Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Miguel's Ambitious Plans For Mono, Moonlight

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by phoronix
    support for shipping Mono on Google's Android platform with full binding support for Android APIs
    Great! Why drain your battery in 6 hours when you can do it in 3 hours

    Seriously ever since Microsoft dropped Visual basic all the incompetent programmers are now flocking to this C# thing. God please let them stay on the Windows platform and not have any cross-platform or mobile ambitions.

    Just look at F-Spot, it's so buggy, slow and memory hungry it's not even funny. This must be the worst piece of software written for the GNOME desktop ever. Really an embarrassment to Linux that some distros used to ship with that crap.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by monraaf View Post
      Great! Why drain your battery in 6 hours when you can do it in 3 hours
      Numbers to back this joke up?

      Mono has addressed a number of cases where it e.g. woke up the CPU unneededly, I am sure the experience on the mobile environments will be great. The iOS development experience MonoTouch provides is I hear very pleasant and is used in many top selling games in the iPhone store. I have no reason to believe the Android port will have such a negative impact if any. I have never heard of any with MonoTouch, no reason to expect to hear any from Android developers using it. And if they do voice those opinions they will largely come from paying customers so be sure Novell will work to get them fixed.

      Seriously ever since Microsoft dropped Visual basic all the incompetent programmers are now flocking to this C# thing. God please let them stay on the Windows platform and not have any cross-platform or mobile ambitions.
      Opinion, I could provide a long list of masterly skilled people who use C#. What would that prove.

      Just look at F-Spot, it's so buggy, slow and memory hungry it's not even funny. This must be the worst piece of software written for the GNOME desktop ever. Really an embarrassment to Linux that some distros used to ship with that crap.
      Just out of curiosity, have you tried F-Spot 0.8.x, the past 6 months F-Spot has been completely revamped, rebased on some common library handling code with Banshee. They closed nearly 300 bugs, and promised to maintain 0.8 as a long term release, while they do work on the advanced features and updated UI which this revamp has allowed them the foundation needed to provide.

      There are still bugs but now once again F-Spot has maintainers and a growing community. Filing bugs is definitely the way to deal with any bug, and performance is a bug. One that F-Spot 0.8 and beyond certainly improves on over the older releases.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
        Yes, it's a free, non-patented and truly open-source paradigm
        Only the ECMA-334 and 335 parts of the .NET Framework are open.

        EDIT: This does not include Windows Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, or LINQ, among other things. Hell, it doesn't even include System.Xml.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by wswartzendruber View Post
          Only the ECMA-334 and 335 parts of the .NET Framework are open.

          EDIT: This does not include Windows Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, or LINQ, among other things. Hell, it doesn't even include System.Xml.
          The SPECs are up for debate, in fact I believe there are stanadards members in talks now.

          Any ECMA member can make proposals for changes to 334 and 335. If you want them expanded propose doing that to e.g. The GNOME Foundation who are ECMA members and can speak on your behalf. A request for something like that to happen fits nicely on the back of checks written to the The GNOME Foundation. There is travel involved as well as matters of expertise with these kinds of organizations, money make the world go round. Help it go in your direction might be worth it?

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            This is the whole fucking point;

            You are implementing Microsoft's technology, using the argument that it's an open standard.

            So why do you need Netflix to "lean on Microsoft" to force them to do this and that? It's an open standard, isn't it?
            Well I doubt that the Moonlight devs are to blame for this as I assume there needs to be a binary DRM blob in order for netflix to operate on Linux. This binary blob would have to come from Microsoft since they have developed the DRM in Silverlight, but I seriously doubt they will do so unless Netflix really urges them on, which they're obviously not.

            I wonder if Google's recent purchase of a DRM technology company indicates that they will be offering Microsoft competition as a DRM provider for video streaming? Atleast they are more interested in cross platform support than Microsoft is (which is perhaps not saying much) which might make them offer a DRM blob for Linux.

            As for Mono and Microsoft's 'openness' about it, they need cross platform support for C# if they are to compete with Java on the enterprise, that's where their interest in Mono starts and stops. I see it as another tool in Linux's arsenal but I sure wouldn't depend on it myself, but that's a business decision everyone has to make for themselves.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by cl333r View Post
              Die Mono, die!
              I wish for it !

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by XorEaxEax View Post
                Well I doubt that the Moonlight devs are to blame for this as I assume there needs to be a binary DRM blob in order for netflix to operate on Linux. This binary blob would have to come from Microsoft since they have developed the DRM in Silverlight, but I seriously doubt they will do so unless Netflix really urges them on, which they're obviously not.

                I wonder if Google's recent purchase of a DRM technology company indicates that they will be offering Microsoft competition as a DRM provider for video streaming? Atleast they are more interested in cross platform support than Microsoft is (which is perhaps not saying much) which might make them offer a DRM blob for Linux.
                Between GoogleTV and Youtube, you can bet on it. That said, I think client-side DRM will be handled by Flash for the foreseeable future.

                Do note that Microsoft no longer tries to go against Flash with Silverlight/Moonlight. They finally understood this is a losing - and pointless - battle and have repurposed their stack for LOB applications, where it actually makes sense (which is why it recently gained p/invoke support). Their web approach is now based on (a slightly crippled version of) HTML5.

                Yes, Microsoft is schizophrenic, but at least they are heading to the right direction with this. Now, they need to add WebGL and pull the plug on IE6/7 and the web will become a better place for all.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Can't stand all of these willfully ignorant mono-haters that spout stupid bullshit about every mono app. Get a grip.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Well, it's nice to have some .NET support in Linux, so I agree it would be good to have "Mono" (what such a bad name!) as a development platform for Linux. (It also can help *a bit* some co-operation with Windows .NET software).

                    By another side, I hope Moonlight dies (as much as I want Adobe Flash to die too)...
                    They're just 2 useless plugins. With an open standard such as HTML5 (which already supports 3D gaming by GTK3, WebGL or video rendering using with H264, OGM and AVI codecs), I think internet plugins will be obsolete in a near future... (for the sake of the internet...)

                    My 2c, cheers!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Something very interesting about Mono here...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                        Something very interesting about Mono here...
                        Care to summarize?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Just read the verification if you don't have time, but it's important to read whole the rest.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            I skimmed the text and it seemed to indicate that Debian splits Mono packages on dependencies, not the patent promise. I'm not sure what the point is... or did I miss something?

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              As it seems it is difficult to build separate packages with ECMA-only packages and unfree ones, because something like that needs "deep surgery" according to the artice. This has the consequence the distributions to not be able to ship Mono with ECMA-only packages.

                              And now this makes me wonder, me as Apopas. When the casual user chooses to install his new Ubuntu system he gets the option to use Free packages only or to install patented ones like codecs, flash etc. Lets say he selects the first option. When he logs in in his new system he finds tomboy, gbrainy and from 11.04 and so on he will have to use Banshee as well. As long as these packages require unfree parts of Mono to work, then the user is in a lose lose situation...
                              Where am I wrong?

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                                As it seems it is difficult to build separate packages with ECMA-only packages and unfree ones, because something like that needs "deep surgery" according to the artice. This has the consequence the distributions to not be able to ship Mono with ECMA-only packages.

                                And now this makes me wonder, me as Apopas. When the casual user chooses to install his new Ubuntu system he gets the option to use Free packages only or to install patented ones like codecs, flash etc. Lets say he selects the first option. When he logs in in his new system he finds tomboy, gbrainy and from 11.04 and so on he will have to use Banshee as well. As long as these packages require unfree parts of Mono to work, then the user is in a lose lose situation...
                                Where am I wrong?
                                These parts are not "unfree"; they are free (as in speech) but potentially patent-encumbered. This is a very important distinction.

                                If you restricted yourselves to only unpatented software... well, better throw your PC out the window and start working that abacus. Although that's probably patented, too.

                                In any case, this is not the user's problem. If someone decides to enforce a patent, they will attack Novell, Canonical, Red Hat - and things look ok so far.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X