Harvey Swenson

What I'm saying is that Borland were working on cross compilation and what they were working on eventually became .Net.

The version Borland were working on wasn't restricted to windows but could work on linux and mac as well and easily ported to diverse operating systems which would have resulted in cross compilation.

Joshua Nightshade

That's entirely different from what you said earlier, that before Microsoft did some nebulous "thing" it was possible to compile software that would work in all operating systems, be completely compatible, and function fine with a simple checkbox. That Microsoft caused the end of this ability, and it's all their fault, everything was great before then.

Not to mention that your source for this is some guy's blog on a site called Conspiracy Theories.

.net is a set of APIs for interacting with Windows.

If someone wants to create such a way to compile software in all operating systems, nobody's stopping them. Except perhaps the fact that they're all quite different and I can't think of any possible way something like that could work without being horrendously bloated.

Harvey Swenson

I'm not even arguing that it is right to pirate software Josh, I'm saying that there is a huge % of windows users on pirated copies.

60 million is a fairly high number of users and that is only including the ones that tried to validate their O/S ie - they didnt realise they were using pirated version.

To say that 60 million isn't very large is pretty ridiculous, it's probably higher than the entire linux base.

Harvey Swenson

mono works on linux, windows and mac, why is it such a stretch for you that it could have been built into the ide 10 years ago?

Joshua Nightshade

60 million, out of a total 300 million activations isn't that much in terms of scale. Considering the people I've seen in torrent comments talking about having problems when registering their pirated copies I think you're way off base though by saying they didn't realize they were using stolen software, necessarily. It always illicit a facepalm from me when I see someone saying they got a message that their stolen Photoshop was already registered to someone else. I also think it's a wild assumption to make that if, hypothetically, Microsoft did something to punish stolen versions of Windows it would affect them negatively. MOST users, as shown by your link, have legitimate copies of Windows. It's preinstalled on pretty much every PC you can buy short of making it yourself. All those copies are legit.

See you're talking about two different things now. Mono is not made by Microsoft. It's an open source version of .net.

Harvey Swenson

mono is based on parts of .net that microsoft have opened up, considering the source of all this is borland in the first place, again, why is it such a stretch that it could be built into the borland ide 10 years ago?

Joshua Nightshade

Two different things now.

Mono is an opensource version of .net done by a random guy in his spare time.

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

Borland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nothing about some vast Microsoft conspiracy in there. According to that page, they even went on to still release the same piece of software you're saying Microsoft ate anyway.

Harvey Swenson

mono is developed by novell an open source implementation of the Common Language Infrastructure ( Common Language Infrastructure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ) developed by Microsoft under Borlands ex R&D staff. CLI forms the core of .Net and Mono.

It's public knowledge that Microsoft stole borlands staff and again went back and took their patents and forced them to tie their development to windows and the sources arent a sole website, a few years ago it was all over the place and pretty well known among borland users.

If you've used any of borlands development tools, it's quite obvious that .net is a borland product and not a microsoft product since it uses borland techniques, call structure, a host of other things and none of microsofts. I have no idea why you are arguing so strongly against this.

Joshua Nightshade

Did you read the link?

Mono is NOT developed by Microsoft.

All you're saying about Borland comes from one link on a blog, again, titled "Conspiracy Theories."

This is all aside from the fact that what you said initially had little to do with .net or anything and was:

Which clearly is something completely different from what you really meant. 10 years ago I never saw any such link whatsoever.

.net is a bunch of APIs for software interaction in WINDOWS. Not other operating systems.

Harvey Swenson

You can use google just as well as I can josh, I pulled that link a long long time ago to explain a situation. I was using borland products when all this happened so the link is not how I knew this and I'm not going to go grab 50 links for you just to prove MS are the POS company I think they are since you'll just troll something else.

I'll try and explain it as simply as I can for you : Borland was developing it's version of .Net -> Microsoft took Borlands Staff -> Microsoft Developed .Net -> Ex Borland Staff Says to Bill this stuff is patented we can't release it -> Microsoft buys Borland Patents and forces borland to ignore them -> Microsoft Releases .Net -> Microsoft Releases CLI -> Novell Develop Open Source .Net called Mono -> Mono magically works on a host of operating systems

Had Borland been able to release the product themselves, there would have essentially been Mono built into an ide that would work on Linux, Mac, Windows et al

And thats it from me since I'm going to bed, go have a party thinking microsoft is the saviour of the universe

Joshua Nightshade

I'm not going to google to validate something you've said. Everything I just looked up contradicts what you've posted.

There's no need for the various personal attacks because you're unable to back up your arguments.

You still don't understand what .net is, and thus you don't understand what Mono is either.

I don't feel you really know what you're talking about, and you either have a wildly misplaced idea of things or are just using hyperbole. Given your estimates on the veracity of pirated versions of Windows and other things you've posted here it's way off base. You initially said ten years ago it was possible to develop software in Windows that worked in other OSes with nothing other than a checkbox. I've never heard of such a thing before. Since then you've dropped that line in favor of some extrapolation that .net (which again is Microsoft's APIs for Windows) was some Borg-program done by someone else, and if Microsoft hadn't developed those APIs we would live in a glorious free world of programming bliss.

Brenda Archer

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but I have the impression the use of Windows by government agencies is mainly a U.S. thing and uncommon elsewhere, mainly over concerns over expense and security. It's no huge secret MS worked carefully with the US gov't when working out the security model.

For example, I recall someone from the Brazilian government pointing out they use a lot of Linux, mainly out of concerns about expense.

Between all these governments and everyone who needs to be a legitimate OS user without paying American-style luxury prices, there's a significant natural market for Linux that isn't going anywhere anytime soon. As you know, it's mainly the U.S. that's so Windows-centric.

Opera Mini runs very well on my three year old refurbished Nokia and I love it. Whether or not I can get a connection from AT&T is always hit or miss, though that's true whether I'm trying to use Opera Mini or the complete POS browser in MEdiaNet.

Joshua Nightshade

Other countries don't use Windows as much because the licensing cost is high. Linux is free, you'll never beat free if you have the time and patience to put up with the learning curve.

Where they aren't using Linux, they're using pirated Microsoft products. China especially is endemic of that, I read a study once showing that the majority of software in Chinese offices is pirated.

Chalice Yao

/me corrects! Alot of governments are using Windows-based systems, and usually it's a hot media fuzz in IT news when one of them switches to Linux. Alot of them are doing that lately tho. There's Brazil, China, India. Not really small fish. A few cities here in germany have switched to Linux-based PCs for administration.

But all in all, the market of OSes among governments is pretty windows-centric, at least when it comes to offices and administration. Word and Excel are still more common than Openoffice. Servers tend to be a different animal.

__________________
"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?" - George Carlin

Harvey Swenson

I think you think there's something magical about the windows api. .Net wasn't even part of xp, it was tacked on later, all it is are a set of libraries and it's called an api because it's distributed with and used by windows. With xp it wasn't a windows api it was a separate install and then later a forced install because MS were using it in service packs (at which time it became a windows api but essentially it's a development framework and set of libraries).

Now it's a standard part of windows but even so, only a small part of .Net is specific to windows. If it wasn't, there would be no point developing mono. Additionally, not all of the .Net framework is distributed with windows and developers have access to various extensions which require seperate distribution.

Silverlight is also MS's web based extentions of .Net which works with windows and mac.

As for mono being built by 'some guy'. Novell is a close partner of microsoft, and that 'guy' is working closely with Microsoft developing mono (closely as in, in their offices getting all the help he needs). If Microsoft bundled mono instead of .Net, all of a sudden mono would be part of the windows api.

When compiling software it's just as easy to embed libraries in the program code or to distribute them as seperate libraries. So if it's .Net or mono or .Borland whatever, it doesnt matter, they work the same except that .Net is now distributed with windows so there's no point in embedding or redistributing it.

I haven't dropped the line that if borland had developed/distributed these libraries that it could have made cross compilation possible. You and Chalice went off telling me how it couldn't possibly ever happen blah blah blah which is when I brought in .Net and mono. The system does exist, it just seems impossible for you to believe that it's a borland product rather than a microsoft one.

Considering that Microsoft took all of Borland's R&D staff, and their patents and .Net works exactly like previous Borland libraries and nothing like Microsoft libraries (Microsoft was pushing mfc at this time. .Net was a complete backflip), I find it quite a stretch to believe it wasn't originally a Borland product. Especially considering how comfortable Microsoft are at stealing technology.

Companies absorb other companies technologies all the time and Microsoft is an expert at it (with or without permission) and yet in this instance you are arguing that it's a conspiracy and couldn't possibly have happened.

My original point was that I dislike Microsoft for a number of reasons, One is because of what they did to Borland and another is because they stifle competition. I used the previous link because it showed how Microsoft stole R&D staff, stole intellectual property and forced a company to only work for windows, and it did so by destroying a companies development capability, forcing legal action and then guaranteeing certain behaviour by preventing them going bankrupt by giving them $125 Million.

I didnt find a link and then make up a post about it. I wrote what I felt and then later found a link as an example and it's hardly surprising you didnt know about it since you said you were 12 and the web was just a baby at the time.


Some links regarding Microsoft's behaviour :


Boycott Novell » Microsoft Blast from the Past: Lawsuits and Fraud

Boycott Novell » Eye on Microsoft: Assortment of Key Observations

Boycott Novell » How Microsoft May Deal with European Antitrust: Mouthpieces

Boycott Novell » Microsoft’s Brad Silverberg: “Cut Those F*ckers Offâ€�

Boycott Novell » Microsoft Studies How to Use Intellectual Property Against GNU/Linux

Boycott Novell » Microsoft Tries to ‘Surrogate’ Free Software with Windows-only, Patent-encumbered, Microsoft-controlled ‘Open Source’

Boycott Novell » More Proof That Novell is a Microsoft and OOXML Puppet

Boycott Novell » Gary M. Stewart (aka “Flatfishâ€�) About Microsoft AstroTurfing: “It’s made me A LOT of money….â€�

Boycott Novell » Keeping Abreast of Microsoft’s Latest Lies About OOXML

Boycott Novell » Microsoft’s Latest Smear Campaign: ‘Disobedient’ Chairperson in India Targeted

this one I quite like because it appears to happen quite a lot on this forum

Boycott Novell » Quick Mention: Rebuttal to Stereotypes and Name-calling


Since the above links all come from one source, here are a few more

Microsoft stealing Borland talent?

Borland sues Microsoft over brain drain - CNET News

Borland sues MS over staff poaching - ZDNet.co.uk

Microsoft loses key patent ruling | Tech News on ZDNet

MacDailyNews - Microsoft settles music download patent infringement suit with E-Data; Apple in talks

Microsoft the Company

More Patent Pain - Faster Forward

Groklaw - Microsoft Litigation





-----

As for pirated software, My point was that current pirate copies of windows are beneficial to Microsoft and IF Microsoft actually eradicated windows piracy, it would simply push people to alternatives such as linux.

I'm quite surprised you didn't know the extent of windows piracy though since the reason you have to ring up and re-authorise versions is due to and a counter to software piracy even though it's totally ineffective and just a pita. Regardless, even if you don't believe windows piracy is a problem, Microsoft spend a lot of money fighting it.

As for everyone having a legitimate version of windows since they've bought a pc.

It's not true, and the most obvious one of these I guess is that some people build their own pc's, although I would guess this is a fairly small percentage.

Some other reasons though are that windows if offered as an additional purchase at pc stores so some people choose against it, or the legitimate copy they think they're purchasing might not be legitimate at all.

Additionally people upgrade their OS without upgrading their computer at which point the legitimacy of their original version of windows is irrelevant.

here's a link to the disabling functionality in vista to counter piracy I mentioned earlier Microsoft Places Its Vista Anti-Piracy Concerns Above User Security - Computerworld Blogs



More Links?

Only 244 copies of Genuine Windows Vista sold in China - Newlaunches.com

Microsoft reveals piracy battle plan for the UK • The Register

Microsoft UK Press Centre - PR03586

This one you might like
We Love Microsoft Software Piracy in China: Bill Gates - Digital Inspiration
The comment also went along with the statement that applications are moving to the web. Google's chrome browser will accelerate this move ( Microsoft Watch - Web Services & Browser - Chrome: The Google OS ) helping to make the choice of OS irrelevant which is why Microsoft should concentrate on comforming to standards rather than trying to force people into using windows because if they don't people will simply stop using IE and windows altogether since they won't be able to visit the websites they want.

Joshua Nightshade

Way too long to read all of that.

Silverlight is Microsoft's attempt to compete with Flash.

The Borland thing is completely obscure, and you keep, again, saying that Novell did it. They did NOT. Someone ELSE did, and Novell came into running it later. Mono came out in 2004, three years after .net.

Blah blah blah blah. I'm not convinced by a wall of text or a bunch of links going back to software conspiracy theory pages.

Your link about the piracy disabling-- thanks. So they shut off their extra software if you don't have a legit copy. Poor people, how horrible!

This comment sums up the whole thing very well:

Microsoft Places Its Vista Anti-Piracy Concerns Above User Security - Computerworld Blogs

You have a bug in your ass about something Microsoft may or may not have done ten years ago, and won't move on. They're a business. They will do business things to survive. They're not your friends, they're not your mom, why get butthurt about it?

Joshua Nightshade

I also haven't said anything whatsoever about anything regarding Borland "couldn't possibly have happened." I've said, who cares? If they did something illegal, they could have been smacked for it. Settling a lawsuit with someone that gives them access to the technology you've developed isn't criminal, whether it makes you cry yourself to sleep at night or not.

You have some bizarrely warped idea of what .net is, but whether it was something Microsoft did or something Borland did or something divinely inspired by Jesus-- who cares? What difference does it make? You were talking like Borland had made some magic machine that made all code work in all operating systems and the big Microsoft bully ruined it. That's obviously not what happened at all, no such magic device existed before or after.

Who cares?

Harvey Swenson

The Australian Govt used to be all windows but is/has changed to Linux federally and I think at state level too apart from a few outstanding contracts with Microsoft.

I believe but can't verify that the Victorian education department is renewing it's contract with Microsoft next year and I think it's the only one.

As an aside, the Microsoft corporate sales team only has 1 sales rep left working for them in Sydney as far as I know and he's only remaining because of the contract with Victoria. (this is a rumour of a rumour btw so no links since friends don't have url's on their foreheads)

From an Australian Govt point of view I think the change is essentially because of the support available for Linux now otherwise they would have changed over a long time ago.

Harvey Swenson

.Net is a framework and a set of libraries that are used by windows

mono is a framework and a set of libraries that can be used by a host of operating systems

An api is a set of libraries. The windows api is a set of libraries that windows uses that can also be used by other developers.

While .Net is compiled for windows there is very little stopping it being compiled on other operating systems which is where mono and silverlight come from.

Edit:
My point is that mono could be integrated into an ide right now and make cross compilation possible and this could have happened 10 years ago even though it wouldn't have been called mono.


You asked for links and explanations

Joshua Nightshade

Yes but that was before a wall of text sapped my will to live.

Now I've lost interest in this thread and must go masturbate or something.

Before I go:

Microsoft Silverlight - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Microsoft Silverlight is a programmable web browser plugin that enables features such as animation, vector graphics and audio-video playback that characterise rich Internet applications. Version 2.0, released October 2008, brings additional interactivity features and support for .NET languages and development tools. It is compatible with multiple web browser products used on Microsoft Windows and Mac OS X operating systems. Mobile devices, starting with Windows Mobile 6 and Symbian (Series 60) phones, will also be supported.[1] A third-party free software implementation named Moonlight is under development to bring compatible functionality to GNU/Linux."

It's competing with Flash. That's it. It's unrelated to .net

Mono works in OSX and Linux and Windows because it was designed to, from the start. .net was ONLY designed for Windows, thus, it ONLY works in Windows as is. It's not a conspiracy.

Cristiano

God forbid Microsoft develop something that runs on its operating system, the source of its revenue and a huge part of its business. Can you believe they don't make it run on every OS ever made, including free ones? How evil of them to want to make money. Good thing Microsoft is the only company that does this, and all other operating systems are all compatible with one another and every program runs on everything.

__________________
"At least he died doing what he loved most - blogging on the Huffington Post" - 30 Rock

* slu stuff *

Harvey Swenson

I agree with the go masturbate and relax thing, this is kinda pointless

but

Common Language Infrastructure - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You might notice Silverlight in the middle of this along with .Net and Mono (you might want to check who sponsors mono while you're at it).

From a users point of view, sure it's a flash competitor but from a developers point of view it's a little deeper.

and I don't have a bug up my ass, you just keep disputing everything I say for no real reason especially since you can't be bothered reading the explanations when they're asked for and given .

Harvey Swenson

Except they're assisting the development of mono for a host of reasons.

Cristiano

Silverlight is Microsoft's platform for rich web application development, which competes with Flash. In its second version, .net language support was added to make it more accessible for developers. It has cross-browser support in Firefox, Safari and IE, and there is also a Linux port called Moonlight. Silverlight has been developed from the ground up as a programming platform for rich media applications, unlike Flash, which is an animation program that has had programming fused onto it.