MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

[phoronix]

Phoronix: MonoDevelop vs. Xamarin Studio IDEs

In writing yesterday about Xamarin 2.0 it wasn't clear the relation between the new Xamarin Studio integrated development environment and MonoDevelop IDE that Xamarin had been pushing up to this point for Mono development. Now there's some clarification out of the Cambridge company...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTMwNzk

[funkSTAR]

Treason

Yeah this is the same shit hitting Qt. Moving on to new markets and forgetting about the roots. The white collar term is "diversification". The right term for people caring about Linux: treason..

[pingufunkybeat]

Yeah this is the same shit hitting Qt. Moving on to new markets and forgetting about the roots. The white collar term is "diversification". The right term for people caring about Linux: treason..

This is the father of the GNOME project. The same guy who tried to make Mono a hard dependency of the Linux desktop.

[funkSTAR]

This is the father of the GNOME project. The same guy who tried to make Mono a hard dependency of the Linux desktop.

Yeah. Just like the KDE founder Matthias Ettrich is playing foul games at Nokia. That dude was part of the gang leaving out KDE for transforming Qt into a phone toolkit. Sad stories... The best way ahead is to say NO to shit like Qt an Mono/Xamarin.

[pingufunkybeat]

Yeah. Just like the KDE founder Matthias Ettrich is playing foul games at Nokia. That dude was part of the gang leaving out KDE for transforming Qt into a phone toolkit.

This gave us a completely LGPL phone/tablet interface, the first of its kind. Now you can have a completely GPL/LGPL OS powering your tablet.

It's unfair to compare this to a closed-source C# IDE for Windows.

[funkSTAR]

This gave us a completely LGPL phone/tablet interface, the first of its kind. Now you can have a completely GPL/LGPL OS powering your tablet.

It's unfair to compare this to a closed-source C# IDE for Windows.

So how much do you think your own (WRONG) biased evaluation of "value" counts? It is worth nothing. The fact that some people prefer Mono/Xamarin over Qt proves you wrong anyway. Matthias and Miguel went down the same drain.

Oh yeah BTW can you confirm that QT Commercial SDK does not offer any advantages over the gratis editions? I guess you are ready to bet on it. Unless of course we all agree to Qt making the same shit as Mono.

Matthias=Miguel
Qt=Mono

[jrch2k8]

So how much do you think your own (WRONG) biased evaluation of "value" counts? It is worth nothing. The fact that some people prefer Mono/Xamarin over Qt proves you wrong anyway. Matthias and Miguel went down the same drain.

Oh yeah BTW can you confirm that QT Commercial SDK does not offer any advantages over the gratis editions? I guess you are ready to bet on it. Unless of course we all agree to Qt making the same shit as Mono.

Matthias=Miguel
Qt=Mono

1st is true commertial Qt have some additionals but you are trolling it out of proportion to make a point? nothing new

a.) most differences inside Qt are backwards compatibility patches(that no linux user should care about) for commertial apps that depend on it(mostly in win/mac versions of Qt btw) until a full migration is done this patches are send upstream later to qt project for submission(many of them don't make it cuz are useless for the GPL version so digia keep them release after release for their partners) !!!!OMG world Ending!!!!

b.) Qt commertial support more architectures OMG EVIL, no this plataform are super closed source like Windows Embedded | Green Hills Software INTEGRITY | QNX | VxWorks, so close that most of those actually reject non commertial licenses in their OS(google them), as linux users we care? Hell no

c.) The famous troll candy Qt commertial have cool charts OMG SUPER EVIL, that is an specialized digia product and never was part of Qt, like blackberry dont have to opensource their OS because they use Qt and digia developed this product way before they acquired Qt from nokia.(ohh yes they used Qt for their commercial products long before nokia sell it !!!+1billion EVILS!!!!)

d.) Qt is gpl and commertial and so far are identical beyond the useless code present mentioned before and KDE can reclaim and relicense the code whenever they feel is necessary(and that is written in a contract with lawyers and all the crap)

e.) QML is an interesting concept for GUI when C++ become too low level, im not a particular fan of it but the C++ Qwidget and friends are still there and 100% functional so im fine with it and expect sooner or later able to access QScenegraph

f.) Qt git receives a freaking truckload of code from non digia/nokia developers, its developement process is totally open, the repositories are fully open, all the side/experimental projects related/menat to be part of Qt are totally open(lighthouse/wayland ports/experimentals) and all the code needed to support the plataform we care about are there and the code is 100% available(Linux/BSD/mac/win/Ios/Android/etc)

so beyond your complete uninformed trolls attempt can you provide any proof of the crappy your mouth is dumping?(no, provide proof with an article 1+ year old about some patches that digia forgot to send upstream before they release theirs is not valid since it was a 1 times thing and is understandable since they were in the middle of receiving Qt from nokia process, so try harder )

[Del_]

Oh yeah BTW can you confirm that QT Commercial SDK does not offer any advantages over the gratis editions? I guess you are ready to bet on it. Unless of course we all agree to Qt making the same shit as Mono.

Matthias=Miguel
Qt=Mono

The only proprietary code I have seen in Qt is Qt charts. A library that is fully supported on linux afaik. I do understand that Digia needs to earn money, but I have personally informed them that the license make the product a no-go for me. How that can be equalled to Xamarin shutting linux out completely for development on mobile pltatforms is beyond me. Please elaborate how you arrived at that conclusion. To me Qt is now a much more open project than it was just two years back, as witnessed by kdab's investment in it. This is lightyears away from Mono's current direction.

[funkSTAR]

1st is true commertial Qt have some additionals ...

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

[funkSTAR]

The only proprietary code I have seen in Qt is Qt charts. A library that is fully supported on linux afaik. I do understand that Digia needs to earn money, but I have personally informed them that the license make the product a no-go for me.

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