[News] Mono... It's a Trap
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
People just don't seem to understand..
,----[ Quote ]
| Microsoft, is a convicted monopolist, and at a certain level, when Mono gets
| to the core of the famous Linux distros., Microsoft won't hesitate to lock
| the users down through patents, licenses, monopolies, and so on.. And as a
| result, Ubuntu won't stay Ubuntu anymore..
|
| Mono, is not here to make Linux users happier. The only goal behind Mono, and
| Moonlight, is to give Microsoft the ability to constrain the users of Mono
| and all the MS applications running through it, to its patents, DRM, and all
| the other Monopolistic weapons of proprietary software.
`----
http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
Ballnux is listed here, wrongly:
The best Linux distributions of fall 2008
http://www.bitburners.com/articles/the-best-linux-distributions-of-fall-2008/4270/
Related:
Tasky, another good tool, another bad idea
,----[ Quote ]
| Because it's written in C#. And guess what? Copyright (C) 2007 Novell, Inc.
|
| [...]
|
| No word about dependencies. No word about Mono. Nothing alarming in the Goals
| section.
|
| [...]
|
| Now you know. In that f--ing Novell's Hackweek they could have started a new
| project in a different way — but no, they wanted it in Mono!
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/29/11/09/37-tasky-another-good-tool-another-
It's tiresome to stick to a few principles, or: Mono is FUD
,----[ Quote ]
| As a final note, it would be nice if the new Fedora Project Leader would make
| a public statement on Mono. Heck, Max could too know whether Red Hat is not
| shipping Mono with RHEL because of patents, because it's wrong to do it,
| because they don't want to support it, or because they don't support it yet.
`----
http://beranger.org/index.php?page=diary&2008/02/25/08/52/11-it-s-tiresome-to-stick-to-a-few-
OpenSolaris, Gobuntu, and be careful who you kiss
,----[ Quote ]
| I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded
| products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their
| distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve
| the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on
| what basis they want to fight the free world.
|
| Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded
| from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell
| over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
`----
http://commandline.org.uk/2007/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
Miguel, Mono and Microsoft
,----[ Quote ]
| is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write
| .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find
| later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in
| the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to
| make public?
|
| [...]
|
| And here we have an individual who decides to replicate one of
| the proprietary company's development environments - for reasons
| best known to him alone - and keeps telling people that the reason
| he's doing it is so that he can pull people over from the
| proprietary company's side to his side!!!
`----
http://www.itwire.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11081&Itemid=1091
Mono: Maturing, but Relevant?
,----[ Quote ]
| On the legal front, Microsoft and Novell have signed agreements to work
| together on some parts of Mono, and Novell and Microsoft have various other
| agreements in place. The Mono contributors have also pointed to the published
| ECMA specs for C# as the basis for their work, and have consistently said
| they remain ready to rewrite any portion of Mono that Microsoft should some
| day assert claims against (so far, there have been no such claims).
|
| Despite all of this, Mono seems to still be a marginal player in the open
| source world. A search of SourceForge, for example, reveals less than 400
| projects mentioning Mono, and C# projects (on whatever infrastructure) are
| vastly outnumbered by others. For whatever reason, the open source community
| has not widely embraced C# - whether this is due to its Microsoft roots,
| worries that Microsoft's murky IP policies will someday make Mono an
| untenable platform, or for other reasons.
`----
http://ostatic.com/158588-blog/mono-maturing-but-relevantss
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk2UbwACgkQU4xAY3RXLo6REQCdGasQ9W902FY70OUxSTDxFfzR
UzwAniKM12O7BOfrzHvDJ5cYYLVo0+cO
=JeSr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> OpenSolaris, Gobuntu, and be careful who you kiss
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
>| I read the agreement between Xandros and Microsoft, and one of the excluded
>| products was Mono, so Microsoft promises to not sue Xandros over their
>| distribution but excluding Mono and a few other products, i.e. they reserve
>| the right to sue over Mono. I wonder if this is an interesting preview of on
>| what basis they want to fight the free world.
>|
>| Interestingly, the Novell deal seems to be different, Mono is not excluded
>| from the Novell deal. So Microsoft seems to be promising not to sue Novell
>| over Mono, but keeps the option open for Xandros. Weird but true.
> `----
>
> http://commandline.org.uk/2007/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
Broken link.
--
I've been on a diet for two weeks and all I've lost is two weeks.
-- Totie Fields
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Chris Ahlstrom on Wednesday 03 December 2008 12:30 : \____
CMS change.
http://commandline.org.uk/linux/2007/aug/5/be-careful-who-you-kiss/
- --
~~ Best of wishes
Roy S. Schestowitz | Never awaking askew, no matter what they ask you
http://Schestowitz.com | GNU is Not UNIX | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
http://iuron.com - proposing a non-profit search engine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk2mUgACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7fpQCeKI+e8VFjwjxyfJ+m4iPHA5FA
KLoAn2cBxzn9hxe5ojv0m98XZ38AWsXY
=aqUa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael B. Trausch
Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
> People just don't seem to understand..
>
> http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
Roy,
How does posting someone else's rant (who doesn't present anything but
conclusions, without showing the information that led them there) help
anything? Why do you advocate the use of FUD when it is convenient for
you? Would it be too much to ask that you constrain yourself to
advocating for Linux systems, if you can't have any decent respect for
free software in general? Also, what's your opinion on the GNU
implementation of the CLR and C# languages?
Just curious. It seems that your (and everyone else's) standard
argument against Mono is based nearly solely on argumentum ad hominem,
and it seems that everyone's forgotten where Mono really started.[1]
--- Mike
[1] http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2001/07/09/icaza.html
--
My sigfile ran away and is on hiatus.
http://www.trausch.us/
Hadron
Welcome to COLA.
Facts and common sense play no part in the "advocates" way of thinking.
You had been warned. It's a great place to annoy the creatures that lurk
here but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than a place
for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to doom ...
--
"XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
over the advocacy newsgroups."
comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Hadron
> People just don't seem to understand..
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Microsoft, is a convicted monopolist, and at a certain level, when Mono gets
> | to the core of the famous Linux distros., Microsoft won't hesitate to lock
> | the users down through patents, licenses, monopolies, and so on.. And as a
> | result, Ubuntu won't stay Ubuntu anymore..
> |
> | Mono, is not here to make Linux users happier. The only goal behind Mono, and
> | Moonlight, is to give Microsoft the ability to constrain the users of Mono
> | and all the MS applications running through it, to its patents, DRM, and all
> | the other Monopolistic weapons of proprietary software.
> `----
>
> http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
>
Omar sound suspiciously like a COLA reg.
A total buffoon to boot.
,----
| Mono, is not here to make Linux users happier. The only goal behind
| Mono, and Moonlight, is to give Microsoft the ability to constrain the
| users of Mono and all the MS applications running through it, to its
| patents, DRM, and all the other Monopolistic weapons of proprietary
| software.
`----
Nurse, Omar needs his meds ....
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Just curious. It seems that your (and everyone else's) standard
> argument against Mono is based nearly solely on argumentum ad hominem,
> and it seems that everyone's forgotten where Mono really started.[1]
>
> --- Mike
>
> [1] http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2001/07/09/icaza.html
I went to Barnes&Noble last night to look for a decent C# book. (I like to
start with something that I can carry around and that gets me away
from the keyboard.)
I found about a half-dozen books. All, without exception, assume you are
using Visual Studio and .NET -- even the O'Reilly book.
No sale.
--
A hundred thousand lemmings can't be wrong!
Michael B. Trausch
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Welcome to COLA.
>
> Facts and common sense play no part in the "advocates" way of
> thinking.
Sounds like a religion. :^)
> You had been warned. It's a great place to annoy the creatures that
> lurk here but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than
> a place for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to
> doom ...
Yeah, well. One day long ago, it wasn't like that...
But that's alright. It's interesting anyway. People are strange and
fascinating creatures, and it's very interesting, I think, to see what
people call a passing argument these days. It makes me think people
have forgotten what facts _are_ and that all they know is religion.
That having been said, I think Roy S. should fire up a vi/emacs war,
since he appears to be so fond of baseless religious warfare. Maybe
someone can find some change MS made to vi on their old UNIX system
before they sold it to SCO, that vim adopted or something, to sweeten
it up a bit.
--- Mike
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> It's a great place to annoy the creatures that lurk here...
And that is about all you do. You post almost nothing of substance.
And, when someone does say something upbeat and positive, you're there to
try to jeer them back into silence.
> but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than a place
> for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to doom ...
So you're a wannabe nerd?
> --
> "XP can't be selling well, or we'd have the wintrolls crowing about it all
> over the advocacy newsgroups."
> comp.os.linux.advocacy - where they put the lunacy in advocacy
Idiot.
--
That all men should be brothers is the dream of people who have no brothers.
-- Charles Chincholles, "Pensees de tout le monde"
DFS
> I went to Barnes&Noble last night to look for a decent C# book. (I
> like to start with something that I can carry around and that gets me
> away from the keyboard.)
>
> I found about a half-dozen books. All, without exception, assume you
> are using Visual Studio and .NET -- even the O'Reilly book.
>
> No sale.
Then you weren't interested in the first place.
Jesse Liberty's Programming C# (I own the first edition) is where you should
start.
The 2nd Edition can be found for under $10
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0596003099/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
Michael B. Trausch
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> I went to Barnes&Noble last night to look for a decent C# book. (I
> like to start with something that I can carry around and that gets me
> away from the keyboard.)
>
> I found about a half-dozen books. All, without exception, assume you
> are using Visual Studio and .NET -- even the O'Reilly book.
If you're an experienced programmer and you already know your way
around IDEs generally, you don't need something that is going to hold
your hand with VS---I'd recommend CLR via C#, 2nd Ed., which is quite
excellent. It's the third book I own from MS Press, and strangely
enough, it's very nice.
The other two are Code Complete, 2nd Ed., and Writing Solid Code,
original edition. Writing Solid Code, I thought, every person working
on Windows should have read. Code Complete, too, actually. MS Press
is very much not about what their parent company is, and while I've
only read three books from there, they've all had the stance of an open
mind and been very pleasurable to read, full of useful information.
--- Mike
Hadron
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:27:15 +0100
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Welcome to COLA.
>>
>> Facts and common sense play no part in the "advocates" way of
>> thinking.
>
> Sounds like a religion. :^)
>
>> You had been warned. It's a great place to annoy the creatures that
>> lurk here but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than
>> a place for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to
>> doom ...
>
> Yeah, well. One day long ago, it wasn't like that...
>
> But that's alright. It's interesting anyway. People are strange and
> fascinating creatures, and it's very interesting, I think, to see what
> people call a passing argument these days. It makes me think people
> have forgotten what facts _are_ and that all they know is religion.
>
> That having been said, I think Roy S. should fire up a vi/emacs war,
> since he appears to be so fond of baseless religious warfare. Maybe
Except its not baseless.
Emacs kicks vi's arse in every way......
Hint : you can run vi mode is emacs ...
> someone can find some change MS made to vi on their old UNIX system
> before they sold it to SCO, that vim adopted or something, to sweeten
> it up a bit.
haha!
>
> --- Mike
--
"The "XP could sink Microsoft" thread his an absolute gem. You'd think
these advocates were related to Nostradamus!"
Hadron
I wouldn't mind but Liarnut does indeed use Visual Studio.
As for his new "interested" in C# - well, we know why that is. See the
thread where he accuses Mono of being a virus. And then continuing to
confuse Mono with C#.
Michael B. Trausch
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Except its not baseless.
It is in that "I'm going to use what I'm going to use, and you're going
to use what you're going to use" sort of way. For _me_, GNU Emacs is
the only way. For some others, vi is; that's precisely why it's a
baseless religious war. We like what we like, and nothing will change
that unless something significant has changed since we last tried
something else.
> Emacs kicks vi's arse in every way......
> Hint : you can run vi mode is emacs ...
And _why_ would anyone do that? I like my emacs keybindings just the
way they are. :)
But that's beside the point...
Hrm. Seems I may have indeed started the very religious war I was
talking about. Oops. Oh, well---let the flaming, uh, continue?
"Begin" just doesn't seem to fit in this group...
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 11:39:10 -0500
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
>> I went to Barnes&Noble last night to look for a decent C# book. (I
>> like to start with something that I can carry around and that gets me
>> away from the keyboard.)
>>
>> I found about a half-dozen books. All, without exception, assume you
>> are using Visual Studio and .NET -- even the O'Reilly book.
>
> If you're an experienced programmer and you already know your way
> around IDEs generally, you don't need something that is going to hold
> your hand with VS---I'd recommend CLR via C#, 2nd Ed., which is quite
> excellent. It's the third book I own from MS Press, and strangely
> enough, it's very nice.
Why strange? Microsoft Press generally puts out decent books. They
actually give you some good value for the money!
And I see that book is written by Jeffrey Richter -- his Advanced Windows
books were very helpful to me.
Anyway, I don't really care about using an IDE. For now, I would just like
to write some code and compile it. Doesn't have to be GUI, in fact I'd just
like to start really simple.
Is there any reference book out there more suitable to a Linux user, though?
> The other two are Code Complete, 2nd Ed., and Writing Solid Code,
> original edition. Writing Solid Code, I thought, every person working
> on Windows should have read. Code Complete, too, actually. MS Press
> is very much not about what their parent company is, and while I've
> only read three books from there, they've all had the stance of an open
> mind and been very pleasurable to read, full of useful information.
I've read some of Code Complete, and it's a good source of advice on
projects.
--
If there was any justice in the world, "trust" would be a four-letter word.
Hadron
And when applied to Linux systems the CLR is still the CLR?
I find it hard to see the meeting point of .net and mono.
Is mono a small open source subset? Can .net plugins contribute to the
CLR and be accessible via Mono and the CLR?
I dont pretend to be an expert here and the water is somewhat mirky at
times.
--
"You're a condescending, arrogant asshole, Quack."
-- Tattoo Vampire <sit...@this.computer> in alt.os.linux.ubuntu, comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:56:28 +0100
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Except its not baseless.
>
> It is in that "I'm going to use what I'm going to use, and you're going
> to use what you're going to use" sort of way. For _me_, GNU Emacs is
> the only way. For some others, vi is; that's precisely why it's a
> baseless religious war. We like what we like, and nothing will change
> that unless something significant has changed since we last tried
> something else.
Yes, but Vi users are normally ignorant of Emacs but not vice versa in
my experience. Vi users tend to be more religious from a "blind faith"
viewpoint. Emacs users tend to be practical and know they need the best
tool for the job. At least in my experience. Most emacs users used vi at
some stage.
Yes there are times when vi is suitable. Lightweight, fast etc. But why
bother? In that case I have "emacs -Q -nw" to do the job too :-; And the
recent release of the multihead emacs daemon is simply amazing.
>
>> Emacs kicks vi's arse in every way......
>> Hint : you can run vi mode is emacs ...
>
> And _why_ would anyone do that? I like my emacs keybindings just the
> way they are. :)
Me too :-;
>
> But that's beside the point...
>
> Hrm. Seems I may have indeed started the very religious war I was
> talking about. Oops. Oh, well---let the flaming, uh, continue?
> "Begin" just doesn't seem to fit in this group...
>
> --- Mike
I know that Chris Ahlstrom swears by Vim, but he admitted to not really
having spent enough time to get over the Emacs learning curve. I used vi
ages ago. It's a l337 tool IMO.
And of course it does not have Gnus for news and mail.....
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:56:28 +0100
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Except its not baseless.
>
> It is in that "I'm going to use what I'm going to use, and you're going
> to use what you're going to use" sort of way. For _me_, GNU Emacs is
> the only way. For some others, vi is; that's precisely why it's a
> baseless religious war. We like what we like, and nothing will change
> that unless something significant has changed since we last tried
> something else.
>
>> Emacs kicks vi's arse in every way......
>> Hint : you can run vi mode is emacs ...
>
> And _why_ would anyone do that? I like my emacs keybindings just the
> way they are. :)
The problem is, it's not really "vi" anymore. Many people use vim, which,
for better or worse (mostly for better), has a couple of orders of magnitude
of functionality over stock vi. I figure I've learned about 10% of the
functionality of vim, so far, and I've been using it heavily for years.
And not everyone wants to run all their apps as extensions of a programmer's
editor (though you can do that in vim, too).
--
By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.
Paul Hovnanian P.E.
>
[snip]
> Miguel, Mono and Microsoft
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | is Mono's role in the deal that of a hook to make customers write
> | .NET applications because they can be run on Linux - only to find
> | later on that they are armless or legless because of a change in
> | the .NETspecifications, a change which Microsoft decides not to
> | make public?
[snip]
Make _customers_ write? Customers don't write applications, they use
them. Developers write applications. If developers write to the wrong
platform, they get no customers and go out of business.
I guess Mono and .NET are a non issue from where I sit (technical and
engineering apps). Nobody writes in .NET and only the clerical staff use
Windows.
--
Paul Hovnanian pa...@hovnanian.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Have gnu, will travel.
amicus_curious
"Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
news:lJyZk.3353$UI2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> It's a great place to annoy the creatures that lurk here...
>
> And that is about all you do. You post almost nothing of substance.
>
> And, when someone does say something upbeat and positive, you're there to
> try to jeer them back into silence.
>
>> but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than a place
>> for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to doom ...
>
> So you're a wannabe nerd?
>
and you will see where you made your mistake.
7
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:30:36 +0000
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>> People just don't seem to understand..
>>
>> http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11
people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
>
> Roy,
>
> How does posting someone else's rant (who doesn't present anything but
> conclusions, without showing the information that led them there) help
> anything? Why do you advocate the use of FUD
You utter CRETIN!
For fsck sake! Stop peddling micoshaft sponsored ignorance!!!
The challenge for you still remains.
You now merely have to call us when micoshaft's own
proprieotory CLI is under control of a standards body.
Peter Köhlmann
> Michael B. Trausch wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:30:36 +0000
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>>
>>> People just don't seem to understand..
>>>
>>> http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11
> people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
>>
>> Roy,
>>
>> How does posting someone else's rant (who doesn't present anything but
>> conclusions, without showing the information that led them there) help
>> anything? Why do you advocate the use of FUD
>
>
> You utter CRETIN!
>
> For fsck sake! Stop peddling micoshaft sponsored ignorance!!!
Idiot
> The challenge for you still remains.
> You now merely have to call us when micoshaft's own
> proprieotory CLI is under control of a standards body.
Stop pretending being a linux user. Those tend to be a lot smarter than you
obviously are
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
It could be worse, but it'll take time.
Tim Smith
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> And when applied to Linux systems the CLR is still the CLR?
>
> I find it hard to see the meeting point of .net and mono.
>
> Is mono a small open source subset? Can .net plugins contribute to the
> CLR and be accessible via Mono and the CLR?
>
> I dont pretend to be an expert here and the water is somewhat mirky at
> times.
There's a thing called the CLI ("Common Language Infrastructure"). It
is an open specification (ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271). Among other
things, it includes:
* The Common Type System, which is a specification of types and rules.
* The Common Language Specification (CLS). This gives a set of rules
that CLI languages should follow, so that they can interoperate.
* The Common Intermediate Language (CIL). Essentially, a
CPU-independent, platform-independent object oriented assembly language.
* The Virtual Execution System. A virtual machine that can execute CIL,
or compile CIL to native code.
In addition to the above, some .NET languages and libraries are also
open standards, under the control of ECMA and ISO/IEC. C#, for instance.
All of the stuff described above is open and under the control of
standards bodies, and is platform-independent.
Microsoft's implementation on Windows contains additional libraries
(mainly for GUI development and for database access) that are *NOT* open
standards and are not under the control of standards bodies.
Mono is an implementation of all of the above, both the open,
not-under-Microsoft-control, parts, and clones of the Microsoft-only
libraries.
The parts are easily separated, so if you wanted to use Mono to write a
Linux program, with no worry about licensing terms, it would be easy to
only use and depend on the open parts, and completely avoid the
Microsoft-only parts.
--
--Tim Smith
7
So help me out here, trolls and sock aside, your cretinious arguments about
Linux wifi cards you managed to lose in the same old way the last time you
waded into an argument.
So lets start again with Mono crapola:
Hadron
> "Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
> news:lJyZk.3353$UI2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>
>>> It's a great place to annoy the creatures that lurk here...
>>
>> And that is about all you do. You post almost nothing of substance.
I post a lot more of substance than you. I can point to numerous posts where I
correct you, where I point out strengths of Linux and features I
like.
All you post is me toos and lies about which IDE you are currently
using. occasionally you come up with something positive. But its
normally love blind support for anything Roy says. You used to be far
more honest and several posters have noticed your spiral into
"advocacy".
>>
>> And, when someone does say something upbeat and positive, you're there to
>> try to jeer them back into silence.
No I am not. If that positive thing is the truth I support it. I am
upbeat, for example, about the development of Mono. Why? Because I think
it will help OSS development and integration.
You however termed it a "virus". Why? Because you are an idiotic fan boy
who wants to side with Spamowitz and MArti no matter what. Notice how
Marti soon picked up his skirts and scurried off when he realised with
horror that he was totally wrong about what Mono was and is?
>>
>>> but other than that COLA serves no real purpose other than a place
>>> for wannabe nerds to gather and snicker at MS's spiral to doom ...
>>
>> So you're a wannabe nerd?
>>
> Only if he snickers at MS's (imagined) spiral to doom. Use a little
> logic and you will see where you made your mistake.
>
Liarmutt never, ever reads what he is replying to. And the fact that he
tried the "well, if we are then you must be" reply is pretty
embarrassing for all concerned.
--
So how do we destroy Microsoft?
Microsoft is doing the job quite nicely, imploding under its own weight."
-- AZ Nomad <azno...@PremoveOBthisOX.COM> in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Michael B. Trausch
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Michael B. Trausch belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
> > If you're an experienced programmer and you already know your way
> > around IDEs generally, you don't need something that is going to
> > hold your hand with VS---I'd recommend CLR via C#, 2nd Ed., which
> > is quite excellent. It's the third book I own from MS Press, and
> > strangely enough, it's very nice.
>
> Why strange? Microsoft Press generally puts out decent books. They
> actually give you some good value for the money!
Strange, because I had expected the first time I came across a
Microsoft Press book to find the things slanted heavily towards
Microsoft Corporation in them, and as a result I expected the books to
be less generic and useful (and more closed-minded) than they are. I
especially like the fact that they'll openly talk about proper design
objectives in their books, even when some of the points made are
obviously not pro-Windows; for example, in Code Complete, the author
talks about ensuring that applications are written in a way that
platform-specific differences are all encapsulated into a module that
can be swapped out for various platforms, confining OS-specific or
hardware-specific support into its own subsystem. Very nice advice, of
course---despite it frequently not being widely followed.
> And I see that book is written by Jeffrey Richter -- his Advanced
> Windows books were very helpful to me.
CLR via C# is the first book of Richter's that I've read. But it was a
very good read, and I'd happily read more books from him on topics that
interest me.
> Anyway, I don't really care about using an IDE. For now, I would
> just like to write some code and compile it. Doesn't have to be GUI,
> in fact I'd just like to start really simple.
>
> Is there any reference book out there more suitable to a Linux user,
> though?
Not currently. IIRC, there is one in the works.
As far as CLR via C# goes, the first two chapters provide an
introduction to the CLR and Microsoft's tools (Visual Studio, csc, and
so forth) that are used when you use the Microsoft .NET distribution.
You can ignore the Visual Studio information if you want, and the
information on the C# compiler csc is, I think, the same as the command
line interface that Mono's gmcs C# compiler provides (though, Mono's C#
compiler also allows for integrated use of pkg-config to simplify the
command line usage).
MonoDevelop can open and work with Visual Studio projects, which is 90%
of the .NET code you'll see out there. Of course, you can use SCons or
the autotools if you'd like, just as you would with C. Unless you're
firmly entrenched in using autotools, I'd suggest giving SCons a decent
look, it's a pretty interesting build system.
Peter Köhlmann
I will answer when you grow your very first braincell.
That is, never
Just this much: Read (better, get a little girl to read it to you) what is
meant by MS handing over parts of this stuff to ISO/ECMA.
When you have understood the first words (and, it, not are likely
candidates) you may get a glimmer of the lunacy you are spreading here
You *are* an idiot. Of the worst sort. Step aside, DumbFullShit needs more
room at your side
--
Ogden's Law:
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
Peter Köhlmann
> "amicus_curious" <AC...@sti.net> writes:
>
>> "Chris Ahlstrom" <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote in message
>> news:lJyZk.3353$UI2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> After takin' a swig o' grog, Hadron belched out
>>> this bit o' wisdom:
>>>
>>>> It's a great place to annoy the creatures that lurk here...
>>>
>>> And that is about all you do. You post almost nothing of substance.
>
> I post a lot more of substance than you. I can point to numerous posts
> where I correct you, where I point out strengths of Linux and features I
> like.
Please do so.
Until then, the rest of your tripe snipped
< snip Hadron Quark lunacy >
--
Warning: You have moved the mouse.
Windows will reboot now to make the change permanent
Michael B. Trausch
Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> writes:
> > If you're an experienced programmer and you already know your way
> > around IDEs generally, you don't need something that is going to
> > hold your hand with VS---I'd recommend CLR via C#, 2nd Ed., which
> > is quite excellent. It's the third book I own from MS Press, and
> > strangely enough, it's very nice.
>
>
> I find it hard to see the meeting point of .net and mono.
>
> Is mono a small open source subset? Can .net plugins contribute to the
> CLR and be accessible via Mono and the CLR?
>
> I dont pretend to be an expert here and the water is somewhat mirky at
> times.
The CLR ("Common Language Runtime" is the combination of the virtual
environment and an extreme subset of the class libraries that ship with
either Microsoft's .NET Framework or Mono (or GNU Portable.NET). The
CLR includes the common type system which provides a set of base types
from which one can build, including System.String, and System.Int32.
It includes a subset of the libraries in the System namespace.
Both Microsoft and de Icaza's implementations superclass the standard.
Mono provides many of Microsoft's extensions, as well as quite a few of
its own, including GtkSharp, the Mono.Posix class library, and other
things.
The core of the CLR, though, is the IL virtual CPU. Like Java's JVM,
the IL virtual CPU executes a series of opcodes. At a method-at-a-time
level, the IL virtual CPU translates methods into the current
platform's underlying machine language (with optimizations) such that
the IL virtual CPU doesn't have to interpret it at all in the future.
This is unlike the JVM's virtual CPU, which acts very much like a
traditional hardware-based CPU, stepping through instructions and
maintaining its own state often throughout the code. The CLR also
provides a set of standards for use by compilers that wish to target
it, such as the calling conventions of IL methods, and so forth.
Just as an example to compare, here's an implementation of "Hello,
World" written in C:
----- Begin program listing
#include <stdio.h>
int
main(int argc, char *argv[]) {
printf("Hello, world!\n");
return(0);
}
----- End program listing
So, when run through "gcc -S hello.c", a file "hello.s" is produced,
which is the assembly-language listing of the program. It contains
data storage for the "Hello, World!" string, the main() function, and
some extra information that GCC uses. You can see the full disassembly
by copying the above program into "hello.c" and using the gcc
invocation above. The main() function looks like this, though
(subsetted output of "objdump -d hello" on the compiled output file,
which is actually easier to read than the gcc-generated assembly file):
----- Begin assembly listing
000000000040050c <main>:
40050c: 55 push %rbp
40050d: 48 89 e5 mov %rsp,%rbp
400510: 48 83 ec 10 sub $0x10,%rsp
400514: 89 7d fc mov %edi,-0x4(%rbp)
400517: 48 89 75 f0 mov %rsi,-0x10(%rbp)
40051b: bf 1c 06 40 00 mov $0x40061c,%edi
400520: e8 d3 fe ff ff callq 4003f8 <puts@plt>
400525: b8 00 00 00 00 mov $0x0,%eax
40052a: c9 leaveq
40052b: c3 retq
40052c: 90 nop
40052d: 90 nop
40052e: 90 nop
40052f: 90 nop
----- End assembly listing
Now, let's take a look at the same program, written in C#:
----- Begin program listing
using System;
public static class EntryPoint {
public static int Main(string[] args) {
Console.WriteLine("Hello, World!");
return(0);
}
}
----- End program listing
Compile this by saying "gmcs hello.cs", and the resulting output file
will be "hello.exe". On Ubuntu (Hardy or Intrepid, I don't remember
when this was introduced as default behavior) you can simply say
"./hello.exe" to invoke the program; if that doesn't work you say "mono
hello.exe" to invoke it. Now, we disassemble it using "monodis", and
we see some assembly information, the EntryPoint class that we've
defined, and the Main method, which contains:
----- Begin assembly listing
.method public static hidebysig
default int32 Main (string[] args) cil managed
{
// Method begins at RVA 0x20ec
.entrypoint
// Code size 12 (0xc)
.maxstack 8
IL_0000: ldstr "Hello, World!"
IL_0005: call void class
[mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string)
IL_000a: ldc.i4.0
IL_000b: ret
} // end of method EntryPoint::Main
----- End assembly listing
The assembly language listing for both show what the instructions that
execute on the CPU look like. To load a string on the IL virtual CPU,
you 'ldstr'---on the native CPU, you assign pointer to one of the CPU's
registers and call another pointer which will deal with it. Here in
IL, you actually call the method by name; that's what the "call void
class" line does. "[mscorlib]" is the assembly that the method is
located in, which in this case is the core library for the framework,
which provides the System type classes and structures and certain
things like the System.Console class.
BTW, "cil", which you see in the assembly listing for the Mono
implementation of Hello, World, means "common intermediate language",
which is the name of the assembly language for the IL virtual CPU.
The files used by the CLR to run software (.exe and .dll files which
are specially formulated, usually without any native code contained
within them) are the same file format for every implementation of the
CLR. Therefore, they're portable. The hello.exe file I just created
with my gmcs compiler will turn around and run on Windows under
Microsoft's .NET, for example. If I write a class library, as long as
I don't use P/Invoke or otherwise do anything that makes the assumption
that I am on a UNIX-like system (or GNU/Linux in particular), my class
library will be portable to Windows, as well, without recompilation.
Does this help at least some?
Michael B. Trausch
Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> The parts are easily separated, so if you wanted to use Mono to write
> a Linux program, with no worry about licensing terms, it would be
> easy to only use and depend on the open parts, and completely avoid
> the Microsoft-only parts.
Your post was a pleasure to read.
chrisv
>>
>> I post a lot more of substance than you.
Since when do lies and snot count as "substance", Quack?
--
"Security is only as good as it's most secure component" - Erik
Funkenbusch, arguing that "layering" security does not help
Hadron
It's a damn good read. Appreciated. Now to read it again :-;
--
"His asshole is so reamed out he has room for an oxygen
tank, too."
-- Tattoo Vampire loooking for new accomodation in comp.os.linux.advocacy
Hadron
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:17:53 -0800
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> The parts are easily separated, so if you wanted to use Mono to write
>> a Linux program, with no worry about licensing terms, it would be
>> easy to only use and depend on the open parts, and completely avoid
>> the Microsoft-only parts.
>
> Your post was a pleasure to read.
>
> --- Mike
Tim is, according to Chris Ahlstrom, Roy and co, a Microsoft winshill
who is paid to put Linux in a bad light. They think this because he
corrects their lies and misinformation on a regular basis. Hopefully you
can see he is not.
7
> I will answer when you grow your very first braincell.
> That is, never
Mono... It's a Patent Trap
Peter Köhlmann
> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>
>
>> I will answer when you grow your very first braincell.
>> That is, never
>
>
> Mono... It's a Patent Trap
So you claim. Prove it, instead of constantly repeating bullshit
> The challenge for you still remains.
Nope. I don't like to argue with even worse idiots than Hadron Quark
> You now merely have to call us when micoshaft's own
> proprieotory CLI is under control of a standards body.
Dumbass
--
You're not my type. For that matter, you're not even my species
Hadron
heh, heh. Does anyone do the "short tempered cellar dweller" better than
Peter? Poor 7 is going to have to unleash his winged monkeys, oops! I
mean winged robots......
But Peter is right here and 7 is full of shit.
--
- "Actually XP *is* getting press, but most of it is along the lines of
"we're going to wait and see", in other words not very good."
Snit
4936eef0$0$31328$9b4e...@newsspool4.arcor-online.net on 12/3/08 1:41 PM:
> 7 wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I will answer when you grow your very first braincell.
>>> That is, never
>>
>>
>> Mono... It's a Patent Trap
>
> So you claim. Prove it, instead of constantly repeating bullshit
>
>> The challenge for you still remains.
>
> Nope. I don't like to argue with even worse idiots than Hadron Quark
You are incapable of supporting your claims. Completely incapable.
>> You now merely have to call us when micoshaft's own
>> proprieotory CLI is under control of a standards body.
>
> Dumbass
--
Look, this is silly. It's not an argument, it's an armor plated walrus with
walnut paneling and an all leather interior.
William Poaster
>> Quack snotted:
>>>
>>> I post a lot more of substance than you.
>
> Since when do lies and snot count as "substance", Quack?
I suppose by "substance" the Quack troll means his lying, whining &
bitching.
--
Most people are sheep.
Microsoft is very effective
at fleecing the flockers.
Chris Ahlstrom
I looked into it (scons) a little bit. I actually went pretty deep into
cmake, since the KDE project was adopting it. But after using it for awhile
I realized it was basically doing all the same things as autotools, but
without any notable simplification. So I stuck with autotools.
--
/*
* [...] Note that 120 sec is defined in the protocol as the maximum
* possible RTT. I guess we'll have to use something other than TCP
* to talk to the University of Mars.
* PAWS allows us longer timeouts and large windows, so once implemented
* ftp to mars will work nicely.
*/
(from /usr/src/linux/net/inet/tcp.c, concerning RTT [retransmission timeout])
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:17:53 -0800
> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>> The parts are easily separated, so if you wanted to use Mono to write
>> a Linux program, with no worry about licensing terms, it would be
>> easy to only use and depend on the open parts, and completely avoid
>> the Microsoft-only parts.
>
> Your post was a pleasure to read.
Does Gnome use only the open parts?
The reason I ask is that RedHat seemed to be pretty chary of including Mono
in their commercial systems, though they allow it in Fedora.
Any insight as to why?
--
The biggest difference between time and space is that you can't reuse time.
-- Merrick Furst
Michael B. Trausch
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> > MonoDevelop can open and work with Visual Studio projects, which is
> > 90% of the .NET code you'll see out there. Of course, you can use
> > SCons or the autotools if you'd like, just as you would with C.
> > Unless you're firmly entrenched in using autotools, I'd suggest
> > giving SCons a decent look, it's a pretty interesting build
> > system.
>
> I looked into it (scons) a little bit. I actually went pretty deep
> into cmake, since the KDE project was adopting it. But after using
> it for awhile I realized it was basically doing all the same things
> as autotools, but without any notable simplification. So I stuck
> with autotools.
While I am not a major Python fan, I _love_ the combination of SCons
and Python. You have the full power of a programming language for your
build system, if you need it, which is very nice.
However, it results in the combination advantage/disadvantage of being
able to have an arbitrarily complex build system that has all sorts of
strange issues with it. You can do the same thing with autotools if
you create part of your build system in C and have it do the builds and
the like, but the barrier to entry is higher.
It's an advantage on one hand, since in theory you could do things like
use an IDE and have a SCons constructor that handles the project
specification in the IDE's own format, which means that you can do the
build the same way with SCons or your IDE. The downside to *that* in
particular is that it's read-only; you probably still need the IDE to
add new files into the project's definition that way unless the IDE
uses a simple format.
It's also a disadvantage, though, since one may wind up doing strange
non-standard things that way that only serve to confuse people who are
new to the project. Ahh, well. I suppose that's why "with power,
comes responsibility".
Haven't checked out cmake, though, I should do that.
Michael B. Trausch
Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
> Does Gnome use only the open parts?
>
> The reason I ask is that RedHat seemed to be pretty chary of
> including Mono in their commercial systems, though they allow it in
> Fedora.
>
> Any insight as to why?
My guess would be the old licensing scheme, which was a bit weird. It
was kinda confusing, in that different parts of the system were under
vastly different licenses, IIRC.
The new one though, starting with Mono 2.0, should be amenable to
inclusion in RHEL, I think.
Roy Schestowitz
Hash: SHA1
____/ Michael B. Trausch on Wednesday 03 December 2008 16:22 : \____
>
>
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 09:30:36 +0000
> Roy Schestowitz <newsg...@schestowitz.com> wrote:
>
>> People just don't seem to understand..
>>
>>
http://omarsdaydreams.blogspot.com/2008/11/people-just-dont-seem-to-understand.html
>
> Roy,
>
> How does posting someone else's rant (who doesn't present anything but
> conclusions, without showing the information that led them there) help
> anything? Why do you advocate the use of FUD when it is convenient for
> you? Would it be too much to ask that you constrain yourself to
> advocating for Linux systems, if you can't have any decent respect for
> free software in general? Also, what's your opinion on the GNU
> implementation of the CLR and C# languages?
>
> Just curious. It seems that your (and everyone else's) standard
> argument against Mono is based nearly solely on argumentum ad hominem,
> and it seems that everyone's forgotten where Mono really started.[1]
>
> --- Mike
>
> [1] http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2001/07/09/icaza.html
There are many reasons why Mono is a risk. I aummarised some reasons in <
http://boycottnovell.com/2008/03/24/mono-danger-to-linux/ >.
- --
~~ Best of wishes
"The number of developers working on improving Linux vastly exceeds the number
of Microsoft developers working on Windows NT."
--Paul Maritz, Microsoft
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkk3J7gACgkQU4xAY3RXLo4cgwCeJ0Zvfzz5qvXk3HS9d3AK0zqk
scUAoLJsnJr8ayNXuIZKZHCatLbYa7kB
=XcCT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ruel Smith
> "Michael B. Trausch" <mi...@trausch.us> writes:
>
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2008 10:17:53 -0800
>> Tim Smith <reply_i...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>>> The parts are easily separated, so if you wanted to use Mono to write
>>> a Linux program, with no worry about licensing terms, it would be
>>> easy to only use and depend on the open parts, and completely avoid
>>> the Microsoft-only parts.
>>
>> Your post was a pleasure to read.
>>
>> --- Mike
>
> Tim is, according to Chris Ahlstrom, Roy and co, a Microsoft winshill
> who is paid to put Linux in a bad light. They think this because he
> corrects their lies and misinformation on a regular basis. Hopefully you
> can see he is not.
>
Tim has been posting in this newsgroup since long. He's one of the
sensible posters, unlike unreasonable regulars who I have gladly
k'filed.
RS
Hadron
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Michael B. Trausch belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 12:19:44 -0500
>> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>>
>> Not currently. IIRC, there is one in the works.
>>
>> As far as CLR via C# goes, the first two chapters provide an
>> introduction to the CLR and Microsoft's tools (Visual Studio, csc, and
>> so forth) that are used when you use the Microsoft .NET distribution.
>> You can ignore the Visual Studio information if you want, and the
>> information on the C# compiler csc is, I think, the same as the command
>> line interface that Mono's gmcs C# compiler provides (though, Mono's C#
>> compiler also allows for integrated use of pkg-config to simplify the
>> command line usage).
>>
>> MonoDevelop can open and work with Visual Studio projects, which is 90%
>> of the .NET code you'll see out there. Of course, you can use SCons or
>> the autotools if you'd like, just as you would with C. Unless you're
>> firmly entrenched in using autotools, I'd suggest giving SCons a decent
>> look, it's a pretty interesting build system.
>
> I looked into it (scons) a little bit. I actually went pretty deep into
> cmake, since the KDE project was adopting it. But after using it for awhile
> I realized it was basically doing all the same things as autotools, but
> without any notable simplification. So I stuck with autotools.
Why would you stick with auto tools after experiencing Scons?
Please be explicit.
Hadron
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 18:50:31 -0500
> Chris Ahlstrom <lin...@bollsouth.nut> wrote:
>
>> > MonoDevelop can open and work with Visual Studio projects, which is
>> > 90% of the .NET code you'll see out there. Of course, you can use
>> > SCons or the autotools if you'd like, just as you would with C.
>> > Unless you're firmly entrenched in using autotools, I'd suggest
>> > giving SCons a decent look, it's a pretty interesting build
>> > system.
>>
>> I looked into it (scons) a little bit. I actually went pretty deep
>> into cmake, since the KDE project was adopting it. But after using
>> it for awhile I realized it was basically doing all the same things
>> as autotools, but without any notable simplification. So I stuck
>> with autotools.
>
> While I am not a major Python fan, I _love_ the combination of SCons
> and Python. You have the full power of a programming language for your
> build system, if you need it, which is very nice.
More importantly, you can Google for 2 seconds and find scripts for all
but the most crazy setups.
Years ago I worked for a company where the Makefiles beggared believe.
No automatic rules. No header inclusion. All hard coded rubbish.
I find it hard to believe that today so many projects can hit "make" and
still dont recompile despite a core header being changed.
Chris Ahlstrom
this bit o' wisdom:
> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> said on 2008-12-03:
>>
>> Tim is, according to Chris Ahlstrom, Roy and co, a Microsoft winshill
>> who is paid to put Linux in a bad light. They think this because he
>> corrects their lies and misinformation on a regular basis. Hopefully you
>> can see he is not.
>
> Tim has been posting in this newsgroup since long. He's one of the
> sensible posters, unlike unreasonable regulars who I have gladly
> k'filed.
For the record, too, I've never stated, nor even believed, that Tim is a
"Microsoft winshill".
That's simply still more of Hadron making stuff up about "Chris Ahlstrom".
(The poor fellow is obsessed with me!)
Tim's a smart, knowledgeable, but overly-pedantic fellow who enjoys revving
up people (don't we all?), and he's always struck me as more of a Mac fan
than a Windows fan. Like most of us here, he makes mistakes now and then.
As opposed to Hadron, who posts a correct statement only now and then.
--
Why I Can't Go Out With You:
I'd LOVE to, but ...
-- I have to floss my cat.
-- I've dedicated my life to linguini.
-- I need to spend more time with my blender.
-- it wouldn't be fair to the other Beautiful People.
William Poaster
> After takin' a swig o' grog, Ruel Smith belched out
> this bit o' wisdom:
>
>> Hadron <hadro...@gmail.com> said on 2008-12-03:
>>>
>>> Tim is, according to Chris Ahlstrom, Roy and co, a Microsoft winshill
>>> who is paid to put Linux in a bad light. They think this because he
>>> corrects their lies and misinformation on a regular basis. Hopefully
>>> you can see he is not.
>>
>> Tim has been posting in this newsgroup since long. He's one of the
>> sensible posters, unlike unreasonable regulars who I have gladly
>> k'filed.
>
> For the record, too, I've never stated, nor even believed, that Tim is a
> "Microsoft winshill".
>
> That's simply still more of Hadron making stuff up about "Chris Ahlstrom".
> (The poor fellow is obsessed with me!)
>
> Tim's a smart, knowledgeable, but overly-pedantic fellow who enjoys
> revving up people (don't we all?), and he's always struck me as more of a
> Mac fan than a Windows fan. Like most of us here, he makes mistakes now
> and then.
Smith is a Mac-droid.
> As opposed to Hadron, who posts a correct statement only now and then.
--