Clutter was not created by Red Hat employees, it was created by what are now Intel employees. They were previously a small company called OpenedHand and they were bought by Intel.
This industry is different in that the workers are also creators. Musicians take what is written on a page and do something creative with it. There is always a ton of detail that is left out of music, and it's up to the performers to fill in that detail. Claude Debussy said that "music is the space between the notes."
Beethoven was the first composer to provide actual tempo markings (as in, 120 beats per minute, as opposed to just saying "Allegro" or whatever). Before him it was up to the performers to figure out how fast something should go based upon a couple words. As things progressed, composers added more and more detail to their works. Look at some works by Mahler or Hindemith and there is a lot more detail there. But even then, they're leaving out a ridiculous amount of information that's being filled in by the best judgement of trained musicians who understand the styles they're playing.
Yeah, technology helps composers create works faster and more easily. But I don't think most composers would be very happy having their works performed by machines at this point. The machines just aren't yet capable of sounding that interesting.
That's like saying that C++ is a poisoned platform because not all the libraries written in C++ are fully open.
So Microsoft has created this fantastic platform, and they've opened up.NET and C# so it can be used this way. That doesn't mean they have to open up every single library they create. There is a difference between the language/runtime and a single library. I feel like you anti-Mono people are just searching for any reason you can to hate on Mono, and it makes no sense.
Microsoft has a lot invested in a lot of things other than.NET, so I think you're making a really large leap here to assume that they're talking about.NET here. Every major software company out there has invested into different things, and they'll protect their IP up to the point where it no longer benefits them to restrict it.
It's in Microsoft's best interests to allow people to use.NET and C# everywhere, period. They've already stated that they're applying the Community Promise to their patents so that they won't sue people over them.
Mono, the framework, is fantastic and it's really sad that RMS and the BoycottNovell tards are spreading so much FUD over it. And that some of you here on Slashdot are perpetuating that.
Last year at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Cody Russell asked Richard Stallman if there was anything that Microsoft could do to ease his fears of patent threats, and he said that there was. Microsoft could come out and publicly state that.NET was open to use and promise not to sue people over it. Days later they did exactly that and Richard did not change his opinion.
Try playing Quake 4 on nvidia Fermi using VESA and let me know how you get on.
Seriously, for many people out there Quake 4 is just not a reasonable measure of a video chip. I don't play Quake 4 on my Linux machine. If I want to play video games I go fire up the PS3 or plug a monitor into my Windows box and turn it on.
I do basically everything else in Linux now. I don't need insane graphics to do it. I need something good enough to run mutter or compiz, and ideally I'd love to have something with KMS support. That's really about it.
Google? I'm a big Google fan (and despite the rest of my comment, also a big Android fan and totally love my Nexus One).. but if Google was so hardcore into efficiency, why the hell did they develop a new runtime for their Android that's based on Java?
Google didn't seem like the best company to praise for efficiency. I would have picked some sort of video game company like id Software (yeah, I realize this an apples and oranges comparison though).
What would be the upside of changing the name? It's still going to be the same software, it's going to do at least as much as it does now... but you think it's somehow going to be better because it has a different name?? Should GNOME change its name to something a little less garden-variety, or a little less dungeons and dragonsy? KDE doesn't even really mean anything (at least the K doesn't), so should it change its name so it makes more sense to you?
No, it's not moved to universe. It's still in main. It's only being removed from the install CD and the default install. Yes, it sucks that you now have to download it if you're really using it, but you also have to realize that the install CD is *extremely* packed already and it's getting very hard to find a few remaining bytes to add things that Ubuntu considers more important to the default install and experience.
Depends on the features of.NET that the language uses. IronRuby and IronPython depend upon the DLR, which probably can't be used in an AOT environment like MonoTouch needs because things like Reflection don't work. Remember, when you compile native code with AOT you drop the runtime so there is some give and take in terms of what you get out of it. It's faster, but you lose some runtime features.
Mono has always been very up front about the incompatibilities that exist. And whenever you're building AOT applications you have to expect that certain features (like Reflection) will not work. So who cares? It's still a fantastic platform.
It probably just hooks into the reference counting mechanisms. This is basically what the bindings for gtk# do. GObject contains its own reference counting scheme, and when you're finished with an object you call g_object_unref() on it. When you're using the C# binding then it does this internally and you don't ever worry about it. When a variable changes its reference or when it falls out of scope or whatever, then gtk# unrefs the object.
It may not be THAT much better than native Objective-C. But if you're a new developer who has been using C# for a long time and doesn't know Objective-C yet, this could be a great tool to help you write an iPhone app really quickly and comfortably. This isn't intended to be anything revolutionary, it's just a C# binding for people who care about that.
It's not a port. It's a language binding. There's really not much difference between this and calling your system's open() syscall from Ruby or Python.
Also, quit being an asshole.
What does that have to do with any of this?
MonoTouch is using AOT compiling, it's not using the Mono VM at all. There is no external code. It builds the Mono libraries you're using into native code and includes them in the executable, sort of like static linking. As such you lose a lot of the dynamic features of C#/.NET (.e.g, no reflection).
The Commodore emulator had a built-in BASIC interpreter. There was a way to feed it external code and have it run that code. There is nothing like that in MonoTouch.
It's basically a language binding. That's it. But if you're fluent in C# and don't feel like spending the time to learn Objective-C, it looks like it's totally worth it.
They spend a lot on R&D, and they actually innovate quite a bit. I think Apple is more trendy right now and that is the reason they're making so much money with little investment. They're investing more into advertising, branding, and image than they are into technology. It seems that Microsoft is making a little more effort to do this these days, but it will be difficult for them to totally turn things around in this respect.
In terms of technology and innovation though, Apple takes what it can from open source, and contributes back exactly as much as they're legally obligated to. They didn't design the operating system, and a lot of their original system APIs come from the NeXTStep heritage (and thus are implemented in Objective-C, which is not hugely popular but was probably the fastest way for them to take NeXT's stuff and start selling it).
On the flip side of what you're saying, when you have centralization then you also have to worry about user management and permissions much more.
But with git or bzr you can have a canonical repository up that only a few people have commit access directly into, but as a new developer that won't stop you from hacking on it. You can instantly clone the repo and start working on your own branch, commit all your changes to your own branch, and once it's ready the maintainers can pull you branch and merge into the upstream repo.
In the past there may have been issues like "what if user Foo doesn't have a host to store his or her branches?" But these days we have GitHub and Gitorious, so that isn't really an issue.
if you are a Muslim and the Muslims are known for acts of suicide terrorism...
People keep talking about how Muslims are known for acts of terrorism. Why is it that the first thing that comes to mind when you see some Muslims is, "oh shit they might blow something up"? Why not Latinos/South Americans? Ever heard of Orlando Bosch or Luis Posada Carilles? They've done some crazy shit. What about Israelis? Israel violates the Geneva Conventions constantly and frequently engages in large-scale terrorism (such as what they're doing right now).
On one hand we are outraged by these events but on the other hand we allow our government zero tolerance for terrorist events or accidents to happen. If you want to be safe, you have have to sacrifice liberty.
I don't remember ever hearing anyone ask our government to clamp down on our civil liberties, except maybe some commentators on CNN and Fox News. When people blame the US government for terrorism, it's never in the context of "hey you gave us too much liberty you assholes!" Most of the complaints I read and agree with are things like, "Hey, stop bombing the fuck out of countries and instilling hatred for us among their people you assholes!"
Explaining that Mono and MoonLight continues to be a non-OSS patent-infringing platform that's permitted to stay alive only while Microsoft continue their patent deal with Novell is worthy criticism and these 'Boycott Novell' people are contributing t to that public understanding.
Can you please explain both why it's non-OSS, and how it's patent-infringing? Mono is, I believe, released under MIT license. This is an official OSI-certified Open Source license, so I think you need to back up that statement that it's non-OSS.
Mono is not known to be infringing on any patents either, so I'm not sure what your claim is in that case either. The core of the.NET framework that falls under the ECMA/ISO standard is patented by Microsoft. But anything submitted to these standards must be available for implementation under RAND terms. However, Microsoft went one step further with the patents for these standards and said they would release them under not just RAND terms, but also for royalty-free terms. There is a difference between infringing on a patent and implementing something that is patented but available under a standard with royalty-free RAND terms.
Mono does not knowingly accept code that is patented and does not fall under the ECMA/ISO standard because then they would be setting themselves up for possible litigation.
They could write 89% of kernel code for all it matters. If they're trying to encumber it with software patents, especially on behalf of Microsoft, it's all totally worthless.
But they're not doing that, and they never have. You're just trolling and spreading FUD with posts like that. This is the type of stuff that we see from the Boycott Novell people, and this is why nobody takes them seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Swing and a miss.
Clutter was not created by Red Hat employees, it was created by what are now Intel employees. They were previously a small company called OpenedHand and they were bought by Intel.
This industry is different in that the workers are also creators. Musicians take what is written on a page and do something creative with it. There is always a ton of detail that is left out of music, and it's up to the performers to fill in that detail. Claude Debussy said that "music is the space between the notes."
Beethoven was the first composer to provide actual tempo markings (as in, 120 beats per minute, as opposed to just saying "Allegro" or whatever). Before him it was up to the performers to figure out how fast something should go based upon a couple words. As things progressed, composers added more and more detail to their works. Look at some works by Mahler or Hindemith and there is a lot more detail there. But even then, they're leaving out a ridiculous amount of information that's being filled in by the best judgement of trained musicians who understand the styles they're playing.
Yeah, technology helps composers create works faster and more easily. But I don't think most composers would be very happy having their works performed by machines at this point. The machines just aren't yet capable of sounding that interesting.
That's like saying that C++ is a poisoned platform because not all the libraries written in C++ are fully open.
So Microsoft has created this fantastic platform, and they've opened up .NET and C# so it can be used this way. That doesn't mean they have to open up every single library they create. There is a difference between the language/runtime and a single library. I feel like you anti-Mono people are just searching for any reason you can to hate on Mono, and it makes no sense.
There are all these music lessons websites out there, I wonder if any of them have teachers for weird instruments like theremin. :)
Hey, they probably allow violas on there right? Violists are crazy enough to use alto clef, so maybe theremins would be allowed there too!
Yes, I do.
Microsoft has a lot invested in a lot of things other than .NET, so I think you're making a really large leap here to assume that they're talking about .NET here. Every major software company out there has invested into different things, and they'll protect their IP up to the point where it no longer benefits them to restrict it.
It's in Microsoft's best interests to allow people to use .NET and C# everywhere, period. They've already stated that they're applying the Community Promise to their patents so that they won't sue people over them.
Mono, the framework, is fantastic and it's really sad that RMS and the BoycottNovell tards are spreading so much FUD over it. And that some of you here on Slashdot are perpetuating that.
Last year at the Gran Canaria Desktop Summit, Cody Russell asked Richard Stallman if there was anything that Microsoft could do to ease his fears of patent threats, and he said that there was. Microsoft could come out and publicly state that .NET was open to use and promise not to sue people over it. Days later they did exactly that and Richard did not change his opinion.
Try playing Quake 4 on nvidia Fermi using VESA and let me know how you get on. Seriously, for many people out there Quake 4 is just not a reasonable measure of a video chip. I don't play Quake 4 on my Linux machine. If I want to play video games I go fire up the PS3 or plug a monitor into my Windows box and turn it on. I do basically everything else in Linux now. I don't need insane graphics to do it. I need something good enough to run mutter or compiz, and ideally I'd love to have something with KMS support. That's really about it.
Too bad you can't buy Intel graphics that work in a Core i7 desktop.
Google? I'm a big Google fan (and despite the rest of my comment, also a big Android fan and totally love my Nexus One).. but if Google was so hardcore into efficiency, why the hell did they develop a new runtime for their Android that's based on Java?
Google didn't seem like the best company to praise for efficiency. I would have picked some sort of video game company like id Software (yeah, I realize this an apples and oranges comparison though).
What would be the upside of changing the name? It's still going to be the same software, it's going to do at least as much as it does now... but you think it's somehow going to be better because it has a different name?? Should GNOME change its name to something a little less garden-variety, or a little less dungeons and dragonsy? KDE doesn't even really mean anything (at least the K doesn't), so should it change its name so it makes more sense to you?
No, it's not moved to universe. It's still in main. It's only being removed from the install CD and the default install. Yes, it sucks that you now have to download it if you're really using it, but you also have to realize that the install CD is *extremely* packed already and it's getting very hard to find a few remaining bytes to add things that Ubuntu considers more important to the default install and experience.
Depends on the features of .NET that the language uses. IronRuby and IronPython depend upon the DLR, which probably can't be used in an AOT environment like MonoTouch needs because things like Reflection don't work. Remember, when you compile native code with AOT you drop the runtime so there is some give and take in terms of what you get out of it. It's faster, but you lose some runtime features.
Mono has always been very up front about the incompatibilities that exist. And whenever you're building AOT applications you have to expect that certain features (like Reflection) will not work. So who cares? It's still a fantastic platform.
It probably just hooks into the reference counting mechanisms. This is basically what the bindings for gtk# do. GObject contains its own reference counting scheme, and when you're finished with an object you call g_object_unref() on it. When you're using the C# binding then it does this internally and you don't ever worry about it. When a variable changes its reference or when it falls out of scope or whatever, then gtk# unrefs the object.
It may not be THAT much better than native Objective-C. But if you're a new developer who has been using C# for a long time and doesn't know Objective-C yet, this could be a great tool to help you write an iPhone app really quickly and comfortably. This isn't intended to be anything revolutionary, it's just a C# binding for people who care about that.
It's not a port. It's a language binding. There's really not much difference between this and calling your system's open() syscall from Ruby or Python. Also, quit being an asshole.
What does that have to do with any of this? MonoTouch is using AOT compiling, it's not using the Mono VM at all. There is no external code. It builds the Mono libraries you're using into native code and includes them in the executable, sort of like static linking. As such you lose a lot of the dynamic features of C#/.NET (.e.g, no reflection). The Commodore emulator had a built-in BASIC interpreter. There was a way to feed it external code and have it run that code. There is nothing like that in MonoTouch.
It's basically a language binding. That's it. But if you're fluent in C# and don't feel like spending the time to learn Objective-C, it looks like it's totally worth it.
Can you give a link to support this? I have never heard before that they ban frameworks.
Good thing I use ogg. Microsoft would never think to look for that.
They spend a lot on R&D, and they actually innovate quite a bit. I think Apple is more trendy right now and that is the reason they're making so much money with little investment. They're investing more into advertising, branding, and image than they are into technology. It seems that Microsoft is making a little more effort to do this these days, but it will be difficult for them to totally turn things around in this respect.
In terms of technology and innovation though, Apple takes what it can from open source, and contributes back exactly as much as they're legally obligated to. They didn't design the operating system, and a lot of their original system APIs come from the NeXTStep heritage (and thus are implemented in Objective-C, which is not hugely popular but was probably the fastest way for them to take NeXT's stuff and start selling it).
On the flip side of what you're saying, when you have centralization then you also have to worry about user management and permissions much more.
But with git or bzr you can have a canonical repository up that only a few people have commit access directly into, but as a new developer that won't stop you from hacking on it. You can instantly clone the repo and start working on your own branch, commit all your changes to your own branch, and once it's ready the maintainers can pull you branch and merge into the upstream repo.
In the past there may have been issues like "what if user Foo doesn't have a host to store his or her branches?" But these days we have GitHub and Gitorious, so that isn't really an issue.
if you are a Muslim and the Muslims are known for acts of suicide terrorism...
People keep talking about how Muslims are known for acts of terrorism. Why is it that the first thing that comes to mind when you see some Muslims is, "oh shit they might blow something up"? Why not Latinos/South Americans? Ever heard of Orlando Bosch or Luis Posada Carilles? They've done some crazy shit. What about Israelis? Israel violates the Geneva Conventions constantly and frequently engages in large-scale terrorism (such as what they're doing right now).
On one hand we are outraged by these events but on the other hand we allow our government zero tolerance for terrorist events or accidents to happen. If you want to be safe, you have have to sacrifice liberty.
I don't remember ever hearing anyone ask our government to clamp down on our civil liberties, except maybe some commentators on CNN and Fox News. When people blame the US government for terrorism, it's never in the context of "hey you gave us too much liberty you assholes!" Most of the complaints I read and agree with are things like, "Hey, stop bombing the fuck out of countries and instilling hatred for us among their people you assholes!"
Explaining that Mono and MoonLight continues to be a non-OSS patent-infringing platform that's permitted to stay alive only while Microsoft continue their patent deal with Novell is worthy criticism and these 'Boycott Novell' people are contributing t to that public understanding.
Can you please explain both why it's non-OSS, and how it's patent-infringing? Mono is, I believe, released under MIT license. This is an official OSI-certified Open Source license, so I think you need to back up that statement that it's non-OSS.
Mono is not known to be infringing on any patents either, so I'm not sure what your claim is in that case either. The core of the .NET framework that falls under the ECMA/ISO standard is patented by Microsoft. But anything submitted to these standards must be available for implementation under RAND terms. However, Microsoft went one step further with the patents for these standards and said they would release them under not just RAND terms, but also for royalty-free terms. There is a difference between infringing on a patent and implementing something that is patented but available under a standard with royalty-free RAND terms.
Mono does not knowingly accept code that is patented and does not fall under the ECMA/ISO standard because then they would be setting themselves up for possible litigation.
They could write 89% of kernel code for all it matters. If they're trying to encumber it with software patents, especially on behalf of Microsoft, it's all totally worthless.
But they're not doing that, and they never have. You're just trolling and spreading FUD with posts like that. This is the type of stuff that we see from the Boycott Novell people, and this is why nobody takes them seriously.