Roy's podcast - Linux

This is a discussion on Roy's podcast - Linux ; ____/ ml2mst on Thursday 06 December 2007 17:28 : \____ > Linonut schreef: >> * Hadron fired off this tart reply: >> >>> Hadron writes: >>> >>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh. >>> C# ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 38 of 38

Thread: Roy's podcast

  1. Re: Roy's podcast

    ____/ ml2mst on Thursday 06 December 2007 17:28 : \____

    > Linonut schreef:
    >> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Hadron writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh.
    >>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>
    >>> Wrong.
    >>>
    >>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.

    >>
    >> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.
    >>
    >> Or C/C++ not an AT&T language.

    >
    > How dare they speak such language of filth?
    >
    > How dare they questioning the Quack?
    >
    > How dare they being disobedient to the Quack?
    >
    > For the Quack is the infinite, all knowledgeable and almighty Quack.
    >
    > Serve only the Quack and live!


    A point was made with regards to software patents (and dependency), not
    standardisation.

    --
    ~~ Best of wishes

    Roy S. Schestowitz | "Oops. My brain just hit a bad sector"
    http://Schestowitz.com | RHAT Linux | PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
    20:20:01 up 2 days, 2:40, 3 users, load average: 0.96, 1.40, 1.63
    http://iuron.com - Open Source knowledge engine project

  2. Re: Roy's podcast

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:55:36 +0100,
    Hadron wrote:
    > Linonut writes:
    >
    >> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>
    >>> Hadron writes:
    >>>
    >>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh.
    >>>
    >>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>
    >>> Wrong.
    >>>
    >>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.

    >>
    >> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.

    >
    > What are you talking about? We are discussing c# and proprietary
    > formats. You do not need MS products to use C#. If I am wrong on this
    > then please correct me since I don't, personally, use it as of yet.
    >


    You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    in your opinion?



    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHWGGQd90bcYOAWPYRAuHeAJ9XGIa3sWhjQEMQtSUo8J NCyZgkkACfR8IH
    8YFfXfYJu0O0hYgjpK3qTdo=
    =Cqpn
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "Life is a sexually transmitted disease
    with a 100% mortality rate."

  3. Re: Roy's podcast


    "Linonut" wrote in message
    news:xIX5j.32110$K27.24972@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    >
    > You're nuts. C# /is/ a Microsoft language. Java /is/ a Sun language.
    > And C used to be an AT&T language, until it escaped.
    >
    > They all have alternate implementations, but the fact remains that
    > Microsoft and Sun still call the shots on their languages.
    >
    > Don't be so obtuse.
    >

    The C# language is somewhat separable from the usage, I think. Microsoft
    certainly leads in what goes into the System. and Microsoft. namespaces,
    which form the .NET releases, but I don't think that they can dictate any
    change to the actual language syntax without convincing the ISO committee
    members to go along. OTOH, I do belive that Java is not under the ISO due
    to some move by Sun to withdraw the standardization attempt. But that may
    not be true, just something that passed by my interest.

    Microsoft does lead the development, though. If they introduce something
    new in a .NET release, they spend a lot of time telling developers how cool
    it is and how they should jump right on it to save development time and
    improve performance. Mono folk pretty much have to follow or be left out in
    the cold. The opposite doesn't work because the Mono effort cannot begin to
    publicize some change they might want at the level necessary to get the herd
    to stampede their way.


  4. Re: Roy's podcast

    On 2007-12-06, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    > in your opinion?


    Java is different from C, C#, and C++. The latter three were all
    submitted to standards bodies, and are all ISO standards. Sun
    approached ISO and ECMA in 1997 about standardizing Java, but changed
    their minds, and Java is just a de facto standard controlled by Sun.

  5. Re: Roy's podcast

    * amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

    > "Linonut" wrote in message
    > news:xIX5j.32110$K27.24972@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    >>
    >> You're nuts. C# /is/ a Microsoft language. Java /is/ a Sun language.
    >> And C used to be an AT&T language, until it escaped.
    >>
    >> They all have alternate implementations, but the fact remains that
    >> Microsoft and Sun still call the shots on their languages.
    >>

    > The C# language is somewhat separable from the usage, I think. Microsoft
    > certainly leads in what goes into the System. and Microsoft. namespaces,
    > which form the .NET releases, but I don't think that they can dictate any
    > change to the actual language syntax without convincing the ISO committee
    > members to go along. OTOH, I do belive that Java is not under the ISO due
    > to some move by Sun to withdraw the standardization attempt. But that may
    > not be true, just something that passed by my interest.
    >
    > Microsoft does lead the development, though. If they introduce something
    > new in a .NET release, they spend a lot of time telling developers how cool
    > it is and how they should jump right on it to save development time and
    > improve performance. Mono folk pretty much have to follow or be left out in
    > the cold. The opposite doesn't work because the Mono effort cannot begin to
    > publicize some change they might want at the level necessary to get the herd
    > to stampede their way.


    'Tis true.

    Check out "The Dynamics of Software Development", Jim McCarthy Microsoft
    Press. Jim was the team lead for the Visual C++ team. He talks about
    the glee they got from beating Borland.

    He also talks about how Microsoft's goal is to drive development, and
    drive it hard, forcing everyone else to keep up with /them/.

    It's a valid paradigm, but not exactly a good recipe for maintenance.

    --
    Tux rox!

  6. Re: Roy's podcast

    LENNY wrote:
    > "Hadron" wrote in message
    > news:fj6jp5$16r$10@registered.motzarella.org...
    > >

    >
    >
    > I've been listening for the past 16 minutes


    You wasted 16 minutes of your life. In that time, Mark Kent's wife
    would have given you some nice pleasure. What the ****?

    > and this is the worst podcast
    > I've ever heard. I'm going to listen a little longer hoping it gets better


    Hah, you ended up wasting more time. Roy is a loser.


  7. Re: Roy's podcast

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 23:41:34 -0000,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > On 2007-12-06, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    >> in your opinion?

    >
    > Java is different from C, C#, and C++. The latter three were all
    > submitted to standards bodies, and are all ISO standards. Sun
    > approached ISO and ECMA in 1997 about standardizing Java, but changed
    > their minds, and Java is just a de facto standard controlled by Sun.



    Then using, or not using, a particular companies products is not
    relevent to the definition, for Sun, or MS.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHWRr/d90bcYOAWPYRAlvBAKCnQthW0ngU3HDDyUkBLU8bQOjsKwCgtn rZ
    GRx7R4NtdQRhgPAx/bRs08I=
    =fj0M
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Instruction ends in the schoolroom -- but education
    ends only with life. -- Publilius Syrus.


  8. Re: Roy's podcast

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > On 2007-12-06, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    >> in your opinion?

    >
    > Java is different from C, C#, and C++. The latter three were all
    > submitted to standards bodies, and are all ISO standards. Sun
    > approached ISO and ECMA in 1997 about standardizing Java, but changed
    > their minds, and Java is just a de facto standard controlled by Sun.


    C++/CLI anyone?

    --
    Tux rox!

  9. Re: Roy's podcast

    Linonut writes:

    > * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh.
    >>>>
    >>>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.
    >>>
    >>> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.

    >>
    >> What are you talking about? We are discussing c# and proprietary
    >> formats. You do not need MS products to use C#. If I am wrong on this
    >> then please correct me since I don't, personally, use it as of yet.

    >
    > I really think you have problems with reading comprehension.
    >
    >>> Or C/C++ not an AT&T language.

    >>
    >> I see you snipped the link to the non proprietary, non MS, C# compiler?

    >
    > I didn't "snip" anything that was important to my point, doofus.
    >
    >> You become more evasive and lightweight with every correction handed to
    >> you.

    >
    > You're nuts. C# /is/ a Microsoft language. Java /is/ a Sun language.
    > And C used to be an AT&T language, until it escaped.
    >
    > They all have alternate implementations, but the fact remains that
    > Microsoft and Sun still call the shots on their languages.


    It is ISO certified. It is stable. You are looking for issues which are
    not there.

    If your issue is that MS invented it fine .. you're just a paranoid
    loony. if however, like Roy, you think using C# opens you up to MS
    licenses and allegiance you are wrong.

  10. Re: Roy's podcast

    Jim Richardson writes:

    > On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:55:36 +0100,
    > Hadron wrote:
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>
    >>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh.
    >>>>
    >>>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>>
    >>>> Wrong.
    >>>>
    >>>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.
    >>>
    >>> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.

    >>
    >> What are you talking about? We are discussing c# and proprietary
    >> formats. You do not need MS products to use C#. If I am wrong on this
    >> then please correct me since I don't, personally, use it as of yet.
    >>

    >
    > You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    > in your opinion?


    WTF are you talking about? We are discussing C#. not Java. Not Sun. But
    whether using C# means are you tied to MS apron strings.

    You are not. Simple.

    EOS.

    --
    Nunca diga √*s pessoas como fazer as coisas. Diga-lhes o que deve ser
    feito e elas se surpreender√£o com sua engenhosidade.
    -- George Patton

  11. Re: Roy's podcast

    In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Hadron

    wrote
    on Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:01:30 +0100
    :
    > Jim Richardson writes:
    >
    >> On Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:55:36 +0100,
    >> Hadron wrote:
    >>> Linonut writes:
    >>>
    >>>> * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> "I have no predudice" - that from Roy. What a laugh.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.
    >>>>
    >>>> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.
    >>>
    >>> What are you talking about? We are discussing c# and proprietary
    >>> formats. You do not need MS products to use C#. If I am wrong on this
    >>> then please correct me since I don't, personally, use it as of yet.
    >>>

    >>
    >> You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    >> in your opinion?

    >
    > WTF are you talking about? We are discussing C#. not Java. Not Sun. But
    > whether using C# means are you tied to MS apron strings.
    >
    > You are not. Simple.
    >
    > EOS.
    >


    I'll admit to wondering on that. I remember J++.
    The issues are different, mostly because Sun created
    Java and Microsoft created C#, but given Microsoft's
    track record, one has to wonder how, if one goes with
    a Microsoft C#/.NET RAD solution, one prevents it from
    injecting Microsoft-specific modules that a Linux system
    running Mono can't use?

    (It was possible, if difficult, with J++; one had to
    be careful. Sun was annoyed enough to sue, IIRC.)

    Contrariwise, if one uses Mono, can .NET run it? The only
    issue I see there is Gtk#, and that's probably available
    for Microsoft as well through something like Cygwin or
    just as a build option on gtk.org.

    --
    #191, ewill3@earthlink.net
    Insert random misquote here.

    --
    Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


  12. Re: Roy's podcast

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Linonut writes:
    >>
    >> They all have alternate implementations, but the fact remains that
    >> Microsoft and Sun still call the shots on their languages.

    >
    > It is ISO certified. It is stable. You are looking for issues which are
    > not there.
    >
    > If your issue is that MS invented it fine .. you're just a paranoid
    > loony. if however, like Roy, you think using C# opens you up to MS
    > licenses and allegiance you are wrong.


    Peruse Jim McCarthy's "Dynamics of Software Development" and get back to
    me.

    --
    Tux rox!

  13. Re: Roy's podcast

    * Hadron fired off this tart reply:

    > Jim Richardson writes:
    >
    >>>>> C# is a MS Language.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Wrong.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ISO approved. And has a Linux compiler.
    >>>>
    >>>> And I suppose you think Java isn't a Sun language, either.
    >>>
    >>> What are you talking about? We are discussing c# and proprietary
    >>> formats. You do not need MS products to use C#. If I am wrong on this
    >>> then please correct me since I don't, personally, use it as of yet.

    >>
    >> You don't need Sun products to use Java either. Is Java a Sun language
    >> in your opinion?

    >
    > WTF are you talking about? We are discussing C#. not Java. Not Sun. But
    > whether using C# means are you tied to MS apron strings.
    >
    > You are not. Simple.
    >
    > EOS.


    The only thing "simple" here, is you.

    You simply shift the goalposts on Jim to avoid him pinning you down.

    In any case, your "simple" view is too "simple".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

    Mono's implementation of those components of the .NET stack not
    submitted to the ECMA for standardization has been the source of
    patent violation concerns for much of the life of the project. In
    particular, discussion has taken place about whether Microsoft could
    destroy the Mono project through patent suits.



    On November 2, 2006, Microsoft and Novell announced a joint agreement
    whereby Microsoft agreed to not sue Novell\u2019s customers for
    patent infringement.[9] According to Mono project leader Miguel de
    Icaza,[10] this agreement extends to Mono but only for Novell
    developers and customers.

    Only a simpleton would deal with Microsoft technology without being
    aware of the legal implications. Are you an advocate for simpletons, or
    just one yourself?

    --
    Tux rox!

  14. Re: Roy's podcast

    Linonut writes:

    > * Hadron fired off this tart reply:
    >
    >> Linonut writes:
    >>>
    >>> They all have alternate implementations, but the fact remains that
    >>> Microsoft and Sun still call the shots on their languages.

    >>
    >> It is ISO certified. It is stable. You are looking for issues which are
    >> not there.
    >>
    >> If your issue is that MS invented it fine .. you're just a paranoid
    >> loony. if however, like Roy, you think using C# opens you up to MS
    >> licenses and allegiance you are wrong.

    >
    > Peruse Jim McCarthy's "Dynamics of Software Development" and get back to
    > me.


    No thanks.

    --
    Quien lucha, puede perder; quien no lucha, ya perdió.
    -- Anónim.

  15. Re: Roy's podcast

    On 2007-12-07, The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
    > I'll admit to wondering on that. I remember J++.
    > The issues are different, mostly because Sun created
    > Java and Microsoft created C#, but given Microsoft's
    > track record, one has to wonder how, if one goes with
    > a Microsoft C#/.NET RAD solution, one prevents it from
    > injecting Microsoft-specific modules that a Linux system
    > running Mono can't use?
    >
    > (It was possible, if difficult, with J++; one had to
    > be careful. Sun was annoyed enough to sue, IIRC.)


    It wasn't all that difficult. The areas where J++ deviated from Java
    were:

    1. It had internationalization support for a handful of countries that
    Java left out.

    2. It left out a couple Java features. I believe these were all related
    to remote procedure calls, and to calling native code.

    3. It had a delegates and callback system, which was used, I believe, in
    the WFC GUI framework Microsoft developed.

    4. They added a thing called J/Direct, which was a way that made it easy
    to call win32 functions from J++ code.

    So, unless you were setting out to write win32-specific code using
    J/Direct, or using WFC (which was a Windows-only GUI framework), or
    happened to be writing code for people in one of those countries that
    Microsoft supported that Sun did not, it was actually pretty darned hard
    to end up with Microsoft-specific things in your code.

    J++ was pretty much Java with add-ons that would allow you, if you
    wanted to, to use it as a first class Windows programming language.
    This is similar to the situation in C: you can write a very portable C
    program, sticking strictly to what is required on all standard C
    systems, or you can use Windows-specific stuff on Windows, Mac-specific
    stuff on Mac, Linux-specific stuff on Linux, etc., if you have decided
    that you want to take full advantage of Windows, or Mac, or Linux.

    I think they should have included RMI and JNI, though. Yes, at the time,
    those were pretty horrible, but if they had included them, pretty much
    any standard Java program would have run on J++, so then J++ would have
    been a superset of Java, much the way C on most systems is a superset of
    the standard C system.

    And if Sun had not been so anal about this, Java would right now likely
    be one of the top languages for desktop application programming.

  16. Re: Roy's podcast

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > It wasn't all that difficult. The areas where J++ deviated from Java
    > were:
    >
    > 1. It had internationalization support for a handful of countries that
    > Java left out.
    >
    > 2. It left out a couple Java features. I believe these were all related
    > to remote procedure calls, and to calling native code.
    >
    > 3. It had a delegates and callback system, which was used, I believe, in
    > the WFC GUI framework Microsoft developed.
    >
    > 4. They added a thing called J/Direct, which was a way that made it easy
    > to call win32 functions from J++ code.
    >
    > So, unless you were setting out to write win32-specific code using
    > J/Direct, or using WFC (which was a Windows-only GUI framework), or
    > happened to be writing code for people in one of those countries that
    > Microsoft supported that Sun did not, it was actually pretty darned hard
    > to end up with Microsoft-specific things in your code.


    I have to disagree a bit, Tim. The reason is this observation I've made
    about our group. Our group has a mandate to write cross-platform C/C++
    code, but even with that mandate, some of our group allow Win32
    constructs to infiltrate the code.

    Now imagine a less knowledge, less motivated group of coders.

    > J++ was pretty much Java with add-ons that would allow you, if you
    > wanted to, to use it as a first class Windows programming language.


    Contrary, of course, to what Sun claimed they were aiming Java toward.

    "Write once, run anywhere."

    > This is similar to the situation in C: you can write a very portable C
    > program, sticking strictly to what is required on all standard C
    > systems, or you can use Windows-specific stuff on Windows, Mac-specific
    > stuff on Mac, Linux-specific stuff on Linux, etc., if you have decided
    > that you want to take full advantage of Windows, or Mac, or Linux.


    Windows' POSIX support is still not quite there, but it is much better
    these days.

    > I think they should have included RMI and JNI, though. Yes, at the time,
    > those were pretty horrible, but if they had included them, pretty much
    > any standard Java program would have run on J++, so then J++ would have
    > been a superset of Java, much the way C on most systems is a superset of
    > the standard C system.
    >
    > And if Sun had not been so anal about this, Java would right now likely
    > be one of the top languages for desktop application programming.


    I think you're wrong here. It wasn't Sun's rejection of Microsoft's
    perversion of Java that hurt them, so much as Sun's unwillingness to
    open up Java in various ways.

    Just my opinion, as a Java outsider, though.

    --
    Tux rox!

  17. Re: Roy's podcast

    On 2007-12-08, Linonut wrote:
    >> I think they should have included RMI and JNI, though. Yes, at the time,
    >> those were pretty horrible, but if they had included them, pretty much
    >> any standard Java program would have run on J++, so then J++ would have
    >> been a superset of Java, much the way C on most systems is a superset of
    >> the standard C system.
    >>
    >> And if Sun had not been so anal about this, Java would right now likely
    >> be one of the top languages for desktop application programming.

    >
    > I think you're wrong here. It wasn't Sun's rejection of Microsoft's
    > perversion of Java that hurt them, so much as Sun's unwillingness to
    > open up Java in various ways.


    Those are kind of the same thing, aren't they? Sometimes, you want to
    write a Windows program, or a Mac program, or a Linux program, that
    takes full advantage of native system features, fully follows native GUI
    standards, etc.. Portability is not always the #1 goal, because if you
    have to give up features or native look and feel for portability, then
    someone else can come along with a native app that doesn't make that
    sacrifice, and kill you in the market.

    Microsoft's Java changes (except for not supporting RMI and JNI) were
    aimed toward making Java the language available as an equal to C/C++ for
    people who wanted to write Windows programs. And many of the people
    that wanted an open Java wanted that for the same reason--to be able to
    use Java the language without having to adopt Java the platform.

  18. Re: Roy's podcast

    * Tim Smith fired off this tart reply:

    > On 2007-12-08, Linonut wrote:
    >>
    >> I think you're wrong here. It wasn't Sun's rejection of Microsoft's
    >> perversion of Java that hurt them, so much as Sun's unwillingness to
    >> open up Java in various ways.

    >
    > Those are kind of the same thing, aren't they?


    No, not where Microsoft is concerned. For better or worse (you know my
    opinion!) Microsoft can pretty force people to do things their way, and
    Sun was quite right to see this happening and act to prevent it.

    And it may have kept Microsoft from disabling the opening up of Java
    that eventually occurred only recently.

    Or it may have simply allowed Sun to protect their trademark language.

    > Sometimes, you want to
    > write a Windows program, or a Mac program, or a Linux program, that
    > takes full advantage of native system features, fully follows native GUI
    > standards, etc.. Portability is not always the #1 goal, because if you
    > have to give up features or native look and feel for portability, then
    > someone else can come along with a native app that doesn't make that
    > sacrifice, and kill you in the market.


    You do have a point, especially since one class of consumers (the "IT"
    trade press ) tend to concentrate on additional "feechurs" rather
    than portability and maintainability, and tend to ignore the effects of
    lock-in.

    > Microsoft's Java changes (except for not supporting RMI and JNI) were
    > aimed toward making Java the language available as an equal to C/C++ for
    > people who wanted to write Windows programs.


    Maybe. My guess is one of these:

    1) We must co-opt Java to maintain Microsoft lock-in.

    2) "Let's **** with Java"

    > And many of the people
    > that wanted an open Java wanted that for the same reason--to be able to
    > use Java the language without having to adopt Java the platform.


    Hmmm, that does sound like it could have been true.

    I was pretty much ignoring Java for a long time. No real technical
    reason, I was just pretty happy with C/C++ (and I still am).

    However, I have seen one app that made me appreciate Java -- argouml.
    And I really kind of like that it has its own look-and-feel, presumably
    present on all OS's.

    And some Java applets I've seen, I appreciate.

    If Sun had only been less grasping with their technology, or had been more
    entrenched on the x86 platform, to have the traction needed to push
    their language better. Only Microsoft has (and still has) that power.
    Sun could have put a bigger hurt on them, and be an even bigger player
    in the cross-platform "market".

    --
    Tux rox!

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2