Originally posted by plonoma
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wine-Mono: Marrying Mono With WINE
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostDeveloping Mono seems to be financially viable so yes, someone really wants it regradless what you happen to think about it.
Oh, and there are also LAZY/STUPID END USERS, not bright enough to insist that their software providers support better platforms.
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostSure people want it... software dev's who are TOO LAZY OR STUPID to build or provide software for more than just MS[p]OS, and MS, who wants to keep LAZY/STUPID software devs providing for only their platform through making use of alternate platforms UNPLEASANT.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostMaintaining completely different codesbases for different platform is expensive.
In many cases Linux might be the secondary platform so if it wasn't easy there wouldn't be any port at all.
Also you point makes no sense what-so-ever as .Net is avaible through Mono in many different operating systems and it's to my knowledge quite easy.
In case of desktop Linux how do you insist developers that work on their freetime to write the software the way you like?
No one forces you to use Mono and if people find that programs written in Mono are superior I don't see any reason why they should keep on using them.
Calling developers lazy or stupid for choosing to develope in the language of choise in caps makes you look like an funcking idiot.
In the end it's all about results and if Mono is what you gets there then so be it.
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostWhere do you come up with the RETARDED idea that it takes different codebases?
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostSays someone with obviously no experience in software development.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostSure. Easy to sell yourself to the lowest bidder and subject yourself to the possibility of litigation as a result of IP theft.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostHuh? I'm talking about COMMERCIAL software packages. Hobby devs can do whatever they like, makes no difference to anyone.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostHow about the fact that software written in mono is INFERIOR, even if just for the potential LEGAL problems that it introduces?
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostDeveloping using something that is EXCLUSIVE FOR ONE PLATFORM, IS stupid, and not switching to something that works on MANY platforms IS LAZY.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostAs I've been saying (and you're too dense to inderstand), is that Mono does NOT get you where you are best off. Its a BAD SHORTCUT and POTENTIAL LIABILITY.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostIf you start off with Windows developement with .Net and decide to port you application to non-Windows platforms and for some reason don't want to use Mono then you have to rewrite it in different language leading almost completely new codebase. Many companies might have mostly .Net developers and moving completely to a new language might not be possible but creating a smaller and less feature full version in other language for some other platform might be viable and that would lead to two different code bases or something like that.
If not, better to start the conversion process NOW rather than wait for the problem to get EVEN BIGGER.
If we are talking about application developed in .Net then of course in most cases Linux is the secondary platform... also [citation needed].
No neet to "port" something that is already compatible with multiple platforms.
Citation: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.
[citation needed].NET is a developer platform with tools and libraries for building any type of app, including web, mobile, desktop, games, IoT, cloud, and microservices.
In commercial software the are many factors to be taken in account: price, time schedule, features... etc etc etc. It really doesn't matter much in what language the software is written as long as it provides.
If they were always inferior then they wouldn't even exist on the market and also [citation needed].
I can't respond to any other part of that statement since it has absolutely no meaning.
.Net is multiplatform language through Mono so how exactly is it exclusive to one platform? Multiplatform support isn't necessarily worth the cost and making profit is what matters. It has nothing to do with being lazy...
Mono is a HACK, NOT A PLATFORM.
When MS finishes burning themselves to the ground and the world has moved on to the next thing to come, you'll see a lot of software developers going under since their code won't work on any current platforms. Multi-platform support is what it costs to be successful LONG TERM. A lot of software developers are short sighted since they haven't seen the revolutionary platform fluctuations that are about to hit. Its starting with MOBILES -- MS is TERRIFIED right now since the desktop is DYING, and they don't even have a foothold in the replacement -- mobiles.
Anyone can say anything; it's completely different story if what they say can be backed up. You haven't provided any actual evidence for your claims. Also the fact that you write in capital letters and use words like LAZY, STUPID and RETARD to describe people that disagree with you doesn't exactly make you believable.
Or would you like me to cite examples of MS PATENT TROLLING? I think you can manage to work google all by yourself, you don't need me to do it for you.
Comment
-
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostIf you start with a brain at the beginning rather than writing it in something doomed to ONE PLATFORM, then this problem wouldn't exist, now would it?
If not, better to start the conversion process NOW rather than wait for the problem to get EVEN BIGGER.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostYou're a retard. EASY vs DIFFICULT.
No neet to "port" something that is already compatible with multiple platforms.
Citation: PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE.
Originally posted by droidhacker View Post
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostAre you seriously that brainless that you think that FUTURE PROOFING what you're working on should not be considered as important? One who plans for the future does not develop using MS PRODUCTS because this will RESTRICT such a system to MS PLATFORMS.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostFor the balance of requests for "citation needed" -- fuck you, you can google it yourself.
I can't respond to any other part of that statement since it has absolutely no meaning.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostNO IT IS NOT. .NET IS MSBULLSHIT ONLY.
Mono is a HACK, NOT A PLATFORM.
When MS finishes burning themselves to the ground and the world has moved on to the next thing to come, you'll see a lot of software developers going under since their code won't work on any current platforms. Multi-platform support is what it costs to be successful LONG TERM. A lot of software developers are short sighted since they haven't seen the revolutionary platform fluctuations that are about to hit. Its starting with MOBILES -- MS is TERRIFIED right now since the desktop is DYING, and they don't even have a foothold in the replacement -- mobiles.
Originally posted by droidhacker View PostOne does not need evidence to support LOGIC.
Or would you like me to cite examples of MS PATENT TROLLING? I think you can manage to work google all by yourself, you don't need me to do it for you.
The core of the .NET Framework, and what has been patented by Microsoft falls under the ECMA/ISO submission.
Microsoft has announced that the ECMA standards for C# and the CLI are covered under the Community Promise patent license.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teho View PostIf you start off with Windows developement with .Net and decide to port you application to non-Windows platforms...
"I have made a mistake. Cutting my losses and re-implementing my application from the end of UML phase in an unencumbered cross-platform language/runtime is the the most sane course. I won't make the same mistake ever again."
Ready, set, go!
Teho,
Please understand that some of us are not just random internet rabble rousers. While I am not permitted to discuss my dealings with MS, I am permitted to discuss my hire dates, durations of employment, exit dates, and whether I was a V-, A-, or red-badge at MS. We're trying to offer you advice on a topic in which we are not legally permitted to speak about the details.
FLast edited by russofris; 16 May 2012, 01:03 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by not.sure View PostOh boy, this has gotten out of hand pretty quick.
Comment
Comment