MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[directhex]

If GNU project picks up or starts own MONO, and its is secured by FSF;

http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

standartizes the technology via IEEE or ISO

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=42926
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=58046

[directhex]

ECMA is microsoft bitch. Point me at IEEE or ISO please.

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51463

[Vim_User]

ECMA is microsoft bitch. Point me at IEEE or ISO please.

directhex was faster than me this time, proving again that you actually have no clue what you are talking about.

[brosis]

http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail?csnumber=51463

That one is withdrawn.

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=42926
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=58046

That's cool!

Two things still not clear - MONO follows .net (which is similar to GCJ following Java), but microsoft is very attack-friendly.
This could be solve if MS surrenders patents or submits them to neutral entity, and that is hardly to happen. This would be the final requirement.
Basically, we have specs, but the ability for this specs to be revoked and the control over whole technology belongs to very

http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/

Please reread the page and also their reasoning wouldn't hurt to read many here btw.

[directhex]

That one is withdrawn.

My mistake. The current version (2012) is here: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/ca...csnumber=61750

That's cool!

Two things still not clear - MONO follows .net (which is similar to GCJ following Java), but microsoft is very attack-friendly.
This could be solve if MS surrenders patents or submits them to neutral entity, and that is hardly to happen. This would be the final requirement.
Basically, we have specs, but the ability for this specs to be revoked and the control over whole technology belongs to very

If they surrender their patents to a third party, what happens if someone (say Oracle) sues them over patent infringement? They no longer have their own set of patents with which to counter-sue.

Patents as a system are geared up for a nuclear war style MAD situation. No one entity can give up their nuclear arsenal without being put at large risk (and Microsoft is a FREQUENT target of patent trolls)

Please reread the page and also their reasoning wouldn't hurt to read many here btw.

DotGNU is dead, sure. It never took off - Mono had more supporters and didn't insist upon things like copyright assignment, so was a more successful project.

Here's the original press release. Relevant sections include:

Richard M. Stallman, founder of the GNU project and president of the Free Software Foundation, said: "With Mono and DotGNU, we hope to provide good alternatives to components of .NET, ones that will respect your freedom, and your privacy. You will be able to use the facilities of Mono and DotGNU either with, or without, the Internet, and using servers of your choice."

[Luke_Wolf]

Alternatively, it can just as well play out in the reverse: Microsoft boosts its weakening desktop OS monopoly by tying Office, Visual Studio and all its highly-desired enterprise application software even tighter to the Windows platform.

After all, they have nothing to lose. We talk about Microsoft being 'forced' to eventually release a version of Office or Visual Studio or Sharepoint or Active Directory that works on Linux, but ask youselves this: are you willing to pay for Microsoft's software on Linux? Are you willing to pay the $200 for Office, the thousands for Visual Studio professional? Or are you just going to torrent them off TPB?

If you answer is no to the first question and yes to the second, then don't expect Microsoft to invest any money into porting its products to Linux. Especially since there is a expectation by Linux users that all software, regardless of their quality, should be made available at $0.00 for Linux.

Well, you're missing the two target markets that are actually important here: Government and Business. By bringing Office to Linux they can still push for them using MS Office, and get license fees that way that they wouldn't get by that government or business using LibreOffice. Same for the rest of their server and developer products. Now I will agree with you that they're probably not going to make that much off of the Home User field, but let's be perfectly honest it's the same situation on Windows. MS Office, Adobe Creative Suite, and MS Windows all have massive pirated install bases as it stands.

To be perfectly honest I probably would buy the home office suite because of one program: OneNote. The problem is that as far as I've been able to tell it's the only good notetaking program, everything else just amounts to a crappy hierarchical HTML editor. Which yeah no... That said I have no doubt that in the future that Calligra will be getting an alternative that suits my needs because it's an excellent base for a replacement. As far as Visual Studio goes I'm going to agree with cipilogic, infact I would be willing to bet that most almost no home users pay for visual studio, either taking advantage of the ones you can get for free by being a student or are using Visual Studio Express. That said I use mostly Qt Creator and some KDevelop for C++ stuff and since I'm just getting into .NET I'm still evaluating what IDE I want to go with.

[dee.]

All problems could be solved if software patents were simply declared illegal/invalid everywhere in the world (or at least in the US and EU, that way most others would follow suit).

So everyone who is worried about patent threats and such, I suggest you look into ways to combating software patents as a whole, and especially to try to educate those misguided people who still think that there can be a distinction between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" software patents - truth is, they're all illegitimate. Software shouldn't be patentable, period.

[DanLamb]

Yeah this is the same shit hitting Qt. Moving on to new markets and forgetting about the roots. The white collar term is "diversification". The right term for people caring about Linux: treason..

What are you upset about? Xamarin Studio doesn't run on Linux and the new MonoDevelop will focus on Win/Mac...

Why don't you use one of the way better IDEs that take Linux much more seriously: IntelliJ, Eclipse, etc

[directhex]

Why don't you use one of the way better IDEs that take Linux much more seriously: IntelliJ, Eclipse, etc

I was a Java developer until my peers tried to persuade me that Eclipse was a good IDE, at which point I realised they were all insane and perhaps I had wasted my time on my Java-based degree.

[ciplogic]

What are you upset about? Xamarin Studio doesn't run on Linux and the new MonoDevelop will focus on Win/Mac...

Why don't you use one of the way better IDEs that take Linux much more seriously: IntelliJ, Eclipse, etc

Because Xamarin Studio is MonoDevelop, at least as coding is concerned: is Gtk# based, it uses the same refactoring core (mainly: NRefactor), the same solution loader, the same dialogs for adding references, the same code for docking UI, etc. It is using also the very same control to display code and the same solution browser.

The single main change will be that MonoDevelop will not be the main priority. But people will still update the MonoDevelop Git and will benefit from a good IDE.

At last: better is a qualitative term, not a something that can be measured directly. Is Java easier to code for an OpenGL program, or to write Linq like coding? I tried JOGL and is an insanity compared with OpenTK. Also, missing the var keyword, is another small anoyance, the idea that you cannot add 2 classes in the same file, or to create a lambda, you create a full "poor man's closure", meaning an anonnymous class, is really annoying. At last: if Java is this good for Linux, if Mono offers basically the same runtime, I think is great that Linux to have them both. If you can do most things in Python. it doesn't mean that Ruby or Perl should not exist. Or if C can do whatever C++ does, to remove C++ and Vala, isn't it so?

ECMA is microsoft bitch. Point me at IEEE or ISO please.

http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-262.htm

Don't forget that ECMAScript is ECMA. Meaning JavaScript. So the scripting that you run to use to criticize Mono uses the same standard body that Mono. Hopefully you will be true to your word and don't use ECMA anymore (or JS in your browser), it belongs to Microsoft, isn't it so?