And while we're at it, why does Apple regularly get attacked on Slashdot for raping the English language by using the "app" instead of "application", if what you say is "Informative"?
Probably because those attacking apple are morons who don't know the origins the word 'app'. The obvious response is to direct people to one of the many uses of 'app' prior to Apple's use of it.
I haven't played my Wii in several months and do not plan to anytime soon, if I can smuggle it away from the GF I will probably sell it off cheap to a family who eats that crap right up.
sounds like you have a pretty hip grandfather if he's into Wii gaming
In case you couldn't tell I'm a PC gamer, which seems to be the only remaining platform for deep and intricate games.
Open source, conversely, has a complete software stack for many architectures - and most of that is written in C or C++! Why can't closed source achieve the same?
What makes you think they don't? The 2 most popular closed source OSes families have worked across multiple hardware platforms plenty of times.
I would beg to differ with regard to Rosetta not working with anything complicated, and I have a perfect example - Mac Office 2004 on a Core Duo Macbook Pro, verses iWork Numbers on the same platform.
I had a spreadsheet with about 200 data points, of which I wanted to make three graphs
By 'complicated' he doesn't mean just doing basic number crunching lots of times, he means things like applications that take advantage of the kernel extensions and the like, things that use advanced low-level features.
To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.
This is the problem Apple is going to have when it gains a respectable marketshare, the masses seem to think OSX is magically safe from viruses and malware, when in actuality it's just too tiny of a target.
The benefit is that you aren't tied to just the mono apis, you can still use the native apis as well. this means you have a core logic written in c# that is portable across Windows, XBox, Linux, WP7, Android and iOS, then the only thing you have do is put in the necessary native calls on each platform, this obviously gives you a massive saving on maintenance.
...was that he published a photo that the presenter obtained without permission from the private profile of the wife of another security researcher (that the presenter publicly acknowledges that he doesn't like). The vulnerability disclosure does seem to be very very childish and unethical. The re-publishing of the photo does seem to be unethical too, but not illegal, which i assume is why he hasn't been charged with any offence.
As long as you don't send the information out on the internet sure.
No, not at all, it's exactly as i said that having encrypted wifi will *always* be more secure than unencrypted wifi, everything beyond that is irrelevant because it is exactly the same in both cases. If you want to be captain obvious and say all traffic should be encrypted you go right ahead.
What are you talking about? You didn't refute anything.
I clearly refuted it point by point.
Code reuse doesn't help you with the platform specific api's and idiosyncracies like application lifecycle, bugs, etc. which are all explained and laid out for java.
Of course it does, that code is NOT platform-specific, which is the whole point of mono, how can you not know that? you claim to have evaluated it but you don't know this most basic fact about it?
Obviously using Mono doesn't mean you don't have to learn some platform-specific aspects, and no-one ever claimed that it did.
Exactly and the support and documentation for that on the java side is much more mature.
If you already know a supported.Net language then you don't need that particular documentation.
The last refuge of someone who is backed into a corner and just arguing for the sake of it is to start throwing out technicalities. You know just as well as I do that I we referring to API levels 11 and 12, i.e., Honeycomb 3.0 and 3.1. Neither of which are available for monodroid.
Obviously the point, that you seem to consistently miss, is that you don't need them to be. You write the platform specific stuff for the specific platform and leave the agnostic stuff in an agnostic language/platform, which - as you keep ignoring - is a benefit of mono.
So, just like mono in the desktop world, mobile mono will always be behind. For a developer, watching the cool kids do cool stuff while you are stuck with second rate limited crap is no fun.
Are you still incapable of grasping the simple fact - that would be obvious to you if you knew anything about mono - that you are not limited by using mono and that you can still use any and all of the existing native functionality when necessary?
FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.
Are you slow? Do I need to draw you a picture? Here, I'll quote myself. Read it out loud if you need to.
I quite clearly refuted that point by point already. Re-quoting yourself just shows that you weren't able to comprehend what I wrote and therefore were unable to rebut it.
Monodroid is not as advanced as the Java kit for android development. That is a monodroid inadequacy.
'advanced' depends on what you're doing with it, and the fact that you can use both together means having mono is advantageous.
You imply that you have mobile development experience. Now, I doubt it. The mere fact of knowing the language does not make you an Android developer, be it C# or Java.
And i never said it did - don't make up rubbish like that - your inability to read and comprehend what was actually written leads you to that conclusion. I said you don't need to bother with those specific aspects if you've already learned them in a compatible framework, and that is absolutely correct. Or do you not understand the concept of code-reuse?
You have to be familiar with the apis, the app lifecycle, the idiosyncracies of the platform. Best practices. All of that and more is documented in excruciating detail at http://www.developer.android.com/ and it assumes java. You don't get that for mono.
Obviously using Mono doesn't mean you don't have to learn some platform-specific aspects, and no-one ever claimed that it did.
Those aren't tablet-specific, tablet is a form-factor, just as the 7" Galaxy tab is a tablet and doesn't need those APIs. Moreover if there is something unavailable in mono you can use the existing native implementation, but then that would be clear to you if you'd actually used mono.
Welcome to software development, since you're new here
What's that you were saying about projection?
your willingness to evaluate a platform you've never used and complain about the constraints of modern mobile devices shows what i wrote is correct.
Yeah, I know right? Except, it's not. According to that credible report, 80 percent of the kernel comes to us via paid development.
So there's 20% of unemployed amateurs...better abandon the platform.
The development environment for your precious monodroid doesn't run on Linux anyway.
my precious monodroid? I have no involvement in the project and i don't even own an android device.
I'll come out and say it. I cannot write apps in monodroid that are as good as apps that can be written in the real development kit nor can I write them as quickly.
FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.
First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else.
So if you know C# and have developed functionality already you don't need to learn those java/eclipse aspects, you can leverage existing knowledge.
There are no tablet specific api's on monodroid so you are always going to be a step behind other developers.
Tablet-specific APIs? What is it you need that you seem incapable of doing with scalable code? or is it that you aren't/can't do scalable code?
Worst of all, there is a performance penalty so by definition, there are some applications that can be written using java that will be too slow to deploy to users on monodroid.
It's not the be-all and end-all of frameworks, you don't have to choose between mono or native. It's the same thing we have been doing in software development for ever, you choose the best tool for the specific job.
It's bad enough developing within the constraints of a mobile device in the first place
Welcome to software development, since you're new here you should learn to appreciate that the constraints of modern mobile development are actually quite relaxed and that those of us who have been in the field for a while find this to be extremely easy.
At this point, I have to assume you monodroid people are all trolls out to confuse the development situation on Android to the benefit of competing platforms.
And of course you assume wrong. I'm not a monodroid developer, but i have tried and can see the benefit in it if i were to develop and application that leverages that advantage.
hassle? the ability to write your logic code once and not having to change it when you port your application across platforms sounds like the opposite of a hassle to me.
Someone else claims that sharing logic code between games that use very different kinds of input produces an end result that feels perfect on neither platform.
WEP with a well-known password has the same vulnerability to passive Firesheep-type attacks as open Wi-Fi.
WEP is not secure, we've known this for a long time.
Even WPA is vulnerable to an active attack that forces a deauth and then snoops the pairwise transient key on reauth. WPA+PEAP is less vulnerable because the handshake takes place over TLS.
And either choice is a hell of a lot better than open, unencrypted wifi, hence my suggestion.
I can see you're not one for innovation then. If the majority aren't doing it then you won't.
How is using a development environment that, at best, is a hack written and supported by unemployed amateurs "innovation"? The innovation is in the software I write and, I'm quite sure, I can write better software by sticking to the language officially sanctioned and proscribed by the developers of the operating system.
Clearly you are only interested in what others are doing rather than the merits of the framework. Linux was initially developed - and continues to be developed - by unemployed amateurs too and look at how well that is going. Innovation is about not just doing what everyone else is doing. Quite obviously you've never used Mono and since most people aren't using it you're not going to try it.
What are you on about? No end user even knows, much less cares if it's.Net or Dalvik, it makes no difference to them whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about what end users care about. I said the big money apps are all written sans mono. I'm here to get paid, not piddle around with some hack second class crap. I'll be more than happy to watch you do that. More money and users for me.
clearly that's what you are implying given you seem to think that the 'big money', which comes from the end users (and advertisers), depends on the framework, which they know nothing about and has absolutely no impact on it whatsoever.
Plenty of people. Otherwise restaurants wouldn't offer them to entice customers to eat there.
And this is why there should be no such thing as 'unsecured wireless', all wireless should be secured even if it is with a default password of 'password'.
What does matter is writing native Linux apps in mono.
That is ugly, its like using wine to write Linux apps
how is it different any different from using say java?
and has unnecessary patent riscs (I don't really believe that mono infringes MS patents, but regardless of that MS could generate a ton of FUD if they claimed that it does)
What sort of a question is that? If you'd had a look through the titles available you'd see they are very important for anyone wanting to start developing games or for any young game company.
Microsoft's phone stuff is so far behind that even Nokia is not going to be able to save it.
yes, any fledgling platform is going to start at the bottom.
Besides, Mono doesn't help with either of these areas. If you want to develop for XBox Live or Microsoft's mobile OS you use Microsoft's tools, full stop.
obviously, and mono isn't an attempt to change that.
I suppose theoretically you could use Mono's non-free software to develop for iOS, Android, and Microsoft's platforms, but you would still have to learn three different APIs, and on the two most popular platforms (Android and iOS) you would have to use non-native tools.
if you're using native features then you're going to need to use those different APIs but that's no different from doing it without Mono, the advantage is all of your common logic is exactly the same code.
It seems to me that you'd have to *really* like C# to go through that hassle.
hassle? the ability to write your logic code once and not having to change it when you port your application across platforms sounds like the opposite of a hassle to me.
Slashdot Mirror
And while we're at it, why does Apple regularly get attacked on Slashdot for raping the English language by using the "app" instead of "application", if what you say is "Informative"?
Probably because those attacking apple are morons who don't know the origins the word 'app'. The obvious response is to direct people to one of the many uses of 'app' prior to Apple's use of it.
Xerox can copyright a shortening of the term Xerography ("dry printing").
But they haven't.
Apple has been using the term and suffix .app since it bought NeXT.
And many people used that term before that, what's your point?
Microsoft copyrighted a network centric API called .Net and uses that suffix.
No they didn't.
Microsoft copyright a window manager called Windows. (recall that the original Windows was not really an OS but just a GUI window manager for DOS.)
Windows is not a windows, it was a window manager, now an operating system. Whereas apple's App Store is an app store.
Just because someone used a slang term "killer app" does not mean the slang can't be copyrighted.
Go ask Yahoo if Yahoo is copyrighted.
I don't think you know what copyright is.
I haven't played my Wii in several months and do not plan to anytime soon, if I can smuggle it away from the GF I will probably sell it off cheap to a family who eats that crap right up.
sounds like you have a pretty hip grandfather if he's into Wii gaming
In case you couldn't tell I'm a PC gamer, which seems to be the only remaining platform for deep and intricate games.
Like what?
Open source, conversely, has a complete software stack for many architectures - and most of that is written in C or C++! Why can't closed source achieve the same?
What makes you think they don't? The 2 most popular closed source OSes families have worked across multiple hardware platforms plenty of times.
I would beg to differ with regard to Rosetta not working with anything complicated, and I have a perfect example - Mac Office 2004 on a Core Duo Macbook Pro, verses iWork Numbers on the same platform.
I had a spreadsheet with about 200 data points, of which I wanted to make three graphs
By 'complicated' he doesn't mean just doing basic number crunching lots of times, he means things like applications that take advantage of the kernel extensions and the like, things that use advanced low-level features.
Which is fine if you're writing from scratch. It's not so fine if you have a 200,000 line program written in C/C++.
Have you tried porting a C++ app to C++/CLI? It's actually pretty easy.
When you choose to build the app to this target the compiler spits out a low level language which is converted to native assembly at runtime.
That describes a .Net application, MSIL on the CLR.
To be fair, I have never had any malware with OSX and I'm certain I will not. OSX by its roots (BSD) means it doesn't get the kind of malware that plagues all those M$ Windows computers. I feel safe with OSX and have no need for antivirus. If you give our your root password to a random program, well, you're stupid. But if you use Windows you get infected just by connecting to the internet. I've never had such experience with my Mac.
This is the problem Apple is going to have when it gains a respectable marketshare, the masses seem to think OSX is magically safe from viruses and malware, when in actuality it's just too tiny of a target.
Like connect to the internet without first spending some money on one or more anti-virus packages?
You're obviously doing it wrong, if you're getting viruses or malware by simply connecting to the internet then you're an idiot.
The benefit is that you aren't tied to just the mono apis, you can still use the native apis as well. this means you have a core logic written in c# that is portable across Windows, XBox, Linux, WP7, Android and iOS, then the only thing you have do is put in the necessary native calls on each platform, this obviously gives you a massive saving on maintenance.
They've since removed it from the age article, originally it was in there along with photos of both of the 'security researchers' involved.
He wasn't arrested, just questioned.
read the link in the post you replied to, it clearly quotes police media as saying they arrested him for questioning.
he was arrested, but he wasn't charged.
...was that he published a photo that the presenter obtained without permission from the private profile of the wife of another security researcher (that the presenter publicly acknowledges that he doesn't like). The vulnerability disclosure does seem to be very very childish and unethical. The re-publishing of the photo does seem to be unethical too, but not illegal, which i assume is why he hasn't been charged with any offence.
As long as you don't send the information out on the internet sure.
No, not at all, it's exactly as i said that having encrypted wifi will *always* be more secure than unencrypted wifi, everything beyond that is irrelevant because it is exactly the same in both cases.
If you want to be captain obvious and say all traffic should be encrypted you go right ahead.
What are you talking about? You didn't refute anything.
I clearly refuted it point by point.
Code reuse doesn't help you with the platform specific api's and idiosyncracies like application lifecycle, bugs, etc. which are all explained and laid out for java.
Of course it does, that code is NOT platform-specific, which is the whole point of mono, how can you not know that? you claim to have evaluated it but you don't know this most basic fact about it?
Obviously using Mono doesn't mean you don't have to learn some platform-specific aspects, and no-one ever claimed that it did.
Exactly and the support and documentation for that on the java side is much more mature.
If you already know a supported .Net language then you don't need that particular documentation.
The last refuge of someone who is backed into a corner and just arguing for the sake of it is to start throwing out technicalities. You know just as well as I do that I we referring to API levels 11 and 12, i.e., Honeycomb 3.0 and 3.1. Neither of which are available for monodroid.
Obviously the point, that you seem to consistently miss, is that you don't need them to be. You write the platform specific stuff for the specific platform and leave the agnostic stuff in an agnostic language/platform, which - as you keep ignoring - is a benefit of mono.
So, just like mono in the desktop world, mobile mono will always be behind. For a developer, watching the cool kids do cool stuff while you are stuck with second rate limited crap is no fun.
Are you still incapable of grasping the simple fact - that would be obvious to you if you knew anything about mono - that you are not limited by using mono and that you can still use any and all of the existing native functionality when necessary?
I did evaluate it and I found it lacking.
how exactly did you evaluate it?
FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.
Are you slow? Do I need to draw you a picture? Here, I'll quote myself. Read it out loud if you need to.
I quite clearly refuted that point by point already. Re-quoting yourself just shows that you weren't able to comprehend what I wrote and therefore were unable to rebut it.
Monodroid is not as advanced as the Java kit for android development. That is a monodroid inadequacy.
'advanced' depends on what you're doing with it, and the fact that you can use both together means having mono is advantageous.
You imply that you have mobile development experience. Now, I doubt it. The mere fact of knowing the language does not make you an Android developer, be it C# or Java.
And i never said it did - don't make up rubbish like that - your inability to read and comprehend what was actually written leads you to that conclusion. I said you don't need to bother with those specific aspects if you've already learned them in a compatible framework, and that is absolutely correct. Or do you not understand the concept of code-reuse?
You have to be familiar with the apis, the app lifecycle, the idiosyncracies of the platform. Best practices. All of that and more is documented in excruciating detail at http://www.developer.android.com/ and it assumes java. You don't get that for mono.
Obviously using Mono doesn't mean you don't have to learn some platform-specific aspects, and no-one ever claimed that it did.
Really? And here's more. None of that is available with monodroid.
Those aren't tablet-specific, tablet is a form-factor, just as the 7" Galaxy tab is a tablet and doesn't need those APIs. Moreover if there is something unavailable in mono you can use the existing native implementation, but then that would be clear to you if you'd actually used mono.
Welcome to software development, since you're new here
What's that you were saying about projection?
your willingness to evaluate a platform you've never used and complain about the constraints of modern mobile devices shows what i wrote is correct.
Yeah, I know right? Except, it's not. According to that credible report, 80 percent of the kernel comes to us via paid development.
So there's 20% of unemployed amateurs...better abandon the platform.
The development environment for your precious monodroid doesn't run on Linux anyway.
my precious monodroid? I have no involvement in the project and i don't even own an android device.
I'll come out and say it. I cannot write apps in monodroid that are as good as apps that can be written in the real development kit nor can I write them as quickly.
FTFY, don't project your inadequacies onto everyone else.
First of all, all of the developer documentation is written assuming java and Eclipse so you are hamstrung out of the gate using anything else.
So if you know C# and have developed functionality already you don't need to learn those java/eclipse aspects, you can leverage existing knowledge.
There are no tablet specific api's on monodroid so you are always going to be a step behind other developers.
Tablet-specific APIs? What is it you need that you seem incapable of doing with scalable code? or is it that you aren't/can't do scalable code?
Worst of all, there is a performance penalty so by definition, there are some applications that can be written using java that will be too slow to deploy to users on monodroid.
It's not the be-all and end-all of frameworks, you don't have to choose between mono or native. It's the same thing we have been doing in software development for ever, you choose the best tool for the specific job.
It's bad enough developing within the constraints of a mobile device in the first place
Welcome to software development, since you're new here you should learn to appreciate that the constraints of modern mobile development are actually quite relaxed and that those of us who have been in the field for a while find this to be extremely easy.
At this point, I have to assume you monodroid people are all trolls out to confuse the development situation on Android to the benefit of competing platforms.
And of course you assume wrong. I'm not a monodroid developer, but i have tried and can see the benefit in it if i were to develop and application that leverages that advantage.
hassle? the ability to write your logic code once and not having to change it when you port your application across platforms sounds like the opposite of a hassle to me.
Someone else claims that sharing logic code between games that use very different kinds of input produces an end result that feels perfect on neither platform.
'Someone else' is doing it wrong.
WEP with a well-known password has the same vulnerability to passive Firesheep-type attacks as open Wi-Fi.
WEP is not secure, we've known this for a long time.
Even WPA is vulnerable to an active attack that forces a deauth and then snoops the pairwise transient key on reauth. WPA+PEAP is less vulnerable because the handshake takes place over TLS.
And either choice is a hell of a lot better than open, unencrypted wifi, hence my suggestion.
I can see you're not one for innovation then. If the majority aren't doing it then you won't.
How is using a development environment that, at best, is a hack written and supported by unemployed amateurs "innovation"? The innovation is in the software I write and, I'm quite sure, I can write better software by sticking to the language officially sanctioned and proscribed by the developers of the operating system.
Clearly you are only interested in what others are doing rather than the merits of the framework. Linux was initially developed - and continues to be developed - by unemployed amateurs too and look at how well that is going. Innovation is about not just doing what everyone else is doing. Quite obviously you've never used Mono and since most people aren't using it you're not going to try it.
What are you on about? No end user even knows, much less cares if it's .Net or Dalvik, it makes no difference to them whatsoever.
I didn't say anything about what end users care about. I said the big money apps are all written sans mono. I'm here to get paid, not piddle around with some hack second class crap. I'll be more than happy to watch you do that. More money and users for me.
clearly that's what you are implying given you seem to think that the 'big money', which comes from the end users (and advertisers), depends on the framework, which they know nothing about and has absolutely no impact on it whatsoever.
What percentage of these games were written in mono?
I can see you're not one for innovation then. If the majority aren't doing it then you won't.
Despite what you say, the big money on Android does not appear to be in .Net so I think I'm making the right decision by sticking to Dalvik.
What are you on about? No end user even knows, much less cares if it's .Net or Dalvik, it makes no difference to them whatsoever.
Plenty of people. Otherwise restaurants wouldn't offer them to entice customers to eat there.
And this is why there should be no such thing as 'unsecured wireless', all wireless should be secured even if it is with a default password of 'password'.
What does matter is writing native Linux apps in mono. That is ugly, its like using wine to write Linux apps
how is it different any different from using say java?
and has unnecessary patent riscs (I don't really believe that mono infringes MS patents, but regardless of that MS could generate a ton of FUD if they claimed that it does)
see the CP regarding the .Net ECMA specs.
Add to that there is the looming threat of MS legal action at any time.
Oh come on, people have been saying that for nearly 7 years now, it's getting old. On top of that there's the community promise.
How important are XBox Live Indie Games really?
What sort of a question is that? If you'd had a look through the titles available you'd see they are very important for anyone wanting to start developing games or for any young game company.
Microsoft's phone stuff is so far behind that even Nokia is not going to be able to save it.
yes, any fledgling platform is going to start at the bottom.
Besides, Mono doesn't help with either of these areas. If you want to develop for XBox Live or Microsoft's mobile OS you use Microsoft's tools, full stop.
obviously, and mono isn't an attempt to change that.
I suppose theoretically you could use Mono's non-free software to develop for iOS, Android, and Microsoft's platforms, but you would still have to learn three different APIs, and on the two most popular platforms (Android and iOS) you would have to use non-native tools.
if you're using native features then you're going to need to use those different APIs but that's no different from doing it without Mono, the advantage is all of your common logic is exactly the same code.
It seems to me that you'd have to *really* like C# to go through that hassle.
hassle? the ability to write your logic code once and not having to change it when you port your application across platforms sounds like the opposite of a hassle to me.