/jp/ - Otaku Culture

SPSS.

iTunes, Garage Band, Safari... and don't forget Skype, so you can talk to all your otaku friends xD

Perfect Dark
PxTone

moebuntu

Nigger that's kawaii.

VLC
Steam

>>11562092
Wideriser

>>11562147
I googled this out of curiosity, and the only result pointed me to a thread on /g/ from a year ago with a dead link.

I don't really want the program, but I'm impressed you kept something so obscure.

>>11562187
I'm the author of this program.

>>11562204
shieet. I just realised that it's almost 2 yrs old. Time flies fast...

>>11562204

Get the back to /g/ crossie

>>11562147
HURR LOOK AT ME I MADE A FRONT-END FOR IMAGEMAGICK IN LE C# I'M SUCH AN EXPERT PROGRAMMER ecksdee

>>11562213
go back to reddit

Moebuntu gtk and icon themes.

>>11562213
Its like you aren't allowed to make anything without some faggot crying how inept he is in doing anything productive with his time.

>>11562218
>C#

No I agree you are a fucking faggot. I'm mad too. Make it in something other than Microsoft_Dick_Up_Your_Ass language.

>>11562218
This is how people learn, though. If we praised every production, there would be no reason to put effort into things.

If someone does well, I'll tell them. If someone can do better, I'll tell them. Personally, I'd prefer honest criticism to validation.

>>11562225
I agree, however how the hell is that criticism?

>>11562217
Hearts and pink? Nigga I'm not a gay faggot.

>>11562213
>>11562223
Bad news for you. I wrote it in visual basic.

>>11562223
Why are you so fucking butthurt someone used a program you don't like?

>>11562240
I'm not butthurt about someone using the program.

I'm mad because it's written in C#, which is developed and controlled by Microsoft and implements DRM, ridicolous proprietary licensing on a programming language, and every single attempt possible to make a lock-in where it's windows only. This on top of the fact you have better choices that _also_ don't do that stupid crap.

>>11562255
Haha check out this nerd who has been seduced by the free software cult.

I can smell the "MUH ACTIVISM!" all the way from here.

>>11562255
There is "windows only" about C#, stop being such a fag.

>>11562273
But Mono is an incomplete implementation, and that's somehow Microsoft's fault! Just like Adobe and Flash! And Microsoft and OOXML, even though it's an open standard and you can download all the documentation for free.

Freetards just hate the big, bad corporations, then come up with excuses later. They even hate Sun and Apple, who are pretty major players in open source/free software and responsible for a lot of those projects working in the first place.

>>11562273
I know you can use Mono.

The fact is that Microsoft has done everything in their power to make it locked-in to their proprietary jail of an operating system, and even though you can use Mono, the thing is that ultimately C# is controlled by Microsoft. At any time in the future they could destroy every piece of free software that was written in C# with just a change in licensing, they could make it so it could only legally run on Windows using their own compiler.

>even though it's an open standard and you can download all the documentation for free.

C# is not an open standard. Do you think the developers of Mono were able to get any help from Microsoft AT ALL, documentation or anything, in the process of making Mono?

>They even hate Sun

No one hates Sun. Sun was cool as shit. You're probably thinking of Oracle that killed them.

>>11562286
You shouldn't talk about computer science if you're ignorant about computer science. At the very least, you should try your chance in /g/, the home of the oblivious. I'm saying that because your ignorance is quite painful to read. Do what you want.

>>11562297
>C# is not an open standard. Do you think the developers of Mono were able to get any help from Microsoft AT ALL, documentation or anything, in the process of making Mono?

Why would Microsoft go out of their way to help them? Ken Thompson isn't contributing to gcc, nor should he have to. And this is a competing piece of software we're talking about.

Anyone in the world is free to download these standards and implement them however they want:
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/store/catalogue_tc/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=42926

It's no different to C or Java or any other programming language. You have a specification, you can implement it. If the programmers can't implement the whole thing or the team doesn't have the resources, I fail to see how that's Microsoft's fault.

>>11562301
This isn't computer science, it's politics.

>>11562297
>The fact is that Microsoft has done everything in their power to make it locked-in to their proprietary jail of an operating system, and even though you can use Mono, the thing is that ultimately C# is controlled by Microsoft.

There is literally nothing Microsoft can do to stop you from compiling C# code to your own open source compiler. Of course they make THEIR OWN compiler for windows, but that doesn't mean you can't take the language and implement it's features yourself with your own compiler.

> At any time in the future they could destroy every piece of free software that was written in C# with just a change in licensing, they could make it so it could only legally run on Windows using their own compiler.

No they can't.


>even though it's an open standard and you can download all the documentation for free.

I never said this or anything about sun.


Anything and everything good about C# can simply be implemented in your own language C* if you wanted to. There is nothing inherently wrong with the language and it's used because as a language it is one of the cleanest most elegant languages that has been worked with. Even if Microsoft did somehow successfully stop anybody from compiling C# code with their own compiler (lel) C* would just appear that is almost exactly like C# but open.

Also note, there is no logical reason for Microsoft to ever stop people from compiling C# code how and where they want to. The way it works now just makes people more inclined to use it and more inclined to have programs run on windows.

>>11562310
I'm not saying they should go out of their way to help them, but they shouldn't go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for them. Which is what they have always done.

>It's no different to C or Java or any other programming language. You have a specification, you can implement it. If the programmers can't implement the whole thing or the team doesn't have the resources, I fail to see how that's Microsoft's fault.

It is. C and Java are free, flexible, modifiable, cross-platform, open, and don't come with a corporation's dick up your ass. (No, not even Oracle's) C# is the closest thing you're ever going to come to a "proprietary programming language", because it really is. They've done everything in their power to make it windows only.

>>11562312
>There is literally nothing Microsoft can do to stop you from compiling C# code to your own open source compiler. Of course they make THEIR OWN compiler for windows, but that doesn't mean you can't take the language and implement it's features yourself with your own compiler.

Yes they absolutely could. There have been even more ridicolous software patents and licensing than that.

>No they can't.

Yes they can.

>Also note, there is no logical reason for Microsoft to ever stop people from compiling C# code how and where they want to. The way it works now just makes people more inclined to use it and more inclined to have programs run on windows.

You don't know enough about Microsoft. The proprietary nature of all their systems is extremely anti-competitive. They have done countless things in attempt to enlarge their vendor lock-in. A good recent example would be not being able to disable secureboot, and only being allowed to boot operating systems signed by Microsoft on their ARM devices. That's just one of countless examples, the point is that if you think Mircrosoft would never try to lock-in C# to only their platform, you're a fool.

>>11562343
Please give me one example of a compiler cease and desist.

>>11562343
>I'm not saying they should go out of their way to help them, but they shouldn't go out of their way to make it as difficult as possible for them. Which is what they have always done.

They haven't done anything. Nothing has been taken away.

>>11562343
>It is. C and Java are free, flexible, modifiable, cross-platform, open, and don't come with a corporation's dick up your ass. (No, not even Oracle's) C# is the closest thing you're ever going to come to a "proprietary programming language", because it really is. They've done everything in their power to make it windows only.

It's an open standard. C was written for UNIX, you can run it on anything. There's no reason the same can't apply to C#. Not technically, not legally.

>Yes they absolutely could. There have been even more ridicolous software patents and licensing than that.
>Yes they can.

That Anon is right. Microsoft has no right to say what you can and cannot do with your C# program. It's your property. You don't need to get licensing or distribution rights from them. They can't suddenly ban all C# programs that provide access to pornography or BitTorrent.

>the point is that if you think Mircrosoft would never try to lock-in C# to only their platform, you're a fool.

Feel free to download the specification and run it on any platform you like.

As for your other examples, you don't have to use Microsoft software. No, really. They only lock you in because you opted in to that. They have every legal and even ethical right to say what you can and cannot do with their software, just as Coca-Cola has every right to keep their formula secret and stop you from distributing it.

This is why I hate the recipe analogy. If I was a chef at a famous recipe I'm under no obligation to share my recipes, especially with competitors. People who do are swell guys, but you don't have any right to know how I made my dish. Don't like it? Get the fuck out of my restaurant.

>>11562375
>chef at a famous recipe

restaurant, even.

rainmeter! theres a bunch of 2hu shit for it to make your computer look like a 2hu spaceship!

>>11562363
It doesn't have to come in the form of saying "You legally cannot use that compiler to compile C#" (Although I could see it happening).

It could come in the form of patents or licensing that makes it even harder than it has been to use C# on anything but windows with proprietary windows-only Microsoft software. Patents on things involving .NET could invoke that.

http://en.swpat.org/wiki/Example_software_patents

>>11562375
>They haven't done anything. Nothing has been taken away.

The make it harder because the only compiler made for it was proprietary. Along with them not giving out proper documentation to make one, because of course, the fact is they don't want it being used on anything but their system and their proprietary utilities. The path to making another was probably extremely hard.

This is what I mean by them going out of their way to make it as obfuscated as possible and locked into windows. However the future can only tell what they will do with ridicolous patents and licenses in the future, this is why when you rely on C#, you rely on the wish that Microsoft will not implement a patent or license that destroys your software in many cases.

>Feel free to download the specification and run it on any platform you like.

What do you mean by specification? I can't run C# on any platform I want if it was up to Microsoft, CLR is proprietary.

>As for your other examples, you don't have to use Microsoft software.

In fact I do. I don't use any fucking shitty Microsoft software on my own computers, but the fact that they snaked their shitty system into being reinstalled on every consumer computer, and thus becoming the most popular desktop OS because of it, I can't not interact with it, I cannot avoid it, I cannot ignore it.

>This is why I hate the recipe analogy.

I agree it's a shitty analogy and doesn't make sense to apply to software.

>>11562407
Ok, I'm going to say this slowly so you understand.

.Net, is owned, by Microsoft.

Mono is not owned by anyone.

Microsoft can never do anything to mono because it has nothing to do with Microsoft.

They cannot patent anything to stop you from running code on your non Microsoft shit that was written in C#.

Nothing in those patents is anything like you are proposing. Unless you have some kind of similar legal case, you are basically being a tinfoil hat conspiracy theoriest right now.

I was just passing by from /g/ and just wanted to say that this thread is more technology related than 90% of /g/

>>11562415
>They cannot patent anything to stop you from running code on your non Microsoft shit that was written in C#.

Yes they could.

Call me tinfoil hat all you want. The fact is they _could_. Because they _can_, you should not use C#, because when you do you are relying on the hopeful wish that they won't.

>>11562421
Show me one, just one, one example of anything you are talking about and I'll believe you.

What you are saying is Microsoft can patent 0's and 1's meaning they would own everything computer ever. They can't.

>>11562423
>What you are saying is Microsoft can patent 0's and 1's meaning they would own everything computer ever. They can't.

You are being kind of ridicolous by boiling it down to binary, but yes, people have literally patented software which does certain things, which when compiled, is binary.

>meaning they would own everything computer ever.

No because they haven't made every piece of software, not by far.

Here's an example of someone trying to patent the progress bar.

http://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?CC=US&NR=5301348&KC=&FT=E&locale=en_EP

If they can do this, they could surely attempt to patent things unique to C#.

ms can patent the API of c＃

oracle tried to do this with java and failed, the oracle vs google case

>>11562436
The progress bar has nothing to do with this, it's not related.

Everything in code from a programming language is just translated computer science concepts.

You can't compile something like polymorphism because it's not an actual thing. You cannot even enforce that patent. What are they patenting? They can patent the compiler THEY USED to implement the feature, but they cannot patent the idea of the feature. It's not the same as those stupid patents for design shit like progress bars or mini games in loading screens.

So Microsoft can patent .Net, but they cannot patent somebody elses own implementation of it. They can only patent things they make or want to make.

>>11562407
They can't patent prior art, especially when they've released it to the public for free anyway.

>>11562421
>They could, because they can.
Unassailable logic.

>>11562407
>The make it harder because the only compiler made for it was proprietary. Along with them not giving out proper documentation to make one, because of course, the fact is they don't want it being used on anything but their system and their proprietary utilities. The path to making another was probably extremely hard.

Wait, wait, wait, what.

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf

You see this? This is the current C specification. It tells you everything you need to write a C program/compiler/interpreter/whatever. It's like a dictionary and grammar guide for the language.

http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/files/ECMA-ST/Ecma-334.pdf

You see this? Exactly the same deal for C#.

I can write a C compiler, keep the source code to myself, and charge $2,000 for it.
You can write a C# virtual machine and give everyone the source code, under any license you chose.

>This is what I mean by them going out of their way to make it as obfuscated as possible and locked into windows. However the future can only tell what they will do with ridicolous patents and licenses in the future, this is why when you rely on C#, you rely on the wish that Microsoft will not implement a patent or license that destroys your software in many cases.

The specification is free for anybody in the world to read, evaluate, and apply. The only thing Microsoft places restrictions on is their CLR, and they're within their rights to do this. If you were talking about relying on the CLR as if there was no alternative, fine, but that isn't the case. It's like saying, "Don't use C! Intel is locking you into Intel hardware with their Intel C Compiler!"

They can't change a license after the fact, or that would defeat the point of licenses.

>>11562421
They can't. It's your code. I can't demand royalties or send you a cease and desist for a story you wrote because you scribbled it down in a notebook I made.

>>11562436
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_art

>>11562092
SAO Tools