OSNews

I whish mono would be included, so we could just apt-get cool mono apps like beagle and F-Spot. Better yet, I whish those cool apps weren't written with mono at all.

F-Spot is already in universe for Ubuntu Hoary. You can apt-get install beagle in Breezy already, and it's planned to be installed by default in the final release.

http://udu.wiki.ubuntu.com/Mono

Yes gthumb is great and I dont know what all the fuss about f-spot is because people talk about gthumb like it never was here.

> Yes gthumb is great and I dont know what all the fuss
> about f-spot is because people talk about gthumb like
> it never was here.

That's Marketing talk.

a) It promotes MONO which is probably intended.
b) It promotes F-Spot which was started by Ettore Perazzoli (who died some years ago).
c) It lifts Miguel's seat for another 2 places, because he was the one who continued it after Ettores dead.
d) GThumb's author is probably not l33t enough for the GNOME crowd. If it's not a tool created through nepotism then it probably will never become part of GNOME.

Mono will always lag behind the microsoft version. MS will release a new version, new language enhancements, new cool libraries and Mono will spend the next year reimplementing those. In the meantime, MS has a new .NET with oh so cool new features. Winning that race is impossible. In direct comparison, MS will always win, and that's all what MS marketing needs to make Linux look bad.

I also don't understand why re-engineering a MS produkt is a good thing while we have Java as an established solution that provides so much more and is way more mature.

Mono will always lag behind the microsoft version. MS will release a new version, new language enhancements, new cool libraries and Mono will spend the next year reimplementing those...

I don't think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not equal .Net.
We don't have to care what .Net and MS are doing, we have C# and the CLI as ISO standard (much more than we have from java) and with these two things we can create a great framework for the whole UNIX platform even with some compatibility to windows. That's simply great and it's completely independent from what MS is doing with .Net.

also don't understand why re-engineering a MS produkt is a good thing while we have Java as an established solution that provides so much more and is way more mature.

it's not a MS produkt, it's a ISO standard like many other languages (beside java). And based on this standard we can create a great platform for UNIX. We don't have to care about what MS is doing based on the standard, that's not our problem.
For example, it's the same like MS has an C compiler and Unix has an C compiler. Both has different libs, toolkits,.. for their platform but who cares? It's important that there is a standard and based on the standard you can creat a perfect framework for your platform.

> I don't think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not
> equal .Net. We don't have to care what .Net and MS
> are doing, we have C# and the CLI as ISO standard
> (much more than we have from java) and with these two
> things we can create a great framework for the whole
> UNIX platform even with some compatibility to
> windows. That's simply great and it's completely
> independent from what MS is doing with .Net.

This and your other paragraph (which I don't want to quote all) is of course totally right. But you forget reality here. The majority of C# and .NET coders and people will follow the path of Microsoft and not the path of Novell. The majority of Desktops are still found with Microsoft products, the amount of sold computers still ship with Microsoft products. People who play with serious money still want Microsoft products because products that don't cost money are worth nothing (some people still follow this opinion). So no matter how hard you try to manifest C# and MONO or how hard you want to make it a fine competitor to Microsoft - you can still be sure that people will follow MS. As many Web developers still (even now after years) refer to IE as the standards leading technology. You will have hard times to convince people to see it as difference.

This and your other paragraph (which I don't want to quote all) is of course totally right. But you forget reality here. The majority of C# and .NET coders and people will follow the path of Microsoft and not the path of Novell.

if they code for the MS platform they can follow .NET. That's no problem, maybe that's even the best solution. But if you code for more platforms or for the Unix platform you will follow the Mono path.
At the end it's really simple. It's the same way that MS has VisualC++ and a MS-toolkit and we have g++ and GTKmm. From your point you can say g++ and GTKmm is always behind VisualC++ because the majority of Desktops are still found with Microsoft. But with this argument you missed the real point. It's not about convince MS people to follow the GTKmm path. GTKmm is simply a Unix C++ Toolkit. It's not a question GTKmm or VisualC++, its the question great Toolkit for Unix or great Toolkit for Windows.
Same is with .Net and Mono. There are two different thinks. They may have the same base but at the end there is a Framework for the Unix world and a Framework for the MS World. If you life in the MS world, feel free to chose the MS Toolkit. This has nothing to do with our Framework for our world, at the end it's the same like with every other programming language or framework.
We don't need a competition with MS, we just want a great framework on the base of an open ISO standard for our platform and that's what we can get from Mono, no more and no less.

> Same is with .Net and Mono. There are two different
> thinks. They may have the same base but at the end
> there is a Framework for the Unix world and a Framework
> for the MS World. If you life in the MS world, feel
> free to chose the MS Toolkit. This has nothing to do
> with our Framework for our world, at the end it's the
> same like with every other programming language or
> framework.

You are of course right again and I don't want to quote all your comments. But please let me ask you what problem you want to solve with MONO and C# that can't be solved with the already existing languages such as JAVA, Python, Ruby and even C++ ?

Pointer issue ? No, Memory issue ? No....

The problem that MS wanted to solve with C# and .NET was to offer a product which people would be willing to pay for. It was a marketing thing, to bind people, to offer something new, the industry was crying for.

Now the problem is that the industry, the IT, and most of the MS fanboys will stick with MS products. So what problem are you solving on UNIX architecture when you are missing exactly the audience that still runs behind MS ?

Hope I was able to bring up my point.

But please let me ask you what problem you want to solve with MONO and C# that can't be solved with the already existing languages such as JAVA, Python, Ruby and even C++ ?

i'm not a expert about the difference of all the programming languages. But some people say that the language independence is a great thing for Mono. Even Mono has a much shorter development time it's already faster and use less memory than java (note, that i talk about free java implementations), some people say this is a adnavtage of the architecture. Other people say that C# is a sexy language, more powerfull than java and somethink like a evolution of java...

I think you can find many arguments for and again Mono and C#. It's the same if you compare C and C++, Java and Python, Scheme and Lisp,... At the end every think has it advantage and disadvantage and someone like language/framework A and someone other like language/framework B.

The problem that MS wanted to solve with C# and .NET was to offer a product which people would be willing to pay for.

but that's not our problem.
MS also wants to solve some problem with there C++, C,... compiler, this wasn't a problem for us and our c++,c,.. compiler, so why should be there .Net plans a problem for us?

So if we are totally not interested in competing with MS, I'd be interested why not choosing a trusted and established framework for our platform?

And when MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing .NET version X, will we port all our apps, run behind them and try to keep up - or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Mono?

I simply cannot believe that Mono will just lay back, not follow the MS way and say "yep, we're a great platform now, we don't care for MS".

I'd be interested why not choosing a trusted and established framework for our platform?

Because the developer has decided that C# and the CLI is an interesting platform for the future. Other developer think different and work on gcj and gnome-java or work on C++ and Gtkmm or work on Python and pyGtk or stay on C and Gtk+,... it's not that there is now Mono and every other languages are dead, it's just another option.

And when MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing .NET version X, will we port all our apps, run behind them and try to keep up - or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Mono?

What if MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing VisualC++ version X will we port all our C++ apps, run behind them and try to keep up - or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Gtkmm?
I hope you see it. Just because MS has start something or has something simular has nothing to do with us. We just use an existing standard and create the best framework we can. The same we do it with every other language/framework.

> What if MS decides to put their $$$ investments into introducing VisualC++ version X will we port all our C++ apps, run behind them and try to keep up - or pretend that our framework is good enough and live with Gtkmm?

And that's where my point is If MS introduces a newer version of C++, we don't care. There's still aCC, Intel C++, xlC, gcc, Mac, Borland and dozens of other compiler manufacturers and thousands of tools and billions of existing lines of code. Who cares for a MS-only version of a better C++? Even on Windows, I can choose between standard C++ compilers from different vendors.

MS is the only one who offers .NET tools. If they release version X of their stuff, 98% of all the related tools will follow. All the new articles in computer magazines, the students in university, everyone will switch. Mono not following the wagon? Unlikely.

I hope that my message of the "vendor lock-in danger" is clearer now

Who is the "us" you keep on referring to?

I hope you see it. Just because MS has start something or has something simular has nothing to do with us.

Other C++ implementations can be implemented independently of Visual C++ and anything Microsoft does. Microsoft didn't invent C++, nor does it run in an environment Microsoft controls. Mono cannot do that. It depends on the standard Microsoft controls, and when a new standard comes along that adds new features to the CLR then Mono will be compelled to adopt them, or come up with their own ways of doing it.

Here's the cluestick. They're not inventing their own ways of doing things. They're not inventing their own APIs. A stated goal of Mono for cross-platform development (I don't know where this cross-platform thing came from to be honest) is that applications run under Microsoft's .Net and vice versa. If you look at the presentation from Brainshare they actively promoted Mono on the basis of taking a Visual Studio project, compiled for Microsoft's CLR and framework, and ran it on Linux and Mac OS. When other parts of Novell are using Java and Qt for that sort of thing I simply cannot see the point in investing resources needlessly, but I digress. You simply cannot do that without paying attention to everything Microsoft does with .Net and implementing it.

So, is Mono a cross-platform development tool (there are tools that are far, far better) or is it a development tool for Unix/Linux platforms. If it's the latter then you simply don't need to implement any of Microsoft's technology, their APIs or any of the features of their latest .Net version. Come up with a different roadmap. This "We're using Mono because we want a good technology and we don't care what Microsoft does" attitude simply doesn't stand up. It is a Microsoft technology!

> I don't think Mono is behind MS, because Mono is not equal .Net.

And that I don't understand. Why reengineer that technology in the first place? To create something 70% compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always appear 30% worse than them?

The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess who'll have all the tools needed to support it already finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even worse alternative in the great comparison charts.

> And based on this standard we can create a great platform for UNIX.

With a built-in vendor lock-in. We can't get too far away from MS otherwise we'll have that incompatible-with-everything fork, so we're forced to play the chase-MS game.

>And that I don't understand. Why reengineer that
>technology in the first place? To create something 70%
>compatible? To be compared to MS technologies and always
>appear 30% worse than them?

The idea was never to be like MS, they just provided a good solution to a problem that preexisted in the GNOME comunity. So if people consider it to be a pale clone thats their problem. Mono was always about GNOME and will always be about GNOME. You could almost say that its recemblance to .NET is not so important.

>The CLI is an ISO standard. Unfortunately, MS controls
>it. When they push a new version of the standard, guess
>who'll have all the tools needed to support it already
>finished? Mono lagging even more behind, Linux the even
>worse alternative in the great comparison charts.

If I remember right MS wasn't the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don't quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn't having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.

> If I remember right MS wasn't the only one ho had some input on the 2.0 version of tha standard and I think even the Mono project had some say, but don't quote me on that. Other then that I find it funy that Mono isn't having as bad a time geting to their 2.0 version then Microsoft is having.

Weren't you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after. No community to discuss this, no thinking "how could _we_ do it best for our platform", no, there's a new MS standard, panic, quick, start porting. Open Source at its best.

Weren't you the one that said that Mono is not blindly following MS? So MS releases 2.0 and Mono sprints after.

No, we don't sprint after MS, we continue to implement the ISO standard and the ISO standard has a new version -> 2.0.
This has nothing to do with MS, the ISO standard get enlarged by MS, Novell and some other companies wich are in the standard committee.
If there is an new C# standard everyone will implement it (MS, Mono, dotGNU,..) like everyone implement a new C or C++ standard.
Even if i have said it again and again. You look to much on MS. For me you look like a rabbit which see a snake and get stiff and get panic. Forget it, thats a new technology with a new open standard no more and no less. It makes no difference if MS is implementing the standard too.

Apart from spewing negative energy, what exactly is your point?

I think the point is that we contribute to Open Source for fun. We will stop when we're bored or out of time. Making business plans for Open Source projects is like becoming yet another company with a product. Suddenly, you'll have to compete with other companies.

The way out is to put investments into a project, pushing it into the direction you want and thus effectively destroying the community. We're already seeing several projects where mostly full time employees contribute. I don't believe that's the Bazaar way or the spirit of Free Software / Open Source.

harryF wrote: I think the point is that we contribute to Open Source for fun. We will stop when we're bored or out of time.

Nothing stops you doing that. It's absolutly OK if you don't like to join the game. Just because there are quite a few people who can stand the challenge, and many more who feel grateful for more commitment in Open Source projects, it doesn't mean they don't have fun anymore. For them, the challenge may be the fun.

The way out is to put investments into a project, pushing it into the direction you want and thus effectively destroying the community.

There are many different communities; basically each project has one of its own. So why shouldn't some of them explore new ways? Try to improve? Try to concentrate on certain goals?

It's not that you would depend on them; according to your own words, it's just for fun anyway. Relax.

> It's not that you would depend on them; according to your own words, it's just for fun anyway. Relax.

As soon as a company comes in and creates business plans, the fun goes away. By design, a company invests money to make more money. Which pushes a project into the direction the company wants. Freedom? Creativity? Gone.

harryF wrote: Freedom? Creativity? Gone.

Are you talking about GNOME? I'd say: A stable platform, so you're able to express your freedom and creativity. Build any application you'd like. Pick the libraries you'd like. Invent your own desktop enviroment. Nothing stops you from doing that.

And if, one day, you'd like other people to use your application or desktop environment, you're probably happy if its foundation is properly distributed and stable.

> Are you talking about GNOME? I'd say: A stable platform, so you're able to express your freedom and creativity.

Okay, let's see... I want to replace technology A by something better. Let's say replacing the IPC layer with something that is faster and takes less memory. A dynamic community would jump on it, for the love of their project, to make the platform better and for the fun of it. Even if it sets the project back a bit, but the end result will be better. A project with mainly payed developers who have to meet deadlines and goals set by their manager is way less likely to do that. They already invested $$$ in technology A, they would be mad to toss it.

One of the wonderful things I experienced in Open Source is that people are not afraid to refactor things to make the project better in total. Having a company in there relying on their investments is a blocker. "Stable" is good, but not in a MS way where "stable" means that they don't fix bugs and don't fix their APIs because that could mean that some company somewhere would have to rewrite stuff and therefore lose money.

What light? Are you referring to when Eugenia was complaining because someone on a mailing list told her that volunteer developers will work on whatever they feel like?

http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=9933

I don't see how that position is any more relevant now, because some have aspirations for widespread acceptance of GNOME.

What light? Are you referring to when Eugenia was complaining because someone on a mailing list told her that volunteer developers will work on whatever they feel like?

What Eugenia was talking about were things that were essential for Gnome to get anywhere near Windows and Mac OS. They didn't want to talk about it then but they still feel they can carry themselves on a cushion of hot air.

I don't see how that position is any more relevant now, because some have aspirations for widespread acceptance of GNOME.

If you want to convince people to use Gnome over Windows and Mac OS you have to address the issues at hand, and you simply cannot go talking about getting people to adopt Gnome, or X or Y without it. Once you start talking about things in those terms then it's a different world.

That's an issue that needs to be solved, not just with Gnome, but many user-facing open source projects.

good question
in the meanwhile why you don't take a look at this ?

tada
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2005-July/msg00007.h...

Certification for GNOME Apps

What references do said people have to be able to speak about Marketing ? It looks to me that first every normal coder, part time hacker, etc. became an usability expert basing their ideals upon nothing, just that what they assume to be right and messed most apps up. Then said same people became Marketing experts doing wrong marketing of an still immature project. What do we expect next, the ordinary people start to fear using the word GNOME in their application because they get a nice letter from GNOME e.V. or GNOME Foundation telling them to pay a fee because their app uses the terminology (GNOME) in it ? If you head over to planet.gnome.org or planet.gnome.de (or how the link is correctly called) then you see the people talk about GNOME e.V. for example like it is a company or venture. It's quite scary since I was in the assumption that we talk about GNOME, fun, hacking, cool Desktop. Reading comments of some people make one believe they are competing against Microsoft, acting like global and big players and talk like they dominate the entire globe.....

If the only interest of your life is reading news on OSNews.org and blame gnome, why don't you register www.blame-gnome.org or www.bashing-gnome.org and spare us this continuous and annoying muttering?

I wrote the article, and I have a PhD in marketing.

Also first he talks about how “No one wants a quarter-inch drill. They want a quarter-inch hole.”

Then he goes on to suggest that "GNOME needs to clearly delineate what software is “part of” GNOME, as opposed to software that works with GNOME."

Isn't these statements in conflict with each other? Wouldn't it be more correct to "clearly delneate what services GNOME shall provide"?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Could you be more explicit please?

By GNOME developers, do you mean (a) "people who develop applications that are included in GNOME" or (b) "people who develop applications that target the GNOME developement platform"?

If (a), then you are an ISV. If (b) then you are part of GNOME. And you are right, "internal marketing" is important, but IMHO that is HRM (Human Resource Management), not Marketing. I am, however, an adademic geek, so YMMV.

In my original statment I meant simply that GNOME exists as it is only because it is the sytem that the GNOME developers wanted, not because they wanted to sell it.

The number one reason (for me atleast) to contribute to an OSS project is to utilze the network effect for the simple goal of making the product better for me.

Me, me, me!

Okay, to be honest, I actually get some perverted joy out of knowing that my contributions is helping other people... mabey it gives a me sense of purpose in life... who knows.

Why do you set a goal like 10x10? There must be some value in it, and if it isn't money, then what is it?

And how do you measure this increase? Or are they just hunches?