This isn't possible.
If Mono uses CIL (common intermediate language), they it *would* run on MS.NET.
And if it doesn't, then it wouldn't run.NET applications.
What MS.NET can't do is to run applications that makes linux spesific system calls.
This isn't any different than a Java program that uses JNI. You can't uses it outside the platform you wrote it to. But if you don't use JNI (or don't make system spesific calls), which you don't really need, then you are portable.
Bill: Embrace and extend, baby! We will crush you
Linus: But Bill, this is an embrace and extend of your own stuff.
Bill: Linus, you dimwit, I'm a monopol. I have *no one else* to embrace and extend anymore!
Should be pretty portable.
Think about it as Java with much easier JNI.
The idea is that you don't compile to native code directly, but go through intermediate language (called MSIL or CIL {C for common} ) which you then can compile and ship, ship the IL and compile on install/runtime/run interrupted.
If you don't make any system specific calls, (that is where the eaiser JNI come into play) it should be portable.
"Microsoft's CLI is not expected to execute Linux and Unix applications" -- Wrong, if Mono applications compile to CIL (Common Intermemidate Language) and makes no Linux spesific calls, they should be able to MS CLI. Mono wouldn't be able to run Win32 applications either.
"Microsoft will do everything that it can to ensure that Windows remains the best place to run Windows applications. That said, if someone wants to write Windows-based applications for other platforms, we're not opposed to the idea," -- That is hardly surpising, but isn't the *defination* of Windows applications is that they run best on Windows?
LOL.
MySQL isn't, by any stretch of the term, RDMBS.
It's a glorified SQL-quiryable-FS.
As such, it has some *really* nice features that I wish would make their way into other DB, but that doesn't make MySQL into a real RDMBS.
Actually, no, I don't think so.
What the court have found them guilty on is the OEM licensing terms. AFAIK, they have mostly stopped doing this licensing, no doubt due to the trial.
MS can (and will) argue, that such a ban of new products will kill it. Not being able to intreduce new prodcuts for a the trial's time span (very likely another couple of years at least, can come up to a decade) is a sure-fire way to destroy MS.
Removing iexplorer.exe doesn't remove IE. It just remove the access to it.
IE is still on the machine. Since only end users use iexplorer.exe to access IE, you did exactly what MS said they would do.
IIRC, Mozilla implement a large part of the IInternet interface, but IE does a lot more beside, so I don't think anyone has done it.
It would certainly be a major undertaking.
See if you can still run Help after using it.
If you can (on > 98), then it doesn't remove IE, just does something like MS says they would do, and remove the end user access to IE.
I think you mean the themes' ABI (file format).
I'm sure that there will be something by th time XP is out, though.
If not from MS, than from someone else.
Mozlla is a browser by itself, it wouldn't use IE.
Neither would Star Office or Opera (for that matter).
Cross platform applications has little use of IE, because they would need to integrate a browser anyway on non-Windows machines, and it makes sense to do it in a cross platform and use it on Windows as well.
Actually, it doesn't un-install IE.
That would make a *lot* more than just Office, MSDN, VS & Quicken stop functioning.
The Windows Help, the file browser, the desktop, etc, are been done with IE.
What you get when you uninstall IE is the in-ability to run IE directly. That is *all*!
No, it doesn't.
A lot of parts that come with IE are required for programs (MS and third party) to work.
Practically any Windows application with builtin browser need IE to function.
What they remove is the ability to run IE.
I don't see a reason to do it, at best, it will take a MB or two off your HD, the bulk of what makes IE is still there.
And can't be removed, even if MS wanted to.
"Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system"
Hello? What will it do, remove iexplorer.exe file? ( 61,952Bytes )
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
What this will do is to take out the easy way to get to it. (Removing icons & shortcuts etc and maybe the executable itself (which doesn't do much, most of IE is in COM components)
This is like saying, that you can remove KDE from the system, by running GNOME.
Code is much more compressed than normal english.
You need to keep a lot of things in your head at once, and a lot of stuff that you do because it's smart/improve performance/cool can make reading hard.
Basically, the hard part about code that there is so much information packed into a single line. And you need to decode it, translate it to an algoritm, and re-tranlate it to code that works your way.
That is different.
You can't take the hash and generate the original hashed string.
You can take strings and try them until you find the right hash.
For such a small hash, there are going to be a lot of possible matches.
PHP is good for the web, Perl is unbeatable as text processing language.
What is Ruby's advantage over all the rest that would make me take the time and learn it?
Wrong, first, XP (upgrade) is about 100$.
Second, you don't have to upgrade other computers on the network.
Third, if you want to have Windows on more than one computer, you've always needed more than one license.
Forth, activation sucks.
Windows 9x will be complex, Windows NT or 2K will be able to handle it easily.
Nothing more complex than repeatedly hitting the enter key (or whatever key that was choosen for the moment, I think that there is C somewere)
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't possible. .NET applications.
If Mono uses CIL (common intermediate language), they it *would* run on MS.NET.
And if it doesn't, then it wouldn't run
What MS.NET can't do is to run applications that makes linux spesific system calls.
This isn't any different than a Java program that uses JNI. You can't uses it outside the platform you wrote it to. But if you don't use JNI (or don't make system spesific calls), which you don't really need, then you are portable.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
No, Bill wouldn't say this.
*This* is how the conversation went.
Bill: Embrace and extend, baby! We will crush you
Linus: But Bill, this is an embrace and extend of your own stuff.
Bill: Linus, you dimwit, I'm a monopol. I have *no one else* to embrace and extend anymore!
--
Two witches watched two watches.
I think that this may be about the GPL.
We help you with this, but only if Mono isn't GPLed.
It's time to start sending those coats and blankets to hell, anyway.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Should be pretty portable.
Think about it as Java with much easier JNI.
The idea is that you don't compile to native code directly, but go through intermediate language (called MSIL or CIL {C for common} ) which you then can compile and ship, ship the IL and compile on install/runtime/run interrupted.
If you don't make any system specific calls, (that is where the eaiser JNI come into play) it should be portable.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
"Microsoft's CLI is not expected to execute Linux and Unix applications" -- Wrong, if Mono applications compile to CIL (Common Intermemidate Language) and makes no Linux spesific calls, they should be able to MS CLI. Mono wouldn't be able to run Win32 applications either.
"Microsoft will do everything that it can to ensure that Windows remains the best place to run Windows applications. That said, if someone wants to write Windows-based applications for other platforms, we're not opposed to the idea," -- That is hardly surpising, but isn't the *defination* of Windows applications is that they run best on Windows?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
LOL.
MySQL isn't, by any stretch of the term, RDMBS.
It's a glorified SQL-quiryable-FS.
As such, it has some *really* nice features that I wish would make their way into other DB, but that doesn't make MySQL into a real RDMBS.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Sure it is.
It's going to show that it's important enough to be fought over.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, no, I don't think so.
What the court have found them guilty on is the OEM licensing terms. AFAIK, they have mostly stopped doing this licensing, no doubt due to the trial.
MS can (and will) argue, that such a ban of new products will kill it. Not being able to intreduce new prodcuts for a the trial's time span (very likely another couple of years at least, can come up to a decade) is a sure-fire way to destroy MS.
--
Two witches watch two watches.
Removing iexplorer.exe doesn't remove IE. It just remove the access to it.
IE is still on the machine. Since only end users use iexplorer.exe to access IE, you did exactly what MS said they would do.
How did you changed shell to CMD?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, you don't get the option to remove it.
You get the option to remove your *access* to it.
Not very useful, I would say.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
IIRC, Mozilla implement a large part of the IInternet interface, but IE does a lot more beside, so I don't think anyone has done it.
It would certainly be a major undertaking.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
See if you can still run Help after using it.
If you can (on > 98), then it doesn't remove IE, just does something like MS says they would do, and remove the end user access to IE.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
I think you mean the themes' ABI (file format).
I'm sure that there will be something by th time XP is out, though.
If not from MS, than from someone else.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Mozlla is a browser by itself, it wouldn't use IE.
Neither would Star Office or Opera (for that matter).
Cross platform applications has little use of IE, because they would need to integrate a browser anyway on non-Windows machines, and it makes sense to do it in a cross platform and use it on Windows as well.
But a *lot* of programs are using IE's DLL.
Macromedia is a company, not an application.
As for WinAmp, it MiniBrowser uses IE.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Are you aware that on most occuastions, when the OEM tried to built their own shell. It was crappy & uninutiative.
I think that this will be more in the way of XP themes, though, rather than their own shell.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Actually, it doesn't un-install IE.
That would make a *lot* more than just Office, MSDN, VS & Quicken stop functioning.
The Windows Help, the file browser, the desktop, etc, are been done with IE.
What you get when you uninstall IE is the in-ability to run IE directly. That is *all*!
--
Two witches watched two watches.
No, it doesn't.
A lot of parts that come with IE are required for programs (MS and third party) to work.
Practically any Windows application with builtin browser need IE to function.
What they remove is the ability to run IE.
I don't see a reason to do it, at best, it will take a MB or two off your HD, the bulk of what makes IE is still there.
And can't be removed, even if MS wanted to.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
"Consumers will be able to use the Add-Remove Programs feature in Windows XP to remove end-user access to the Internet Explorer components of the operating system"
Hello? What will it do, remove iexplorer.exe file? ( 61,952Bytes )
You can't remove IE from Windows, too much will break without it.
What this will do is to take out the easy way to get to it. (Removing icons & shortcuts etc and maybe the executable itself (which doesn't do much, most of IE is in COM components)
This is like saying, that you can remove KDE from the system, by running GNOME.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Have *you* tried reading code?
Code is much more compressed than normal english.
You need to keep a lot of things in your head at once, and a lot of stuff that you do because it's smart/improve performance/cool can make reading hard.
Basically, the hard part about code that there is so much information packed into a single line. And you need to decode it, translate it to an algoritm, and re-tranlate it to code that works your way.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
That is different.
You can't take the hash and generate the original hashed string.
You can take strings and try them until you find the right hash.
For such a small hash, there are going to be a lot of possible matches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
PHP is good for the web, Perl is unbeatable as text processing language.
What is Ruby's advantage over all the rest that would make me take the time and learn it?
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Wrong, first, XP (upgrade) is about 100$.
Second, you don't have to upgrade other computers on the network.
Third, if you want to have Windows on more than one computer, you've always needed more than one license.
Forth, activation sucks.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Windows 9x will be complex, Windows NT or 2K will be able to handle it easily.
Nothing more complex than repeatedly hitting the enter key (or whatever key that was choosen for the moment, I think that there is C somewere)
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Adult stuff is only 11% ? I thought that it would be greater than 50%. :)
I just *loved* their top misspelled queries
Beside, Zeitgeist means spirit of the age, not what they said.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Most of the ASP sites.
www.asp.net
www.learnasp.com
asp101.com
etc.
--
Two witches watched two watches.