Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
    You know very well that assigning to FSF serves to protect copyleft and not circumventing copyleft.
    Copyleft is not the goal.

    Software Freedom is the goal.

    Copyleft is an effective means towards the goal, but it is not the only means, and it is not exclusive as a solution.

    And I'm fairly sure the current parade of developers abandoning their GNU projects - due to being treated shoddily by the FSF - would have things to say about losing control of their projects to hostile forces (e.g. gnutls)

    And as a deb dev you also know the debate and position of the many devs who refuse to assign away their rights.
    Nobody has to sign away their rights. Everyone makes contributions to Free Software with their eyes wide open as to the licensing and copyright requirements and implications.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by directhex View Post
      Copyleft is not the goal.

      Software Freedom is the goal.

      Copyleft is an effective means towards the goal, but it is not the only means, and it is not exclusive as a solution.

      And I'm fairly sure the current parade of developers abandoning their GNU projects - due to being treated shoddily by the FSF - would have things to say about losing control of their projects to hostile forces (e.g. gnutls)

      Nobody has to sign away their rights. Everyone makes contributions to Free Software with their eyes wide open as to the licensing and copyright requirements and implications.
      First, Im not affilated with FSF or support the assignment policy. However I do recognize the ease and power it gives FSF. This is really off topic anyway. And yeah people refusing to assign copyright to FSF is a great benchmark. People wont do it. Even when it is for a good and non commercial cause. Assignment policies suck. And a tool kit is not a place where you want things to go wrong. Porting to a fork or other toolkit is a nightmare. Right now QML is declared to be the future for desktop development while it really was meant for quick and dirty hacking on the phone form factor. It really is a crazy thing left over from the Nokia days.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
        First, Im not affilated with FSF or support the assignment policy. However I do recognize the ease and power it gives FSF. This is really off topic anyway. And yeah people refusing to assign copyright to FSF is a great benchmark. People wont do it. Even when it is for a good and non commercial cause. Assignment policies suck. And a tool kit is not a place where you want things to go wrong. Porting to a fork or other toolkit is a nightmare. Right now QML is declared to be the future for desktop development while it really was meant for quick and dirty hacking on the phone form factor. It really is a crazy thing left over from the Nokia days.
        You aren't being very coherent with the things you say. Get your thoughts organized then try again.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
          LOL. You dont know what Copyleft is do you? It is not the existence of GPL. It is the absence of loopholes making the code available at non-restrictive license to others than rightful copyright holders.
          I know what copyleft is. I did not say anything about copyleft. My reply was just to show you that your statement doesn't really stand on a solid base.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by ciplogic View Post
            So the same is with Mono. Mono is free software. The same Xobotos OS (Android Java libraries ported to C#) and all their stack. When Qt was at Nokia, all Nokia tools that were working with Qt were F/OSS?

            I develop with MonoDevelop and I see no problem for most of my cross-platform development to use VS as main IDE and to import flawlessly to MD and to do the build, etc.

            The worst part is that MonoDevelop is soon to be a 10 years old project and people did not care much in Linux world about it (and Mono in general), so the parent company will spend more development time to profitable tools.

            I'm curious Digia if it will develop with the same pace still (as Nokia did) to QtCreator and their Qt stack.

            One part which I really don't understand: why Qt is compared with Mono most of the times? I'm an ex-Qt developer and I'm an C# developer. I see weaknesses and strength of both frameworks.

            In many ways I see MonoDevelop having an edge for quick&dirty project that will grow, compared with Qt. With C# you don't have to play with macros for QObject, slots, and such, you have a GC and some services with very few libraries, which themselves are a breeze to work with C# (I talk here about Xml+Reflection, Dependency Injection, Database connectivity, or a simple web server). So, if you have a database application or a web service, you can import it from C#/Visual studio, you recompile with Mono and you add Gtk# UI on it. This looks to me a natural path of development of Mono applications to Linux (or Mac OS X). The code in C# is in many cases smaller and more clear than the C++ equivalent and a great experience (that can be given by Visual Studio + a plugin like JustCode, Resharper or CodeRush) in writing this code.

            Qt has other advantages, mostly: you know upfront that the application has to look the same (or very similar) in all platforms and performance is a concern. I see Qt to enrich a huge C++ codebase with a fancy UI, but if you have to start from scrach and the raw performance is not your ultimate concern, I don't see any company to pick Qt for a desktop application. Developers can create the UI with QML and QWidgets, and write in C++ all the performance sensitive code. After that you're good to go and recompile on every platform Qt is supported. Even Qt will start a bit slower to develop with, is a bit more verbose (because of C++), but at the end, it is modular, it has fairly few bugs and as C++ is the core of the language, sensitive algorithms (like for example a picture processing algorithm) can give the snappiness most users may want.
            I did not say otherwise so I'm not sure why this is a reply to me. I'm all for using Mono and Qt. They are both technically superior to the alternatives available in the FOSS community. I also prefer the syntax of C# over verbose C++. I use C#/.Net on windows and Qt on Windows and Linux. I will use mono on both when Xwt is more thoroughly tested(I hope thy will add a Qt backend).

            It's funny how so many in the FOSS community shun Mono, Qt and other technologies but do not have viable alternatives. If Q and Mono were to disappear today, what would we have available? GTK? EFL? Java, the million other half complete projects?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
              LOL. You dont know what Copyleft is do you? It is not the existence of GPL. It is the absence of loopholes making the code available at non-restrictive license to others than rightful copyright holders.
              Copyleft is the duty to keep the source code open if you modify it.

              Qt is available under a copyleft and a non-copyleft license. The non-GPL users fund the GPL development with their money. Just like x264 and a number of other projects.

              So your statement is a half-truth, as usual.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                Thank you for confirming that Qt is differing between customers. Just like the Mono dudes do.
                Tell this to some gnome devs and tell me why mono shit like banshee, f-spot and tomboy belong to gnome?

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                  Tell this to some gnome devs and tell me why mono shit like banshee, f-spot and tomboy belong to gnome?
                  I honestly can't track how your incoherent statement follows on from funkSTAR's incoherent statement. The end result is... incoherent.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                    Tell this to some gnome devs and tell me why mono shit like banshee, f-spot and tomboy belong to gnome?
                    Quite easy, they use the GNOME platform to build the applications, the same reason as any other GNOME project. We just happen to support more than just GNOME on Linux, e.g. Windows and OS X (for Banshee and Tomboy, F-Spot is Linux only at the moment due to reliance on some X11 methods for color calibration if I recall correctly though we are working on that to bring F-Spot to other platforms as well). Furthermore currently all income generated by Banshee goes towards the GNOME Foundation, making them around 10.000$ a year (or the same as most mid to large corporate sponsorships). It is in GNOME's best interest to ensure that the platform has wide support for developers and .NET is part of that.

                    In the interest of disclosure. I am a MonkeySquare board member (an organization that promotes .NET and Open Source) and I play a part in all 3 of the applications mentioned plus a few others, having arranged Hackfests, done minor development, bug triaging, support, documentation, translations and other assorted tasks to assist them.

                    Also could you kindly refrain from insulting our development platform, we are regular people just like you. We make our technical decisions such as usage of Mono because it benefits the application, its developers and ultimately its users. No developer involved with any of the projects mentioned gain a penny from working on them and do so in their sparetime, it is a labor of love by some really nice people - please lay off your unconstructive hatred.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                      Tell this to some gnome devs and tell me why mono shit like banshee, f-spot and tomboy belong to gnome?
                      Wrongdoings of Novell. Corrected by time. Look at the mentioned projects. Dead and replaced. No one showed up at the funeral.. This is completely contrasted by KDE. They are not only embracing Qts treason. They are happy that KDAB is dismantling the libs for a non-copyleft future in Qt.

                      BTW gnome have a pragmatic written policy.
                      https://live.gnome.org/CopyrightAssignment

                      KDE is shit compared to this.
                      Last edited by funkSTAR; 02-22-2013, 09:28 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by DavidNielsen View Post
                        Quite easy, they use the GNOME platform to build the applications, the same reason as any other GNOME project. We just happen to support more than just GNOME on Linux, e.g. Windows and OS X (for Banshee and Tomboy, F-Spot is Linux only at the moment due to reliance on some X11 methods for color calibration if I recall correctly though we are working on that to bring F-Spot to other platforms as well). Furthermore currently all income generated by Banshee goes towards the GNOME Foundation, making them around 10.000$ a year (or the same as most mid to large corporate sponsorships). It is in GNOME's best interest to ensure that the platform has wide support for developers and .NET is part of that.

                        In the interest of disclosure. I am a MonkeySquare board member (an organization that promotes .NET and Open Source) and I play a part in all 3 of the applications mentioned plus a few others, having arranged Hackfests, done minor development, bug triaging, support, documentation, translations and other assorted tasks to assist them.

                        Also could you kindly refrain from insulting our development platform, we are regular people just like you. We make our technical decisions such as usage of Mono because it benefits the application, its developers and ultimately its users. No developer involved with any of the projects mentioned gain a penny from working on them and do so in their sparetime, it is a labor of love by some really nice people - please lay off your unconstructive hatred.
                        So, you just confirmed mono applications are part of gnome and they're important to you. This makes funkStart's above comment wrong. I split at your idiotic development platform and you're not like me, because I won't ever sell myself or my projects to some proprietary crap companies like m$.
                        Last edited by Pawlerson; 02-22-2013, 09:45 AM.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                          Wrongdoings of Novell. Corrected by time. Look at the mentioned projects. Dead and replaced. No one showed up at the funeral..
                          And sadly, you are very mistaken.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                            This is completely contrasted by KDE. They are not only embracing Qts treason.
                            Qt's treason :rofl:

                            You are really out of your mind. Qt started as a commercial, closed product which has only ever become more open, never less. The licenses have become more free, and the governance has become more open and run by the community.

                            It is a shining example of high-quality software made free. It is what Free Software is about. Turning the best-in-class software into Free Software so everybody benefits. It is closed software taken over by the community, with a business model which ensures that it keeps getting better and remains free.

                            On the other hand, GNOME is essentially a RedHat project. I like RedHat, but this is their private desktop and they determine the direction. That's not open.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by funkSTAR View Post
                              Wrongdoings of Novell. Corrected by time. Look at the mentioned projects. Dead and replaced. No one showed up at the funeral.. This is completely contrasted by KDE. They are not only embracing Qts treason. They are happy that KDAB is dismantling the libs for a non-copyleft future in Qt.

                              BTW gnome have a pragmatic written policy.
                              https://live.gnome.org/CopyrightAssignment

                              KDE is shit compared to this.
                              well if you bother to understand KDAB reasons you will see is a natural step because KDE libs and many Qt libraries(like QtCore/QtXml) are extremely redundant, in the sense like KApplication/QApllication are mostly identical for example. so from an engineering POV it makes lots of sense to integrate the small differences and get rid of the duplication.

                              Integrate those changes in Qt make KDE developers life lot easier in fact, since they wont need to refactor KDElibs everytime a new Qt release is out and they won't have to port their small changes to every plataform Qt support so KDE can work(kde for windows nightmare).

                              About your last trolling excuse, from digia developer site i quote "It is important to note that the contributor retains ownership of the contribution as the Qt Project does not require copyright assignment for contributions made to the Qt Project." which in english means Digia can use your code in the commercial distribution without get sued but in the LGPL version works as any LGPL project will and if KDE decides Digia slipped to the dark side they can instantly fork Qt-project as BSD/LGPL/GPL3/whatever-license-they-want and from that instant all new code can't be used by digia commercially without comply with the choosen license and ofc KDE will maintain Qt from that point on.

                              as i see it we get a company that get money from Qt that is forced to contribute back much of that money to make Qt better(so they can sell more) and all that work is forced to be dual licensed LGPL/commecial and in the case they get greedy we lost some developers(digia dev team) at worst, if you ask me that is a win/win situation.

                              before you troll back, the LGPL repositories can't be touched/deleted/evilized/destroyed/stealed/etc/etc/etc. by digia in any way since the copyleft forbid it, what you sign is only valid to allow your patches in the commercial version of Qt(as long as KDE don't pull the trigger) not to neglate your ownership or LGPL rights(which is not possible btw you ignorant).

                              so in resume don't rant about stuff you are not literate enough to properly understand and end only make yourself look really bad, if you wish to correct your ways wikipedia and google are free my friend.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Pawlerson View Post
                                So, you just confirmed mono applications are part of gnome and they're important to you.
                                They use GNOME libraries like Gtk+, and they use GNOME infrastructure like Bugzilla. However, they are no more "part of GNOME" than kupfer or gwget.

                                This makes funkStart's above comment wrong.
                                His comment is aspirational, in the "I HOPE YOUR FREE SOFTWARE PROJECT FAILS BECAUSE I HATE IT" sense which is seen all the time in certain quarters (especially here on Phoronix)

                                I split at your idiotic development platform and you're not like me, because I won't ever sell myself or my projects to some proprietary crap companies like m$.
                                Assuming you mean "spit",
                                1. Fuck you for having the gall to tell other developers what environments they are and are nor permitted to use. I might think Erlang is a moronic choice of framework to write software, but that doesn't give me the right to tell anyone that they're not allowed to use it
                                2. It's not proprietary. You're just not smart enough to comprehend that. And if you're talking about tangential relationship via standards bodies, there's very little on your system that *can't* have the same charge levied at it. You use TCP/IP, right?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X