IRC channel logs

<pabs3>AwesomeAdam54321: isn't mono dead and replaced by the official FOSS Microsoft .NET stack?

<AwesomeAdam54321>pabs3: I'm not sure about that, I'm confused whether mono or .NET is offical

<muurkha>mono doesn't look dead: https://github.com/mono/mono/

<muurkha>just not super active

<muurkha>I hadn't heard Microsoft had an official FOSS .NET stack

<muurkha>timeouts on https://jenkins.mono-project.com/job/test-mono-mainline-linux/label=debian-9-amd64 are a bit alarming

<drakonis>dotnet runtime though

<drakonis>debian 9?

<drakonis>isnt debian at 12 now?

<muurkha>also that

<drakonis>i'm not really expecting mono to stay usable nowadays

<drakonis> https://github.com/mono/mono

<drakonis>oops, already linked

<muurkha>it seems to work fine?

<muurkha>I mean why wouldn't it stay usable?

<drakonis>also, the jenkins pipeline has gone private some time ago

<drakonis>the one you should check is azure

<drakonis>but the url seems broken too

<drakonis>muurkha: folks have been writing code that is incompatible with mono but not with dotnet core

<muurkha>oh, so new versions of .NET libraries might not work

<drakonis>yes

<muurkha>is dotnet core open-source?

<drakonis>yes it is

<drakonis> https://github.com/dotnet/

<drakonis>it has a very complicated bootstrap chain iirc

<drakonis>they dont call it dotnet these days, its just dotnet

<drakonis>mono is pretty great for running code that requires the runtime that predates this

<muurkha>they don't call it what?

<drakonis>it used to be "dotnet core" for some time

<drakonis>before they started calling it ".net" on materials

<drakonis>rather

<drakonis>they dropped the "core" from the name

<pabs3>AwesomeAdam54321: mono is the re-implementation of earlier .NET by FOSS folks, from before Microsoft released a FOSS .NET implementation

<emilytrau[m]>NixOS bootstrap update – we have GCC 2! https://github.com/NixOS/nixpkgs/pull/239694

<janneke>emilytrau[m]: well done!

<janneke>that's quite a milestone, it should get (much) easier after this

<sam_>nice!

<kerravon>i thought of another option with the CDROM. You could combine the microscope with an old-fashioned camera and then blow up the picture and overlay it with the expected bit pattern (you can write a program to generate this - but manually check that the program is producing the correct result - the program can explain where the bits are so that it is

<kerravon>easier to verify)

IRC channel logs

2023-06-26.log