.NET Applications

[m^(2)]

This brings up some questions: do any .NET programs here on the site work on Mac/Linux? Have you tested any?

I didn't.

I did a search and the only one that I could find was Transmute. Also, there are different downloads for each version of Transmute, which makes me wonder if you can run the Windows executable on Mac/Linux. Have you messed with this?

Nope. I don't have a Linux of Mac machine.

[webfork]

A note for .NET developers: there's an article up on Slashdot about Microsoft's interest in .NET languages dropping out.

The headline however isn't accurate: Microsoft is not backing off from .NET applications as a whole, just dynamic ones. The reason I mention is because it demonstrates how when one entity has control over a programming environment, that programming can disappear or decay when that entity loses interest. Open protocols and tools that lack ownership of a single group or individual do not have this issue; if there's interest, it can continue. Thus, if you want to learn or become more proficient in a programming language that's going to be around in 10-20 years, you should pick one that's open.

I thought this would not be a problem with Java, but other news came out about that platform also not being open and patent free.

[m^(2)]

A note for .NET developers: there's an article up on Slashdot about Microsoft's interest in .NET languages dropping out.

The headline however isn't accurate: Microsoft is not backing off from .NET applications as a whole, just dynamic ones. The reason I mention is because it demonstrates how when one entity has control over a programming environment, that programming can disappear or decay when that entity loses interest. Open protocols and tools that lack ownership of a single group or individual do not have this issue; if there's interest, it can continue. Thus, if you want to learn or become more proficient in a programming language that's going to be around in 10-20 years, you should pick one that's open.

I thought this would not be a problem with Java, but other news came out about that platform also not being open and patent free.

As you noted, they are backing off dynamic languages only, not .NET itself.
.NET will be around many many years to come and I would be very surprised if MS even noticeably reduced involvement in it any time soon.

[lyx]

Would be interesting to know if they're reducing manpower in 3rd-party non-dynamic languages too. If yes, that would mean that their future plans for .NET is to be the "Microsoft VM", not one of those "One Runtime to run them all".

As for OpenSource vs. Single-Entity. There are exceptions, but the overal tendency is that Vendor-directed projects have the issue which webfork mentioned. OpenSouce projects on the other hand suffer from the inverse problem: Lack of direction and focussed interest. As for me: I prefer a combination of both: Projects that in terms of organisation are driven by a stable centralized team, yet are opensource so that if the team drops the ball or goes into a questionable direction, it can be forked.

[SYSTEM]

I thought this would not be a problem with Java, but other news came out about that platform also not being open and patent free.

OpenJDK is 100 % open source. Precompiled binaries are currently only available for GNU/Linux, though.

This brings up some questions: do any .NET programs here on the site work on Mac/Linux? Have you tested any?

I didn't.

I did a search and the only one that I could find was Transmute. Also, there are different downloads for each version of Transmute, which makes me wonder if you can run the Windows executable on Mac/Linux. Have you messed with this?

Nope. I don't have a Linux of Mac machine.

Even if Mono enables users to run Windows executables under Linux, I haven't heard of anyone who does that. I have never used Mono and don't even know if it is installed. Native Linux executables have so big advantages (for example, automatic updating thanks to package management) that most GNU/Linux users are ready to either live without Windows-only software or reboot into Windows in order to use it.

[m^(2)]

I thought this would not be a problem with Java, but other news came out about that platform also not being open and patent free.

OpenJDK is 100 % open source. Precompiled binaries are currently only available for GNU/Linux, though.

This brings up some questions: do any .NET programs here on the site work on Mac/Linux? Have you tested any?

I didn't.

I did a search and the only one that I could find was Transmute. Also, there are different downloads for each version of Transmute, which makes me wonder if you can run the Windows executable on Mac/Linux. Have you messed with this?

Nope. I don't have a Linux of Mac machine.

Even if Mono enables users to run Windows executables under Linux, I haven't heard of anyone who does that. I have never used Mono and don't even know if it is installed. Native Linux executables have so big advantages (for example, automatic updating thanks to package management) that most GNU/Linux users are ready to either live without Windows-only software or reboot into Windows in order to use it.

.NET and Windows executables are two related, yet very distinctive things.
I know some Linux users who use Wine / Cedega to run Windows executables. Actually from the few friends of mine that run Linux, almost all (or all, dunno) do.
I don't know anybody who uses Mono to run .NET apps on Linux, though I've met several .NET developers who tested their code against Mono.

[cib]

I think that this question is one that goes beyond the "portable" controversy. .NET may be available on all systems at some point. Java may take over computing and be available on all systems at some point.

However, as a programmer, you don't only follow trends - you set them. If you use a specific platform, you should not only ask yourself "Is this platform easy to use, and will it be available to my customers?", you should also ask yourself "Do I want to promote this platform?".

In that regard, I could agree that .NET is easy to use, and that many people will have .NET installed. However, I do not agree that it should be promoted, in the same way that I do not agree that windows should be promoted.

If you write a piece of software that only works on one specific, commercial platform, one of two things is bound to happen. Either people are going to miss out on your program because they have different preferences from you(it is sad because it happens all the time), or the commercial vendor you are supporting develops a monopoly(which, by all means, is something you don't want to support).

This is not to say that I don't want you to use .NET - You should just keep in mind that there are disadvantages to doing so. Disadvantages such as not appearing on a database for portable apps. Live with it.

[webfork]

However, as a programmer, you don't only follow trends - you set them.

Absolutely. This is one of the basic reasons of why developers create software, of which there are many. However, sometimes developers need a program to do something so they build it using the tools they have available to do it as quickly as possible. Happily, many release it as freeware and I appreciate that, whatever language they use.

However, it certainly looks good on your resume to point out that you produced software 10 years ago that people are still actively using. Two ways to do that are to make it portable / self-contained and to use open source and protocols. Portable means it can be more easily emulated and open means someone else can rewrite it to work on another system, perhaps one you don't have time to write for. Users should look for these elements as well since they increase the staying power of software and we don't have to learn a whole new program with a new interface every 5 years.

As a result, using .NET libraries that are not open with a portability that's at best unclear means restricting your software in the long term.

.NET will be around many many years to come and I would be very surprised if MS even noticeably reduced involvement in it any time soon.

I think the assumption that as long as it "makes money, Microsoft will continue to support it (source)” but they have done it before with VB and alienated a lot of developers. They abandoned IE 6 at the height of its popularity and presumably any lasting control of internet standards despite their own internal Internet Tidal Wave memo. As with the Ruby project, the talented developers working on this software may be put to another project with changes in priorities or leadership.

Edit: a friend of mine pointed me to another very recent example of Microsoft walking away from a project despite considerable ($1 billion) investment: Microsoft KIN.

[lyx]

Unfortunatelly, the "staying power" not just depends on the software and license. Both may be a prerequisite, but without constant strong interrest/support from the maintainers or the audience, those nice downloads will simply vanish from the surface of the planet. The internet is not a reliable longterm datastore. Here's something to try: go to the websites of your favorite opensource applications, note how "big" the interest from the maintainer/fans is - then check for binary and source downloads of older versions And no: The newest version doesn't usually contain all the benefits of older versions. An app that may once have been compilable on X, may in its current version no longer support that target.

Bottom line: unless there are enough people interested in something or you do have an own backup, software simply stops being available.

Similiar conditions apply to future development and porting - nothing happens unless someone is interested enough to do it. Just because a lot of people COULD do something doesnt automatically make that happen. This argument is what mainly backs my earlier comment about what kind of project-style i prefer: Without stable interest, not much gets done.

"Software" doesn't have staying power. People's interest in a particular software is staying power - the tech just sets a cap on what can be done IF the required interest and manpower is there.

_________________________

As for microsofts interest in .NET: NET and its related frameworks are not just important to MS - they are perhaps more important to them than anything else. Even more important than windows. Middleware and frameworks are microsofts desired monopoly, and NET is central to their current plans. They gave up on the OS-monopoly many years ago: Sure, windows is still important to them, but mostly as a leverage to bundle middleware. To MS, it's not about "does it run on windows?" but instead "does it run on the middleware that is controlled by us".

I'm kinda amused that so many people haven't noticed this happening in all those years. Why on earth do you think that MS is pushing .NET so hard and wiring it to other MS middleware so that you get locked into a dependency-web of MS-middleware? I mean, its not like MS made any secret about this intention, and high profile people in the industry predicted this years ago (anyone remember that Joel on Software article "How MS lost the API-War"?).

CIB's remark regarding support and promotion was more spot-on than he perhaps realized. This isn't about OS-wars - it's about the "Sub-OSes" that run on top of existing OSes and abstract those away. It's about "software-platforms", not operating systems - always has been (back then, it was just that the platform (the windows API) was close to the OS), and still is.

[webfork]

Note: I know this open concept is sliding away from the original topic, but I didn't quite feel this was a unique enough to move to a new thread.

unless there are enough people interested in something or you do have an own backup, software simply stops being available

Really? Have you been to Sourceforge? Have you seen the list of open projects from 10 years ago? Perhaps those specific projects aren't active anymore, but that doesn't mean the code hasn't found a home elsewhere.

The newest version doesn't usually contain all the benefits of older versions. An app that may once have been compilable on X, may in its current version no longer support that target.

What you describe is a program with all software, not just those projects with open code. Its not clear what will happen when a maintainer of an open project walks away. Its very clear what happens when a project ends for closed source projects: activity freezes at the point when its abandoned. If they see fit to remove the binaries and there are no up-to-date mirrors, that goes away too as it did here on PFW with AAST and Marxio Timer.

Without stable interest, not much gets done.

Again, a problem with all software, not just one with open code. If there's no interest in a project for a Winston Churchill trivia game, who cares if it dies? However, if YOU are interested in a project, YOU have at least the ability to bring a project back to life. Even a little interest in a slow-moving project is better than no activity in a dead project.

[lyx]

Current subdiscussion split off to here:
http://www.portablefreeware.com/forums/ ... f=1&t=6763

[webfork]

Old thread update:

http://portableapps.com/news/2015-09-10 ... 1-released

New PA Platform indicates something to do with dotNET apps, though it's not clear what. To this point (as noted in the thread above) they've avoided dotNET.

[webfork]

New PA Platform indicates something to do with dotNET apps, though it's not clear what. To this point (as noted in the thread above) they've avoided dotNET.

As user shnbwmn mentioned in the PA entry, PortableApps is officially adding .NET apps:

To start things off, we've released KeePass Professional Portable 2.39 on the site and in the app store. It can be automatically installed and updated alongside all your other favorite apps and additional .NET apps will be released soon.

https://portableapps.com/news/2018-05-0 ... 0-released

If I had to guess, I'd say Greenshot is up next. That program is definitely my go-to program for easy and fast screenshots.