUCKS"

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    351

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by directhex View Post
    The wedge they'll use isn't the one they've sabre-rattled about in the press... it's the one where they've invited key developers to conferences, released millions of lines of source code under FOSS licenses, etc?

    Ingenious!
    And then threaten to sue you for all you're worth if you put a SD card slot on your product, because the user just might insert a card with a "patented" MS-DOS filesystem on it.

    Or they might even sue you with a big pile of supposed patents that they won't reveal to you.

    Or they might force you into a "strategic partnership" where they bleed all the life out of you.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hoohoo View Post
    FAIL! (I want to shout too!).

    Active X, COM, DCOM are all the same thing. Direct-Whatever are just a collection of purpose-specific Active X APIs. The model is essentially unchanged since mid 1990's. Windows is still built on Active X, just under different names. .NET is a great big wrapper around Windows/Office/IE/etc Active X core.
    Nope. These thing are not all the same thing. COM is an object sharing model, OLE is a COM application for sharing more specific object. DCOM is a network-transparent proxy for COM. ActiveX is a specification for sharing graphical components over OLE.

    .NET does not even officially support COM/OLE/ActiveX.... so no.

    .NET assemblies is intended to REPLACE COM/OLE/ActiveX because those are generally a bloody mess that only Don Box fully understand.

    Yes there are a lot of windows and office components that still are stuck in COM but all new development are focused on .NET assemblies.

    Personally I think it was wrong of Microsoft to make WinRT native. They should have reused .NET Micro Framework and make something entirely based on .NET.

    Of course moving all code to .NET means killing Windows, which becomes a problem for redmond...

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    1,106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mateli View Post
    Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

    The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

    Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.
    yes write wine in C# so linux user will need 64 CPU and 4 gpu to open office on it and ofc finally break the barriers and set the 16 GB minimal memory requirements but ofc running C/C++ code as bytecode will improve it <-- WTF

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    136

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mateli View Post
    Yes. Because writing and maintaining a whole different set of code for Win32 and OS X is so much more cost-effective.

    The truth is that by using an abstraction layer Microsoft would save billions. Be it Wine, Qt, Java, .NET, Mono or brainfuck... does not really matter which they choose... Wine would probably be cheapest because most of Microsoft's applications already work to some degree on that platform...

    Also unlike Java .NET can run C and C++ applications as CIL bytecode, so a rewrite would not be required to move to .NET. They could probably port Wine to .NET and stack office on top of that.
    <pedant>
    .NET runs C & C++ code that has been compiled to .NET bytecode.
    </pedant>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •