I fail to see why this is a Troll. Ask Londoners about their blackout last month. And for that matter, speak to a few Italians.
Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET?
on
Mono 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 1
The point about WinXP SP1 has some validity, but given that SPs should fix bugs rather than add new functionality I'm generally in agreement with them on that. But I'm sure someone here will tell me that some old SPs had new functionality...
Absolutely agree about the marketing cockup with naming. There was a time when.NET got confused with all kinds of unrelated or partly related crap (like passport) and for some bizarre reason they decided to call Windows CE 4.0 (or was it 4.1, anyway...) Windows CE.NET even though it didn't have the.NET Compact Framework. And don't get me started with people who think that.NET starts and ends with Web Services...
Re:Is Microsoft really behind .NET?
on
Mono 2.8 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Microsoft could have addressed this by including.NET in XP by default, but they didn't.
The.NET and XP beta periods overlapped substantially, if I recall correctly. There wasn't any way to get the completed runtime into the XP release.
the fact that Microsoft still requires users to download a 20MB runtime unless they already have.NET is absolutely the biggest reason not to develop for.NET
This is a bit misleading. It certainly applies if you are writing thick client (win32) applications. But it's irrelvant if you are writing ASP.NET applications or web services where you must only install the framework once per server. I would suggest it's not that big a deal really. True, it's a pain to download 20Mb over a V.90 modem. But with broadband, CD and DVD distributions it's not going to be a massive issue.
A local theatre group near me has
performed L.O.B. Apparently there's no official released script, but they just asked nicely, and the rights holders just said "OK"
But not, as far as I know, as a musical. It was a straight play
Bit disappointing that the SciAm reference talks about the "dark side" of the moon. There's no such thing - although it's a lot snappier than "the bit of the moon we never see from Earth".
The USA is not the centre [center] of the known universe. In some parts of some people don't care about baseball. One or two people don't know what Gilligan's Island was. Quite a few people spell color with a "u".
Programs written in.NET are more easily decompiled. If you discover and implement an especially good algorithm, others may be able to see what you did.
Just like Java bytecodes then. And I don't see too many people complaining about that.
I absolutely concur about the omission of SSL from the supplied.NET classes. I was working on a.NET project last year and found out that SSL wasn't implemnented as standard depressingly late in the day. Partly my fault.
The story has a happy (open source) ending in that we were able to put stunnel in front of our application to provide SSL tunnelling. But it gave me a few panic attacks in the meantime.
Mind you, I would categorise these as bugs (i.e. things the windows app should do but doesnt), not features (quirky features that we have to replicate to get compatibility). I think that Portable.NET, or Mono, or whatever should certainly strive to be reasonably quirk-compliant but not bug compliant.
.NET is many things, but kludge slapped on top of COM it most certainly is not. Yes, DCOM is a bit of a mess, but much of.NET is a "new" take on OO and remoting. Well, yes, it owes a lot to Java and related technologies (only a fool would claim otherwise). But much is a clean code base and pretty good. There is COM interop for compatibility, and the EnterpriseServices namespace *Is* still dependendent on the COM+/MTS code base, but that will probably change anyway over time. Most of.NET is COM independent.
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
For the benefit of those not familiar with the British press, this is the paper that brought you "Freddy Starr Eat My Hamster" on the front page. And topless girls on page 3. And such high, high, journalistic standards.
That's an engineer's mindset, not a politician's. (This may be good or bad depending your perspective). I agree that respect for human rights is a distinct issue from software usage patterns. But why should the two be unrelated?
"Err, Microsoft is bad, okay? So this news is good. Yah booh sucks to Microsoft. Hey, lack of freedom is bad, okay. So, errr, yah booh sucks to China."
Slashdot users world wide now conflicted. Film at 11.
Thanks for the correction. However, the fact that it took so long for the 14th amendment weakens the argument about principle. The constitution originally would have permitted state legislatures to pass their own laws in this area, so it could be assumed de facto if not de jure that passing of such laws at state level is ok.
Freedom of speech is protected, but only from Federal Governmental interference. The phrase Congress shall make no law... means that the responsibility to make such laws devolves to the states.
Slashdot Mirror
Eastern Oregon?
I fail to see why this is a Troll. Ask Londoners about their blackout last month. And for that matter, speak to a few Italians.
Absolutely agree about the marketing cockup with naming. There was a time when .NET got confused with all kinds of unrelated or partly related crap (like passport) and for some bizarre reason they decided to call Windows CE 4.0 (or was it 4.1, anyway...) Windows CE.NET even though it didn't have the .NET Compact Framework. And don't get me started with people who think that .NET starts and ends with Web Services...
But not, as far as I know, as a musical. It was a straight play
Bit disappointing that the SciAm reference talks about the "dark side" of the moon. There's no such thing - although it's a lot snappier than "the bit of the moon we never see from Earth".
Denmark is not too happy about the Euro either.
It's far from clear how the UK would go, if given a choice.
The USA is not the centre [center] of the known universe. In some parts of some people don't care about baseball. One or two people don't know what Gilligan's Island was. Quite a few people spell color with a "u".
tch? I think that fits the bill ght?
ROFL..
Just like Java bytecodes then. And I don't see too many people complaining about that.
The story has a happy (open source) ending in that we were able to put stunnel in front of our application to provide SSL tunnelling. But it gave me a few panic attacks in the meantime.
Mind you, I would categorise these as bugs (i.e. things the windows app should do but doesnt), not features (quirky features that we have to replicate to get compatibility). I think that Portable.NET, or Mono, or whatever should certainly strive to be reasonably quirk-compliant but not bug compliant.
OK, I'll bite. Name three.
.NET is many things, but kludge slapped on top of COM it most certainly is not. Yes, DCOM is a bit of a mess, but much of .NET is a "new" take on OO and remoting. Well, yes, it owes a lot to Java and related technologies (only a fool would claim otherwise). But much is a clean code base and pretty good. There is COM interop for compatibility, and the EnterpriseServices namespace *Is* still dependendent on the COM+/MTS code base, but that will probably change anyway over time. Most of .NET is COM independent.
Nah, it merely proves that I read the Grauniad.
Jim Hacker: "Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers:
- The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
- The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
- The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
- The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
- The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
- The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
- And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."
False memory syndrome strikes again. :-)
Too much GNOME has rotted your brain.
Slashdot users world wide now conflicted. Film at 11.
Maybe?