Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 1st Apr 2005 10:58 UTC
Novell and Ximian One of the highlights of Joe Barr's trip to Salt lake City last month for BrainShare 2005 was the opportunity to interview Miguel de Icaza, a mercurial star of the free software movement who has been responsible for hugely successful projects and also founded his own company with Nat Friedman that was later acquired by Novell.
Order by: Score:
Funny read
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 11:23 UTC

I can not believe that no one has commented on this article. Its a nice easy ready. Enjoy.

not correct
by Frank on Fri 1st Apr 2005 11:41 UTC

FUD!

It's not true that SuSE is only a packaging unit. SuSE is actively developing KDE with more that 10 developers. KDE is the most important desktop in europe with a lot of users and corporate customers and a strategic product of Novell. Novell is for example sponsoring the development of Kontact, the KDE groupware client.

You can ask each of the over 300 SuSE employees of you are interested in the details.

I'm very disappointed of Miguel.

Re: Funny read
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 11:43 UTC

Easy read? It might not be bad to hear, but the pauses and structure of his responces are difficult to follow.

Business model?
by Richard Dale on Fri 1st Apr 2005 12:05 UTC

I think Mono is pretty impressive technically, but I've never seen any explanation of how Novell expect to make any money out of it.

Photo album software that you give away is very nice, and a search utility with a fairly simple UI is nice too.

Where's the money?

re: Business model?
by JCooper on Fri 1st Apr 2005 12:21 UTC

In the key of Mr Ballmer:

"Support, support, support, support..."

I think basing their iFolder and other products on mono is a good move - they're making money by saving time on development (thanks to the class library etc), making the code easier to maintain, and providing modern applications as part of their desktop product.

Mono will also be a key part of NLD, so customers can purchase their desktop knowing that mono will always work - and they won't have to rely on forums etc trying to get an rpm/deb/autopackage/etc working on their distro of choice.

re: Business model?
by Richard Dale on Fri 1st Apr 2005 12:37 UTC

they're making money by saving time on development (thanks to the class library etc), making the code easier to maintain, and providing modern applications as part of their desktop product..

That doesn't make money in itself.

I think C# is too complicated for most programmers to use. I'm sure it's easier to program GTK#, than GTK in C, but I just can't see normal programmers mastering anonymous delegates, transparent proxies and all that stuff. It will just go right over the top of their heads.

I don't understand why someone isn't cloning VB6 for Linux. Microsoft hasn't got a very good upgrade story to tell with a VB6 to VB.NET transition, the conversion tools aren't very good. There are millions of lines of VB 6 code out there. So why not have a dual licensed VB 6 clone, both GPL'd and a Commercially licensed version like Trolltech?

Re: re: Business model?
by David on Fri 1st Apr 2005 12:57 UTC

In the key of Mr Ballmer:

"Support, support, support, support..."


Ballmer never said that - it was developers. Besides, I don't see this Mono support business being a rip-roaring success any time soon (it's been four/five years and counting). Serious development tools need serious investment, and you're just not going to get what you need from that kind of business model. I sensed a lot of heavy scepticism from Novell employees who've been at the company for a while at Brainshare and in all the keynotes about Mono. At the moment Mono is just a leech on Novell's resources.

I think basing their iFolder and other products on mono is a good move

iFolder isn't based on Mono. There's a client implementation written with Mono, but it's not a exclusively a Mono application.

Re: re: Business model?
by David on Fri 1st Apr 2005 13:04 UTC

There are millions of lines of VB 6 code out there. So why not have a dual licensed VB 6 clone,

I don't know either. .Net is way too complicated for a lot of stuff people want to do, and I just wonder what Microsoft is going to do with all that VBA/Office/macro code out there because VB.Net just doesn't fit that at all.

both GPL'd and a Commercially licensed version like Trolltech?

Well that would be the sensible way of funding a working, finished product, but then again, we're not dealing with sensible people here.

RE: re: Business model?
by Menno Duursma on Fri 1st Apr 2005 13:06 UTC

KBasic clames VB6 syntax compatibility (dunno if that is indeed the case though, as i haven't tried/used it) but:
http://www.kbasic.org/

Re: not correct
by Rick Dekkard on Fri 1st Apr 2005 13:44 UTC

It's not true that SuSE is only a packaging unit.

Right. That's not what Miguel said, anyway:

SUSE also does development but they mostly do development around the kernel, the libraries, X server, but not much in the way of new applications. The SUSE side of the house is pretty much a packaging thing.

Last I checked, Suse was a linux distro. So it makes sense that out of the 300 Suse employees, only 10 or so do KDE development.

Distros' main driving force is providing a set of existing applications to final client. So what Miguel said could be applied to Redhat, for example. It's just common sense.

VB6 Support
by Jonathan Pryor on Fri 1st Apr 2005 13:48 UTC

Someone had suggested writing VB6 support to the Mono mailing lists. The general consensus was that this would be difficult, since the VB6 language isn't the problem, but support for existing code is. Existing code which will rely on existing 3rd party COM objects, which won't necessarily run under Linux.

If you want VB6 support, you need Wine support.

See also: http://lists.ximian.com/archives/public/mono-list/2005-March/026295...

Like dbase
by Red Globule on Fri 1st Apr 2005 13:49 UTC

In the late 80', Ashton Tate said exactly the same thing "There are millions lines of dbase, programers can't migrate to something else". Then Access was out 1993.
The lesson is that if a new and better product is launched, folks migrate. I thing .net is better. You are not forced to use anonymous delegates, transparent proxies, like in C++ your are not forced to create templates. Very few C++ developpers write templates, they only use the stl.

Not the reality...
by tony on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:12 UTC

"It was always the goal to use it as a way of migrating from Windows to Linux."

There are not a lot .net development now...
the migrations will not be done immediately

beagle was done with mono and?

kde has something similar but use c++

does gnome will entirely bet on mono?

everybody know, red hat don't seem to like mono... it's prefer java...

what enterprise market use? java

does enterprise will spend $$$ to migrate to .net?
do think so, they invested too much money

another tries of Michel to sell his mono to us... very pathetic

kde will not use mono, gnome will surely not use mono, red hat will not use mono...

mono is dedicated to the little programmer?

RE:David
by karl on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:19 UTC

Don't you ever get tired of posting the same stuff ? More often than not you have been shown to not know what you are talking about. Yet you want everyone to believe that *you* know the *true* story about Novell/SuSE/KDE/Mono...It does get really old after a while-can't you find something more productive to do than troll and spread misinformation. Unfortunately by even responding to you I end up participating in the trolling....

I have no problems with you expressing your opinions about mono or about Novell-but the way you phrase things makes it sounds like you have some kind of insider knoweldge which noone else is privy to-and as has been repeeatedly shown -you have no insider knowledge, you do not know what is going on inside of Novell, at least anymore than anyone else who does not work there does.

You keep going on about 'Serious developments tools' or 'enterpise capability' and such stuff. I watched the video of Brainshare that was relased on the net. What I saw was anything but skepticism about mono. Miguel and Nat and the other young man, whose name I have forgotten, were presented on stage as the brightest young minds at Novell. The man who was doing the presenting was visibily proud of these young men and what they are doing.

The iFolder server is utterly useless without iFolder clients. The iFolder clients are written in mono. Saying that iFolder is 'not exlcusively a mono application' is utter nonsense. Mono is fundamental to iFolder-fundamental in the sense that each and every user who uses iFolder must use the mono-built iFolder client application. But then again why should I waste my time arguing about such childishness with you -you have been rebuffed time and again by employees of Novell who are actually doing the work.


enough said...

don't feed the trolls....

re: Like dbase
by tony on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:22 UTC

"I thing .net is better."

maybe... but majority of programmer use Java...

does all programmer will be converted to mono?

hahaha don't think

why very very few school, university, college teach .net to their student?

because the market is C++ and Java

Patents?
by Eric Warnke on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:28 UTC


Once again I reinterate... mono is developed at the whim of MS because they are stepping all over MS's patents with no patent grant from them. Java's standards include a patent grant for any implementation that follows the standards.

I can hear them now laughing their heads off as noevl and others start including it in the base system... then MS will have a clear patent claim against "linux" ( since the media can not seem to tell the diffrence between the kernel and the hundreds of diffrent distros ).

KDE based on Mono...
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:30 UTC
YOU'VE BEEN HAD
by youknowmewell on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:34 UTC

HAVE A NICE DAY HAHA! Osnews is much more subtle and believable than slashdot!

David..
by Bert Plat on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:36 UTC

iFolder isn't based on Mono. There's a client implementation written with Mono, but it's not a exclusively a Mono application.

Last time I checked, the server side uses Mono, too. And Apache. And Tomcat. So, no, I don't think iFolder is exclusively a Mono application, but I'd say it's definitely based on Mono, wouldn't you say?

Well
by Legend on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:37 UTC

Everyone who can code in Java should have no problem to write C# apps, too, the two are very extremely similiar, except for the additional features of C#, but I didn't say perfect C# apps! ;)

And .NET complicated? Come on, at least on Windows, you go there and everything you need is already there, basically no fiddling with libraries, legacy APIs, or a funky-template based STL (or other class based on complicated templates) necessary. The same applies to Java.

RE: Well
by Tony on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:43 UTC

"Everyone who can code in Java should have no problem to write C# apps"

everybody know that... but the question why a java programm should switch to .net?

Always Funny
by David on Fri 1st Apr 2005 14:50 UTC

The frustration of this guy is self-evident. I wouldn't mind being a fly-on-the-wall at Novell at the moment.

SUSE also does development but they mostly do development around the kernel, the libraries, X server, but not much in the way of new applications. The SUSE side of the house is pretty much a packaging thing.

Ooooo! Sorry Miguel, but Suse happens to be the Enterprise Linux Division of Novell. Novell is a server company first and foremost, that's where their income is and that's where all their development is happening. To label Suse as a packaging division is just out and out desperation - for whatever reason.

In all the stuff at Brainshare (and I saw a lot, especially along with the keynotes) I didn't get the impression in any way that Mono was somehow the development centre of Novell. Exactly the opposite, to be honest. All of the web application stuff they use is Java, and I got blank looks about developing with ASP.Net and Mono.

that people were telling her that they couldn't migrate to Linux because they've got all this dot net stuff

Very, very few people actually depend a great deal on .Net currently. The vast majority of people are looking at how they're going to migrate to MS .Net, or other avenues they might take. The notion that somehow they're going to spend all that time and effort porting to .Net, and then say "Hey, I'll move to Linux!", is just lunacy.

She said she tells them, "Well, Mono is being ported to NetWare, so you can."

That's wrong. Mono is not being ported to Netware because Netware now exists on top of Linux and Mono already runs on Linux. It would be fairly pointless if Mono were being ported to Netware itself, but nothing would surprise me here.

Like, for example, NetWare 7.1 just announced, on Monday, it includes Mono.

Which does what inside Netware, exactly? Besides, there's no such thing as Netware 7.1 - it was renamed Open Enterprise Server early last year. Netware is merely a component of it.

A photo management application, built with Mono. Our Beagle desktop search, built with Mono.

I'd hardly call a piece of photo album software and a front-end for a search tool new applications. From what I saw, there aren't any real applications to show. Where are the Mono applications that Novell actually depends on? The keynote shone no light on that whatsoever. Seriously, if that's all they've got to show then they should just shut it down.

Mono is a solution desperately looking for a problem, and Miguel and the Mono guys better find a use for it soon. It's open source, so it will never die, but Novell should just get shot of it because it just does nothing for them.

At least get the facts right
by Bert Plat on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:00 UTC

That's wrong. Mono is not being ported to Netware because Netware now exists on top of Linux and Mono already runs on Linux. It would be fairly pointless if Mono were being ported to Netware itself, but nothing would surprise me here.

Netware isn't sitting atop Linux (unless you count running VMWare in between); it's the Netware services that have been de-coupled from Netware and can now run on SLES9, too. iFolder 3, currently being developed, cannot run on Netware, because as yet Mono hasn't been ported to Netware.

Re: karl
by David on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:28 UTC

Don't you ever get tired of posting the same stuff ?

I get tired of people defending the same stuff for years that obviously won't ever amount to anything. I get tired of hype and just total rubbish. I just wonder when it will sink in with some people, if ever.

Yet you want everyone to believe that *you* know the *true* story about Novell/SuSE/KDE/Mono...

You just have to look at what is going on, and what happened at Brainshare. Were you there? You can't wave everything away forever by claiming "Oh, you don't know what's going on". It's there.

Unfortunately by even responding to you I end up participating in the trolling....

Oh, I really appreciate you being the bigger man here - cough, cough, cough. Give me a break.

You keep going on about 'Serious developments tools' or 'enterpise capability' and such stuff. I watched the video of Brainshare that was relased on the net. What I saw was anything but skepticism about mono.

The keynote I saw, and everything that went on besides, demonstrated nothing of any use whatsoever. Yes - 'enterprise capability' and 'serious development tools'. They do actually matter you know, and are conspicuous by their absence.

Saying that iFolder is 'not exlcusively a mono application' is utter nonsense. Mono is fundamental to iFolder-fundamental in the sense that each and every user who uses iFolder must use the mono-built iFolder client application.

A client happens to be written in Mono because someone got a bee in their bonnet about WinFS and thought "Oooo!", but a client implementation of iFolder doesn't need Mono. Saying that iFolder is written in Mono (as Nat etc. and others have said) is totally wrong because iFolder has been around for quite a while and the server side is not written with it at all. They gave the impression it was something new when a client was written with Mono.

But then again why should I waste my time arguing about such childishness with you

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but this silliness that has been going on for such a long time has really got to stop. It only hurts alternatives to Microsoft, and Linux desktops themselves when people realise that something does nothing of what it says on the tin.

you have been rebuffed time and again by employees of Novell who are actually doing the work.

You wish. Where? Many employees at Novell rebuff themselves when what they say doesn't actually happen, or doesn't happen in the way they describe at all. Many Novell employees rebuff each other.

Novell = Linux
by Raven on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:35 UTC

It's good to see that Novell is putting all it's horses in front of the Linux wagon. I think novell might turn out to be quite a helping hand getting linux into enterprises and desktop computers. To bad that Miguel thinks that SuSE is only a packaging unit.

http://bitsofnews.com

RE: Patents?
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:39 UTC

Once again I reinterate...
mono is developed at the whim of MS because they are stepping all over MS's patents with no patent grant from them.
can you please enumerate the patents? do you really think novell hasn't a hell a of layers waiting for patent litigation?

Java's standards include a patent grant for any implementation that follows the standards.
can you please explain how this protects java from MS patent litigation?

then MS will have a clear patent claim against "linux" ( since the media can not seem to tell the diffrence between the kernel and the hundreds of diffrent distros ).
can you please explain how is SCO sinking with the linux-copyrigth-infringement-boat?

and instead of spreading FUD, can you redirect people to
http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing#Could_patents_be_used_to...

re: Like dbase
by Red Globule on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:47 UTC

In university, we learn what teachers like, not what is used in the industry. At all. I learned Eiffel, lisp, prolog, etc... Who use that in the industry ? No one.
All system courses were on Linux, 90% of systems in the "real" life are under Windows.
In 2-3 years, .net/mono will be more common than Java (maybe it's already the case), but only Java will be teached at school, because teacher are anti-MS and disconnected from the reality.
After 5 years of university, and after few years in the industry, my feeling is that CS education is worthless, I would like to go back to my 18 and stop wasting my time.
I can get better results with books and the Web/

The second point is : Java is easy, .net is hard?? 90% of the core language is the same. FUD.

v ...
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 15:51 UTC
RE: Well
by Richard Dale on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:04 UTC

Everyone who can code in Java should have no problem to write C# apps, too, the two are very extremely similiar, except for the additional features of C#, but I didn't say perfect C# apps! ;)

And .NET complicated? Come on, at least on Windows, you go there and everything you need is already there, basically no fiddling with libraries, legacy APIs, or a funky-template based STL (or other class based on complicated templates) necessary. The same applies to Java.


Java is too complicated for most Java programmers. It started as a a dumbed down systems programming language, but it is getting more and more complicated. Generics and annotations are hard to understand, a lot of the apis like Swing are not designed with usability in mind.

Visual Basic was a success because it was designed with usuability as a top priority, by guys like Alan Cooper.

C# is more complicated than Java, and also a better systems programming language. The problem is that 95% of programmers aren't systems programmers. Most Visual Basic programmers would find Java too complicated let alone C#.

re: Like dbase
by tony on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:17 UTC

" In university, we learn what teachers like, not what is used in the industry.

a good university will create their courses with what industry need...

it's for that, java is so popular

java programmer is very searched in industry

"At all. I learned Eiffel, lisp, prolog, etc... Who use that in the industry ? No one.
All system courses were on Linux, 90% of systems in the "real" life are under Windows. "

you describe a bad university

university spend time to teach linux because the market want it....

there are a lot of migration to linux, industry need professional to do it

@Tony
by Kon on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:18 UTC

The market is Java because Sun sponsors schools with research grants and hardware. These 'developers' leave school and know only Java. I know it because I've seen it, I've interviewed them, etc. There was not a big Java market in 1995 either. I remember Java folks fighting hard to even be heard in many industries. However Mono as it is now (in terms of its relative infancy and certain features) is leaps and bounds ahead of what Java was in comparison. So please get your facts straight.

@ Kon
by tony on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:27 UTC

"The market is Java because Sun sponsors schools with research grants and hardware."

another message from a microsoft brainwashed guy

i think the marked is enough clever to know what is a good product...

you surely know that ms sponsors a lot of school, company... and surely you

java go out in 1995, it's normal there was not a big Java market in 1995... in 1996 everybody want to program in java...

why because is faster to develop with it than any other language

keep your lie, Miguel wannabe

Enterprise or Consumer?
by Kon on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:28 UTC

Maybe someone can comment on this with a legitimate and not b.s. answer:

"A photo management application, built with Mono. Our Beagle desktop search, built with Mono."

Novell's business model is still (last time I checked) to serve the enterprise. What value do these consumer applications have to them, besides hype to feed a marketing machine? I cannot see any enterprise customer switching to Novell because these applications exist. Looks like misappropriation of resources to me, and that can only last so long.

And ...
by Legend on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:29 UTC

And which VB6 program was a success (or at least, if looked at how well it runs, deserved to be one?)

.NET and especially Mono are, although not the newest stuff, are a good deal newer then Java - time might still change some things ...

re: Like dbase
by Red Globule on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:34 UTC

> it's for that, java is so popular

Java is popular because univerties like Sun much more than MS. It also was the first easy to learn OO language.

> there are a lot of migration to linux, industry need professional to do it

You should work in an university for writing thinks like that. Look at monster.com or jobpilot, there is _no_ job offer for linux migration. It's a myth. 95% of jobs are Windows or Unix (Sun, HP, IBM...) administration.

@Tony
by Kon on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:37 UTC

Interesting that you label me a microsoft brainwashed guy. I do not use Microsoft products - at home, work (we actually use Java for some projects), wherever. In fact, I often have to justify non-Microsoft approaches to products, since many customers are Microsoft-biased.

From your last comment I think it is fair to say that you are indeed Java brainwashed, and it is quite obvious that you are not supporting technology for its merit, but just another Java-head slamming people for thinking any different.

Faster development does not mean *better* development. It usually means *limited scope* development.

Re: KDE based on Mono...
by Anonymous on Fri 1st Apr 2005 16:55 UTC

Read http://www.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,,1448108,00.html for the whole story about Mono-based KDE.

Again, the facts
by Bert Plat on Fri 1st Apr 2005 17:11 UTC

A client happens to be written in Mono because someone got a bee in their bonnet about WinFS and thought "Oooo!", but a client implementation of iFolder doesn't need Mono. Saying that iFolder is written in Mono (as Nat etc. and others have said) is totally wrong because iFolder has been around for quite a while and the server side is not written with it at all. They gave the impression it was something new when a client was written with Mono.

Mr. Know-it-all must get his facts straightened out. If you knew anything about iFolder you'd've known that iFolder 3 has been rewritten from the ground up, and only has some functionality in common with iFolder 2. Server side iFolder 3 is Mono-based. Go download the public beta, if you don't believe me.

I don't mind David bashing Mono, or Miguel, or mount any of his other hobbyhorses, but his disregard of the facts apropos iFolder casts doubt on any of his other assertions.

university teaching
by Matt on Fri 1st Apr 2005 17:49 UTC

Well, my university teaches Java, then C/C++, then a bit of SML/OCaml, then finishes off with C++ .NET (but not C#, I'm not sure why).

"I think Mono is pretty impressive technically, but I've never seen any explanation of how Novell expect to make any money out of it. "

Novell will make money off of mono the same way RedHat makes money on working with gnome, the kernel, and a host of other opensource software. Novell will make money on mono the same way Sun makes money of off openoffice. Novell will make money the same way IBM makes money by having people work on the Linux kernel and a host of other opensource projects. Imagine where Linux will be if noone bothered to invest money on any opensource projects.

Now, I have a question for you. If you are charging an arm and a leg for Linux support and you are one of two Linux brands people trust, wouldn't you think it will be a really good way to expand your market audience and hence the ability to increase your marketshare (= making money) if you have a nice GUI and the ability to run the exact same programs the guy with 98% of the market is running and has bet his entire future on?

If it still doesn't make sense, consider this. I am a company and I have the same OS 98% of the world use on their desktop. I have x number of internal programs written in .NET. In addition, I have a whole bunch of commercial products written in .NET, maybe Office programs, Great Plains ERP, Adobe, POS software, etc. Now don't you think Novell might have a slightly easier time convincing me to change operating systems if I can actually use my existing programs?

Maybe should've bought Trolltech
by Lumbergh on Fri 1st Apr 2005 18:59 UTC

Trolltech would've cost more money than Ximian because Trolltech actually makes money (I'm presuming), but if they had tried that route then Novell could have rationalized funding more KDE development.

If they had acquired Trolltech, then they could've liberalized the Qt license to compete with Gtk+ on a level playing field and also would have had much more synergy since Suse was already a KDE shop for the most part.

At this point, KDE is a non-starter for Novell since they can't go to their customers and say, "oh by the way, there's this small norweigian company that you'll have to pay $1500/per developer/per platform to write apps for if you plan on distributing".

They could have had Mono for free and just wrote Qt/KDE bindings.

In any case, it seems that Novell has to differentiate themselves from the rest of the pack. And Miguel seems to be spot on saying that pure open source is never going to cut it.

re: tony
by Dougan on Fri 1st Apr 2005 19:36 UTC

<There are not a lot .net development now...
the migrations will not be done immediately>

Where do you post from, Afghanistan?

In the US at least the .net rush is on full speed. The IT industry is largley Microsoft-land. What do you think they're programming new apps in?

Novell and Mono
by cendrizzi on Fri 1st Apr 2005 19:41 UTC

Things being said really are off.

Novell will continue to use Java on the server as they have been doing for some time (along with C and stuff for other stuff, like Hula I believe). It's clear, however, that they are starting to use mono for all their new client side stuff.

Want proof? Look at all their new products they've redone:
1. Beagle
2. F-spot
3. iFolder
4. Zenworks (linux client, maybe windows too)

I'm sure we'll start seeing some more server stuff too with mono but I somehow doubt they'll ditch java for web stuff, just my opinion on that though.

@Red Globule
by Snake on Fri 1st Apr 2005 19:51 UTC

No Jobs LOL,

1) I work for Monster.com as teh Senior Linux Administrator for Europe.

2) The reason Job piolt doesnt have any jobs on there is because Monster Bought out Job piolt!! YES THEY DID i know i work for monster and work with the existing Linux teams ;)

There are plenty of jobs coming for linux. But people with both Sun and Linux or Developing (j2eee and java) and linux get prefernce.

@Snake
by Red Globule on Fri 1st Apr 2005 20:25 UTC

Honestly, what is the % of jobs for Linux and for Windows?

@Snake
by me on Fri 1st Apr 2005 20:42 UTC

> 2) The reason Job piolt doesnt have any jobs on there is because Monster Bought out Job piolt!! YES THEY DID i
> know i work for monster and work with the existing Linux teams ;)

Yes, they did buy jobpilot (grmph!). But that hasn't adversely affected the number of job ads on jobpilot yet, at least not for Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Eastern Europe.

Re: ...
by David on Fri 1st Apr 2005 23:05 UTC

You say a lot of thinks, but where are the proves?

Have a look at what's been said over the past few years, what's been promised, what went on when Novell acquired Ximian and how it's transpired. Unfortunately, you can only get so far with hot air and marketing.

And whats your problem with it?

Just so I'm clear - I have NO, repeat NO, problem with Mono as a programming solution or the fact that it is a very good technical achievement. Hell, I've been taking .Net code to one side and trying it all the time with Mono and from there I have a problem with the way they've went about it.

It pains me a bit that if they could have handled it better, took what was good about .Net, funded it sensibly (cheap dual-licensing etc.) stuck a finger or two up to Microsoft and went in their own direction they'd have had a reasonable amount of success.

However, they bought hook, line and sinker into the hype of .Net before .Net itself was even ready for widespread use. Arguably, it still isn't. There's a lot of people with legacy systems out there who are just sitting on them because it is unfeasible to port to .Net right now. How that's going to transpire into people porting to Mono I have really no idea. They didn't think through the reality unfortunately.

My problem is that when you go on to Microsoft's turf you have to be very careful about how you do it. Take what's good about it, and the standards, and come up with a completely different implementation that improves on it. Create your own mindshare and don't taint yourself.

Way are you so anti-mono, Miguel and Nat?

I'm not anti-Miguel and Nat. They're two very talented guys with some ideas that are obviously extremely good. Producing a .Net implementation with a compiler etc. and everything needed to go with it is certainly not a trivial thing. Hula is driven by marketing largely, but if they can make that work all power to them. What I saw demonstrated at Nat's keynote was certainly extremely useful - if it works in the way they demonstrated......

However, for that to mean anything you have to produce software and ideas that are ultimately going to make sense for where you want to put them, and they've largely fallen down there. I'm being a bit harsh there though, as there has been a lot worse in the IT industry - the way Novell used to be, for example,

You can only fool so many people so much of the time with marketing and hype unfortunately.

Linux Jobs
by Snake on Sat 2nd Apr 2005 02:24 UTC

The problem isnt the percentage, it sthe pay scale, most linux admins will get about 35-45k UK pounds this is. and normally this is 3rd line level most windows admins cover 1st and 2nd line. THe ones that do cover 3rd are normally multi skilled UNIX admins with Windows skills etc...

And the reason the jobs are rare or hard to get is becuase they dont want any person jumping into 3rd line. Secondly Linux migrations are taking place, and they prefer to train own internal people. There are a few jobs though.

check out. jobserve.com jobsite.co.uk theunixjobboard.com

Snake

Mono and i
by Miguel de Icaza on Sat 2nd Apr 2005 04:41 UTC

Both the iFolder server and the iFolder client are written in Mono.

A large portion of the ongoing scalability and reliability work of Mono has been driven by the needs of the iFolder server.

You can ask the iFolder developers directly on the iFolder mailing list.

Miguel.

Brainshare keynotes.
by Miguel de Icaza on Sat 2nd Apr 2005 04:52 UTC

David,

The brainshare keynotes are structured more or less like this: strategy and new press releases on Monday; Identity, Management and Collaboration products updates on Wednesday (the main driver for Novell customers today) and the technology session on Friday. Mono was highlighted on Friday, as well as the various Mono-based applications.

iFolder could not be demoed as Nat ran out of time and was rushed out of stage, a shame, as iFolder on MacOS looks beautiful.

The new ZenWorks client (announced on the Monday keynote) is also Mono-based.

Miguel.

Re: Mono and i
by David on Sat 2nd Apr 2005 20:02 UTC

Both the iFolder server and the iFolder client are written in Mono.

Well, the version of iFolder I've been using for quite (i.e. about 3 years) while isn't. Are you telling me this was re-written in Mono? Wow. Since the old iFolder wasn't that great at all at handling lots of load I'll tread more carefully if using something newer.

A large portion of the ongoing scalability and reliability work of Mono has been driven by the needs of the iFolder server.

I certainly bet it has. There's nothing quite like a live project. I have my doubts about it still, but that's good news.

You can ask the iFolder developers directly on the iFolder mailing list.

Nope, I believe you. I had no idea the server side had been written in Mono since iFolder was dreamed up circa 2001.

iFolder
by Miguel de Icaza on Sun 3rd Apr 2005 16:36 UTC

David,

Yes, the disconnect is that we have been talking about the upcoming iFolder 3 (www.ifolder.com) which shares only the name and the basic functionality with older iFolder versions. The new iFolder is built on top of Simias: a library to do information synchronization (file sync being only one of the uses).

The details are available at www.ifolder.com/faq.html

Various screencasts and screenshots are available here:

http://www.ifolder.com/screens.html

Miguel