Question: How many platforms has MS implemented a full.Net stack like Sun did with Java? Answer, none.
Question: Howmany platforms have a full.Net stack? Answer: 1, MS Windows.
Shared-source? Yeah there is a license condusive to a cross-platform language/environment? Oh and why would MS release rotor for FreeBSD and not Linux? Linux has far more market and mind share.
.net is multiplatform
This has noting to do with MS. MS could have really made this cross-platform by releasing the specs to the _framework_ and not just C# and the CLR. The framework is the meat-n-potatoes.
MS never said -they- were going to port the.NET framework to other platforms; they made it available for others to do it.
How nice of them! Sun Did both. Oh, and MS did not make the.Net _framework_ a standard. CLR and C# are, the rest is locked away and proprietary. The framework is the most important part of the deal since that is what developers on MS Windows will be writing against. Without that being a standard, you have a very slow process of reverse engineering, reimplementing and trying to figure out what should be doing what. The full specs to the.Net framework would have made that job _much_ easier and faster.
MS did this for a reason. It creates an illusion of being cross-platform while never realy reaching that goal.
Cross-platform does not mean a downstream developer *can't* narrow the code into single-platform.
I never stated that as being the case. Any _single_ developer can bork a program and lock it to one platform. The easiest way with.Net is to use hardcoded paths instead of System.IO.
If Studio A has a movie you want to see, but they have shitty DRM; choose wether the DRM headaches are worth it for seeing the movie.
Your a slow one eh space-cadet? You call me dense but echo what I wrote:
If a movie comes out with your favorite actor, you have two choices. Suck up the DRM and give away basic consumer rights, or not see the movie. Neither of which are good options IMO.
does that mean that they have a monopoly?
Well, according to US copyright law they do. But I think we are going over your head now. You may continue with your lego blocks.
Yes, they would have. This is MS's answer to the massive Java community that was building up. If MS totally locked it to MS Windows only, they would have had no chance to take on Java, especially server side. This is MS's effort to give the illusion of being cross-platform without having to really make it cross-platform.
Why yes, I am familiar with that, thanks! There are still a lot of data that is not shared cross-process and seems like a very inefficient way to write multiple file support IMO.
.Net 2.0 is close to coming out. How many more platforms does MS have it running on? None? How many platforms has MS implemented the.Net framework's class libraries on? None.
I have no problem with.Net supporting Win-Specific features if it _also_ supported those features (where applicable) on other platforms, which.Net does not.
they just didn't actually implement it on multiple platforms
And that is the hardest part and the one that requires the most resources and time.
Any group can make a new language and submit it for ISO standardization. Yes that would allow possible cross-platform implementations. But that is a far cry from actually being cross-platform.
Sun made Java when they were the largest Unix server platform and one of the largest server platforms (MS doesn't have server monopoly). Sun could have made Java only run on Solaris and just submit specs for anyone else. They didn't do that. They _wrote_ the code for multiple platforms so that Java could be cross-platform.
.Net will never be cross-platform until you can take a program using the native class libraries and have it run on other platforms. Thanks to Mono, you can do that with ASP.Net applications written in C# or VB.Net. But you cannot do that with.Net GUI applications.
I just finished a C# GUI application (for personal use) that connects into Coast to Coast AM with a StreamLink userName and Password and downloads the daily MP3's of the most recent show (or any date you pick). This app doesn't run on Linux or any other platform. If I had written it in Java, it would run out-of-the-box on those other platforms, that is cross-platform.
I agree with you about the "alternative" forms of entertainment, however I don't think the unwashed masses do.
I watched a show on one of the science channels about why people watch so much TV/movies. It came down to the sensory overload. You have audio and visual stimulation. A good movie can be one of the best forms of entertainment stimulation-wise. I guess that is why it is such a huge industry and why the unwashed masses take whatever scraps are thrown their way when it comes to TV or movies.
No this doesn't even come close to Gimp or Photoshop. It lacks many features and the biggest draw back is you can only work with _one_ image at a time. If you click "File -> Open in new windows", it spawns a whole new process, not just a new window. Each one of these processes take up around 40MB or so. Not very efficient IMO. I opened two small PNG's that were only 640x480 and it resulted in two separate processes totaling 80MB.
I will stick with GIMP or Photoshop thanks. Maybe this program will mature in time and I wish the best to the development team. It may sound like I am being harsh and I apologize for that. But this whole topic came off very trollish to Me.
On paper it is, but not in practice. First let me state that I like and use both Java and.Net daily. If MS intented.Net to be cross-platform, they would have made it so, just like Sun did with Java. Sun _made_ Java run on multiple platforms from the start and didn't do any features that favor Sun's platform. This is not the case with.Net. There are plenty of features that are MS Only on the GUI side. Also, did MS do any work toward cross-platform support? Nope.
If MS wanted this to really be cross-platform, why didn't the do what Sun did with the GUI side and have it work on other platforms. The only thing MS did was give us the C# language (which is nice) and a reference C# complier. That is a far way off from being cross platform. What really matters are the class libraries. Sun made theirs cross-platform and implemented them on multiple platforms, MS did not. Sun did not tie anything into just Solaris, MS tied the GUI end of.Net into just MS Windows.
If you write a.Net GUI app, it will not be cross-platform by default. You have to use some other class libraries like GTK#, QT# or wxWindows#. With Java, when you write a GUI app, it _is_ cross-platform.
Ah, yes I remember that and it was a good example. The reason the complaining worked in this case is because the DRM was so bad and so many custoemrs complianed. Intuit actaully watched thier bottom-line being affected.
Now, how can we get more consumers to do this without having to wait for DRM to become so bad?
No, the DVD Player manufacturer CANNOT COPY the competitors item, THEY HAVE TO REIMPLEMENT IT.
No they don't. They can buy the exact same chipsets as the competitor bough from Tiawan or China. They can buy the the exact same plastic components as the competitor bough from Tiawan or China. Unless the competitor got some type of exclusive deal on the manufactur of those goods, which is highly unlikly in the mass-market chipset/components world. I can go and buy the same exact parts that Sony buys to put in their own DVD players and make my own DVD player. The only thing I would have to "REIMPLEMENT" is if Sony actually made some parts themselves, which most big companies do not. They all just buy from Taiwan and China.
Very similiar themed movie, but different actors is 'Wings of the Apache' (called something differnet in the US, cant remember what) and 'Topgun'. Similiar theme, similiar story, different actors and different studio.
Well, you said they could get the _same_ actors and the same script writer and produce a _very_ similar movie. If that were true, I wonder why it has never happend? Maybe because it would be a huge legal case.
I didn't speek in Swahili. What I am saying is pretty basic.
If you sell me a product and respect my consumer/end-user rights, I will go out of my way to respect your producer/IP rights. I will even be an "evangelist" for your rights and not share the product with others and tell others that it is not cool to rip people off.
However, if you take away my consumer/end-user rights to a product that I PAID FOR by putting DRM on it, restricting whay I can LEGALLY do with the product I bought and restricting what Fair-Use rights allow, then don't complain when I go out of my way to make sure I take back my rights and not care about your producer/IP rights.
These are all very basic Human Nature type things. Respect others and they will respect you. It is only when you start to disrespect others and try to take things from them, that things get ugly.
Look at the OSS movement. It is all community driven and you get some _extremely_ loyal followers even out-right zealots. Why? Because of mutual respect and a feeling of commitment. If the big media companies treated customers they way they should be treated, they would have a _HUGE_ following of loyal customers that would be very vocal about respecting their IP and doing what they can to help.
As we know, the media companies took a different route, one that causes a lot of customer backlash and very loyal people out to cause as much headache for the media companies as possible. They [the media companies] brought this all on themselves.
A Disney movie I bought for my 3-year old daughter was like this. Everytime you play it, you were _forced_ to watch commercials. Pressing any button on the DVD player just put a message on the screen that "This action is not allowed". So, I just took the DVD and put it in my computer, ripped it with DVDShrink and removed the commercials and menu and re-burned a DVD. Now it is in a format that I we can enjoy in our DVD player without having to watch the _same_ commercials every time we watch the DVD.
Other companies are perfectly allowed to get the same actor, the same script writer and go shoot a similiar movie, just as seperate companies are allowed to manufacture similiar DVD players with similiar features. The DVD Player manfacturer isnt allowed to exactly copy his competitors goods, just as two films arent allowed to be too similiar, but the competition exists and its ludicrous to say otherwise.
Lets see how fscking stupid _that_ sounds:
First, a DVD Player manfacturer _is_ allowed to copy his competitors goods. One manfacturer can go and put the same exact features in their product that their competitor has. They can even add _more_ features or keep the same features and sell it for less money. That is called competition.
Second, I would like to see you get the _same_ actors as were in the Spiderman movies and shoot a Spiderman movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get all the actors that were in The Lord of the Ring trilogy and shoot a Lord of the Rings movie set in the Tokien world. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get the actors that have been in the Star Wars movies and shoot a Star Wars movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. [INSERT BIG TICKET MOVIE HERE] and clone it with the same actors, and let us see how far you get.
In fact, can you give me ONE example of a big movie that someone came along and made a _very_ similar themed movie with the _same_ actors? Oh, and the movie had to be done by a _different_ studio.
At most of the big stores in the USA, you can return opened music, software or DVD's _for the same item_. Not very helpful. Granted, sometimes you can complain a lot and make a big stink and get your money back. But that seems like a lot to go through to just get a fair transaction.
One year ago I bought an HP/Compaq laptop from "Best" Buy. This laptop was for Linux only. I took it home and and the same night I set it up and installed Linux. The chipset on it was crap and I was having problems with it. So, I tried to return it for a different brand that actaully cost $100 more. I was told I would have to pay a "restocking" fee. I argued with the manager for a little while but he would not give in. I took the crappy laptop back home and called the corporate office. I spent 1 1/2 hours on the phone complaining, getting bounced around from person to person. Finally they called the store and told the manager it was "OK" for me to exchange a product. I now take my money somewhere else.
Things like this is actaully why I perfer to spend money at Walmart./.ers may put Walmart down but from my experience they work for their customers. They are always trying to lower prices and they don't give you a hard time about returns/exchanges. Walmart realized that they make customers for life and not just a single business transaction. The only negative thing I can say about Walmart is that they do not carry enough mid-high end products, especially electronics.
Hmm, I never heard this. Maybe I should come out from under my rock more often : )
Are you saying that this item was _NOT_ sold as a standard DVD-Video? If it was not, then that really changes things. This guy bought a non-standard video and expected standard behaviour. A little over-optimistic IMO. Granted, the box should have been more clear about all the DRM crap. I personally would not have wasted my money on a WMV boxed movie.
It is still a little bit of a rip-off IMO. You pay money for a product and then you have to use special tools to use the product and are limited to only 5 days worth of use. The guy should have just bought the DVD-Video and ripped his own version for personal use.
The GPL gives customers _more_ rights then what standard copyright allows. What these media companies are doing are _taking away_ more rights then what standard copyright/consumer laws allow. There is only so much you can take from your customers before they backlash.
Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only.
If the current situation was not how it currently is with DRM and all the other crap, then I _would_ think it was wrong to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use. Because the system would be balanced between producer and consumer and _everyone_ would get a fair shake.
That is why I don't feel sorry for all the people crying about "thier IP rights". Stop taking away _my_ rights as a customer and I won't take away your "IP" rights. Just sell me a product with NO DRM and then get off my back. Don't try and stop me from making a backup for _personal_ use. Don't try and stop me from watching the content where and how I want to. I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction".
A free-market implies _competiton_. There is no competition here since the movie you want to see is only sold by _one_ company. Other companies are not allowed to sell that same movie for a better price or under better terms.
If a movie comes out with your favorite actor, you have two choices. Suck up the DRM and give away basic consumer rights, or not see the movie. Neither of which are good options IMO.
The sad thing is that the movie companies are making it _easier_ and a better alternative to go and illegally obtain movies off of P2P or some other method.
That doesn't accomplish anything. You don't think enough people have been complaining already about DRM on software, music or DVD's?
- return the product
Nope. Your not allowed to return opened software, music or DVD's.
- don't buy such products in the future
A movie comes out that you really want to see. Maybe the movie has your favorite movie "star"? Only one company releases that movie, so there is no chance of a competitor coming along and offering a better alternative. The only choice is to not use the software you want, not listen to the music you want or not see the movie you want. For some that is too much and they just suck it up. For others, like me, they take their money somewhere else. Either way, it is not a very fair deal to customers.
A new PC displays a screen on startup telling the user to press a key to continue. The user is told that doing this indicates acceptance of the EULAs for the software included with the system.
That is fine and dandy. The only problem with that is you already opened the computer and put it all together. Many stores that sell computers in the USA charge a 15% "restocking" fee for opened computers. So now it just cost you a lot of money to _not_ accept the EULA and return the computer.
They whole system is set up to discourage returns. The average American shopper is an impulse-buyer. Why do you think there are always all those little extra items on display by all the registers? Many monkeys-in-suits sat around for hours figuring out what type of items and what is the most expensive item they could put by the registers and still get that extra "impulse" sale. The 15% restocking fee on opened items is just the nail-in-the-coffin toward removing consumer rights IMO.
For example, I bought a digital camera from CompUSA. There was no way for me to test the quality of the camera in the store. I was able to hold it an look at it, but I couldn't take pictures and see the quality. After I got it home, I was not satisfied with the quality and tried to _exchange_ it for a more expensive model. I was told I would have to pay a 15% restocking fee. So, I was basically stuck with a camera I didn't want. That was the last time I shopped at CompUSA. CompUSA lost out big-time from me this Christmas season because of that. Actaully, this was the first Christmas season my wife did all of our shopping on-line.
I might give that a try. The only thing I don't like about BB is the menu support. I don't feel like manually recreating the menu structure I have for all my apps.
Hey moron, what if you are buying a _computer_ and you don't have access to the internet? Exactly how do you get online to see this "great" EULA?
Also moron, is every "consumer" expeted to be a lawyer or hire one before each purchase? Have you ever read an EULA from MS or any other big corp? They are not written for the average user to understand. They are written in lawyer-speak. So exactly how is a _customer_ expected to get a fair-shake when they are required to _not_ purchase a product until they hired a lawyer who goes to the companies web-site and interprets the EULA for them?
Slashdot Mirror
Question: How many platforms has MS implemented a full .Net stack like Sun did with Java? Answer, none. .Net stack? Answer: 1, MS Windows.
Question: Howmany platforms have a full
MS did this for a reason. It creates an illusion of being cross-platform while never realy reaching that goal.
I never stated that as being the case. Any _single_ developer can bork a program and lock it to one platform. The easiest way withNope. I thankfully work for a fortune 500 that has _nothig_ to do with the IT world. : )
Yes, they would have. This is MS's answer to the massive Java community that was building up. If MS totally locked it to MS Windows only, they would have had no chance to take on Java, especially server side. This is MS's effort to give the illusion of being cross-platform without having to really make it cross-platform.
Why yes, I am familiar with that, thanks! There are still a lot of data that is not shared cross-process and seems like a very inefficient way to write multiple file support IMO.
I have no problem with .Net supporting Win-Specific features if it _also_ supported those features (where applicable) on other platforms, which .Net does not.
Any group can make a new language and submit it for ISO standardization. Yes that would allow possible cross-platform implementations. But that is a far cry from actually being cross-platform.
Sun made Java when they were the largest Unix server platform and one of the largest server platforms (MS doesn't have server monopoly). Sun could have made Java only run on Solaris and just submit specs for anyone else. They didn't do that. They _wrote_ the code for multiple platforms so that Java could be cross-platform.
I just finished a C# GUI application (for personal use) that connects into Coast to Coast AM with a StreamLink userName and Password and downloads the daily MP3's of the most recent show (or any date you pick). This app doesn't run on Linux or any other platform. If I had written it in Java, it would run out-of-the-box on those other platforms, that is cross-platform.
I watched a show on one of the science channels about why people watch so much TV/movies. It came down to the sensory overload. You have audio and visual stimulation. A good movie can be one of the best forms of entertainment stimulation-wise. I guess that is why it is such a huge industry and why the unwashed masses take whatever scraps are thrown their way when it comes to TV or movies.
I will stick with GIMP or Photoshop thanks. Maybe this program will mature in time and I wish the best to the development team. It may sound like I am being harsh and I apologize for that. But this whole topic came off very trollish to Me.
If MS wanted this to really be cross-platform, why didn't the do what Sun did with the GUI side and have it work on other platforms. The only thing MS did was give us the C# language (which is nice) and a reference C# complier. That is a far way off from being cross platform. What really matters are the class libraries. Sun made theirs cross-platform and implemented them on multiple platforms, MS did not. Sun did not tie anything into just Solaris, MS tied the GUI end of .Net into just MS Windows.
If you write a .Net GUI app, it will not be cross-platform by default. You have to use some other class libraries like GTK#, QT# or wxWindows#. With Java, when you write a GUI app, it _is_ cross-platform.
Now, how can we get more consumers to do this without having to wait for DRM to become so bad?
If you sell me a product and respect my consumer/end-user rights, I will go out of my way to respect your producer/IP rights. I will even be an "evangelist" for your rights and not share the product with others and tell others that it is not cool to rip people off.
However, if you take away my consumer/end-user rights to a product that I PAID FOR by putting DRM on it, restricting whay I can LEGALLY do with the product I bought and restricting what Fair-Use rights allow, then don't complain when I go out of my way to make sure I take back my rights and not care about your producer/IP rights.
These are all very basic Human Nature type things. Respect others and they will respect you. It is only when you start to disrespect others and try to take things from them, that things get ugly.
Look at the OSS movement. It is all community driven and you get some _extremely_ loyal followers even out-right zealots. Why? Because of mutual respect and a feeling of commitment. If the big media companies treated customers they way they should be treated, they would have a _HUGE_ following of loyal customers that would be very vocal about respecting their IP and doing what they can to help.
As we know, the media companies took a different route, one that causes a lot of customer backlash and very loyal people out to cause as much headache for the media companies as possible. They [the media companies] brought this all on themselves.
A Disney movie I bought for my 3-year old daughter was like this. Everytime you play it, you were _forced_ to watch commercials. Pressing any button on the DVD player just put a message on the screen that "This action is not allowed". So, I just took the DVD and put it in my computer, ripped it with DVDShrink and removed the commercials and menu and re-burned a DVD. Now it is in a format that I we can enjoy in our DVD player without having to watch the _same_ commercials every time we watch the DVD.
First, a DVD Player manfacturer _is_ allowed to copy his competitors goods. One manfacturer can go and put the same exact features in their product that their competitor has. They can even add _more_ features or keep the same features and sell it for less money. That is called competition.
Second, I would like to see you get the _same_ actors as were in the Spiderman movies and shoot a Spiderman movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get all the actors that were in The Lord of the Ring trilogy and shoot a Lord of the Rings movie set in the Tokien world. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. Go and get the actors that have been in the Star Wars movies and shoot a Star Wars movie. You would be in court in no-time and you would not be allowed to release that movie. [INSERT BIG TICKET MOVIE HERE] and clone it with the same actors, and let us see how far you get.
In fact, can you give me ONE example of a big movie that someone came along and made a _very_ similar themed movie with the _same_ actors? Oh, and the movie had to be done by a _different_ studio.
One year ago I bought an HP/Compaq laptop from "Best" Buy. This laptop was for Linux only. I took it home and and the same night I set it up and installed Linux. The chipset on it was crap and I was having problems with it. So, I tried to return it for a different brand that actaully cost $100 more. I was told I would have to pay a "restocking" fee. I argued with the manager for a little while but he would not give in. I took the crappy laptop back home and called the corporate office. I spent 1 1/2 hours on the phone complaining, getting bounced around from person to person. Finally they called the store and told the manager it was "OK" for me to exchange a product. I now take my money somewhere else.
Things like this is actaully why I perfer to spend money at Walmart. /.ers may put Walmart down but from my experience they work for their customers. They are always trying to lower prices and they don't give you a hard time about returns/exchanges. Walmart realized that they make customers for life and not just a single business transaction. The only negative thing I can say about Walmart is that they do not carry enough mid-high end products, especially electronics.
Are you saying that this item was _NOT_ sold as a standard DVD-Video? If it was not, then that really changes things. This guy bought a non-standard video and expected standard behaviour. A little over-optimistic IMO. Granted, the box should have been more clear about all the DRM crap. I personally would not have wasted my money on a WMV boxed movie.
It is still a little bit of a rip-off IMO. You pay money for a product and then you have to use special tools to use the product and are limited to only 5 days worth of use. The guy should have just bought the DVD-Video and ripped his own version for personal use.
Based on the current situation, I personally don't think it is a big deal to pay money to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use only.
If the current situation was not how it currently is with DRM and all the other crap, then I _would_ think it was wrong to rent a DVD and then keep a copy for _personal_ use. Because the system would be balanced between producer and consumer and _everyone_ would get a fair shake.
That is why I don't feel sorry for all the people crying about "thier IP rights". Stop taking away _my_ rights as a customer and I won't take away your "IP" rights. Just sell me a product with NO DRM and then get off my back. Don't try and stop me from making a backup for _personal_ use. Don't try and stop me from watching the content where and how I want to. I paid you, now leave me alone until it is time for our next "business transaction".
If a movie comes out with your favorite actor, you have two choices. Suck up the DRM and give away basic consumer rights, or not see the movie. Neither of which are good options IMO.
The sad thing is that the movie companies are making it _easier_ and a better alternative to go and illegally obtain movies off of P2P or some other method.
They whole system is set up to discourage returns. The average American shopper is an impulse-buyer. Why do you think there are always all those little extra items on display by all the registers? Many monkeys-in-suits sat around for hours figuring out what type of items and what is the most expensive item they could put by the registers and still get that extra "impulse" sale. The 15% restocking fee on opened items is just the nail-in-the-coffin toward removing consumer rights IMO.
For example, I bought a digital camera from CompUSA. There was no way for me to test the quality of the camera in the store. I was able to hold it an look at it, but I couldn't take pictures and see the quality. After I got it home, I was not satisfied with the quality and tried to _exchange_ it for a more expensive model. I was told I would have to pay a 15% restocking fee. So, I was basically stuck with a camera I didn't want. That was the last time I shopped at CompUSA. CompUSA lost out big-time from me this Christmas season because of that. Actaully, this was the first Christmas season my wife did all of our shopping on-line.
I might give that a try. The only thing I don't like about BB is the menu support. I don't feel like manually recreating the menu structure I have for all my apps.
Also moron, is every "consumer" expeted to be a lawyer or hire one before each purchase? Have you ever read an EULA from MS or any other big corp? They are not written for the average user to understand. They are written in lawyer-speak. So exactly how is a _customer_ expected to get a fair-shake when they are required to _not_ purchase a product until they hired a lawyer who goes to the companies web-site and interprets the EULA for them?