Re: Microsoft and trust

On 2008-03-28, Schmidt <sss@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Bill McCarthy" <Bill@xxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:E833F611-C7F9-4244-8AA7-03B0596369CB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[SharpDevelop doesn't run on Linux ...]
[Link to MonoDevelop]
But that one is *Mono-based*,

That's the point. You dotnet VB or C# code can compile
natively on linux.
No, larger Apps with large dependencies into the WinAPI
or heavy WinForm-usage cannot compile under Mono in
its current shape.

Wrong... WinAPI yes - Winforms, nope. The 1.1 api is complete, the 2.0
api is about 99% complete. Do you use mono? Basically any pure
winforms app is probably going to run.

And, I will also note that it has been my experience that most
..NET apps do not have large Windows API dependencies.

I mean, there is a reason why MonoDevelop exists, right?
If SharpDevelop would compile, then there wouldn't have
been any need, to create the MonoDevelop-pendant for
Linux.


Yes, there is - to develop native Gnome applications. MonoDevelop
was started as a GTK# port of SharpDevelop. As I understand it, it
was based on some of the SharpDevelop code - but with a different
UI. And the forms designer in MonoDevelop generates GTK# code.

SharpDevelop won't compile, because it does have a bunch of COM and API
dependencies - it is not a pure .NET app. But, it isn't a typical
applciation either. I just ran a grep for
System.Runtime.InteropServices on it's code, and I got a lot of entries.

and is BTW not yet
at the level of Sharp-Develop (which is a .NET-based IDE).


It has a graphical designer for GTK#, it has syntax highlighting,
code completion, etc. It's pretty decent actually. Of course, I
believe that SharpDevelop has been around a year or two longer, so I
would be suprised if it is "more developed" - I havent' used it in a few
years, so I wouldn't know.

That's the joy of open source software ;)
They are both open source software, what's your point?

.NET is (beside making money over the "it's new, buy it!"-
marketing-channel) the only chance for MS, to keep
the open communities on distance, to keep their "monopoly-
position" intact.

U h huh, that's why they released the rotor source and
standardized C# with ECMA (oh wait, that's the opposite
of the spin you're trying to put on it )
LOL, the opposite?
Things like this are done only for the seem of "openness",
wake up please (or read a book about marketing-strategies).

Yep. I agree it is a marketing strategy. But, it's still an open spec.

If MS is that open as you claim here, then why the heck
don't they release a .NET-version for linux - or completely

Well, they are helping the mono team implement silverlight for linux.
See Moonlight. They also provide a silverlight runtime for the Mac.
Not a full .NET implementation, but they don't need to - Novell is doing
Mono, and Mono covers those platforms.

open it with a nonrestrictive license (as Sun has done with
Java)?

Finally, after how many years?

Rotor is only a *very* small subset of .NET and Rotor may
not be used commercially - that's why the Mono attempt
was made at all.


Rotor is a reference implementation of the parts of the BCL, C#, and CLI
that form the ECMA/ISO standard. It was never intended to be a
commercial product - it was ment to prove that these componets could
be implemented by a 3rd party (Corel did a lot of the work on rotor
under contract from MS) and that these components could work
across multiple platforms (BSD, MacOS X, and Windows). That's all it
was ever intended to be.

--
Tom Shelton
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Microsoft and trust
    ... .NET apps do not have large Windows API dependencies. ... sharpdevelop won't run on mono? ... You said yourself, they already have a Mac-Port of Silverlight, ... why not for Linux - I mean, ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Microsoft and trust
    ... .NET apps do not have large Windows API dependencies. ... Because they are basing it on the Mono runtime. ... why not for Linux - I mean, ... Silverlight 3 already there, etc. pp. ...
    (microsoft.public.vb.general.discussion)
  • Re: Cross-compile to Linux
    ... Agreed but the lack of standards is something that might hurt Linux on the ... Mono is not for GUIs as of now and neither was my initial post;-) That ... is why I specified "ASP.Net and server apps". ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • RE: C++ lib compatibility between Red Hat 9 and 7.3
    ... > The above attitude is the one that causes people to worry about using linux ... > all of your apps and they neither compile and definitely won't run. ... If you think you can upgrade without ...
    (RedHat)
  • Re: Linux Applications for OS X
    ... are written for Linux, can be ported easily, or already are ported, to ... There are apps that will compile under OS X as long as the proper libs ... A lot of apps will compile and run. ... The Mac is quite like BSD, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
Loading