Slashdot Mirror
Mono 4 Released, First Version To Adopt Microsoft Code
jones_supa writes: Version 4.0.0 of Mono, the FOSS implementation of the .NET Framework, has been released. This is the first release of Mono that replaces various components of Mono with code that was released by Microsoft under the MIT license. Microsoft itself is working towards .NET Core: a redistributable and re-imagined version of .NET, which has two code drops: CoreFX and CoreCLR. Mono at this point continues to provide an API that tracks the .NET desktop/server version. This means that most of the Mono code that has been integrated from Microsoft comes from the ReferenceSource code drop. Mono's C# compiler now also defaults to C# 6.0.
It absolutely does. You can develop completely cross platform applications with 1 codebase using XWT. The single codebase creates projects for GTK, Cocoa(OSX) and WPF(Windows) that use the native controls for the corresponding platform.
The fact that they are porting most of the libraries over to the first-party Microsoft versions means less bugs, and way more active maintenance. This is very good news for cross-platform developers!
It's funny how things have come full-circle.
In the 1990s, Microsoft used to be the one accused of spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Microsoft used to be the one pushing unwanted software on the masses. Microsoft used to be the one pushing lousy programming languages like VB.
Now it's the 2010s, and open source supporters like yourself are spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Open source supporters are pushing unwanted software like systemd on the masses. Open source supporters are pushing lousy programming languages like Go, Ruby and Rust.
I hate to say it, but I trust Microsoft more these days than I trust Red Hat or the average open source developer.
I haven't looked at Qt 5 -- does it still insist on duplicating the STL except with a horrible naming convention and poorly justified design changes, making it painful to use any non-Qt C++ library?
Well, it's a better designed language than Java ever was, so there's that. What more do you need?
That is all.
Quite simply, a patent "promise" is not the same thing as a license. You see, even if they're bared by Laches, they can still drag you through the courts and you've got to prove they're barred by making the promise. If you had a license...you could make a single motion at the first hearing or in the pretrial motions to dismiss because of being licensed if they sought to sue you.
Having this crap in there means Mono's toast without a real license to any valid patents, combined with a covenant to license all tech as it becomes apparent, that ends up in this common core of stuff. Otherwise, you're INSANE for using it- because you can and most probably WILL be sued over it.
No - it is actually stronger (look up promissory estoppel). But leave that aside, because the patents have also already been granted.
The *promise* was issued because fanatics cried foul at the patent grant, arguing that Microsoft with it vast army of lawyers could just sue any OS project out of existence, patent grant or not. Hence, Microsoft issued the promise, all but ensuring that such a case would be outright dismissed since you've acted in good faith on a promise. The promise in that case is actually one of the strongest contract forms imaginable, as it is one-sided: you do not have to sign anything to be covered.
Reading slashdot one-liner: (irm http://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot).rdf.item | fl title,desc*
Have you ever considered the possibility that all those years of misconduct by Microsoft have sowed a considerable amount of distrust in the developer community, and that even where Microsoft has turned over a new leaf, so vile was its conduct "back in the day" (which ain't all that long ago, if you think about the OOXML open standard scam), that it might take years, or maybe never, to convince a lot of people that there isn't some evil plan in the works.
Give me one good fucking reason why I should ever trust Microsoft again?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Nope, but a person believing that Microsoft is more trustworthy than global community,
That is their opinion. It doesn't mean that they are a Microsoft shill as you claimed.
that .NET runtime is a silver bullet that will kill Ruby, Go and Rust
The AC didn't say .NET would kill those languages, just make them less useful.
person that keeps insisting that MS won't sue anyone over .NET despite the shady language in the license and a number of restrictions (.NET code can only be used to create a runtime adhering to MS specs and for no other purpose)
There is simply no shady language in the license that is going to affect Mono. If they ever decide to change Mono from an implementation of the .NET platform to something else (eg. JVM) whilst retaining Microsoft's code then they could be in trouble. But do really think for a second that they would change the focus of the project like that? Absolutely not.
And yet that is the main message of your post, that if you don't adhere to Microsoft's spec then they could sue. Well Mono is compliant with the licence, so they are not going to get sued.
Also, for this same time .NET has failed to see adoption the likes of Java did, and right now, Microsoft has even more hooks inside their license allowing them to sue the living hell out of anybody, and (Like with Oracle, Google and Java) they can sue if the code used in .NET will be used for anything other than making a fully fledged .NET runtime (that part is straight in their license, no guessing involved here).
So your response to me pointing out that Microsoft hasn't actually sued anyone for the last 13 years despite all the claims that they would is that Java is still bigger and that if you made something that was unlike Mono that you would get sued. How is that counter my claim that saying that using Mono will not get you sued?
Previous comment was regarding Microsoft and open-source in general - this is an answer in general. Commenter said he trusts Microsoft more than RedHat or opensource developers, I pointed out that trust is a personal issue, ability to verify - is more objective.
Irrelevant. You have the ability to verify code from an open source project.