MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[jrch2k8]

Thank you for confirming the obvious; Qt is fucking over the gratis users. So much for freedom...

And yeah it is funny how you measure success. You seem to like people find it necessary to waiver off their GPL rights when they sign the contributor agreement. You are celebrating code losing its copyleft. Congratz bro!! Sure KDE does this anti-copyleft shit too as the core libs are moved to Qt and thus raped. That is what makes a difference between KDE and gnome.

Matthias=Miguel
Qt=Mono
KDE=wasting copyleft on Qt

LOL this is what i can only define as FAIL Trolling, so FAIL ithat s sad actually.

try to learn from Q at least he trolled with sustance you are just some random dude with no knowledge of what you are talking about spouting crap im sure you don't even properly understand AKA Fail Troll.

now be a good boy and go back to troll your MMO forum and polish your troll FU, so you can have a chance against proper trolls like the old good Q

[tmikov]

somebody needs to pay

I am sad about Linux being abandoned by Xamarin too, but you guys are going overboard. Working full time on a project is expensive, very expensive. How Xamarin spend their money and resources is up to them.

If you like Mono for Linux soon much, feel free to contribute and maintain it, or better yet, hire full time developers and pay them yourself :-)

[funkSTAR]

LOL this is what i can only define as FAIL Trolling, so FAIL ithat s sad actually.

try to learn from Q at least he trolled with sustance you are just some random dude with no knowledge of what you are talking about spouting crap im sure you don't even properly understand AKA Fail Troll.

now be a good boy and go back to troll your MMO forum and polish your troll FU, so you can have a chance against proper trolls like the old good Q

Be nice. It is a FACT that any code going through Digias evil contributor license looses its copyleft. Now lets get back to the topic. It is about SDKs which recently have changed focus to non-linux platforms and cares only for the paying customers. Xamarin and Qt Commercial is the same shit.

[directhex]

I am sad about Linux being abandoned by Xamarin too, but you guys are going overboard. Working full time on a project is expensive, very expensive. How Xamarin spend their money and resources is up to them.

If you like Mono for Linux soon much, feel free to contribute and maintain it, or better yet, hire full time developers and pay them yourself :-)

There's a certain hilarity in the same people saying, simultaneously, "fuck Xamarin for not releasing stuff on Linux" and "fuck Xamarin we don't want their evil shit on my nice precious Linux, cross platform is for weenies". Same people, same time, diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions.

[funkSTAR]

I am sad about Linux being abandoned by Xamarin too, but you guys are going overboard. Working full time on a project is expensive, very expensive. How Xamarin spend their money and resources is up to them.

If you like Mono for Linux soon much, feel free to contribute and maintain it, or better yet, hire full time developers and pay them yourself :-)

Yeah the same goes for Qt. They will rather spend the development time on fucking BLACKBERRYs than Linux hippie stuff. We all have to deal with Mono and Qt are the two sides of the same coin (which recently was dropped into a filthy toilet). Acceptance is the first step towards a cure.

[pingufunkybeat]

Yeah the same goes for Qt. They will rather spend the development time on fucking BLACKBERRYs than Linux hippie stuff. We all have to deal with Mono and Qt are the two sides of the same coin (which recently was dropped into a filthy toilet). Acceptance is the first step towards a cure.

Dude, it's the most feature complete toolkit in the world, and the Linux version has EVERYTHING.

In fact, almost everything is LGPL, and if it weren't it would be relicensed by force.

You're whining about blackberry support taking away from Linux? Dude, it's the best-supported graphical ANYTHING on Linux.

[funkSTAR]

Dude, it's the most feature complete toolkit in the world, and the Linux version has EVERYTHING.

In fact, almost everything is LGPL, and if it weren't it would be relicensed by force.

You're whining about blackberry support taking away from Linux? Dude, it's the best-supported graphical ANYTHING on Linux.

A few years ago the Qt clown crowd promised "the next billion linux devices". Now the ambition is changed to "one million BLACKBERRY devices" Sorry but this a TOTAL FAIL!!

And oh yeah please provide a LGPLed version of that commercial graph stuff. NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Luke_Wolf]

There's a certain hilarity in the same people saying, simultaneously, "fuck Xamarin for not releasing stuff on Linux" and "fuck Xamarin we don't want their evil shit on my nice precious Linux, cross platform is for weenies". Same people, same time, diametrically opposed and irreconcilable positions.

mm, and then we've got funkSTAR here trolling about Qt for some reason when this has nothing to do with Digia or Qt.

While I'm disappointed that they're not supporting linux, and don't really understand why not when the maintenance and development cost should be essentially zero because the code should be the same, the way they're restructuring their licenses is a good thing. Under the previous licensing structure they were making money directly off of Xamarin.iOS and Xamarin.Android, which meant it'd be a snowballs chance in hell for them to opensource it. Now if I understand it correctly they're licensing their Xamarin addins (like the component store) + support, which means it's actually possible for the android and iOS ports to be opensourced, although I still don't really see it happening for the time being.

What I'm kinda hoping for happening is for Microsoft to throw the rest of .NET under the Apache license (As they've slowly been doing) and throw their weight behind mono, and push for porting to other platforms under an open license, thus finally killing off Java once and for all. Since Java is a language I hate having to program in. Microsoft just happens to be in the perfect position to administer the final killing blow, while Oracle has been slowly strangling it.

[Del_]

Thank you for confirming that Qt is differing between customers. Just like the Mono dudes do.

No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't. Even if that succeeds, Digia will have to keep a very tight balance. Any sign of evil tactics will see Digia left in the dust, with the value of their copyright reduced to zero. We can thank Oracle for a splendid example of how to achieve that. You see there are very strong forces behind Qt that will not tolerate Digia misbehaving. The only force behind Mono seem to be Microsoft and the abundance of software vendors on the .net band-wagon.

Regarding the Qt charts, there is already an open competitor for plotting. And it seems to be doing surprisingly well, considering the clumsy license the author put on it: http://qwt.sourceforge.net/index.html Actually, I am pretty sure Qt charts will go open source or die.

In any case, please stop equating the Mono tragedy with Qt, it undermines an otherwise natural grievance. Moreover, jrch2k8 please refrain from ad-hominems, it only serves to weaken your argument, and you do have a strong case here.

[jrch2k8]

No, they do not differ between customers. They are simply licensing a proprietary piece of software based on Qt, a *very* common thing among software vendors. Actually, proprietary offerings built with Qt has been the main money driver for all the open development. One may of course disagree with the business model. I for one tend to agree with you that copyright transfer agreements are bad practice. Nevertheless, I think you are missing the big picture totally here. AFAIK, there is no way all KDE programmers will sign such agreements, I know I won't. Even if that succeeds, Digia will have to keep a very tight balance. Any sign of evil tactics will see Digia left in the dust, with the value of their copyright reduced to zero. We can thank Oracle for a splendid example of how to achieve that. You see there are very strong forces behind Qt that will not tolerate Digia misbehaving. The only force behind Mono seem to be Microsoft and the abundance of software vendors on the .net band-wagon.

Regarding the Qt charts, there is already an open competitor for plotting. And it seems to be doing surprisingly well, considering the clumsy license the author put on it: http://qwt.sourceforge.net/index.html Actually, I am pretty sure Qt charts will go open source or die.

In any case, please stop equating the Mono tragedy with Qt, it undermines an otherwise natural grievance. Moreover, jrch2k8 please refrain from ad-hominems, it only serves to weaken your argument, and you do have a strong case here.

thx for remind me of qwt, i totally forgot to put it in my post.

sorry for the ad-moninems but weak/baseless trolling make my blood boil

for funktroll
1.)for the sake of continuity Qt Charts is an external product and digia was developing it before they acquired Qt like many other commertial software around that uses Qt as foundation(Qt charts is easy troll candy for the coincidence that digia that used to make commercial Qt software actually buyed Qt)

2.) there is no such thing as Blackberry Qt(OMG) but an port of Qt to QNX(the actual OS for god sakes get at least your facts straight) that blackberry decided to use/incorporate in their blackberry product(like megoo or tizen) trying to use an very popular and well tested API that many developers are already familiar and comfortable with, so they can attract developers to their store fast(they need a strong app ecosystem to even have a chance against android/ios killer combo). The actual mobile code that is in Qt today and blackberry is actually taking advantage now comes from Nokia(before the current troy horse CEO) and as far as i can see any LGPL/commercial Qt Apps can basicaly be recompiled and run in BB 10/android/ios{ovbiously if you use non Qt code or ASM you need to port it to ARM/QNX equivalents}. Ofc i havent done a full review of BB SDK but i expect only minors higher level classes outside Qt{but Qobject based} to handle phone specific bindings(accelerometrs/rotation/gyroscope/etc)