Microsoft has not contributed any useful code to the Linux kernel. Their "contribution" was drivers so that Linux could work on their hypervisor.
I find that immensely useful.
When Intel contributes drivers for graphics chips, it is *also* so that Linux can work on their hardware.
Maybe you should take a clue from Linus Torvalds. (hint: It's about scratching your own itch)
Microsoft has granted patents, to anyone who implements a
It is a misunderstanding that it is bound to Microsofts own implementation. Those grants has always extended to Mono. The anti-Mono and anti-Microsoft fanatics started a FUD campaign based on speculation that MS could just sue anyway, and the mere cost of defending against MS would force Mono underground. It was a response to that FUD campaign that MS also issued the community promise.
The patent grants also are not tied to a full-stack implementation like Java/Oracle. The fact is, the patent protection when using CLR is far more transparent and effective, compared to Oracle/JVM.
- e.g. XAML syntax is unnecessary verbose, and QML is much better in that regard. But most of those are surface issues. The core design - the notion of element tree, layout engine, layout and render transforms, data binding, styles, triggers etc - is solid, very powerful, and very flexible.
The beauty of WPF and (especially) XAML is that they really are 2 very different technologies. WPF - like many GUI frameworks - describes an UI through an object graph. You can "new" up the controls yourself, wire the event handlers and achieve the exact same result as describing it through XAML. Which also means that you can dynamically change the graph through code.
XAML on the other hand is not in any way specific to WPF. It is simply a way to describe an object graph. Only, XAML can describe very, very complex object graphs with wired event handlers etc. XAML is also used to describe workflows in Workflow Foundation. And anyone can use the format to describe object graphs of any other type. XAML uses a convention for mapping XML namespaces to CLR namespaces. That is a really, really cool.
Cases in point:
1. The ridiculous FAT long-filename patent
2. The subpixel rendering patent (despite prior art being shown)
3. Outright patent-troll behavior: Refusing to disclose a stack of patents its using to extort for-profit Linux distributors behind closed doors.
Thanks.
Which of the above illustrate Microsofts visceral hatred of open source?
(For the record: I believe that software patents should be abolished and I do not condone Microsofts patent litigation)
Problem is let's say there is a bug that is causing your web app to constantly run out of threads or restart?
Who do you call for support? Let's say you think it is mono causing it? WIth VS.NET on Windows you see the bug is not there.
Isn't that a concern with open source in general? That argument could be used against all open source projects where commercial support is not available. Yet, many open source projects thrives despite of this.
.NET is great but not if you make calls that emulate Windows.
But Mono does not make calls that "emulate Windows". In general the call upon native and/or open source libraries. Certainly you'd be hard pressed to come up with any examples of this behavior in the Mono server stack.
Winforms is an example too which uses dcom/com underneath. It would make more sense to use GTK calls if it is a Linux app.
But you are wrong about that. Winforms is definitively NOT based on COM (much less DCOM).Winforms is a thin wrapper around Win32 APIs. When you create a text box in Winforms, you'll get an actual native Windows textbox.
You may be confused by the fact that Winforms also allow ActiveX controls to be used. When you use that capability you will be using COM (not DCOM), as ActiveX controls are implemented using COM. Interestingly, the part of COM that makes this possible is remarkably similar to the object model of Gnome, almost binary compatible. Basic COM is a binary standard which can be implemented on any platform out there.
It would take a delusional lunatic not to know the long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors.
Then you should have no problems finding a few examples that illustrates Microsofts visceral hatred of open source (your words).
... long history of attacks against commercial and open source competitors
Fear!
Microsoft isn't trustworthy,
Uncertainty!
Why risk future woes when you have no need to?
Doubt!
As I suspected: Nothing but FUD. But pretty textbook FUD, that much I have to give you credit for.
Microsoft has many times expressed its visceral hatred of open source. It is not to be trusted, not ten years ago, not five years not, not today, not ever.
BS again. Microsoft has NEVER expressed visceral hatred of open source. Ballmer has compared one open source license - GPL - with cancer, because of it's viral nature. The intentionally viral nature.
Ballmer is not at the helm any more. But even he never expressed hatred at open source, as you claim. You could construe his comments about GPL as hatred against that particular license type. And indeed, Microsoft has always opted for other OSI approved licenses when they had the choice.
But if you have any other sources for your made-up claim - say other MS top executives, maybe even present ones - then please feel free to post them.
Can you run a
In general: Yes. Need more context about the application to give a definitive answer, e.g. if it uses Windows specific infrastructure such as AD, Workflow Foundation.
Quite simply, a patent "promise" is not the same thing as a license. You see, even if they're bared by Laches, they can still drag you through the courts and you've got to prove they're barred by making the promise. If you had a license...you could make a single motion at the first hearing or in the pretrial motions to dismiss because of being licensed if they sought to sue you.
Having this crap in there means Mono's toast without a real license to any valid patents, combined with a covenant to license all tech as it becomes apparent, that ends up in this common core of stuff. Otherwise, you're INSANE for using it- because you can and most probably WILL be sued over it.
No - it is actually stronger (look up promissory estoppel). But leave that aside, because the patents have also already been granted.
The *promise* was issued because fanatics cried foul at the patent grant, arguing that Microsoft with it vast army of lawyers could just sue any OS project out of existence, patent grant or not. Hence, Microsoft issued the promise, all but ensuring that such a case would be outright dismissed since you've acted in good faith on a promise. The promise in that case is actually one of the strongest contract forms imaginable, as it is one-sided: you do not have to sign anything to be covered.
I may add:
The PATENTS.TXT (https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/PATENTS.TXT) also does not claim anything like that. It merely says that if *you* bring a patent lawsuit against *anyone* for using the *covered code*, any patent grant is revoked and the promise is revoked.
well considering their 'mit license' is invalidated because of the wording saying you can't use without their engine or code... it kind of is a trap. Just a bad one.
I suppose you have a source for that restriction?
Can you please help me, because when I view the LICENSE.TXT (https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/blob/master/LICENSE.TXT) I cannot find anything like that?
Starting from scratch:
PS C:\Windows\system32> Get-Command -Noun *vpn*
(list of commands with VPN in the name - which includes an "Add-VpnConnection" command. Lets see...)
PS C:\Windows\system32> man Add-VpnConnection
(syntax and "man" page. Yup, that is the command I was looking for. Wonder if there are any examples...)
PS C:\Windows\system32> man Add-VpnConnection -Examples
(several examples with explanation. Let' try it...)
PS C:\Windows\system32> Add-VpnConnection -Name Doh! -ServerAddress 10.1.1.1 -AllUserConnection -AuthenticationMethod MSChapv2 -EncryptionLevel Required -L2tpPsk SuperSecret! -TunnelType L2tp -UseWinlogonCredential
(connection is created)
Boy, that was hard!
not all open source code is bulletproof but microsoft has proven their code is swiss cheese. so why would anyone willingly use a MS product that for something that needs to be secure? when people are shooting at you, do you want to be wearing body armor or cheese?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/t...
Microsoft has (discounting the time before the nimda and code red disasters and the security push) consistently beat the industry average on fewer vulnerabilities for comparable products.
Specifically the later versions of internet information services (IIS) - the webserver that would be roughly comparable to Apache httpd with PHP, Ruby or Java - have fared extremely well in comparison: IIS 7 has had 8 vulns discovered in it's entire lifetime, while IIS 8 still has a clean sheet.
Not a troll but a genuine question - what's stunted about ASP.NET MVC?
ASP.NET MVC along with the other "web MVC" have really little to do with the real MVC as in the original smalltalk MVC described by Trygve Reenskaugs MVC. Web MVCs are bastardizations of the original concept, often only riding the name for recognition. I blame Struts and RoR for starting this trend.
I believe grand parent was referring to the original MVC which was a way to design interactive, event-driven GUIs. The original MVC was a recursive concept: The view could itself be a "tool" that in turn followed the MVC pattern. See http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygve...
As far as "web MVCs" goes, ASP.NET MVC is a really good one. But real MVC it is not. But that's a lost cause. An entire generation of developers have grown up believing that RoR and Struts were examples of MVC. In actuality, the designers og Struts and RoR grossly misunderstood the concept.
This is bad. Research has shown that extra crypto operations needed for DRM will add to energy consumption and contribute to global warming. This is an immoral product!
HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!
