OSNews

He must not have heard about the story of "The Scorpion and the Frog". This is business and Microsoft did what was necessary to protect its competitive advantage (whether present or future). What they should do is continue to innovate and maintain that competitive advantage. There are so many instances where the focus has been on keeping up where it doesn't quite matter and not leveraging/marketing the advantages enough. I like that they have developed a tool to aid with migrations but as Daniel Robbins found out(leaving due to frustration over not being able to work at his "full level of technical ability"), when entering into scenarios such as this, competitors are only going to assist you as far as it benefits them, no further. You still have to work on what makes you better. So when he describes doing WPF better, I applaud that direction (while still maintaining compatibility of course)

Edited 2007-03-25 19:02

Actually don't be so sure about that. Microsoft is well aware of the existence of Mono, and them supporting Mono only boasts .NET over Java. However their support isn't active with money or sharing of code, because they want to make sure Mono and .NET forge ahead on two different paths. But many of the Microsoft developers also work on the Mono project.

Also you have to understand that Miguel is shooting for Mars in hopes of reaching the Moon.

Actually don't be so sure about that. Microsoft is well aware of the existence of Mono, and them supporting Mono only boasts .NET over Java. However their support isn't active with money or sharing of code, because they want to make sure Mono and .NET forge ahead on two different paths. But many of the Microsoft developers also work on the Mono project.*

Yeah, right. Microsoft acquiesced to pirated copies of their business software and OSes, too.
Until the day they had achieved dominance.
Now, copyright infringement is clearly illegal while the status of Mono is questionable. But if you're a Mono developer, you should pray that .NET will never ever win against Java, because the next day MS will start collecting royalties and sue everyone who doesn't comply.
And the way the system works it will take tens of millions of dollars to win those lawsuits even if Mono is perfectly, 100% legal.

*: Is the preview broken? Because if I follow the bold blue statement and use the q tag it just shows the tags. But blockquote seems to work. Strange.
EDIT: But not in the posted version. Is the new osnews usable? And is its preview less screwed up?
REEDIT: I can now answer my last two questions:
Seems to be. No.

Edited 2007-03-26 17:45 UTC

I don't think you really understand the benefits of .NET working on other platforms. Or at least you don't see it from Microsoft's perspective. Who do you think is going to benefit from a wealth of software being developed on .NET? Especially all the new compilers that compile against the CLR. There is Python, PHP, COBOL, FORTRAN, some supported by organizations some supported by guys that just program on the weekends. So what good does it do for Microsoft to shut down a very useful compiler, like PHP.NET, that still compiles .NET code and runs on Windows perfectly. There is none.

And Microsoft understand that not all these guys that are going to be providing very useful tools for its Windows developer that adds to the value of running Windows are going to come from the Windows side of the world. I think you are still stuck in the 90's with your mentality about Microsoft.

I think you are still stuck in the 90's with your mentality about Microsoft.

I think you are still stuck in the reality-distortion field with the idea that Microsoft has changed. They haven't.

Should they step further into that Microsoft shit - sorry, but that's what it is - I'll switch to KDE

The only connection between Gnome and mono is the GTK# bindings. mono is a cross language runtime and particular bindings for a GUI api are just a side show. You are only tied to Microsoft via mono if you use a Microsoft api such as Windows Forms or ASP.NET. If you use GTK#, Cocoa# or KDE's Qyoto/Kimono bindings (that I work on), you are only tied to the C# language and other CLR languages. The CLR is an ECMA standard, whereas Windows Forms isn't, so please separate issues about using Microsoft specific GUI's from using mono as a basis for implementing interesting non-Microsoft apis via bindings.

Yes, I know that.

But the point is that the lawyers in Redmond are already evaluating things. MS _will_ eventually stand up and sue OSS for patent violation. Ballmer has to act quite soon if he does not want to appear a total idiot to the Micrposoft shareholders. I bet he'll start with mono - well, ok, just a not so wild guess.

Sorry to say this, but mono was a waste of time from the start. It's too close to the devil, and Novell has seen what happens when you embrace the devil.

Now it's time to talk about Java. It's not too late - thank God ...

It's too close to the devil

Isn't there a version of Godwin's law about comparing Microsoft to Satan?

...mono was a waste of time from the start.

Considering C# is an ISO standards based language, I don't think you can say mono was a waste of time. It brings C# to the playing field for platforms other than Windows. If anything, it has allowed people to bring their ASP.NET apps written in C# to Linux based web servers. Yes, we've had Java for a long time and it's run things cross platform, but this is another option for the masses. Besides, there have been plenty of really good apps for Linux written in C# using Mono.

Considering C# is an ISO standards based language, I don't think you can say mono was a waste of time.

That's a good point. It's not like Mono is completely walking on thin ice, from a legal perspective. (You always have to be wary of Microsoft, of course)

What's wrong with you people :-) C# is a good language. Java, since 5.0, is also good enough (since it copied over certain C# features). Personally, I wouldn't mind *either* of these languages prevailing the Linux desktop (both GTK and QT based). How long do you think a non-paid developer can go with C or C++ nowadays? I'd trade more features, due to easier development, to the skeleton apps written in C that want to pass as Gnome apps.

Conclusion: higher-level languages are developer friendly and grass roots OSS friendly. Embrace them!

I'm sure Java infringes on some MS patents, that's the nature of software patents, everybody who makes software is infringing on someone's patents.

But Java has Sun behind it, sun has money and other patents. So there is a good chance microsoft wouldn't attempt to sue over such patents.

Mono is currently being well supported by Novell, who have a deal with microsoft to licence microsoft patents.
Microsoft suing the Mono project would be very bad for Novell and hardly an advantage for Microsoft as Mono is less of a threat than say, OpenOffice or Firefox.

There are two sides of this issue.

Sure, if you don't use these bindings, you aren't affected at all.

The GNOME people seem to get fed up with C. So it is even evaluated to switch to Mono/GTK# as main development platform. This wouldn't be something done today or tomorrow. But GNOME already ships applications using GTK#.

Mate, don't worry about it; GNOME hasn't included anything relating to Mono within the standard distribution - what you see in distributions are merely the result of its users asking for a said application, which happen to be written using mono.

The debate is over which framework should be used as the default for future development if GNOME developers choose to go down the road of having a managed environment - Mono, as much as De Lcaza argued that the technological arguments were compelling vs. the obvious licencing issues back then in regards to Java, the elephant in the room can no longer be ignored; the underlying motivation for the creation was the restrictive and closed source nature of Java.

Flash forward to 2007; Java has been open sourced under GPL; Sun is now an active opensource development company, with Solaris Enterprise System (the old iPlanet stack) will be opensource soon as well - which brings forward the question; which one will be chosen? for me, the choice is obvious now - a couple of years ago, I would have said mono after weighing up the patent, licencing and technological issues, but today with Java being opensource, more mature technologically, a big community of developers overall, and the fact that the issue of patents don't hover over the neck of Java like a guillotine over the neck of a falsely accused person, as with the case of Mono.

With that being said, I do think, however, that GNOME need to think long and carefully about using Java - use it where it works well, but don't use it for the sake of simply being able to say, "look at us! we use Java!".

Edited 2007-03-25 23:44

If I'm not mistaken, Tomboy is in 2.18. Tomboy uses Mono and GTK#. You can take it out, but it is now part of mainline GNOME

Yes, you are correct; it is part of the 'package list' but at the same time, however, Mono isn't playing a key roll in the core of the desktop environment; if it sits on the side as an option I have no worries - people should have the right to choose over what VM based language they wish to use, but at the same time, I would concerned if it started to become a 'must install' component of GNOME.

The debate is over which framework should be used as the default for future development if GNOME developers choose to go down the road of having a managed environment

You're quite clueless regarding the antipathy towards Java, whether it's open source or not. You make the same bad logical analysis that developers are going to flock to Java just because it's almost open source.

The debate isn't over, because Gnome won't have an official runtime. Java is hated for various reasons, Mono is hated because it's MS, and other developers would rather stay away from both of them and use Python or Ruby. Gnome is a C platform - plain and simple, with various bindings that developers use for various applications that might or might not make it into the official Gnome applications releases.

With that being said, I do think, however, that GNOME need to think long and carefully about using Java - use it where it works well, but don't use it for the sake of simply being able to say, "look at us! we use Java!"

That's something you don't have to worry about. Java will be ignored only a little less than it is now.

You're quite clueless regarding the antipathy towards Java, whether it's open source or not. You make the same bad logical analysis that developers are going to flock to Java just because it's almost open source.

You talk about Java as if no one uses it. Sounds to me like you personally don't use it, so you maintain this illusion to justify your decision to yourself.

Java is hated for various reasons

In other words, you hate it, for reasons you don't care to disclose.

Java will be ignored only a little less than it is now.

You're right, it's just being ignored so much.
http://www.eclipse.org
http://www.limewire.org
http://azureus.sourceforge.net
http://www.neooffice.org
http://www.trolltech.com/developer/downloads/qt/qtjambi-techpreview

And no one's interested in developing anything new for Java on the desktop.

http://community.java.net/projects/community/javadesktop
http://java.sun.com/developer/technicalArticles/tools/nb_guibuilder...

Sorry, you seem to be blinded by your own prejudices. Please, go back to your hole.

Please try to pay attention. Eclipse, limewire, or any of the others in your list have nothing to do with Gnome.

Should they step further into that Microsoft shit - sorry, but that's what it is - I'll switch to KDE. De Icaza hasn't listened carefully to what the communitry has said about the Novell-MS deal. Tying GNOME even closer to .Net is even worse, because the day will come when Microsoft goes to court with that. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Mono they're after (well, to start with).

Ballmer has said it on and off that OSS is violating MS patents. So it's just a matter of time when he'll be the one to open the flood gates.

I don't really see how Miguel has anything to worry aouut. Mono was a Ximian project. Ximian was bought by Novell. Novell has a patent agreement with Microsoft. Novell has the copyright to Mono and many of the Mono projects which it licneses under the GPL. The only company that Microsoft could sue is Novell which according to their agreement they cannot do.

Sure, if all the Mono projects are tied only to Novell-created distros. But as soon as another distro, or the Gnome project itself, decides to include a Mono application, then they are in risky territory.

Sure, if all the Mono projects are tied only to Novell-created distros. But as soon as another distro, or the Gnome project itself, decides to include a Mono application, then they are in risky territory.

Not true at all. They could only sue if the application itself infringed. The language itself is a standard. The only issue could be the libraries themselves, much like java classes. No one got sued for making GPL java applications and there is a reason why. If Mono is indeed infringing and Microsoft sues the only one they can sue is Novell because the code is copyrighted and licensed by Novell. Microsoft's deal with Novell prevents that.

wrong thread again.

Edited 2007-03-28 05:24

really, this guy is on crack

Miguel can publish what he wants, I'll never use mono. I don't need it and I don't want it, this little child of the Novell-Microsoft cooperation.
Even in OpenSuse 10.2 it is still possible to live without mono. Although it is part of the default install, it can be uninstalled without causing any problems. As long as this is the case, I have no problem to use or test an OpenSuse distro.

MS does not want cross platform developers, they want to tie you to they're platform

Very true.

However, one thing we have learned from the Microsoft/Novell deal is that Microsoft knowns that some of their customers are at least considering Linux for certain areas.

So in order to avoid having them consider other development frameworks like Java, which are totally not under their control, they might "recommend" a framework they are indirekt control over, e.g. they control the direction of .Net, thus controlling what mono will have to do as well.

An application runable under mono will of course not be as tied to Microsoft as a native application would be, but on the other hand they can more easily convince customers to switch back if the application's performance on Windows can be boosted above the performance on Linux+Mono due to optimiziations in their runtime.

Nicely said and I certainly didn't see it that way. But what if a day comes where Mono is more feature rich, better supported and commands a larger number of developers than .Net (however unlikely)? Do you really see MS lay down and give up? Or, much more likely IMO, start a patent and/or IP infringement lawsuit?

Do you really see MS lay down and give up? Or, much more likely IMO, start a patent and/or IP infringement lawsuit?

Of course they won't give up, but as you said such a situation is highly unlikely, there is IMHO no point in speculating what they would do then.

In order not to get into this situation, they will keep on extending .Net in a way that is hard (or even impossible) for others to implement.
This is something they have huge expertise in.

If that day comes, Microsift has a problem:

Should they sue Mono, thereby hurting their own development environment (because at that point in time the feature "platform independent" will be a killer-feature), they will find themselves hurting their own business.

So they will most probaly do what they are doing now: FUD-ing around but not really sueing the free projects.

As for wanting MS to tell developers to use Mono for cross platform development, the guy must be hallucinating. MS does not want cross platform developers, they want to tie you to they're platform. End of story.

That is definitely 100% true - just wait till Microsoft starts prancing through the Mono developer community demanding royalties and payments for those not running their software on the Novell Linux platform.

The licence agreement between Novell and Microsoft, is just that, a licence agreement between them, and only them, it does not cover the whole Linux or opensource community - which is what Miguel is some how trying to lay claim to.

Mono is still the same licence and patent riddled mess it was last year and the year before, the only difference is that only Novell customers are going to be spared the wrath of Microsoft - for all those who aren't Novell customers, I would think long and hard about whether the risk of getting sued into an early grave is worth the risk in the long run for so-called perfect portability which doesn't exist.

Oh, his income is increasing. Holy mother of god, how dare he!

sorry, maybe I was to subtle for you ...
it won't happen again.

No, subtlety implies intelligence.

too subtle again .. sorry, I just can't help it =(

Additionally, Windows.Forms is stillborn even in the Windows world because Avalon is supposedly the next big thing.

Wrong. Microsoft isn't Sun. These days, Microsoft is pushing out tech faster than adoption. As was stated in the interview, Avalon(WPF) is years away from having a substantial presence. Business tends to be conservative, and doesn't just rewrite stuff because Microsoft pushes it out.

Microsoft will never recommend anyone "migrate" away from the Microsoft platform, and as such Icaza is looking at this the wrong way.

Migration can easily be in the opposite direction. Of course Microsoft would never recommend that Windows developers start using Mono in order to migrate to non-windows platforms. That's just poor business sense. However, The opposite cwould make perfect sense. Microsoft would be well off to encourage existing Linux / Unix software developers to migrate to Mono in order for their applications to be 'Windows Ready'.

It's really not a 2 way street in the development community. Windows developers could usually care less if their applications run on other platforms. Linux, Unix, and most OSS developers, on the other hand, are usually concerned with their applications running on ALL platforms, often even windows. Mono provides such an oportunity.

Now granted Java can provide such an oportunity as well, but that's for another topic.

That rant was a notch too trollish, so let me clarify some bits. It looks like I poured crap on some really great tech there. I didn't mean it like that.

1) Gcj - Yup, really cool. But not really taking the OSS un*x desktop anywhere. IMHO. But it rocks.

2) Gtk themes for java - Any work in this direction is great! Sorely needed, hugely wanted. Still not good enough. But it rocks. Or will rock.

3) I wrote that Kaffe represented a time-sink. Wrong. Edit it out. Kaffe is beyond awesome. Maybe just not a great hope for a desktop-level OSS runtime.

4) Java in general - No other language/runtime in the history of man have such great development environments as Java has today, free or for money. Not smalltalk, eiffel, .Net, C++. Do I have to mention it rocks? Rocks hard even? But not in the area of desktop apps. Nope.

(note - I don't believe in the edit function)

Edited 2007-03-25 20:48

Quote:
(note - I don't believe in the edit function)

Edited 2007-03-25 20:48
/quote

Great sense of humour.

I'm just wondering, how many other things "Rock"? or "Rock hard" even? You sound like an expert in the area so maybe you could enlighten us. ;-)

Oh and for the most part I agree the projects you mentioned are all worthwhile.

Miguel is like Linus - TECHNOLOGY DRIVEN!

And here I was thinking de Icaza set out to start Gnome because of the evil Qt license, that is to say, because of politics. It's funny how things are evolved...

And here I was thinking de Icaza set out to start Gnome because of the evil Qt license, that is to say, because of politics. It's funny how things are evolved...

Not "evil", just not free and not open source. Just like the original .NET implementation that Miguel is working to replace with a free one.

Yep,

Miguel seems to have become a love boy for all technologies that Microsoft produces. Maybe that is a way for him to compensate the fact of not being able to work there.

I can see where your coming from but as I am not a developer, I can't really comment on the validity and/or usefulness of Mono. However, I do understand the general feeling of betrayal many people in the Linux community express in relation towards Miguel De Icaza.

Sure, calling the guy names is a really childish thing to do and I think you are very right to point out that fact but keep in mind that it is Miguel's (former) standing in the FLOSS world that makes the betrayal (perceived or not) all the more hurtful and hard to take.

No wonder people are getting upset about it! ;-)

Just my €0.2

If you get the chance read the Microsoft/IBM interoperability agreement story between Win32 API and OS/2.

Indeed. People just never want to learn from the past.

From that perspective, the notion that Microsoft would support Mono and recommend it to partners is rational.

It's not rational for any company to make decisions that actively damage themselves.

"It seems clear that .NET is the new application-level API for Windows. I see Mono as a way to extend that API - that is, extend the Windows API - to other operating systems. From that perspective, the notion that Microsoft would support Mono and recommend it to partners is rational."

Microsoft is not interested in other operating systems - the only way they are interested in them is to search and destroy them.

It is by no means not different with Novell. MS knows that some of its partners want to run a Linux OS. So they're cooperating with a strong distributor. In the future that may drastically change. Who knows? MS could buy Novell, and run SUSE 12.0 in a virtualized invironment inside Vista X (or whatever the name for that new fantastic OS is going to be).

The moment you start to trust Microsoft, you've lost already. So don't even _think_ about it.

Microsoft may indeed be interested in other operating systems insofar as they can serve as a substrate for the Windows software platform. It is the same rationale that drove them to build Internet Explorer for Mac.

Look at Java - it is likewise a software platform that runs on many operating systems. Microsoft may want Windows to do the same via .NET and previously HTML. Think "obiquity".