Shared Source .NET Ported to Linux

bjepson writes: "Shaun Bangay of the Rhodes University Computer Science Department has released a port of Rotor for Linux. You can find more details, including a download, at the O'Reilly Network."

Comments

I really don't care - I can't use it.

[zulux]

From the licence attached with Rotor:

"You may not use or distribute this Software or any derivative works in any form for commercial purposes."

Rotor on Linux is as about as usefull, to me, as a Corvette is on Mt. Everest.

Except that the Corvette is cool, and Microsoft .NET is a spasdic mess of Windows APIs, p-code, neutered languages and FUD against Sun all wrapped in a license that sucks.

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[SteveX]

A spasdic mess of Windows APIs?

Maybe you should try using it before you try to say something about it. Using the .NET framework you never see the Windows API - you see all new stuff. Pretty nice stuff too.

Just as example implementations of a whole ton of core CS concepts and an example implementation of a working VM the Rotor source is useful. Go read some of it.

- Steve

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[zulux]

I have to agree, .NET is simply the best tool out there for development

Possibly - if you don't mind that any large .NET app is locked into a single operating system family running on a single hardware platform with a single language vendor.

You say .NET is the best. Sure that may be true for limited values of best.

In fact .NET is soooooo goooood that there are:

No operating systems written with .NET
No comercial games written with .NET
No office suites written with .NET
No drivers written with .NET
No large apps at all with .NET except .NET itself

(perhaps I'm wrong and someones cobbeled somthing together in these catagories, I don't keep active track)

Come back later when you've actually written somthing non trvial with .NET and we can discuss it.

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[zulux]

Net is no more spastic mess than Java 2/J2EE


You said it yourself. Not me.

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[zulux]

Maybe you should come back when you can show me a better tool for development instead of boo hoo-ing...


Come back when you get a few years experience. You will then realise that...

1) Any language that is only, as you state, "a couple months" old has bugs...
2) Now one developemnt enviroument can be the best at everything.
3) Good programmers know mutiple tools and can pick and choose amung them.
4) Your favorite tool for your favorite type of app can quite often be the worst tool for a diferent type of app.
5) Non-crossplatform tools hurt you in the long run.

I'm not imppressed at all the the IDE for the new Visual Studio is done in C#; C#, and more specifically, it's libraries were designed from the ground up to make 32-bit Windows GUI apps.

Get back to me when someone writes a device driver in C#, then I'll be impressed.

There's nothing wrong with C# if you're making quick and dirty 32-bit Windows apps, but to say is the 'best' at everything, especially when it won't even work for embedded applications, betrayes a lack of experience.

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[thwart]

My answer to all of this nonsense is the following: Every programmer has his or her own preferences. In the end, does it really matter? Code written in assembly or binary might impress us, but otherwise, who cares? Freedom to choose is grand. Let's face the facts, and see that the only reason there is a dispute over .NET is that it is written by a company that is apparently trying to create a monopoly in nearly every market related to technology that it can. Just leave it at that.

Re:I really don't care - I can't use it.

[pmz]

... .NET is simply the best tool out there for development....

This is true only if you do not care about risk. .NET is ruled by Microsoft; what happens when Microsoft is 1% of what it is today? Don't argue back with those "Microsoft is God and is immortal" type arguments, since Microsoft is a company like any other.

If you work on an application that is really important to your company's long-term health, and you want your company to be successful regardless of Microsoft's success, then .NET is simply the worst development tool out there. A well-designed C or C++ application (i.e., modular UI) provides much better risk mitigation, since mature C and C++ environments exist on nearly every available platform. If one platform folds, much of your application should port to an new one trivially, and the rework will likely be in the user interface (a smaller task that dumping a .NET application and starting from scratch).

Oooooooooh well.

[rice_burners_suck]

This is the biggest disaster since the conception of Windows.

Re:having played with .Net

[SteveX]

Putting a ton of code in a page is a pretty silly thing to do, even in an example.. but ASP.NET makes it easy to do code-behind (and the tools do it by default).

Write a "Web Form" with Visual Studio.NET and you get a .aspx page which is basically marked up HTML (ala JSP) with the code implemented as a class that gets compiled into bytecode.

Best thing about this is the ASP.NET code has access to the same class library as any other app.. so it's really easy to do things like get a graphics object, render some stuff into it, convert it into a jpeg and stream it back to the client. Stuff that'd be nearly impossible with ASP.

(There are toolkits to do this for ASP, the same as there are for Perl and other languages - the difference in this case is that the ASP.NET code is calling the same drawing functions that any other non-web application would be calling.. not calling through a wrapper etc).

- Steve

subversive plan

[tongue]

Yup, that's what M$ intended alright... contaminate as many programmers as possible by exposing them to the rotor libraries, so they can claim copyright infringement on anyone working on free implementations. not a bad plan, actually...

How can I benefit?

[Domini]

Does anyone know how I can benefit from this?

Specifically I would like to offer customers solutions using Python. But if they want .NET integration, what do I tell them? It's not possible at all?

I'd prefer not to lie to customers.

If I could tell them that it's possible, at a price, that would be something! My customers would be prepared to pay! Not that they may ever need it once I get them their Zope/Python sites, mind you. I just want to leave them the option.

Firstly, what would I have to do (pay) to get .NET commercially for Linux (Python)?

Secondly, is it even possible to get .NET integration going in an effective manner? Are there tools/wrappers?

Re:How can I benefit?

[flacco]

Does anyone know how I can benefit from this?

With Microsoft Rotor, you will leverage your synergies to a higher ROI on your brain-share throughputs - now with new patented Microsoft "Shit-In-A-Box" Technology*!

* Microsoft Rotor "Shit-In-A-Box" technology includes intellectual property licensed from Star Trek Ear-worm Developer Systems, Inc.

Re:How can I benefit?

[zulux]

Specifically I would like to offer customers solutions using Python. But if they want .NET integration, what do I tell them? It's not possible at all?


Perhaps if you can't bring .NET to Unix, you could bring Unix to .NET via Cygwin?

You'd still be running a 'chalenged' server software, but it's an option.

Re:having played with .Net

[Lando]

So it's not called through a wrapper. And why exactly does this make a difference? When I use php I'm making a call to the GD libraries, so there is a bit of a wrapper in there, it hardly effects the time it takes to send back an image.

I don't see that this is any advantage.

Lando