Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME & Mono Made Love At Microsoft Last Week

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    It's just a number reported by package manager when I ditched Mono from my Ubuntu.
    No, it's not, it's a number you made up or artifically inflated (e.g. by installing the entire Mono development environment). Mono's footprint on Ubuntu has never been that high. At its height it was 60 meg for Mono plus three apps. I personally checked every release, and invested a large amount of time over the years to shrink that dependency chain ever smaller.

    Though I wish you luck in fighting windmills and proving something to someone by doing so.
    I'm sick of lying liars telling lies on forums, because newbies who know no better actually believe them.

    That's why I'm not letting you get away with lying constantly. The entire anti-Mono crusade is built on lies, including the king of lies at the top, Roy Schestowitz.

    But let's admit calling me liar for reporting just some observed fact would not improve my perception of mono and it's users/devs for sure. Yet another reason to think it used only by dumb MS drones.
    I really don't care about a liar's perception of me - I care about new blood's knowledge of the truth and reality, two things which are alien to you.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by directhex View Post
      So you don't care about accuracy, as long as you scare people off Free Software you don't like? Figures.
      Honestly, I don't need "free" software where MS makes everything to keep competitors uncompetitive. Furthermore, I find it laughable when some nuts are attaching DOS MZ EXE header to ancient COFF object files. What is the point of doing so as of 2012? Please, please, please, next time accept steam engines as some "uber new modern standard". At least steampunk is fun. Dos-ages necromancy is not. And it's hard to say why someone else have to bother self with MS compatibility issues and DOS.

      Really? How much do you bet, exactly? Put your money where your mouth is, if you believe what you're saying.
      I wouldn't bet a single cent on mono: it's a bad idea to put stakes on a half-dead horse. You see, MS both attempts to look cross platform and put comtetitors in disadvantage. However, it's a mutually exclusive: either you face real competition from other OSes or your toolkit isn't really popular on other platforms. Attempt to sit on two chairs at the same time usually leads to falling onto the floor
      Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 06 July 2012, 06:42 PM.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by directhex View Post
        No, it's not, it's a number you made up or artifically inflated (e.g. by installing the entire Mono development environment). Mono's footprint on Ubuntu has never been that high. At its height it was 60 meg for Mono plus three apps. I personally checked every release, and invested a large amount of time over the years to shrink that dependency chain ever smaller.
        Maybe it has been unpacked size, I don't remember exactly. I ditched it eons ago, after seeing horrible startup times of tomboy and fspot. Maybe it also included those two as well. And I can admit full .NET 4.x installation on Windows with all assembly caches takes several GiBs (!!!) on windows machines. At the end of day either mono will have to weight more or less the same or it would be feature incomplete and/or would face serious speed penalty, etc. If "reference" runtime is huge, there is no obvious ways to cheat this fact and retain full compatibility at drastically smaller sizes. Package managers can potentially improve things a bit due to more modular approach but anyway it have to be huge bloatware in full implementation.

        I'm sick of lying liars telling lies on forums, because newbies who know no better actually believe them.
        In this case it could save them from having ton of headaches anyway. If someone goes Linux, it's utterly dumb to come here with M$ runtime and hope for warm welcome. Middle finger is only what you deserve with all your MS MZ EXEs and their lame dos stubs.

        That's why I'm not letting you get away with lying constantly. The entire anti-Mono crusade is built on lies, including the king of lies at the top, Roy Schestowitz.
        I don't even know who is that Roy Schestowitz. But I have to google it, definitely. I have many other reasons to dislike MS. Maybe I can understand this guy at least :-)

        I really don't care about a liar's perception of me - I care about new blood's knowledge of the truth and reality, two things which are alien to you.
        As for knowledge, new blood could expect to be a third rate in Linux with dumb .NET/mono crap and MZ binaries. If you come with your own rules into someone's else house, you wouldn't be welcome. To say the least.
        Last edited by 0xBADCODE; 06 July 2012, 06:47 PM.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
          And I can admit full .NET 4.x installation on Windows with all assembly caches takes several GiBs (!!!) on windows machines.
          A full .NET 4 installation on Windows, with both x86 and x64 support, is a 48.1MB download.

          I'm quite sure it unpacks to a much larger size, but that is pretty darn small for all the libraries and functionality it includes.

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by directhex View Post
            I thought the problem was Mono folk wanted Mono to be a legitimate choice alongside Python. Now it's replacing it? Get your argument straight. Oh, and by using IronPython, both languages can be installed side by side without any of Python's bloat.

            Mono has a bunch of Microsoft code where that Microsoft code is Free Software. Free Software is good, no matter who it's from.
            As for MIT, it's encouraged where it makes life better for developers. For example, it's VERY common for developers on restricted versions of .NET like Micro Framework to copy pieces of the Mono class library into their projects, to fill in pieces missing from Microsoft's implementation.

            MIT encourages code reuse, and is a better choice than GPL for any app with plugins. Developers should be free to pick the license they want to use - to write a plugin for a GPL app your plugin must be GPL, which removes freedom of license choice from the developer.

            But you were insisting something is only an alternative if it seeks to eradicate all usage of its predecessor. Is this only the case with Mono, then (big surprise)?

            Mono for windows comes with GTK#

            MonoDevelop for Windows doesn't support installing against Mono because, frankly, it's really hard to write an installer which can handle either .NET or Mono at the same time - and for the target user (Windows-based .NET developer), .NET is far more likely to already be there as a dependency.

            Mono's goal is to promote happy developers, not your personal agenda.

            Did you notice the list of companies I posted or not? Hint: Novell is on it. Xamarin will be on the next version.
            Unintentional hilarity: EiffelStudio is from Eiffel Software, who contributed to the design of .NET

            Gtk with mono is not detected by monodevelop on windows.The gtk package offered by xamarin does not detect mono.It requires MS .NET to work


            Python and mono on the same machine is not a good solution .And no ,nobody will write .NET code instead python/vala code.Except some microsoft developers and mono evangelists

            About licenses : I don t agree.There are some problems with permissive licenses. MPL or LGPL is better in some cases.But opensource/free software community should choose (L)GPL versions than Mit/BSD projects. I prefer rhythmbox/libreoffice because this.But i will not discuss anymore about licenses.


            Mono is not a alternative to .NET.Mono is a project to promote .NET .Because this,is not good for opensource community.
            Last edited by lapis; 06 July 2012, 08:02 PM.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
              Maybe it has been unpacked size, I don't remember exactly.
              Well, how about you name exactly which Ubuntu release you were running, so I can prove that you're wrong?

              Package managers can potentially improve things a bit due to more modular approach
              Potentially?

              I proved that a bare-bones Mono installation is smaller than almost every other competitor, including Qt. We build Mono into 201 different packages - you only ever need the absolute bare minimum installed. And because .NET is designed to be hierarchical rather than spaghetti like Java, minimal installs are possible.

              In this case it could save them from having ton of headaches anyway. If someone goes Linux, it's utterly dumb to come here with M$ runtime and hope for warm welcome. Middle finger is only what you deserve with all your MS MZ EXEs and their lame dos stubs.
              Christ, you are obsessed about cruft in a header. Sometimes legacy bullshit ends up in places. Java uses .zip for .jar compression rather than something modern and compact, but I don't freak out about that.

              As for knowledge, new blood could expect to be a third rate in Linux with dumb .NET/mono crap and MZ binaries. If you come with your own rules into someone's else house, you wouldn't be welcome. To say the least.
              So you're the one setting the rules for who is welcome and who is not? See, maybe this is the problem - I have a fundamental difference of opinion from you about what Free Software and Freedom mean.

              I believe everyone should be welcome to contribute to making the Free Software ecosystem better. They should feel welcome, and have access to all the tools they need.

              Hell, I packaged up a Visual Basic.NET compiler. Not because it's a good language (it's not, it's terrible) but because if someone comes along who goes to a University where they teach using VB.NET, then I want that person to feel welcome on Linux.

              Because when you're on Free Software, anything should be possible. No limitations. Certainly no moralizing from non-contributors saying "NO, YOU CANNOT DO THAT, YOU FREEDOM HAS LIMITS I WANT TO IMPOSE"

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by lapis View Post
                Gtk with mono is not detected by monodevelop on windows.The gtk package offered by xamarin does not detect mono.It requires MS .NET to work
                I repeat: Mono for Windows is *bundled with GTK#*. The standalone GTK# package is provided to allow you to offer GTK# apps to Windows users with a minimum of extra dependencies - for example, to run Smuxi or Tomboy on Windows.

                Seriously though,

                Code:
                K:\>gacutil -l gtk-sharp
                The following assemblies are installed into the GAC:
                gtk-sharp, Version=2.12.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=35e10195dab3c99f
                Number of items = 1
                Mono for Windows comes with GTK#, which is how I was able to run this GTK# app:



                Python and mono on the same machine is not a good solution
                ... because?

                .And no ,nobody will write .NET code instead python/vala code.Except some microsoft developers and mono evangelists
                Or people who already know C# and want to write apps.

                Or people who want their apps to perform well when performing non-idle tasks.

                Or people who want to make their app easily cross-platform

                Or people who want ready access to .NET's wide array of libraries

                Mono is not a alternative to .NET.Mono is a project to promote .NET .Because this,is not good for opensource community.
                Proving a Free alternative to some closed-source software, which helps people escape from a closed-only ecosystem, is bad?

                You know Linux began as a replacement for the MINIX kernel, right?

                Or, generally, using GNU promotes UNIX, so is clearly bad.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by makomk View Post
                  Except the patent in question doesn't actually cover delegates, it covers one specific way of using delegates that Gtk# uses heavily. The Microsoft patent promise you've linked only guarantees that they won't use patent claims that are required in order to implement the required parts of the specification to sue you over a complete, conforment implemention of the specification. It makes no guarantees that they won't sue you for patent infringement in third-party APIs and libraries that aren't part of the .Net specification like Gtk#. Microsoft can lay as many patent traps as they like for people that try to use C# and .Net.


                  Potentially, depending on how exactly their delegates work and are used and how close they are to the prior art in this area.

                  Edit: actually, probably not. The patent claims require the use of C#-style events as well as delegates, and as far as I can tell Vala doesn't appear to have anything that corresponds to those.
                  Okay, so your claim seems to be covering Gtk.Application.Invoke being used to work around GTK+'s lack of thread safety, i.e. outside the main thread, you call the static Gtk.Application.Invoke method, with a delegate to perform work on the GUI, which is executed on the main thread.

                  Is my understanding of your understanding correct? Patent claims need to be extremely specific, so I want to be absolutely certain what you're accusing GTK# of.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by directhex View Post
                    I repeat: Mono for Windows is *bundled with GTK#*. The standalone GTK# package is provided to allow you to offer GTK# apps to Windows users with a minimum of extra dependencies - for example, to run Smuxi or Tomboy on Windows.
                    ... because?

                    Proving a Free alternative to some closed-source software, which helps people escape from a closed-only ecosystem, is bad?

                    You know Linux began as a replacement for the MINIX kernel, right?

                    Or, generally, using GNU promotes UNIX, so is clearly bad.

                    Python and mono on same linux distro waste resources,because of 2 VM running on system.And linux already have 3 standard languages fo write apps.

                    Mono people needs to promote mono for .NET develpers and windows users.Not linux users.

                    I know mono for windows is bundled with Gtk#,But when you install monodevelop ,gtk# is not detected.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post
                      A full .NET 4 installation on Windows, with both x86 and x64 support, is a 48.1MB download.

                      I'm quite sure it unpacks to a much larger size, but that is pretty darn small for all the libraries and functionality it includes.
                      It takes several gigz with all assembly caches. Especially on 64-bit systems. Not to mention it takes half an hour to install in worst case. As for me it would be better if this uber-cool technology would remain in windows. Let them "enjoy" by all this crap alone. And you see, when there is so many code, it doomed to have dozens of bugs and security issues.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X