MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[ciplogic]

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.

The reason I use Visual Studio and not SharpDevelop are the tools and integration that plugins offer. I mean, yeah, VS is good, but if you want fast development experience for C++ you use things like WholeTomato, or for C# you use advanced tools for refactoring. Also, you intend to use VS because you know that projects make sure it builds in VS, but it doesn't make sure if it builds in SharpDevelop. The same is about Office too: you know that documents work and read correctly in MS tools.

As for me, I am not the ultimate supporter of MS tools, and I really hope that MonoDevelop catches up (I mean it catches up in many ways, it is really fast in operation, and it seems it gets better and more compatible) but tools that are invested with big money (as MS tools or Office is), is as better as MS wants to put them into Linux. It increases the value of the platform. Imagine AutoCAD or SolidWorks: if they don't work with Linux, the engineers will not use it. We can argue for lifetime that FreeCAD is better, but engineers will not care.

Am I going to pay for a MS tool in Linux? Yes, why not? For most of the software, I don't buy it, my company buys it for me, so why should I care? I would care to have an optimum development experience, and if this would mean that I need VS, I would pay for it.

[brosis]

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.

And of course, our WinLooser Sonadow expects software delivered to him in form of the Product, together with BUGS and Added costs, Packed in nice DRM package, Feature Reduced, and is not going to move a finger to contribute to its development. Yes, in this case, your stay on windows and pirate torrents.

Personally, I use ERP/CRM for small company which is free software and we pay the developers 150$ for each release. We pay developers for their work, not for software - which is free for everyone, unrestricted to use and improves further.

I also have a friend who runs a small professional precision technique workshop, who is tired to pay Solidworks 600$ for each useless version just because he needs support, otherwise he gets nothing.
He expressed the desire to find a CNC software that is freedom based and pay on regular basis for the features he wants to be implemented.

I really hope, Windows will die together with such stupid mindset, for that mindset alone was the reason for windows monopoly.

[ciplogic]

And of course, our WinLooser Sonadow expects software delivered to him in form of the Product, together with BUGS and Added costs, Packed in nice DRM package, Feature Reduced, and is not going to move a finger to contribute to its development. Yes, in this case, your stay on windows and pirate torrents.
(...)
I really hope, Windows will die together with such stupid mindset, for that mindset alone was the reason for windows monopoly.

Did he say that? He said simply that Linux mindset for free (as in price) makes some software vendors to try to stay away. Is not about DRM or not. Do you know any DRM free package that can replace Solidworks? I was working in OSS CAD software, and there are mainly: BRL CAD (which looks at least outdated), HeeksCAD (which is unmaintained) and FreeCAD. These are the packages that work on Linux.

Which is your proposed replacement? Why would you not want SolidWorks on Linux?

[brosis]

But your LibreOffice can break patents anyway. If you get a documentation that is saved in DocX format, do you open it? Or if you export from LibreOffice to PDF, are you aware that LO can break Adobe or Apple's patents? Do you know that Cairo, implements a drawing language that is patented (PostScript)

I don't accept docx, because they are not standardized formats. ODF is a standard and even MSO can write it.
As for PDF, I simply don't care precisely because I export to PDF.
An I paid for my printers, so I consider to have purchased right to use PS.

Mono does not belong to MS either. So what's your point? If you use liberation fonts, what's the point too... you seem to mix copyright with patents. Patents are implementation techniques, copyright are related with brands and such.

It does not, but it is paid by microsoft, it using microsoft patent pool, so it essentially developing soil for microsoft - to burn or to harvest, at their desire.
It also way too microsoft specific to be considered "new C++".

Trade marks are for brands.
Copyrights are for specific implementations.
Patents are for methods. Except when its about tasks outside of engineering. At least in developed countries.

Invent a way to grow bigger apples(patent), sell license to somebody who grows a tree(copyright), and sell fruits under (trademark).

Do you watch youtube in HD format? If so, most likely you will have a H264 encoded video. If you get a Vimeo video or a BBC video that uses the same H264 format, and there is a piece of news you want to watch, are you skipping it because is not OGG encoded? Do you do the same with songs that someone can give it to you in .mp3 format?

I don't use Vimeo, but for Youtube, like I mentioned, I use WebM, which is VP8+OGG in Matroska(MKV).

I don't use Samba, I use Dropbox, or if is to copy fast, I prefer a memory stick. But would you want that Linux to be a crippled envionment that remove all patent risks. If you use Wine, you understand that may be patent breakage. I can say for example that the RSA implementation in C#/.Net has a difference in implementation from Mono one. A big enough one for the software I'm working on to need to use Dependency Injection to workaround these implementation differences. Seems to me that Mono is not a copycat for Windows. What do you do for your HAL/GDI+/DirectX state trackers that have many patents that Wine may break them in many small and big places to make possible Wine to run some of your Windows games... are not at risk? So remove Wine from your pie.

Can't because I paid for games and game developers can't port them to Linux, because they are closed source and companies are long go.

You misunderstand again what copyright and patent are. There could be some implementation specifics that from a too crazy people, can consider that Herb added them to make C++ implementors to break MS patents. And it could be (theoretically speaking) the idea that a language feature of C++ 11 can be implemented by breaking MS patents. So as it could happen. would you remove all your C++ code to sleep right at night.
So this is the point of bringing Herb Sutter, not the idea that he has or not patents. MS have them, IBM too, Apple, Oracle, etc. Think about SSA reprezentation in compilers: it was pionereed by IBM. SSA is an intermediary optimization technique used in Academia and in modern compilers (most post 2000 year compilers use SSA in a form or the other, in GCC parlance is GIMPLE). Would you uninstall GCC because maybe once IBM would enforce SSA patents?

I am sure that FSF cleared that out, this is why I use GCC and love FSF.

[brosis]

Did he say that? He said simply that Linux mindset for free (as in price) makes some software vendors to try to stay away. Is not about DRM or not. Do you know any DRM free package that can replace Solidworks? I was working in OSS CAD software, and there are mainly: BRL CAD (which looks at least outdated), HeeksCAD (which is unmaintained) and FreeCAD. These are the packages that work on Linux.

Which is your proposed replacement? Why would you not want SolidWorks on Linux?

Well, this is not Linux mindset and there is no such thing as "Linux mindset". There is GPL mindset, which says "Free as in Freedom, but not as in price".
SolidWorks or SolidCAM on Linux would be good, but barely of value, because compared to hardware cost and this software cost, OS cost is marginal at best.

[ciplogic]

I don't accept docx, because they are not standardized formats. ODF is a standard and even MSO can write it.
As for PDF, I simply don't care precisely because I export to PDF.
An I paid for my printers, so I consider to have purchased right to use PS.

So you did not address the issues: LibreOffice can be attacked not by file format (which let's say is patent free), but because some functionality can be similar with MSO one, including: the componentization (UNO framework is very similar with COM+), the scripting (like LO Basic), layouting in columns. Even LO would stay clear of MS patents, my point was that you (with LO) may break patents by using a lot of other components that can be patented (like Cairo, that is used for drawing with AntiAliasing inside LO, can maybe be attacked once by Adobe, because it breaks a PostScript patent, or the capability of LO Draw to import PDFs can be involved with a Copyright attack), etc. So if you are patent intolerant, I would recommend to you to use AbiWord or Calligra.

It also way too microsoft specific to be considered "new C++".

Trade marks are for brands.
Copyrights are for specific implementations.
Patents are for methods. Except when its about tasks outside of engineering. At least in developed countries.
Invent a way to grow bigger apples(patent), sell license to somebody who grows a tree(copyright), and sell fruits under (trademark).

So you understand that picking a different font, has nothing to do with patent breakage in Mono. Right, right? So in your mind, you have to work around all things: no copyright, no trademarks and no patents...

I don't use Vimeo, but for Youtube, like I mentioned, I use WebM, which is VP8+OGG in Matroska(MKV).

... then it means that you understand that H264 is used in a lot of videos that are uploaded to Youtube. And MpegLA can say once that everything that is encrypted with H264 has to be seen in H264 decoder, and everything that is transcoded out of it, has to be paid 1 cent per view. And Microsoft will get 20 % of that 1 cent of your WebM videos you will see, did I understood right?

Can't because I paid for games and game developers can't port them to Linux, because they are closed source and companies are long go.

In the past, most developers did not pick OpenGL to implement stuff, not because were stubborn, but most likely because DirectX offered a better integrated toolset with 3dsmax, and other tools that developers pay and use. As games are multimillion dollar business, the license of 10.000$ Sony SDK that includes a Visual Studio per developer, means basically nothing.

And of course, the quality of video drivers.

But still it does not make you consistent with your values: you're using a product that is opensource (Wine) that is also sold comercially (for example by CodeWeavers and Cedega). What if CodeWeavers will be bought or paid by Google, would it mean that another corporation controls your desktop? If you use the same values, you know that CodeWeavers was paid by Google, also Cedega (Cedega for OpenGL implementation in Chrome, CW for patches to make Picasa to work on Linux), so you should try stopping Wine. Google does not care about desktop Linux, they care about selling Google Docs licenses, Android and such. And don't forget, Wine is a fairly big implementation, so still is patent submarine, isn't it so?

I am sure that FSF cleared that out, this is why I use GCC and love FSF.

If you love GCC, you should make sure still that is not breaking patents, right? Why not define the issues of possible breakage of C++ from Oracle or IBM? For example GCC includes a Java implementation (GCJ), what if Oracle will say that GCC breaks other patents, and by trial will state that you have to run it on top of Solaris?

The SSA Form is crucial today for a lot of compilers, but still can break a patent somewhere. SSA is used in the last IonMonkey (the JS from Firefox). Shall I not use Firefox for this reason? Shall I not use Mono because it may be at risk of some (yet unstated by anyone) patent? What if a patent will enforce that Mono cannot run with dynamic code? Mono will remove it, and I will rewrite the code accordingly. No need to throw all my code away.

[Vim_User]

I don't accept docx, because they are not standardized formats.

And again you are proven wrong: http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-376.htm

[brosis]

So you did not address the issues: LibreOffice can be attacked not by file format (which let's say is patent free), but because some functionality can be similar with MSO one, including: the componentization (UNO framework is very similar with COM+), the scripting (like LO Basic), layouting in columns. Even LO would stay clear of MS patents, my point was that you (with LO) may break patents by using a lot of other components that can be patented (like Cairo, that is used for drawing with AntiAliasing inside LO, can maybe be attacked once by Adobe, because it breaks a PostScript patent, or the capability of LO Draw to import PDFs can be involved with a Copyright attack), etc. So if you are patent intolerant, I would recommend to you to use AbiWord or Calligra.

Those attacks are random at best, not at core. Consider a difference between meteor shower and sitting on the meteor. MONO is sitting on the meteor.
If LO had used MSO as codebase or were MSO-clone "upon specifications" to the degree that even interfaces are similar, it would be same as MONO, but it is not. This is why I consider LO to be solid base for integration and improvement.
"capability of LO Draw to import PDFs can be involved with a Copyright attack", not copyright, patent attack. Copyright attack is if LO Draw would copycat the export code from other project.
But I wait for real patents that MSO possesses, that could be used against LO.

Also, LO is not a programming language, the most "engineering" part being Base, which is still uncomparable with programming environiment.
Patent attacks against specific house are far less dangerous, that against building materials the houses are built from/with.

So you understand that picking a different font, has nothing to do with patent breakage in Mono. Right, right? So in your mind, you have to work around all things: no copyright, no trademarks and no patents...

No. Picking a different font frees from copyright attack on that specific font.
Also, there is huge difference between microsoft and google promises. One who is used to suing and called Linux cancer is far more dangerous than one who uses, developers and profits from Linux.

... then it means that you understand that H264 is used in a lot of videos that are uploaded to Youtube. And MpegLA can say once that everything that is encrypted with H264 has to be seen in H264 decoder, and everything that is transcoded out of it, has to be paid 1 cent per view. And Microsoft will get 20 % of that 1 cent of your WebM videos you will see, did I understood right?

Google transcodes the video to WebM in background.
I upload my videos directly in WebM.
No, I did not understood your math. Microsoft and MPEGLA get nothing.

In the past, most developers did not pick OpenGL to implement stuff, not because were stubborn, but most likely because DirectX offered a better integrated toolset with 3dsmax, and other tools that developers pay and use. As games are multimillion dollar business, the license of 10.000$ Sony SDK that includes a Visual Studio per developer, means basically nothing.

In the times when I worked with 3DStudio, it did not use any kind of acceleration.
Developers picked up DirectX instead of OpenGL, because Khronos was sabotaged into non-responding. That was exactly at the time DirectX and OpenGL met in features and microsoft was into this. As a proof, microsoft certified drivers at that time did not include OpenGL stack, but included full DirectX stack, so that user had to manually download the driver of the developers site. Plus fact that windows is preinfested everywhere since MSDOS 1.0, played a role that some purely "profit-based" companies switched to DirectX. Luckily OpenGL survived and revived thanks to those trusting in crossplatform standard. Otherwise, there would be no 3D in Linux or BSD; no Android; and no MacOSX. Unluckily, MESA is not backed up by Khronos, as a standard implementation , this is one of their current failures.

But still it does not make you consistent with your values: you're using a product that is opensource (Wine) that is also sold comercially (for example by CodeWeavers and Cedega). What if CodeWeavers will be bought or paid by Google, would it mean that another corporation controls your desktop? If you use the same values, you know that CodeWeavers was paid by Google, also Cedega (Cedega for OpenGL implementation in Chrome, CW for patches to make Picasa to work on Linux), so you should try stopping Wine. Google does not care about desktop Linux, they care about selling Google Docs licenses, Android and such. And don't forget, Wine is a fairly big implementation, so still is patent submarine, isn't it so?

I completely hate Codeweavers and I think that WINE should have completely different business model, instead of a very famous partners+community, which automatically leads to opencore and automatically to sub-quality opensource. Which is very often forked. This is why I use PlayOnLinux.
Google cares about desktop Linux, the proof is that I use Google+ actively, including Hangouts.

If you love GCC, you should make sure still that is not breaking patents, right? Why not define the issues of possible breakage of C++ from Oracle or IBM? For example GCC includes a Java implementation (GCJ), what if Oracle will say that GCC breaks other patents, and by trial will state that you have to run it on top of Solaris?

I used Solaris and consider it a fine environiment. It run KDE2.0.
Oracle will never attack Linux or GCC, because 1) they do not hinder Oracle 2) Oracle offers Linux solutions 3) I am not GCC maintainer
I know that GCC and FSF work on this stuff and that the patent aspect is reliable and stable.
MONO is not reliable and stable.
If GNU project picks up or starts own MONO, and its is secured by FSF; or if microsoft removes all platform-dependent features from .net and standartizes the technology via IEEE or ISO, then we will be talking.

The SSA Form is crucial today for a lot of compilers, but still can break a patent somewhere. SSA is used in the last IonMonkey (the JS from Firefox). Shall I not use Firefox for this reason? Shall I not use Mono because it may be at risk of some (yet unstated by anyone) patent? What if a patent will enforce that Mono cannot run with dynamic code? Mono will remove it, and I will rewrite the code accordingly. No need to throw all my code away.

Mozilla, unlike Microsoft, never sued anyone for profit, especially its users or developers. Sure, you can use MONO, but don't touch the core system, so when microrocks fall from the sky, users are not put in danger. This is especially probable now, when Linux wins more and more desktop marketshare.

[brosis]

And again you are proven wrong: http://www.ecma-international.org/pu...s/Ecma-376.htm

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

[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/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail_ics.htm?csnumber=42926

http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=58046