Earlier quoted context omitted.
They did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Cloud
That's like getting a matchbox car and thinking you suddenly own a full-blown porche.
Except, that was the first computing cloud. It predated EC2 by a few months.
CoreCLR is now open source
291–300 of 347 posts
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
There has been a lot of interest. There are thousands upon thousands of big applications out there built on Swing, you just don't use them, because Java has never caught on in desktop consumer apps. But JetBrains' IDEs are based on Swing, as is NetBeans, and they look great.
I think looking great is entirely subjective.. I think that the JetBrains' IDEs look horrible... the skinning as it stands is inconsistent at best. They are cross platform.. but even looking like something built with bootstrap+fontawesome would look better. VS looks awesome (tends to run like ass though) by comparison.
NetBeans looks very native.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#293Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wanting your machine to work is also caring what your machine is doing. I'm sure the IRS is kicking themselves for running XP for over a decade, building up such an extreme dependency on it that they are now paying huge sums of money for Microsoft to continue to support them. The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. It is in Microsofts business interests…
>The black box is only great so long as it actually works, and when it breaks you are completely screwed. To most users Linux is just as much of a black box as Windows is. Even among Linux fans, the number of people who actually need to customize the kernel is tiny. The number of people who can customize the kernel is even smaller. So where's the freedom? At the OS level, all that's happened is that the lockdown has…
This is a great point.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#294Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are a bit too idealistic about the hacking capabilities and willingness of people in general. It is convenient the correct functioning of my car or my phone is the responsibility of someone specific else than me. Civilization is characterized by specialization of people. I cherish the notion that hardware and software should be based on open standards. For day to day work, I just want my gear to work. If…
> As an extreme example if I owned a plane I would not like to hack it's software under any circumstance unless I were a professional aeronautics professional, and probably not even then. But would you download an alternative distribution made by a group of enthusiastic aeronautics professionals that has been used by tons of other people with no problems? Think Cyanogenmod.
Considering the quality of cyanogenmods "stable" releases, never. Hobbyist professionals are still hobbyists and not liable for the damage their code may do.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are divorced from the core os. Windows is a microkernel and the drivers run in userland since vista. It's a completely different matters.
As someone who has done Windows driver development, I can assure you drivers run at ring0, kernel context. Not in userland (except maybe some USB device and printer drivers). At least this was still true in Windows 8.1.
[deleted]
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#296Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Those people would probably have to buy Windows and VisualStudio licenses to code in C# in a VM or just ditch Macs for PCs. No, they can code in Linux using Vim if they want.
I never tried C# but I did code in Java with vim and emacs. Not a nice experience. Java more or less requires an IDE. I assumed C# would be the same but I could have assumed too much.
The most annoying thing in Java without an IDE (and a source-control plugin for that IDE) is moving types from one package to another and renaming types. Due to the requirement that the directory hierarchy mirrors the package structure and that every public class is contained in a file with the same name this can be a bit annoying at times. Otherwise C# is much more concise for many things but apart from that there isn't much difference, at least for me.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#297Earlier quoted context omitted.
May I ask you what your 'particular domain' is? I'm interested in F# but due to lack of a real use case for me I didn't yet start investigating.
In this instance: Desktop, graphics. This from a hobby point of view, though! Which means I have very little time to achieve anything and occasionally don't touch the code in weeks. I've come to write code that is a) trifty b) readable c) works on compile d) leverages type system for composable code that has a specific "correct" way to do things. So I can return to my code, which I've completely forgotten how it work…
I'd recommend the recently released F# Deep Dives as well - it's less about learning the language, than about seeing how a variety of different real world problems can be solved in F#. A few hours reading that gave me more inspiration than all the blog posts solving toy problems I've read in the last year.
Table of contents and sample chapters here - http://manning.com/petricek2/
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you are a bit too idealistic about the hacking capabilities and willingness of people in general. It is convenient the correct functioning of my car or my phone is the responsibility of someone specific else than me. Civilization is characterized by specialization of people. I cherish the notion that hardware and software should be based on open standards. For day to day work, I just want my gear to work. If…
> As an extreme example if I owned a plane I would not like to hack it's software under any circumstance unless I were a professional aeronautics professional, and probably not even then. But would you download an alternative distribution made by a group of enthusiastic aeronautics professionals that has been used by tons of other people with no problems? Think Cyanogenmod.
If I was a manufacturer of planes I would probably figure out if it could be used. As a private individual - no way.
In this plane software example if I was a plane manufacturing org I could dedicate people to integrate it and test it.
There is a difference between an organization dedicated to making a product and a group of hobbyists coming together to scratch their itch. There is a scale, a threshold, above which you need big-org organization and sharing of responsibilities.
Small expert teams are fantastic for the sort of projects that can be done by small expert teams. For larger things there needs to be a bit more infrastructure and organization, or at least continuity of many, many years.
There is a threshold in software complexity after which one really needs lots of organized testing and fixing.
As a private user, if I fail the firmware update on my shiny plane, it's all on me. Unless there was some weird insurance to cover the costs.
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm sorry to point out to you but a large set of computing devices are black boxes and it does not hurt their marketability. Free software should be looked on from the point of ethics, and not from financial gain. Proprietary software is immoral, and that is the reason you shouldn't be building it. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
> Proprietary software is immoral It's one thing to laud the common benefits of FOSS, or the ethical gains of charity. These things resonate with me. But I fundamentally disagree with - and as a proprietary software developer, am alienated by - your statement. Is that actually what you mean? My day job - making games - is immoral? A daily dose of evil? If so, this is the kind of attitude that puts me off contributing…
Maybe a car analogy will help:
If you are selling cars with the hoods welded shut and all systems permeated with DRM, are you making the world better, because, hey, cars are good? Or are you in effect making your customers helpless, teaching them that they are not, and should not even want to be, in control of their own cars?
Re: CoreCLR is now open source
#300Earlier quoted context omitted.
> De-Ballmerization and Microsoft is oozing delicious developer love. Kind of ironic, what with Ballmer's "Developers developers developers..." spiel.
When it comes to propaganda from large and powerful entities, usually it help to reverse the meaning to really understand the message. "Developers,developers,developer" = Fuck developers,need more profits next quarter. "We brought peace and democracy to country " = We seriously fucked it up for years to come, and installed a brutal puppet dictator. "We are not evil like those other mean companies. We will do good in…
> When it comes to propaganda from large and powerful entities, usually it help to reverse the meaning to really understand the message.
This works very well for advertisements.
e.g. "Our flights are very comfortable" -> Long haul flights are, in general, cramped and gruelling.
"Our broadband is fast" -> Broadband isn't fast enough.
The selling point of the product addresses a perceived deficiency in the product category. It's safe to assume that the product is, at best, slightly less bad at it than the competitors.