Slashdot Mirror
.Net On Android Is Safe, Says Microsoft
An anonymous reader writes "With Oracle suing Google over 'unofficial' support for Java in Android, Microsoft has come out and said it has no intention of taking action against the Mono implementation of C# on the Linux-based mobile OS. That's good news for Novell, which is in the final stages of preparing MonoDroid for release. Miguel de Icaza is not concerned about legal challenges by Microsoft over .Net implementations, and even recommends that Google switch from using Java. However, Microsoft's Community Promise has been criticized by the Free Software Foundation for not going far enough to protect open source implementations from patent litigation, which is at the heart of the Oracle-Google case."
I would have been then the first one if i hadn't to install Net Framework for Android.
MonoDroid will be a commercial product licensed in a similar fashion to our Mono for iPhone product MonoTouch.
They really need a better naming theme.
Always gotta have the anti .NET zealot idiocy in each of these stories.
Some of the Oracle patents relate to Virtual Machines in general and not just the JVM. So how can Mono be safe from Oracle?
.Net doesn't work on Windows operating systems.
What are you basing that on?
Almost every single company that has had dealings with Microsoft has been stabbed in the back by them...
IBM : OS/2
Stacker : Doublespace
Spyglass : Mosaic
Sun : Java
Everyone : plays4sure (DRM servers shut down leaving purchases useless)
Go : Mobile technology (at least I think the company was called Go)
Caldera : DR-DOS
Novell : Wordperfect
How many times does this have to happen before people see a pattern and avoid partnering with Microsoft? The bigger players can survive the knife between the shoulderblades... the smaller players *if they eventually get a payoff* still usually end up dead anyway.
Care to support that assertion?
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
I, for one, would avoid using the terms ".NET" and "safe" in the same paragraph. I realize they are talking about safe from patent trollage, but it implies that someone would actually want to, you know, actually USE .net or Mono by choice.
As opposed to Java? Damn right I'd use Mono.
I use both by choice all the time. The .NET platform is leaps and bounds ahead of the Java platform in nearly every way.
Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better. I forgot, ideology trumps technical merit. Now, in typical slashdot fashion, mod parent Insightful and me Troll. Thanks, and have a good day.
Similes are like metaphors
even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?
Considering a major release of the .NET framework happened in April, I'm going to go ahead and call you misinformed or a huge troll.
What are they moving to, exactly..? I get the feeling you're misreading how Microsoft is moving way from dynamic .NET languages (IronPython, IronRuby) which are a rather separate part of the framework.
They don't like .NET yet they keep pumping versions after versions of the .NET Framework, C# and Silverlight. Citation needed? I'm not understanding you well.
Eh? Really?
This is actually the first I'm hearing of this (I'm not an active MS developer) -- are they deprecating the entire .NET? Or just a couple of parts of it?
I actually kind of liked a lot of the aspects of .NET when I was using it.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You mean Microsoft is moving away from .NET version 2.0.
This is like saying Oracle is moving away from Java, because version 1.4 or 1.5 was declared EOL.
If they are just "porting" then I'd have expected that .net would sit atop Dalvik ... which would make the entire project just as "tainted" under the Oracle theory.
Or is this going to be "raw" bypassing anything that Google neglected to ensure rights to use?
.Net has been around for years and years, Mono has been around for almost as long, and there's been no lawsuit, so Microsoft has no interest or intention of suing, right? I'm not convinced. The way I always figured it, if you're going to sue for something like that, you wait till the 'unofficial' platform has become wildly popular and it's largely too late to 'turn the ship', so to speak, then you sue.
Microsoft's problem with .Net and Mono is that while it's become used somewhat, it hasn't really become used to the extent that, say, Java on Android (where every Android phone has the Dalvik VM and nearly every app is written in Java). Mono exists on Linux/Mac/*BSD, but mostly people don't use it that much, in my experience (I'm sure someone somewhere has a story about how there company has a mission critical app built on Mono, running on Linux or whatever platform, but I just don't see most Linux distro's deploying many Mono apps by default, and I don't see any widely-used 'killer apps' that are built on Mono).
Basically, .Net/Mono never reached the point of deployment and mission critical-ness to warrant a lawsuit, because MS would likely get small-time damages right now. Gotta wait till the damages are worth the bad PR (which may never come in .Net's case).
They aren't deprecating anything but they have ceased development on a few dynamic .NET languages like IronRuby.
Oh, that's right, Java is licensed under the GPL, so it's inherently better.
To be fair, a decent contingent on slashdot was always saying that Java wasn't open source enough, and in light of the recent Oracle-Google lawsuit, it turns out they were right.
In the context of this particular story, I'm not sure how .NET doesn't look better than Java -- you've got one's parent company saying they won't sue you (even if that's not a great guarantee) and one that's actually suing you right now.
Except that poetmatt is just throwing out FUD. He is intentionally misrepresenting the fact that Microsoft has stopped officially supporting development of things like IronRuby as deprecating the entire platform. The fact that it is even modded as insightful despite being obviously false is quite telling for Slashdot.
Oh, so nothing at all like deprecating .NET then -- gotcha. :-P
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
.Net has bugs. My devs shouldn't have to reimplement portions of .Net to do what .Net says it's supposed to do.
If you are a dedicated .net developer looking to make mobile apps, this makes the android platform really appealing.
.net app development. Who'd have thought it?
Mono touch on iphone still requires a paid account, and suffers from an uncertain future. Windows phone only has silverlight and xna options. I don't know much about silverlight really, but i have little interest in learning it, and xna is pretty low level if you intend to make forms type things. Android is like this happy place of unencumbered
You submit bug reports and they fix them. Java has bugs too, C++'s stdlib has bugs too.
You're prepared to tell me there are no bugs in the most recent version of .Net? None? Zero? Nil?
It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding .Net for that feature entirely.
Source/citation/example? This is the first I've heard of this and I don't do a small amount of .NET work.
I don't know for sure, but Google, about 6 months after the original Android/G1 release, made a native SDK available. I imagine that for something like Mono, you would create a native executable JIT compiler/runtime (which is how you do .Net on any other platform). Or, perhaps, your mono code will be cross-compiled to a native Android/ARM binary program which does not require a separate Mono runtime to be installed on end-user phones.
Interesting thing about MonoDroid is that while all the other incarnations of Mono are Open Source, MonoDroid apparently will not be. An interesting choice for Novell, I'd say.
From the FAQ:
How much will MonoDroid Cost?
We have not yet announced the pricing for MonoDroid, but you should anticipate that the price will be in the same range as MonoTouch ($400 USD for individual users, and $1,000 for enterprise users).
How is MonoDroid licensed?
MonoDroid is a commercial/proprietary offering that is built on top of the open source Mono project and is licensed on a per-developer basis.
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
As an open source developers, we should develop a new language that will compile down to MonoDroid which will then be able to compile down to Droid. That way, if MS pulls their shenanigans, we can still, er, program for the droid. Um, yeah. Or you could learn Java.
Yes. poetmatt is lying.
American conservatives aren't against immigration. They are against *illegal* immigration. I don't see how you can possibly be for it or argue that it's in any way bad to be against it. At most you can try to pass legislation for what constitutes legal immigration.
Define "safe".
We've been hearing that for years, and with Windows 7, it appears (from what I've read) if you want do any sort of work, you still need to use C++. Mind you, I don't program for Windows. Do they have any plans in building the next api in managed code for the next windows release, or is this a case of "do as I say, not as I do". Also, is there much of a performance hit using managed code in windows?
So because some random app doesn't work right, it is .NET's fault?
Gotcha.
MY ENGINE SEIZED BECAUSE I DIDN'T PUT OIL IN IT, FUCKING TOYOTA!!1
It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding .Net for that feature entirely.
Still waiting for an example. One would be enough to have a serious conversation about it. If you can't come up with even one, then please stop repeating yourself.
Breakfast served all day!
Well... to be fair, there is a difference between Oracle suing the GOOGLE company and Microsoft promising not to sue YOU (user/developer) for using the Mono implementation... mainly because Novell/Microsoft relation.
I wonder how far would Microsoft allow Google to go in implementing a C# compiler/interpreter in the same way they are doing it with java...
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Yeah I guess if you don't know how to program, then sure you'd use .NET.
FYI no one is using mono. Seriously if you are a .NET developer you are not using Mono, you're developing on Windows, not some second rate implementation.
IE was purchased by Microsoft. They didn't do some dirty trick, they found a company making a product they liked and purchased them. Not just the rights to their product, the brought on the developers and all that.
DR-DOS wasn't a product that MS ripped off... It was a product that ripped off MS. MS-DOS launched in 1981. DR-DOS launched in 1989 and was version numbed to be the same as MS-DOS. They weren't breaking any laws or anything, but DR-DOS was designed to be their own DOS, compatible with MS-DOS.
Wordperfect lost on its own merits. It was the be-all, end-all of office programs. However the developers failed to keep it up, failed to improve it, and Office eclipsed it. You ever try using it recently (it is still around, still in development)? It is a pile of crap. It lost because there was a superior competing product. You know, how capitalism is supposed to work and all that.
I'm not claiming MS has never done anything underhanded. However people whine and bitch far too much. That a given product failed doesn't mean MS did anything wrong, it may just mean that the product sucked.
Yeah right Google is going to use .NET?
.NET.
You're funny de Icaza and apparently an idiot. Google has been working on it's own language for sometime. They are not going to use some 2nd rate Java knock-off language like
But keep up the comedy routine.
so say I ignore all the controversy and possible patent traps etc., drop my current language of choice, and pick up java or .net, what is the gain?
a mission critical app built on Mono
Look, I know your point is that it's unlikely but still just having those words together in that order made me spit my coffee. New keypad please.
"The ferrets, they're every where I tell you!"
Would it kill you anti-MS zealots to just stick to facts?
I mean seriously, it's not like there are no actual problems to criticize MS for, but if you have to use lies and bullshit to do it, it's not going to help your case against them. If they're evil, then point out why they're evil. If it's true, you shouldn't have to make up bullshit about them.
Actually I think Microsoft wouldn't care if Google implemented a compiler for Android. Microsoft makes a lot of money off the development tools for .NET (largely Visual Studio) and expanding the potential developers to Android would likely only help Microsoft. Look at the huge boom of iPhone developers and imagine a similarly large group developing for Android. That would be a lot of potential customers for VS.
Below are the en.swpat.org analyses. Two of the biggest things in Java's favour are that they have distributed OpenJDK under GPLv2, with the implied patent grant that gives, and Oracle is a member of OIN and there are thus a bunch of GCC and Classpath packages they've promised not to use their patents against.
swpat.org is a publicly editable wiki, help welcome.
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
You're prepared to tell me there are no bugs in the most recent version of GNU Libc, Win32 API or Java SDK? None? Zero? Nil?
It's software. It has bugs. In this case, bugs that pop up in critical places and can't be hammered into place without avoiding Glibc, Win32, or Java, for that feature entirely.
A number of applications that rely on .Net that don't work properly. There's nothing you can do to fix them except wait for the developers to fix their poorly-written app.
Fixed that for you.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Did that even have to do with a .NET bug? They moved away from the MS stack, not .NET particularly IIRC.
MonoDroid is not open/free software, is a commercial and closed product based on Mono. Novell probably pay MS some royalties for it under their agreements, so Microsoft saying they will not sue and they probably are profit from it is funny
It is ISO/IEC 23270 (http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=36768). That means it is not something under MS's control and just subject to their promises. Now that's not all of .NET, that is different, but comparing C# to Java and ignoring the face that C# is an open standard, like C++ and Java is not is a bit disingenuous.
Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Oh come on Florian!
Microsoft's strategic interests are Windows and Office. Those two cash cows act as coverups for every other project they lose money on.
Everything they do is focused on getting people onto those two items as a platform... from that follows Exchange, Sharepoint, IIS and their other server infrastructure offerings.
I wish you would stop out spouting that nonsense about TurboHercules. IBM never attacked the open source project Hercules. Let's get that clear from the outset. They *do* have licensing requirements for Z/OS based on resources available to the system such as CPUs. They will not license their software to a virtualised platform.
This is no different than Apple's position with MacOS X on their hardware and the licensing position they take.
It doesn't matter how much they assure that they won't go after free implementations. Without it written in legalese, irrevocable, it's a worthless statement.
What happens in, say, 5 years if/when Microsoft is feeling the pressure of competition? Let's say they're going bankrupt. Sound unlikely? Well, replace 5 years with 20 years. They'll find they have this lovely patent pool full of wonderful words which are potentially worth billions of dollars. Like every single example I can think of in the history of computing since 1980, of course they'll sue using their patents to draw out their death.
The same applies to any of the big names: Google (you're next), Oracle (already doing it), IBM (somehow never died), Sun (via Oracle), for starters. The nuclear weapon analogy holds nicely here too. The software patent mess is Mutually Assured Destruction. But amassing them and then saying "We won't use them"... what happens when your state collapses? Where do they go?
To be fair Android isn't using Java licensed under the GPL.
The only contention I have with this argument would be that Microsoft might want to steer .NET programmers to Windows Mobile instead of Android. That said, Windows Mobile sucks really bad and Android is already one of the most popular phone operating systems, that Microsoft would either be glad for the added business (and Windows licenses that would be sold, since VS only runs on Windows) or they might consider dumping Windows Mobile altogether and push Android/.NET (a long shot, but quite possible).
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
No, you broke it. The apps are broken because .Net is broken. The devs would fix it but they can't do anything about broken parts of .Net.
As long as your gnuts don't hurd
capable .NET is.
Forget that it's riding on the most insecure OS on the planet. IF Microsoft, which KNOWS ALL the "undocumented" features of .NET, and it's hand picked partner Aventure, cannot build an app which is both stable and fast, then who can?
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
When you're older and you've done tons of code maintenance, especially maintenance of code written by others, you'll realize Java's simplicity and lack of "features" are what make it superior. No language can guarantee maintainable code, but certainly having fewer means to write heinously complicated code betters one's chances. Syntactic sugar rots productivity the way cane sugar rots teeth.
Yeah, I know, I just fed a troll....
The Internet is full. Go away.
This is what Microsoft tried to do to Sun to get rid of their Java: Embrace -- Extend -- Extinguish /. is too short to really inform).
This is the sworn expert testimony in court in case Comes vs Microsoft of a mr. Ronald Alepin on 5 january 2007, about Microsoft's strategy in 1995: Groklaw transcript of Comes vs Microsoft document (page down a bit for the transcript).
(please read the whole thing for yourself. this quote here on
It's long ago, but maybe it can still be illuminating to read if you care about Microsoft's plans with their .NET platform and interoperability e.g. with Mono (I personally don't use .NET so I don't care, but your comment "..until Sun sued them for license issues.." nagged me as only partially true :-).
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
Not sure where you're getting the "don't know how to program" crap. Java is the one with training wheels. C# has operator overloading, pointers (if you want 'em), closures, anonymous methods, covariance, contravariance, and a slew of other advanced features that require skill to properly implement. Not to mention LINQ + expression trees, which in itself is a reason to switch twice over.
.NET, but that's mostly a defense mechanism. At some point someone probably told you you were 1337 for using Java. The truth is that Java was made for people who would like to use C++ but can't understand pointers. C# has its share of idiots too, but it's got features for those of us who know how to code as well.
When it comes to strongly-typed JIT compiled languages, C# wins hands down. Java fans tend to look down on
Microsoft has been using the .NET platform for ten years now. There's too much of it to stop now. And even if they did, they'd have a harder time getting rid of it than they have had with Windows XP.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
They're trying to fix the anchor babies problem. Except that it's a big problem in their head and not that much an issue in the real world. They haven't realized yet that their medicine will be worse than the problem they're trying to solve, and if the immigration issue was fixed one way or another, than the anchor baby problem will greatly diminish.
Hydraulic pizza oven!! Guided missile! Herring sandwich! Styrofoam! Jayne Mansfield! Aluminum siding! Borax!
Don't get me wrong, Google has a policy of open platform in terms of cooperating with other corps when it strengthens their position (like Flash for instance) and they won't mind C# if it gives them advantages.
Still, it's a risk, same like Java.
You know, if I'd be Google, I'd think about how to come up with something that mitigates this risk, and maybe brings some first mover advantage.
I've not been surprised if they'd come up with their own programming language, that'd just blow the other's away.
They don't seem to be against it, as they do develop new programming languages like the Go programming language.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like Go. The coding style of the standard library is an ugly CamelCase style thing that just makes me want to run away. But it has some very interesting programming paradigms behind it. And Google is using it to some extent already. Maybe they have something even better that they don't tell the world about yet. I mean, that's a very central aspect of their daily bread, I can't imagine them not have thought about it for long and deep hours.
I've been in the same situation that blair1q has been in; you submit bug reports and they don't do a damn thing, so you have to work around their bugs or not release a decent product to your clients.
Yes, because THIS:
private int _numCars;
public void setNumCars(int numCars){
_numCars = numCars;
}
public int getNumCars(){
return _numCars;
}
is SO much simpler than this:
public int NumCars {get;set;}
I could point out several other ways that Java is "simpler," but your point is well taken, old man.
Similes are like metaphors
I am a bit confused - what "any sort of work" are you doing that requires C++?
I can understand that certain things are easier in C++ due to the ability to more easily manipulate memory sections directly, but situations which absolutely require this are few and far between.
As well, .NET can invoke all parts of the Windows API via P/Invoke, as well as consume and surface COM interface implementations.
Nice to see you refuted so thoroughly at the link you so kindly provided - thanks!
Are you actually using expressions in production? I saw them as neat in the abstract, but have never found a use for them. Are you serializing non-SQL functions for storage or something?
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
This. It's frustrating having to work around 4 year old bugs.
Perhaps he was referring to the actual .NET framework rather than the C# language, in which case his comment really is praising it. The less you have the program the better, that's why .NET and various other libraries and frameworks exist in the first place; so you don't have to redo the menial stuff over and over again or make your own library to save time. So by saying .NET does everything for you is high praise (assuming it does it properly of course).
As an aside, I do like C# and think it's a pretty good language. I just wish they would add autoboxing already.
Which specific parts are they talking about? I somehow doubt that they are using a stock .NET component which is broken - given that FTP is a fairly straightforward client-server protocol and can be implemented using nothing but Sockets. And even if for some reason .NET sockets are broken, you can always P/Invoke and use the platform socket stack. Or maybe they should blame the Windows IP stack?
Sorry, your story simply does not ring true.
That's understandable, but it's very different than claiming that .NET is broken. I've also seen .NET bugs being fixed rather quickly - it really depends. By his definition, all software is broken because it has bugs. This isn't much different than a bug in the JDK, Ogre3D, XNA, libc or whatever.
Nice to see you refuted so thoroughly at the link you so kindly provided - thanks!
That was a long discussion and all the TurboHercules stuff came up, so I think anyone who wants to look for answers to the usual 'Groklies' can find them there.
More language features does not, in and of itself, make for harder to maintain code. People can write crappy code in any language - you limit this with coding standards and code reviews. It's just far easier to enforce "don't use language feature X" than "don't write bad code". And if you don't have standards that anyne follows, you're pretty much doomed regardless.
But my biggest complaint is not enough syntax sugar - C# desperately needs a macro language (yes, with all the potential evil involved). There are still times when I have to write the same (hopefully idomatic) pattern over and over again, instead of making a macro for it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Your opinions are far, far from current reality. The vast majority of Windows applications and services are built in managed code. Since it's easy to hit any unmanaged API, there's no reason to start in C++. The framework assistance .NET delivers, along with a huge, vibrant market of 3rd party extensions) allow one to write strong applications very quickly and easily.
Many system applications in Win7 are in managed code, and more continue to be. The speed issue has been addressed many times over - there's very little hit in the managed environment, comparing apples to apples.
Shill?????? We have been over your TurboHercules/IBM BS and not many here bought you line. Why don't you take your agenda and go somewhere else and stop trying to tie your TurboHercules/IBM BS to every post with some tenuous connection to it.
Again MS history clearly illustrates why they should be avoided unless you have a completely airtight contract . . . and you had better have some damn fine lawyers to make sure it is airtight. Remember the MS promise does not include the non-ECMA parts of Mono.
No, I think you are the troll. I'm haven't done a whole lot with C# (I've kept up with it every time they release something new out of curiosity) but saying that "syntactic sugar rots productivity" is a completely unfounded statement. Its simply a tool, and I could show you gnarly Java code and beautiful C and vice versa. Any framework that does a specific job and makes describing and implementing the "meat" of a program that much easier is a plus in my book. So if there are well documented and well used features in .NET that eliminate redundant and unnecessary code from a project, thus making refactoring or changing easier, that somehow increases maintenance costs?
Except that Microsoft is *not* moving away from dynamic .NET languages. They just released a platform unifying and solidifying dynamic language support within the .NET Framework itself.
This support is head and shoulders above anything else. Imagine that the platform and not the languages actually has services for doing dynamic member lookup with advanced caching and global optimizations. Making a platform which generalizes how different dynamic languages such as EcmaScript, Ruby, Python and C# look up members is no small feat.
It means that the language implementations themselves shrink quite a lot.
What we have on one hand is *one* disgruntled ex-Microsoft employee being cited on Microsofts plans for the future. On the other hand we have concrete and recent actions by Microsoft which suggests that they are very much investing in making .NET a dynamic multi-language platform.
I have no doubt that working with implementing an "outside" language inside an organization like MS is an uphill battle. But I have real problems seeing this as a sign that MS is backing away from dynamic languages.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
So Microsoft makes this announcement and waits for Java to wither and die because all of the hip Open Source developers defect to .NET.
With Java dead and buried, they roll out the patent guns on .NET.
Extinguish!
The moral of the story is that Free is Free and that large corporations will do what is in their self interest.
Those that have a vested interest in Free (i.e. everyone else) needs to take responsibility for the Free.
So, what do we have?
Stick Men
Are you actually using expressions in production? I saw them as neat in the abstract, but have never found a use for them. Are you serializing non-SQL functions for storage or something?
Well, if you're using Linq to SQL, you're using them, even if you don't know it. But yeah, I've done a few minor things to build an expression tree, such as implementing a Linq OrderBy that took a string of the name of the property to sort by rather than a statically typed reference to the type property. I also did a sample Linq implementation that just output the tree to the screen in order to better understand how they work. I've thought about putting together a simple compiler using them just for the fun of it, but I haven't found the time.
and with Windows 7, it appears (from what I've read) if you want do any sort of work, you still need to use C++.
You read wrong. You can program against any API* using C#. Mind you, C# can also be used in "unmanaged" (they call it "unsafe") mode - where you have access to pointers, pointer arithmetic, direct memory allocation etc.
All regular APIs are either COM or have already been wrapped or even re-implemented in .NET. .NET can easily interop with COM APIs.
I believe that the only place where you would want to drop top C/C++ would be for device drivers.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Or you could stop hitting reload and read the rest of the thread.
Well, first, I'm not Anti-MS. I'm not even Anti-.Net. I'm anti-unstable code and anti-blinkered fealty.
Maybe you should stop being a fanboi and realize their shit do stink, just like everyone else's.
Except that Mono is *also* under the GPL. No, it's not about ideology, it's simply some slashdotters have a vendetta against Microsoft that they'll follow even against common sense.
I bet you would've said the same thing about the people who refused to use Java for the exact same reason. Yeah, the good folks who had the Java patents before were fine with Android, but look what happens when new people are in control. It doesn't have to take a company buyout - what happens years down the road when there are new people in charge at Microsoft? All of sudden those glaringly obvious holes in patent protection aren't looking so benign. I like how Oracle says that Google "knowingly infringed on Oracle intellectual property" when Oracle didn't own it until long after Android was released.
Microsoft: Go ahead and use all of these parts of .NET. We promise we won't sue.
FOSS developers: What about that other part of .NET, which you might note is a key part in Mono right now?
Microsoft: ...
Microsoft: Go ahead and use all of these parts of .NET for Android. We promise we won't sue.
There needs to be a "Truth Hurts" mod.
Absolute FUD. It works fine on Windows
In that subset of things you've used it for, maybe. Other people have run into its bugs. Your presumption that they haven't is called "ignorance".
I'm prepared to ignore your changing the subject from .Net's bugs to other people's bugs.
"I didn't want to get into a detailed IBM vs. TurboHercules discussion here . . ."
Really? then stop bringing it up . . .
Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a .NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry.
I would love it if Oracle moved away from the shitty JRE 1.1.8 they ship with Oracle 9i and has the indecency to place first in the path. Have they actually upgraded that in recent times?
Just because Microsoft releases another version of something it does not mean or prove they are not moving away from it. How's that Kin SDK working out for ya or what about all the various incompatibilities with Windows CE versions and now Windows 7 mobile.
.NET frameworks but it has nothing to do with them making a release recently... wait, not even recently since you said April( 4 months ago ).
Huge troll my arss, Microsoft will do and has done anything it takes to protect the Windows monopoly and that includes screwing developers. I have no idea when Microsoft is moving away from their MS
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
whos' the ex MS employee or disgruntled? if you mean me, you'd be incorrect on both counts, and I would certainly consider the former an insult. I don't really see one in the entire thread.
Oh noes, C# has more syntactic sugar than Java! My coding teeth are rotting from the sweetness!
Creating getters and setters is something any Java programmer gets the IDE to do for them.
Pity the 1.7 release is dragging its feet, though.
I can't say for 100% sure without examining their exact problem, but I would bet that your devs aren't very good and are trying to blame the tool rather than the craftsman. At least, I've never had problems solving similar problems with .NET. (Or Java or anything else, for that matter.)
http://blogs.computerworld.com/london_stock_exchange_to_abandon_failed_windows_platform
That article has a rundown on the pedigree of the LSE's code.
I've done real-time on Windows platforms (well, pseudo-real-time; but I worked around the jitter and built robustness into the receiving end in case Windows did something unusual) and it's not impossible even at those speeds. From the sound of it, the people who implemented that system had it all balled up; typical of inexperienced people doing real-time without proper supervision. There's no indication there that .Net was the culprit, and that article's author is just being silly claiming that "linux" is the solution. The solution is proper coding and using a real-time OS, which most versions of linux aren't.
The author of that application is a moron. They probably didn't want to fix something that was broken on their end and passed it off as a .net problem.
I've written FTP software myself using C# and never encountered a problem.
I did not mean you, and I was not replying to you. Sorry if it came out that way.
I did notice your ridiculous post about MS moving away from .NET, but it has been modded correctly already, so there's no need to address it.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
It doesn't matter how much they assure that they won't go after free implementations. Without it written in legalese, irrevocable, it's a worthless statement.
It is written in legalese. And it is actually quite a bit stronger than a license as it does not require the beneficiary (you) to accept any license agreement. The legal term is estoppel. Here, look it up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel.
From Microsofts community promise (emphasis mine):
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation"), subject to the following: [...]
Read the full text here: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/cp/default.mspx
Now, could that term "Necessary Claims" leave Microsoft with a legal loophole they could wiggle through and sue anyway? IANAL, but it certainly doesn't appear so, as the only way Microsoft could claim that your infringement on one of their patent wasn't "necessary" would be for them to demonstrate what you could have done. Remember, this is a one-sided promise, the burden would be on Microsoft to demonstrate how you would fall outside of the patent coverage.
Now, this promise covers C#, the common language runtime, common type system and core libraries such as collections, P/Invoke etc. It does not cover some of the framework parts higher-up in the stack, such as WPF, WCF, ASP.NET.
It is still unclear to me how implementation of such APIs would be more prone to infringing MS patents than implementing the same functionality on other platforms with other languages. Remember, you cannot patent an API, you can only patent an actual "machine" implementation. Surely if some critical part is covered by a software patent, said patent is language/platform agnostic.
It appears that the problem Google has with Dalvik/Oracle is precisely covered by Microsofts legally binding community promise. See, Google has no interest in implementing a full Java SE. And they had no interest in paying license fees to Sun(now Oracle) for an official JavaME. So they wiggled around and made their own platform in a way which has opened them up to litigation from Oracle.
Had they gone with Mono instead of Dalvik (remember, Dalvik was merely a way to wiggle around Java licenses) there would have been no license fees, and no patent infringement.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
In fact, GLIBC has some nastier bugs than .NET, which lead to remotely exploitable vulnerabilities in network software and privilege escalation vulnerabilities caused by GLIBC.
Yeah, that's it. I must have made it all up.
Too bad Google didn't choose that as their language of choice.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Ok, you've made the claim enough times now. Let's see some evidence: a real example of an application that doesn't work because .NET is broken in ways that cannot be worked around. This should be easy as you know a number of these cases.
Actually, the new Windows Phone 7 is supposed to be pretty slick...
I don't moderate anymore. Karma penalty for 90% fair mods? Can I mod that unfair?
4? Hah. I have a method in my personal code library to work around a bug in the standard Java libraries which I reported to Sun in 2002. It's marked as "Accepted, bug" but low priority. (4759386, for anyone who doesn't believe me).
Look, if Microsoft released its .NET implementation under the Apache license, the FSF would criticize them for not open-sourcing all of their software.
If Microsoft released all of its software under the Apache license, the FSF would criticize them for not using the GPL.
If Microsoft released all of its software under the GPL, the FSF would criticize them for not going far enough to ensure that third-party applications on the Windows platform were also released under the GPL, and that it would run drivers with binary blobs.
If Microsoft demanded that all software for Windows and all compatible drivers also be GPL'ed, the FSF would criticize them for not demanding that the hardware that Windows runs on also be open-source.
If Microsoft asked hardware manufacturers to also open-source their designs, then, as it faded into irrelevance and Apple/Google/Red Hat took over the PC market, the FSF would criticize them for not understanding how free software works.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I tried writing an application for my toaster in .NET, and it wouldn't run properly. There are no workarounds. .NET is completely broken for toaster platforms.
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
I've read it since and I'm convinced that if you're not an idiot, then you're a sucker for some really idiotic developers. There may be bugs in .Net, but nothing you've mentioned points to .Net bugs, no matter what your devs are telling you. Fire your people.
Breakfast served all day!
It's 1994 all over again. NeXT and it's dynamic language being so backwards compared to C++ and now how many of these dynamic languages are all the rage, today? Seriously, it shows a real shallow pool of experience when people are claiming a revolution with Ruby and Python or EcmaScript when it comes to dynamic run-times and dynamic typing. I'm just glad Apple finally dumped Carbon for Objective-C and Cocoa.
I prefer C++ still. With two tiny template classes:
...;
readonly<int> numCars;
readwrite<int> numBoats;
From inside the class itself, both can be read and written directly: if(numCars == 0) numCars = 2;
From outside of the class, both can be read as functions: if(class.numCars())
But only numBoats can be assigned externally.
It is written in legalese. And it is actually quite a bit stronger than a license as it does not require the beneficiary (you) to accept any license agreement.
Hmm, I consider myself corrected. It does not, however, answer what happens if the patents change hands either through bankruptcy or sale. In Sun's case they sold their patents along with the company. To be fair, there was never an explicit legal promise they wouldn't use them.
But that's not how software patents work. In the software patent world, it doesn't matter if you're wrong, right, have a legal claim, invented something, if it's even original, someone else's invention copied outright, or are simply just wasting everyone's time. You just need a pile of cash, lawyers, and a larger pile of cash in the hands of the party you sue. It's a meta-universe they live in. Any loophole will be exploited, and the aim is to either get a huge windfall (if you're a troll) or cross-license agreement (and become a made-company in cartel).
I can easily see Microsoft in 10-20 years getting sold, bankrupted, or whatever (no company lives forever so far). Where do the patents go, and does the promise go with them? Is there just enough doubt that it means they can be trouble anyway?
Apparently it worked in some situations, but not in all. My system was nothing special, so it should have worked in my situation. Yes, they aren't bright. They chose to use .Net's FTP libraries, which apparently have a bug in them.
Or they isoltated the problem to .Net and couldn't do anything about it.
I made a simple claim about .Net not working on Windows so expecting it to work on Android is a stretch. When asked for details I gave two cases (thus preemptively proving you can't count) with all the necessary details. Based on the discussion here my posts are factual and your entire premise for claiming otherwise is a leap of faith.
Well... to be fair, there is a difference between Oracle suing the GOOGLE company and Microsoft promising not to sue YOU (user/developer) for using the Mono implementation... mainly because Novell/Microsoft relation.
I wonder how far would Microsoft allow Google to go in implementing a C# compiler/interpreter in the same way they are doing it with java...
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation")
Covered specifications (extract):
(Note: This has nothing to do with Novell. You may be thinking of the Silverlight/Moonlight partnership where Microsoft has made a similar promise not to sue Novell or any of their customers or contributors for implementing Moonlight. Moonlight does not compare to Dalvik. C# and CLR/CTS does).
So, Microsoft has forever waived their right to sue for infringement of (Microsoft) patents which are necessary for implementing the specifications. Does that answer your question?
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
While I don't trust MS, that doesn't automatically make everything they do bad.
My first thought was "Is this legally binding?", closely followed by "Exactly what it covered?". On previous occurrences those were the questions that meant "This is something to avoid.", but that doesn't, necessarily, mean that the same thing is true this time. If it's legally binding, and it is a sufficiently encompassing commitment, then I may give C# a look. But I'll wait until someone I trust analyses the "promise" for both scope and validity...because IANAL, and this looks like something that calls for a lawyer. (E.g.: is it compatible with software licensed under the AGPL? If it isn't, then it's, to me, a useless promise even if it is binding.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Keep your Microsoft crap off my phone.
That company has built up so much ill-will that I don't care how "technically inferior" the alternatives are, I don't want anything from Microsoft anywhere near my phone or computers.
I'm happy to wait that extra fraction of a second or do without the 'ooh shiny.'
Ok, thanks. I'm updating the pages now...
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
That suit is tricky, with arguments on both sides. What Oracle is alleging is based around a part of Java that's not GPL. Whether it's valid, I'm not sure, but it's not a clear matter of Good vs. Evil.
On the balance I tend to side with Google in the dispute, but I know quite well that I don't really understand what it's about. IANAL, and only a lawyer would have grounds for claiming that they understood what it was about. But I despise software patents, so my siding with Google doesn't mean much as far as legal status of the case. (I'm pretty sure it's more about patents than copyrights.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
The devs with the bugs aren't my devs. I wouldn't have told them to use .Net.
I have no reason to distrust the devs with the bugs. I also have no reason to implicitly trust that .Net does not have bugs. Therefore their testimony that it's a .Net bug is valid.
I'd be an idiot and a sucker to believe you when you have no first-hand knowledge of the problems encountered.
The difference is that Java was put under the GPL by the copyright owner. Mono *may* have been. (When Mono first came out an MS executive declared "That software contains our intellectual property, and we will defend it". I have always understood this as an assertion that Mono didn't have clean title to the code that they licensed, and that therefore you cannot rely on the license.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
If I remember correctly, C# is covered by the Open Specification Promise, meaning that Google is free to implement it without regard to any related patents MS might hold.
It's not really a multi-language platform. It's a programming language that tries to do everything, and a mapping from all the languages out there to that language.
I would like to point out that MS promising not to sue over Mono doesn't mean that no one else might want to do that.
Considering that Oracle's patents involved in the Google lawsuit concern with VM implementation techniques which aren't Java specific (which is why they apply to Dalvik), I can't help but think if they also apply to Mono...
I dont think anyone is saying that you made it up.
.NET functionality that you claim is broken? Apparently thats what you think.
Did you think that nobody on slashdot has had extensive experience with the very
My guess is that you paid money for this broken software, and because of this fact, you are unwilling to believe that the people took you for a ride and have provided shitty software. Its funny about people who have been conned.. often they will even send even more good money at the crooks just so that they can continue to believe that they havent been conned.
Have these crooks asked for more money yet?
"His name was James Damore."
It does not, however, answer what happens if the patents change hands either through bankruptcy or sale. In Sun's case they sold their patents along with the company. To be fair, there was never an explicit legal promise they wouldn't use them.
IANAL and I'm not intimately familiar with US patent law, *but* it appears to me that any buyer of a patent (whether it be an outright sale or a bankruptcy) would have to accept any grants, agreements and licenses already made for that patent by the seller.
License agreements aren't revoked just because the licensed part changes owner. The new owner will have to honor any agreement affecting the part, and the fact should be reflected in the price/value of transaction. If I buy a patent from someone who has irrevocably licensed it to a certain customer (or everyone) I will have to respect that agreement.
Now, perhaps this community promise isn't the same thing as a patent grant. It appears more to be a waiver (estoppel) of rights to sue. Whether this is some sinister loophole I really can say. But I would expect that it has the same validity as an outright patent grant.
Re: Suns promise on Java: They actually did make such a promise/grant. Only, it came with some (a lot) of preconditions which Google does not meet in this case: The patent grants only covered a full implementation of Java SE *and* only if had also been certified by Sun (i.e. Harmony is also in danger here). Google's Dalvik is not an implementation of Java SE.
I see your point about patents and the legal system. It really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, all that matters is whether you can convince a jury. Most software patents are overly broad and/or too obvious, at least to people in the industry. But I still fail to see how this makes .NET/Mono more dangerous than other software. If anything, Mono has patent coverage from at least one of the big patent holders in the industry.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
If your point was gonna be "every software has bugs", your opening statement was pretty ridiculous.
I'm Rocco. I'm the +5 Funny man.
It's not really a multi-language platform. It's a programming language that tries to do everything, and a mapping from all the languages out there to that language.
Come again? What exactly makes a platform then?
You are correct that .NET is based on a single basic language which every other language must "map" to. By convention we don't refer to this as "mapping" but rather as compilation.
Compilation takes some higher-order language and compiled to a basic language. In this case the basic language is called Common Intermediate Language (CIL). No, it is not C#.
You may not know this, but CIL actually is (and always was) "bigger" than C# in that it has features still not exposed through C#. Examples are indexed properties (C# only has simple properties which may be of an indexed type - not the same) and non-zero based arrays. C# is but one language which "maps" to this language. This is actually quite a bit different compared to the Java platform, which doesn't even have unsigned integers or custom value types because they are not in Java. It is only now (planned for JDK7) that the Java platform may actually see features *not* exposed through Java.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
If your definition of a 'winning language' is the one that has more 'advanced features' I suppose that's fine. I prefer a language that allows me to solve a problem in a clean straightforward manner that can be maintained by just about any decent developer. I'd rather avoid most 'advanced features' not because I lack the skills to use them, but because they tend to add unneeded complexity to a system.
I actually tend towards some of the more recent functional languages (scala comes to mind), but Java can certainly be a nice clean language for many problems that is smooth, predictable, and has the tools available to make the development experience enjoyable.
I also prefer languages that allow me to run across many platforms with minimal work.
I had to look up estoppel. For a split second while the page was loading, I thought it meant, "a legal formulation by which a corporation can assert that no, really, we're not lying to you this time."
I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
A trap? but what can possibly go wrong for MS with mono? Mono will perpetually be playing catch up to whatever set of specifications Microsoft comes up with silverlight. If mono decided to stop following specifications and go solo, then it would have to provide a windows version competing against the guys who own the friggin closed source operating system. Unfeasible. There is no trap. More precisely, the trap has already snapped.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Computing is moving away from the desktop and onto mobile devices. Microsoft was built on vice-like control of the desktop computers, and as a result, the field has been stagnant for decades.
Do you really think they won't take any opportunity they can to gain the same level of control over portables?
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Right. Except I'm saying it's not that.
Eh, to each their own I guess. But the features I mentioned actually add a lot of readability and maintainability. I do agree about functional programming being enjoyable, though. Too bad I don't get much opportunity for that at work.
Lets ask Admiral Ackbar!
http://captionsearch.com/pix/thumb/wsz0tgm4st-t.jpg
they are still working on convincing everyone they're not going to sue over people implementing C#, and since this really is just a port of mono to android suing would gain them nothing but hate.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
Ironically, that is how I've always characterized C#: designed by managers who got tired of entry level programmers making the same mistakes over and over.
Java was designed to follow all the academic wisdom of what should be in a programming language at the time. That is why academics loved it: it was 100% object oriented even though it meant you had to type 'System.out.println' instead of 'print.' It was well organized, and they drooled over that feature.
And lets be honest, operator overloading doesn't add THAT much to a language.
Qxe4
As someone who uses .NET and Java and thinks they're both rather lousy, it would have been great if you had said why you think .NET is so much better. Random assertions without evidence or reasoning to back them up deserve to be modded troll.
Qxe4
It always confuses me that these companies go with java when they could have gone with C/gtk
yeah yeah yeah... garbage collection. but if its really garbage collection shouldn't it just collect the whole damn language?
I see your point about patents and the legal system. It really doesn't matter if you are right or wrong, all that matters is whether you can convince a jury. Most software patents are overly broad and/or too obvious, at least to people in the industry.
Actually, I'd say all that matters is whether you can convince both set of shareholders. They never actually want patent battles to go to jury, and most never get that far. It's pretty much a flip of the coin when it gets that far.
If the potential damage done to your future rating is greater than the cost of a license, you pay the license. It's trial by shareholder. Even then, it's mostly just players positioning themselves to get in on a cartel in a particular industry. Sadly, most shareholders don't understand The Game, and those that do understand it, know that the others don't.
I can hand-edit a java file and when I reopen the IDE, it'll pick up the changes. Try that in a Microsoft environment, and you'd better have a project backup.
Um, Visual Studio actually handles that just fine. So I think you're the one spouting off rubbish.
I somehow doubt that they are using a stock .NET component which is broken - given that FTP is a fairly straightforward client-server protocol and can be implemented using nothing but Sockets.
So, I assume you've never read this site or any of the many similar ones? And you've never heard of production code ever having a bug in it?
/ "It was a short reference to the fact that it demonstrates the uselessness of those pledges. So it was on-topic. But responding in detail to more comments or questions on TurboHercules would have been off-topic, thus my link to LWN."
More FUD, as has been discussed before IBM did not renege on their pledge, no amount of spin from you will change that. TurboHercules wanted IBM to opensource and/or provide licenses so that IBM's mainframe OS could run on TurboHercules platform to the benefit of TurboHercules. IBM did not wish to pursue this business venture with TurboHercules as it would be detrimental in several ways to IBM.
IBM also pointed that it has invested "many billions of dollars developing its z-architecture" and holds "many intellectual property rights" (I hate that phrase, "intellectual property rights") and has litigated to defend their rights. It then identified a non-exhaustive list of patents related to this matter as requested by TurboHercules. They could have told them to piss-off, but they provided the requested information, and told them they (IBM) had concerns about TurboHercules going forward with their plan. IBM put them on notice regarding their IP concerns in a very businesslike way. Please explain how they should have proceed, if they did not intend give TurboHercules what TurboHercules wanted?
It is pretty straight forward just read the letters and look at what IBM pledged and please stop FUDDING and spinning already. IBM pledged not to sue as related to 500 specific patents, so please show that ALL of the patients related to TurboHercules are within the 500 patents please, before you continue with this TurboHercules nonsense.
Quote by redbeard55: "Another point to remember, all MS would have to do to get around their promise is to sell a .NET patent or two to another company. They would of course get protection from being sued but everyone else . . . soooo sorrrrrry."
"Show me even one other patent pledge or promise, including Red Hat's patent policy, where that wouldn't be just the same thing. This isn't Microsoft-specific at all."
True some risk exist with other companies but, remember a little discussion about the past actions of MS . . . I don't believe that RH ever claimed that Linux was a cancer or threatened to sue Linux users over 200+ patents. Did you just conveniently forget that?
Also, name one other software company that can dominate the industry in desktop area like MS can and promote the use of specific software. There is none and MS has openly declared Linux a "cancer" you don't play nice with cancer do you? MS's past history show the lengths they are willing to go to kill or cripple competitors, even to the extent of breaking the law. MS still is an 800 pound gorilla in this area, so you had better be very, very, careful with your interaction with them and most of the time it is better to stay as far away as possible from the beast, if you are more that a flea. Really dealing with MS is way different than dealing with ANY other company including ORACLE/SUN.
"The "workaround" you just described would presumably even work for the GPLv3."
Uhmm did you forget paragraph 11 of the GPLv3? It may be possible but it would be a much trickier proposition, and would make for an interesting court case. The question would appear to be could the buyer revoke the original grant of non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license. If the new buyer wished to monetize the patent, he either didn't perform due diligence or the seller committed fraud. I don't think the end user would be in as near as much danger compared to my scenario.
Since you've been unable to show us any specific example of your alleged problems and instead expect us to believe you "just because", yeah, chances are you made it all up just to troll.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
Microsoft irrevocably promises not to assert any Microsoft Necessary Claims against you for making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing or distributing any implementation, to the extent it conforms to one of the Covered Specifications, and is compliant with all of the required parts of the mandatory provisions of that specification ("Covered Implementation")
As explained in many places on the web, this "Microsoft will not sue you" is very different from actually granting a license. Even if this promise is irrevocable and perpetual. For example, Microsoft could sell off one of the relevant patents to a proxy agent, which would then sue anyone and everyone (but Microsoft). If you think that's a crazy idea, then (1) there are good reasons to suspect this or very close to it happened with Microsoft and SCO, and (2) just the other day we saw Paul Allen sue everybody in tech - but Microsoft, which led many to suspect this was Microsoft starting a patent war by proxy (so it can't be sued back. Paul Allen is a non practicing entity at this point, so nothing to sue him over).
The same FSF that has been warmly recommending Java as a "free" language.
even microsoft doesn't like .net and is moving away from it. why would anyone use something that is about to be deprecated?
I would say your misinformed, but the way you put it makes me think you are just a blatant liar/troll. If anything MS are heavily moving towards .NET with many of their new versions of products now heavily utilising it and integrating it.
You read wrong, very little except low level driver work requires resorting to C++. much of the API has already been rewritten in .NET or where it makes more sense wrapped in .NET shims.
We'll have to wait and see what happens with it, but your post really isn't complete without mentioning Windows Phone 7. I like some of what I've seen and heard, and I don't like other things, but I can tell you this much: it's completely different from WinMo, both in the user interface and the development experience. I can see MS dropping the WinCE kernel - in fact, I'm surprised they haven't yet; it seems like porting NT would have been at worst no harder than updating CE enough to build WinPhone7 on top of it, and some of that work would have been useful in other ways too (for example, if MS wanted to develop a desktop version of Windows for ARM-based net[books|tops]). However, I think it's a lot more likely that MS will implicitly support Android development in .NET (Visual Studio is quite pluggable, so it's not like it would be hard for anybody to create a Mono/Android development environment that runs on VS) than it is that they will explicitly embrace Android in their own product lines.
That said, since WinPhone7 does use C# (with Silverlight or XNA) and the dev tools are already based on Visual Studio, I think it's fair to say that if you're developing mobile apps on VS MS would prefer that it be for their platform.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
shorter learning curve
lots of very newbie-friendly or thicko-friendly literature
MSDN
So it attracts the mediocres.
And I am one, because I still could never quite dive deeply into Python say.
Take Inkscape for example, what a nice intro to practice Python or Perl - but no piss-easy documentation to be found.
Take Gimp, nice way to learn Scheme; again no baby-simple arrow-pointing colourful books on Scheme-for-Gimp.
etc.
So you attract only the top 1% wannabe programmers.
Now take C# , I've learnt and pretty much mastered it in one week. That was a long time back and now I resist using it (like a drug detox).
Reason I learnt C# so fast has nothing to do with my skills. But the skills of the teacher/writer or teaching technique. Very optimised the way books/manual/online tutorials/vids transmitted their stuff for IQ-challenged average folks like myself and hence the masses.
The mapping must work both ways: CIL must be mapped to all other languages. But then, CIL is very large so that all languages can be mapped to it.
So how do you map CIL features that are not in the language? You extend the language, and force it to use your extensions instead of the native way to do things, since they're incompatible. A good example of this is C++/CLI, rightly considered alien and a whole different language altogether by the C+++ community.
That's not what I would call a multi-language platform, since it doesn't respect the language differences. It's just one language trying to force others to be the same.
The whole approach doesn't work. The only thing that should be common is the low-level, C-like details. LLVM is such a project which will probably take over GCC one day.
Perhaps you should rely less on Wikipedia and more on actual history. IBM did not believe that the desktop would take off, and so partnered with a company that wound up (deliberately) stabbing them in the back.
OS/2 was a superior product, but did not have the marketing strength (within IBM) to push it. Microsoft is a marketing giant, not a coding giant. How else can you explain a bug that showed up in IE4 (fixed within 24 hours), again in IE5 (same bug, same fix - after IE4 fix was released - same timeframe also), again in IE6 (you get the point).
Think someone did not say hey, I've seen this one before?
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
John 8:32(King James Version)
The reality of it is, by most peoples definition of 'real work', its true.
You aren't writing photoshop in C#, too much abstraction to write fast filters when you're talking about many millions of pixels to process, unless you send it off to a GPU ... where again, you're not doing it with C#.
For writing almost any normal application, it would be fine. Most developers don't consider most applications to be doing 'real work' on a computer.
Of course if you actually want to maintain portability, you'd use C++, even if you use managed code, as its far easier to wrap it in some ifdefs/macros and use it as standard C++ and C.
The windows dynamic loader pretty much speaks the format used by C as its interface between modules, and the .NET CLR is written in ... C/C++.
C# is a slightly better VB, claiming it can do anything is retarded. While you may be technically correct, that doesn't mean its a good idea or the only way to do things.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Those are percentages only of the ~20% "smartphone" category, too. S40 has probably more than all of the combined. Then there's Intel & Nokia partnership (with recently announed joint tech centre) over Meego...
One that hath name thou can not otter
I don't remember ever having to do this in Java but it's been a while. Either way, most languages provide get/set synthesis. You are basically just saying you could explicitly declare basic getters/setters in Java and choose to have the compiler create them on build in C# or whatever, but that argument could easily be turned around. It's not a real argument. You wrote some convoluted code in Java and some streamlined code in C#. Furthermore the code isn't even "code" but boilerplate bullshit.
Uhm, you have access to the same API that every application that runs on Windows has access to via P/Invoke.
If it can be fixed outside of .NET, it can be fixed inside of a .NET language as well. The .NET CLR is built on top of the standard Windows API and as such, code within the CLR can use could from outside the CLR, and likewise code outside the CLR can use code from inside the CLR.
You could ignore any broken .NET libraries and use P/Invoke or override them with your own replacements. Also, you could just look at the source to the .NET framework which is easy enough to buy if you're willing to pay for it, find the bug, fix it, and use a patched framework until MS fixed it properly.
Its really no different than patching any other bug in the MS runtimes, it can be done, even if you don't realize it or know how, I do.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
You don't even need to re-open the IDE. VS will happily detect when a file has changed on disk (which it is open for editing in VS) and ask if you want to load those changes into your working version. It also offers other nice things like the option of automatically converting all line endings to Windows or Unix style, or leaving them as they are.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
What he speaks of is a problem for some Microsoft IDEs.
Specifically, I have to work on a VB6 project at the moment until it can be killed. The VB6 IDE is a massive pile of crap :) It does everything in memory which means if it crashes ... and it does ... you lose your changes unless you have clicked 'save' recently, even if you've built the project and/or debugged it.
When you go to exit it will prompt to save, and it will be happy to overwrite something thats changed on disk without warning. It certainly won't warn you at any point during its run that a file on disk has changed and needs to be reloaded.
Now ... considering thats the only MS IDE that does that, and every version of Visual Studio since 6.0 has been more or less a great IDE (except for when they dropped makefile exports) and do not suffer from such trivial problems ... I would have to agree with your statement in principle. MS did however produce a shitty IDE or two.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager