Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:28 UTC, submitted by irbis
Mono Project "Does GNOME co-founder Miguel de Icaza's backflip over the Novell-Microsoft deal a few days ago mean that he has finally been convinced that he is on a one-way path to nowhere? Has he realised that his own project, Mono, is actually putting GNOME on a development track that can leave it open to patent claims one day? And has he realised that creating Moonlight, a clone of Microsoft's Silverlight, (with which the company hopes to trump Adobe's Flash) is not going to advance the cause of free software one iota?"
Order by: Score:
v Still looking at that cake?
by WarpKat on Tue 11th Mar 2008 23:47 UTC
O_O
by ronaldst on Wed 12th Mar 2008 00:04 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

That article was pretty one sided and flametastic.

It seems these days, the Inquirer is what every online news site like Ars are aiming for...

Reply Score: 9

RE: O_O
by PlatformAgnostic on Wed 12th Mar 2008 00:25 UTC in reply to "O_O"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

I agree... they seem to like making controversy out of nothing. I wish it weren't so entertaining ;) .

Reply Score: 3

RE: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:51 UTC in reply to "O_O"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

One sided and flametastic?

Effectively, this is a GPL circumvention device, in the vein of Tivoisation.
He made a case for this, citing the mixture of licenses and clauses. What's the other side?

This insidious infiltration of Mono is going to result in patent lawsuits one day. Microsoft cannot compete with Linux in any other way - it can only try to nobble the two companies which are out there with major portions of the operating system's marketshare.
I think that's a fair conclusion. Microsoft wants to be number one, yet they've had difficulty competing with Linux. They don't always competed on merit, so I think it's reasonable to expect them to try to exploit this. What's the other side?

Reply Score: 10

RE[2]: O_O
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 02:54 UTC in reply to "RE: O_O"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

He made a case for this, citing the mixture of licenses and clauses. What's the other side?


The other side is that dual lisencing and Tivoization are two completely and utterly different things, and anyone writing about open source software should know the difference. Hell, anyone who is even remotely connected to the opensource world should know the difference.

Tivoization is preventing the use of modified source code through an external check of some sort, in the case of Tivo, doing a md5 hash of the kernel, and not loading any non Tivo built derivitives.

Dual Licensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_license) is an attempt to make an open source business model work in a sphere where being open source would normally cause problems. It is not contraversial, and has been done for years. Examples of dual licensed products are Qt (what KDE is built on), MySQL (the most popular open source database), and CUPS (the best printer framework out there for UNIX). The authors attitude towards this practice shows a complete lack of knowledge about how open source works.

I think that's a fair conclusion. Microsoft wants to be number one, yet they've had difficulty competing with Linux. They don't always competed on merit, so I think it's reasonable to expect them to try to exploit this. What's the other side?


Microsoft published the core of the .net framework as an ECMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecma_International) standard, which is a reputable standards body. This is not taking into account that every action by MS since Mono came out has been favorable towards the project, but even if we ignore recent history, THEY CAN'T SUE EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO!

As anyone who is even remotely familiar with this discussion knows, parts of the framework are under ECMA and therefor safe to use, and other parts are not. The parts which are not are things like ADO.net (for data access), WinForms (the old windows GUI toolkit), ASP.net (their server side scripting environment), etc. These are all high level toolkits, that have equivilents on the mono stack. If you develop mono on linux, you will not use WinForms, you will use GTK#, which has no legal issues. If Microsoft sues, what we lose is compatibility with windows technologies. Binary compatiblity with windows is just the sugar in mono, and it would suck if it were gone, but it is not the end of the world.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: O_O
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: O_O"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Microsoft published the core of the .net framework as an ECMA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecma_International) standard, which is a reputable standards body. This is not taking into account that every action by MS since Mono came out has been favorable towards the project, but even if we ignore recent history, THEY CAN'T SUE EVEN IF THEY WANTED TO!


IANAL, but MS doesn't need to win a court case - it never did.
How many companies capitulated before SCO's demands? How many will capitulate the second MS fires the first lawsuit?

As anyone who is even remotely familiar with this discussion knows, parts of the framework are under ECMA and therefor safe to use, ....
If Microsoft sues, what we lose is compatibility with windows technologies. Binary compatiblity with windows is just the sugar in mono, and it would suck if it were gone, but it is not the end of the world.


How about Silverlight? under which category does it fall?
Beyond that, do -you- trust MS enough to let MS-designed technology into your own house?

Sorry, MS cannot threaten to sue us all (Linux developers and users alike) on one hand, and ask for our cooperation on the other.

MS's promise (?) not sue users and/or OSS mono developers means, exactly that, (an empty) promise.
If MS is serious in it's intent to work with the community, they can start by changing the .NET and Silverlight license and drop the FUD.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: O_O
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:30 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

P.S.

And if even if you believe that MS will never sue the Novel team - will this extend to RedHat? How about Fedora? SUSE? Debian?

.. Will this promise hold, if say, MS loses ~10% of its desktop/server market share to Linux? How about a mono/OSX - does this promise extend to them?

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 9

RE[4]: O_O
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:39 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

How many will capitulate the second MS fires the first lawsuit?


Pretty much not a single company outside the U.S.

Edited 2008-03-12 06:40 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: O_O
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Oh OK.
So this only leaves, what, IBM, Oracle, Sun, RedHat, and around 1000 more (let alone their clients)?

(EDIT: Didn't mean to sound so rude... Sorry)

- Gilboa

Edited 2008-03-12 14:23 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: O_O
by TLZ_ on Wed 12th Mar 2008 08:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
TLZ_ Member since:
2007-02-05

You could see Silverlight and Flash as two evils, and I would not really call Adobe an angel here. Getting Flash to work on Linux is hell and Adobe isn't exactly putting an effort into it. Last time I checked they didn't help the gnash-team either. MS is helping the Moonlight team. Yup, you do get some MS-tech, and if I'm not mistaken some closed code(The media formats), but other than that it's open source. You're probably never going to see a open source. That's better than Flash, isn't it? And besides: Silverlight does offer some interesting tech. It's not all about politics.

(Actually, the Flash plugin even on Windows as pretty much gone to hell after Adobe took over Macromedia. It's transformed into this one single giant memory leak.)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: O_O
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

You could see Silverlight and Flash as two evils, and I would not really call Adobe an angel here. Getting Flash to work on Linux is hell and Adobe isn't exactly putting an effort into it. Last time I checked they didn't help the gnash-team either. MS is helping the Moonlight team. Yup, you do get some MS-tech, and if I'm not mistaken some closed code(The media formats), but other than that it's open source. You're probably never going to see a open source. That's better than Flash, isn't it? And besides: Silverlight does offer some interesting tech. It's not all about politics.

(Actually, the Flash plugin even on Windows as pretty much gone to hell after Adobe took over Macromedia. It's transformed into this one single giant memory leak.)


I do not agree. Far from it.

A company may decide that it's doesn't want to help reverse engineering attempts. (Such as gnash and swfdec) - it's their choice to make. (As much as we may or may not like it)
However, as I said in another sub-thread, to the best of knowledge Adobe never sued nor it ever threatened to sue any OSS reverse engineering project.

I rather wait for gnash or swfdec to work reliably instead of using a Microsoft designed Trojan horse.

You may or may not agree with my risk assessment.
But you cannot argue that MS' past behavior is besides the point in this argument. This argument it far too important to be won on technological merits alone. (As in both technological or plug-in availability)

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: O_O
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Silverlight is a different story. MS would have a hard time in a patent infrigement suite due to how much they have helped out with moonlight, but it is MS technology and not under ECMA.

On the other hand though, Flash is an adobe product, and nothing is keeping adobe from dumping linux support any time they feel like it. Not only that, but there probably will never be any flash tools for linux developers, there will be for moonlight. I am not trying to say there is no risk with it, but there are definatley mitigating factors.


Sorry, MS cannot threaten to sue us all (Linux developers and users alike) on one hand, and ask for our cooperation on the other.


You are right, and they aren't.

If MS is serious in it's intent to work with the community, they can start by changing the .NET and Silverlight license and drop the FUD.


You should drop the FUD. You can't start off by saying its not a matter of sueing, then procede to make veiled references to law suites through the whole post.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: O_O
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:03 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Silverlight is a different story. MS would have a hard time in a patent infrigement suite due to how much they have helped out with moonlight, but it is MS technology and not under ECMA.


... Let me put this way, SCO managed to drag the case for, what, 5 years now? Given MS' size and their legal department size guesstimation, I;m willing to bet good money that their lawsuit won't be thrown out of the court house in a summery judgment.

.. But then again, IANAL.

On the other hand though, Flash is an adobe product, and nothing is keeping adobe from dumping linux support any time they feel like it. Not only that, but there probably will never be any flash tools for linux developers, there will be for moonlight. I am not trying to say there is no risk with it, but there are definatley mitigating factors.


Sorry. I don't buy this argument.
To the -best- of knowledge, Adobe has never sued, nor did it threaten to sue any OSS project that reverse-engineered its products.
Call me crazy, but given MS' past behavior (*Hint -convicted- monopolist? *Hint) I rather take my chances with Adobe, thank you.

You are right, and they aren't.


They aren't... what?
Aren't threating to sue world+dog or aren't working with the community?

You should drop the FUD. You can't start off by saying its not a matter of sueing, then procede to make veiled references to law suites through the whole post.


Sorry?
MS not suing? If there's one thing certain in this world (beyond death) is that MS -will- sue commercial Linux and OSS distributors the -second- it feels (that it's monopoly is being) threatened.

... I said, (and I quote)

IANAL, but MS doesn't need to win a court case - it never did.
How many companies capitulated before SCO's demands? How many will capitulate the second MS fires the first lawsuit?


P.S. Calling someone else's arguments "FUD" usually means:
"I didn't have any solid argument to counter your claims so I'll just start calling you names"...

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: O_O"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

The author didn't say that dual licensing and Tivoization are the same, or that dual licensing has no value. He said that Novell prevents contributing authors from protecting their work as they intend, if they intend to use GPL. (They weren't as clever as Tivo, but they achieved a similar end.)

If he accurately represented the licensing clause, Novell can relicense contributions under any terms they want. That surely circumvents the intent of the GPL.

And shouting that Microsoft can't sue even if they wanted to will not impose a limitation on what Microsoft will do. When you run to keep up with Microsoft for the purpose of keeping up with Microsoft, there could easily be something you're doing that isn't protected by the ECMA spec. I know that's subjective, but statements about the future always are.

BTW. Twice you wrote anyone who is even remotely familiar/connected. That could be taken as an attack my or the author's knowledge instead of addressing the issue. That's doesn't help advance your argument.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: O_O
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 12:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: O_O"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

The author didn't say that dual licensing and Tivoization are the same, or that dual licensing has no value. He said that Novell prevents contributing authors from protecting their work as they intend, if they intend to use GPL. (They weren't as clever as Tivo, but they achieved a similar end.)


The GPL has four freedoms:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

the FSF is saying with Tivoization, you are blocking freedom 4 in a roundabout way. There has been alot of discussion and contraversy over this statement, especially on how to deal with it.

I repeat myself, dual licensing is widely considered to be perfectly acceptable. There is no freedom it is in conflict with.

The author did not say they were the same thing, but he did say they were similar. They are not. If you believe that, you need to attack almost any commercial company who is friendly towards linux to be consistant.

And shouting that Microsoft can't sue even if they wanted to will not impose a limitation on what Microsoft will do. When you run to keep up with Microsoft for the purpose of keeping up with Microsoft, there could easily be something you're doing that isn't protected by the ECMA spec. I know that's subjective, but statements about the future always are.


There are alot of things done in .net not part of ECMA. That is fine, if MS ever pulls the plug on them, they are gone. That doesn't take away what IS under ECMA. Neither will MS not continueing to publish specifications. If they stopped tomorrow, mono would still have C# 3.0, and be able to take it in their own direction.

BTW. Twice you wrote anyone who is even remotely familiar/connected. That could be taken as an attack my or the author's knowledge instead of addressing the issue. That's doesn't help advance your argument.


It is an attack on the authors knowledge. When you publish anywhere, you have a responsability to be at least somewhat familiar with what you are talking about. The author demonstrates that he is not.

It was not meant to be an attack on you, more of an education. There are alot of things being said about this issue that are plain not true, and if you havn't actually seriously looked at it, it is easy to be swept up in that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: O_O
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 12:45 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: O_O"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I repeat myself, dual licensing is widely considered to be perfectly acceptable. There is no freedom it is in conflict with.

There seems to be a disconnect here. There is certainly a lot of dual licensing in use, and those that are doing or benefiting from it no doubt consider it to be perfectly acceptable.

But the second license probably always softens or restricts the four freedoms. If it didn't, there would be little point to doing it. So even though, as you point out, dual licensing is widely used, it remains controversial.

But a larger point is that usually when a dual license is used, there are two specific licenses itemized. But the quote in the article implies Novell is free to use whatever license they want. If that's so, they could re-license contributions under the "we have all rights and you have none" license.

That goes beyond the general discussion about dual licensing.

Reply Score: 2

Trollitude
by miguel on Wed 12th Mar 2008 00:27 UTC
miguel
Member since:
2005-07-27

Thom,

Sam Varguese is essentially a tabloid author. He always has, and has never shown any sign of intellect beyond what would be expected by the rage-o-sphere.

In that article he selectively quotes my postings to usenet ignoring the most extensive and more nuanced response. Sam is a partisan hack, loves KDE, hates Gnome and hates Mono.

Jihadists like Sam contribute very little to the advancement of free software and only poison the discourse.

Miguel.

Reply Score: 22

RE: Trollitude
by Almafeta on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:33 UTC in reply to "Trollitude"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

In that article he selectively quotes my postings to usenet ignoring the most extensive and more nuanced response.


Sir:

There is a rule about the amount of energy you should waste in worrying about the criticisms of random people on the Internet.

Reply Score: 4

What an abortion
by leos on Wed 12th Mar 2008 00:44 UTC
leos
Member since:
2005-09-21

Why post this trite? The so called article is so poorly written it's impossible to even know what he's talking about through all the baseless conjecture. Don't give these idiots the advertising hits.

Reply Score: 7

Destructive
by ebasconp on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:06 UTC
ebasconp
Member since:
2006-05-09

I find the article very destructive.

Miguel de Icaza and his team have built an amazing free (as in freedom) .NET implementation, and beyond that: They are creating a new open ecosystem around .NET (e.g. Gtk#, MonoDevelop and all their stuff).

Mono is not about politics, it is about technology.

How can I criticize a Rembrandt's picture if I cannot even draw simple lines? How can I criticize the picture with those so very biased and full-of-hate comments?

Edited 2008-03-12 01:13 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Destructive
by kaiwai on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:18 UTC in reply to "Destructive"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I find the article very destructive.

Miguel de Icaza and his team have built an amazing free (as in freedom) .NET implementation, and beyond that: They are creating a new open ecosystem around .NET (e.g. Gtk#, MonoDevelop and all their stuff).

Mono is not about politics, it is about technology.


But one can't avoid the inevitable face off when it comes to Microsoft and the patents which exist on the technologies in Mono. I therefore find it funny every-time people like me raise perfectly valid questions we have the usual 'froth froth' response by those in the cheap-seats.

Yes, Mono is a great piece of technology, yes, .NET is a great piece of design and engineering, but that is not the question being asked. The question is whether Microsoft is going to threaten Mono in the future; until we have an unequivocal yes or no, as with the case of Sun and Java, in respects to open-source, how can one honestly dedicate time and resources to something with an uncertain legal future.

I find it funny when people like me raise these questions, the only response I've received so far on this site is 'froth froth, you hate Microsoft, froth froth' - yeap, that is the level of maturity I see on this site when it comes to discussing the legal implications of creating a .NET compatible framework.

Reply Score: 16

RE[2]: Destructive
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 02:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

It is because there is next to no chance of it happening.

MS is partnering with Novell with a bunch of stuff atm, so as things stand now there isn't much chance of them sueing. And the .net team has been very pro mono since the beginning, and they actually do stuff to help out (like giving mono their test cases) It isn't right to bank on that, but if they do sue, who cares? Noone is advocating winforms development on linux, winforms is there for compatibility with windows apps. XSP on linux is nice, but it is mostly there to be able to run ASP.net apps without being tied to windows server and IIS. The CLR, C#, GTK#, and Cocoa# are all open standards, and even if MS ends up not playing nice with ECMA, the mono guys can just continue with what they have, and take it in a different direction.

I'm sure you've heard it before, but that is basically it. Most people take something being an open standard published by a reputable standards board to be a uniquivical answer to the question. Not only that, but it has been years now, and instead of hearing rumblings of dissent coming from redmond, we are seeing more and more cooperation, and framework bits being opensourced. If I were to be all like, "ZOMG, TEH SKY IS FALLING!!" about kde going with webkit, or people distributing CUPS because the technologies are now coming out of Apple, you would probably label me as anti-apple, and rightly so. dont get me wrong, I don't think you are lying when you are saying you are concerned about this, but I do think the reason you are is because of FUD that is being spread about it by people who do lie.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 03:35 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

"Microsoft probably won't sue" is hardly a compelling reason to start any project, especially when a number of other outstanding solutions already exist in the FOSS space and could use the extra manpower. If the Mono team was really out to help folks and promote good technology, they'd bring the strengths of the CLR to the open source community.

Parrot needs the kind of design, coding, and testing that Novell and the Mono team could bring to the table.

Vala could use serious manpower in writing interfaces and optimizing the metacompiler.

The GTK team would love help restructuring their libraries and squashing performance bugs.

Helping in any one of these areas would have far-reaching, cross-platform benefits for massive segments of OSS. Instead, the Mono folks chose to write a VM from scratch and play perpetual catch-up to Microsoft ever-changing language extensions (just ask any other vendor how easy and fun it is to ride the Microsoft protocol bronco without getting bucked off). And for what? Well, let's run down a list of Mono's "strengths":

Mono allows unencumbered, cross-platform interoperability... so long as "interoperability" is defined in such a way as to exclude GUIs, database access, and web development.

Well OK, so it's not so great at real, usable interoperability, but hey, if you target Mono, your code will at least run unmodified on Windows... right? As it turns out, it's taken significant porting effort to get Banshee and Beagle to run on Windows (and even then, they're separate forks from the Linux codebase).

The syntax, though, is the fallback argument. C# is beautiful, concise, fun to program in. It's also available for Vala (without the accompanying memory bloat and speed limitations of Mono) and even Parrot.

Yes, there's a lot of people out there whinging about the Novell-Microsoft deal. Sure, there are loads of conspiracy theories and plenty of high-pitched, uninformed FUD-slinging. But once you actually sit down and examine the facts, it's even more clear that Mono is the software equivalent of the Concorde: a technologically sexy novelty, but a total failure for its stated goals.

Reply Score: 12

RE[4]: Destructive
by jpobst on Wed 12th Mar 2008 04:19 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

Helping in any one of these areas would have far-reaching, cross-platform benefits for massive segments of OSS. Instead, the Mono folks chose to write a VM from scratch...


To be fair, Mono predates Parrot by about a year, and predates Vala by about five years. So saying they should have helped on these projects before starting their own "from scratch" is kinda silly.

Reply Score: 6

RE[5]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 04:33 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm afraid you have it backwards. The Mono project was announced almost exactly a year after development on Parrot (Perl 6) began. It then took three years for Mono to be released in usable form.

Vala's just a great idea that better addresses the Mono project's original goals than writing a virtual machine from scratch.

Wikipedia is your friend.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Destructive
by lsls on Wed 12th Mar 2008 11:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Destructive"
lsls Member since:
2006-11-13

If you claim that Mono is not safe to use due to patents, then please don't claim that Vala and Parrot are safe. Vala is a C# clone, and Parrot is a VM.

Patents are about ideas, not about specific implementations. You should know that. So if there is any patented idea about C# or the CLR VM, they may as well apply to Vala and Parrot.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 19:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

Neither C#, nor VMs are encumbered by patents. The concern with Mono is that the usable, interesting bits are patent-encumbered (ASP.NET, WinForms, etc).

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Destructive
by Soulbender on Thu 13th Mar 2008 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Destructive"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Patents are about ideas, not about specific implementations.


It's the exact opposite, actually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Destructive
by jpobst on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:29 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Destructive"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

I was going more for first release, project announcements aren't worth much without code, not that Wikipedia has much history or dates on either project. The best I could find was from Parrot's page, their first release:

Simon 0.0.1 2001-Sep-10

The best I could find for Mono was their 0.3 release announcement:
http://www.go-mono.com/archive/mono-0.3
dated July 12, 2001

So it definitely wasn't a year, I apologize. My point was that neither Parrot nor Vala were established, released projects that Mono people chose to ignore so they could rewrite everything from scratch.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 19:26 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

And my point was that it didn't matter if they were established projects, since Parrot closely matched the Mono group's aims and was in existence at the time.

If you want to build a skyscraper, would you prefer to start with an existing, well-engineered foundation, or would you run off to dig your own hole and start from scratch yourself? If this was the closed-source world, I'd understand Mono's actions, but in the FOSS universe, it doesn't make much sense.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Destructive
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 04:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Helping in any one of these areas would have far-reaching, cross-platform benefits for massive segments of OSS. Instead, the Mono folks chose to write a VM from scratch and play perpetual catch-up to Microsoft ever-changing language extensions (just ask any other vendor how easy and fun it is to ride the Microsoft protocol bronco without getting bucked off). And for what? Well, let's run down a list of Mono's "strengths"


Novell wanted java without the cruft that they could control. None of the environments you mentioned has the "everything and the kitchen sink" mentality that .net and java have. The only reason they play "catch up", is for binary compatiblity with windows apps. That is a huge thing, but from a purely technical point of view they could stop and take it in another direction any time they wanted.

Mono allows unencumbered, cross-platform interoperability... so long as "interoperability" is defined in such a way as to exclude GUIs, database access, and web development.


Mono encourages users to their own stack. It isn't like they just stop at winforms and ado. There is Gtk#, Cocoa#, and Qt# to choose from.

Well OK, so it's not so great at real, usable interoperability, but hey, if you target Mono, your code will at least run unmodified on Windows... right? As it turns out, it's taken significant porting effort to get Banshee and Beagle to run on Windows (and even then, they're separate forks from the Linux codebase).


I don't know how much experience you have with cross platform apps, I was a java guy for almost 5 years and let me tell you, "write once, run anywhere" only applies for trivial apps. And java is arguably as cross platform as it gets.

Knowing nothing about the specific issues in this case, my guess is that GStreamer on windows wasn't really in state for banshee to be usable, and there had to be alot of api mapping to make things work. Gtk on windows is about the opposit of impressive.

Regardless, you do have a point, if you are expecting zero effort porting on a non trivial app, you are in for a big suprise.


The syntax, though, is the fallback argument. C# is beautiful, concise, fun to program in. It's also available for Vala (without the accompanying memory bloat and speed limitations of Mono) and even Parrot.


Does vala or parrot have frameworks that even come close to the .net API? That is one of the big positives, you are using the same framework to write webapps as you use to write desktop apps, as you use to write mobile apps and everything in between.

Yes, there's a lot of people out there whinging about the Novell-Microsoft deal. Sure, there are loads of conspiracy theories and plenty of high-pitched, uninformed FUD-slinging. But once you actually sit down and examine the facts, it's even more clear that Mono is the software equivalent of the Concorde: a technologically sexy novelty, but a total failure for its stated goals.


Its stated goals is to provide a modern, high quality application framework for linux. I would say they succeded; apart from a few areas, their performance is on par with java, and they have managed to stay about a year and a half behind microsoft so far when it comes to functionality.

Personally, I don't think it is the savior of the free software world the way that Novell is trying to plug it, but it has alot of very compelling aspects to it, especially when compared to other options in the same space. As a .net guy on windows, it is the obvious choice for me whenever I want to bang out a quick app or a small tool on linux (making linux development very accessable to windows developers is not a small thing either)

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

Novell wanted java without the cruft that they could control. None of the environments you mentioned has the "everything and the kitchen sink" mentality that .net and java have.


Of course. However, since they were already reimplementing this library from scratch, they could have contributed it to existing projects for the same (or more likely far less) amount of work. (Edit: I forgot to mention that, not only do Python, Perl, and Ruby have the kitchen sink, they often have several competing versions of it.)

The only reason they play "catch up", is for binary compatiblity with windows apps. That is a huge thing, but from a purely technical point of view they could stop and take it in another direction any time they wanted.


Ah yes, but if they do that, they lose perhaps their largest selling point: Cross-platform interoperability. And then they're Just Another VM. And not a particularly fast or slim one, at that.

Mono encourages users to their own stack. It isn't like they just stop at winforms and ado. There is Gtk#, Cocoa#, and Qt# to choose from.


See my comment above. If you use a stack native to a given platform in your code, you can't be cross-platform. It's just that simple. Advocating the use of a native stack renders the project's number one objective moot (I feel like I'm repeating myself).

I don't know how much experience you have with cross platform apps, I was a java guy for almost 5 years and let me tell you, "write once, run anywhere" only applies for trivial apps. And java is arguably as cross platform as it gets.


I'm also a former Java & .NET guy. I'm right there with you on the Great Lie. However, as I've said before, this reality doesn't stop Mono folks from pushing this point as the biggest reason to use their runtime. Just check out their site.

Does vala or parrot have frameworks that even come close to the .net API? That is one of the big positives, you are using the same framework to write webapps as you use to write desktop apps, as you use to write mobile apps and everything in between.


Not as of yet (although Vala is just GObject wrapped in lovely syntax... you really should try it). That's my biggest gripe with Mono, to be honest. Mono didn't inherit the functionalities you're talking about. The hard-working geniuses behind the project had to build them. However, instead of helping out established projects in need of assistance or implementing this stuff at a common layer, they chose to build a walled garden. I'm fine with them justifying it as a business decision (which is what it is), but Novell and the Mono crew explicitly state that their goal is to help out the FOSS community and bring lots of people to the Other Side. This hypocrisy is hard for me to swallow. What they mean is that they want an ecosystem that they control... another beast entirely. That's not FOSS.

Its stated goals is to provide a modern, high quality application framework for linux.


It's stated and heavily emphasized goal is to provide a .NET runtime for platforms not supported by Microsoft. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the very basis for the project.

I would say they succeded; apart from a few areas, their performance is on par with java, and they have managed to stay about a year and a half behind microsoft so far when it comes to functionality.


I wouldn't disagree that they've done an admirable job building a replica of the CLR in Linux. As I've said before, it's an impressive feat. However, as you mention, they're at least a year and a half behind Microsoft. The bad news is that they will never get any closer. In fact, these are the good times, since Microsoft is still playing friendly. They will always be playing catch-up, though, and the effort will be doubly hard when Microsoft realizes it's not making any money helping out Mono.

Personally, I don't think it is the savior of the free software world the way that Novell is trying to plug it, but it has alot of very compelling aspects to it, especially when compared to other options in the same space.


I, unlike many of the religious, am not personally opposed to Mono. It's a remarkable engineering feat and a demonstration of the power of motivated developers. I merely resent the hypocrisy and diversion of resources. It's not here in the Linux world to make my development life easier. It's here to lure business to Linux (specifically, Novell's brand) and away from Windows. The benefit to me and the community at large is minimal or non-existent. The benefit to Novell is huge (free testing and development). It's the programming framework equivalent of astroturfing.

In the open source world, Mono is a solution in need of a problem. Our ecosystem has been designed around giving developers good frameworks since Day 1. In fact, it's often the biggest criticism of open source: It's geared more towards programmers than users. Great development tools, libraries, and languages abound.

As a .net guy on windows, it is the obvious choice for me whenever I want to bang out a quick app or a small tool on linux (making linux development very accessable to windows developers is not a small thing either)


If I want to "bang out a quick app or small tool" in Linux, I can write something in Python, Perl, or Ruby. As an added bonus, it will most likely run just as well on Windows (or *BSD, or Mac OS, or Solaris, or...) without any further porting on my part. Hell, I've found Linux development, even on the system side, to be much easier than Windows development because everything is so much more transparent.

I think the argument you're reaching for here isn't "accessibility", but "familiarity". And if you're looking for both, well then why not use a tool that spits out C(GLib/GTK) code, but has C# syntax (Vala)?

I appreciate the constructive discussion, but I remain unconvinced that Mono is anything more than another "me too" product, however quickly it was brought to market. I'm not more productive, my code doesn't run any faster, and my projects aren't any more portable to other platforms when I use Mono. So what is the point?

Edited 2008-03-12 07:08 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Destructive
by miguel on Wed 12th Mar 2008 16:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

If the Mono team was really out to help folks and promote good technology, they'd bring the strengths of the CLR to the open source community.


None of the solutions that you list are of particular interest to us, as they fail a number of tests: (a) are they multi-language platforms; (b) do they have an extensive ISV platform; (c) readily available documentation and tutorials and an ecosystem around them.

All fascinating projects, and we wish them good luck, but that is not what we want to achieve.

If you feel so passionate about them, you should join those efforts.
Helping in any one of these areas would have far-reaching, cross-platform benefits for massive segments of OSS. Instead, the Mono folks chose to write a VM from scratch and play perpetual catch-up to Microsoft ever-changing language extensions (just ask any other vendor how easy and fun it is to ride the Microsoft protocol bronco without getting bucked off). And for what? Well, let's run down a list of Mono's "strengths":


In some areas we play catch-up, but every time we do, more programmers can port their software to Linux. You probably will not hear about them on OSNews.com, they are too busy getting real work done, but we are very proud of every developer that we have moved over from Windows.

Not all software will port, and not all of it is a 5 minute job, but it is possible, and in particular for vertical applications this is fantastic.


Mono allows unencumbered, cross-platform interoperability... so long as "interoperability" is defined in such a way as to exclude GUIs, database access, and web development.


Incorrect; We do support GUI portability using Windows.Forms, granted, people need to do some work on this area if they use P/Invoke, but its a small price to pay to get your app on Linux or MacOS.

Database access, moves transparently, you obviously have never tried it out, and the same goes for web applications (honestly, the easiest of the applications to port).

Porting to a new *database* (ie, MS SQL to Postgress) typically involves more work that porting the code with Mono. If you do not mind keeping the SQL server around (and most people are not willing to migrate this piece) porting of web apps is trivial.

The rest of your comment is clearly based on opinions based on a vague knowledge of Mono, factoids, not facts.


The syntax, though, is the fallback argument. C# is beautiful, concise, fun to program in. It's also available for Vala (without the accompanying memory bloat and speed limitations of Mono) and even Parrot.


More nonsense. Mono is not about C#, its about the CLI. But even if the "syntax" was available C# has plenty of features not available in either Parrot or Vala. Facts, not speculation.

miguel

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 20:01 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

First off, let me say that it's an honor to be arguing with you, Miguel. ;) I have tremendous respect for your hack-foo ninja skills. However, I cannot agree with many of your "facts".

None of the solutions that you list are of particular interest to us, as they fail a number of tests: (a) are they multi-language platforms;


Parrot is, by its very nature, a language-agnostic, register-based virtual machine. Dozens of languages currently target it. Vala is a meta-compiler to GObject. Its compilation infrastructure is currently being abstracted to allow for arbitrary syntax.

(b) do they have an extensive ISV platform;


As I've said before, this isn't an FOSS concern. It's a business concern. And if that's a primary goal of Mono, I'm fine with that. It's a damn good reason to start the project if the goal is to lure businesses to Linux with minimal shock, but it doesn't really have much value for those of us already on the FOSS side.

(c) readily available documentation and tutorials and an ecosystem around them.


The Parrot project has so damn much documentation, the Amazon would be leveled to put it to paper. And just as you've built an ecosystem around Mono (something you should be proud of), the resources you've invested could have done the same for any other project you chose. Mono's Linux ecosystem didn't exist before you moved in.

Broadly, all these arguments play into the hands of Java, though. It has the added benefit of being an open, collaborative project (and better speed and memory utilization). Please don't portray your decision to shadow .NET as a foregone conclusion.

Incorrect; We do support GUI portability using Windows.Forms, granted, people need to do some work on this area if they use P/Invoke, but its a small price to pay to get your app on Linux or MacOS.


And this is where everybody else (including your own project: http://www.mono-project.com/FAQ:_Licensing) raises the spectre of patents. I'm not in the mood to get on this merry-go-round again, but for those who already write software in the Linux realm (and aren't customers of yours), the threat of losing access to these interfaces is as appealing an engineering solution as building a castle on sand.

More nonsense. Mono is not about C#, its about the CLI. But even if the "syntax" was available C# has plenty of features not available in either Parrot or Vala.


Such as? Every GTK# project I've used/seen uses the same wrapped libraries as a Vala one, yet a Vala-generated application runs native, without any interpretation overhead.

I don't mean to sound like a salesman. Honestly, the investment of resources could have gone to *anything* to make the Linux development ecosystem even more developer-friendly than it already is, instead of reinventing the wheel and tying its development to an unstable partner. Your three-pronged test is just as easily satisfied by Java, Python, Ruby, or Perl as it is by Parrot. I just chose it as an example of a open source project in its infancy at the time you chose to go off and build Mono from scratch.

Respectfully,

Mono Del Diablo (ironic, huh? the name predates your project)

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Destructive
by miguel on Thu 13th Mar 2008 02:41 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Destructive"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

First off, let me say that it's an honor to be arguing with you, Miguel. ;) I have tremendous respect for your hack-foo ninja skills. However, I cannot agree with many of your "facts".


Well, that is because your understanding of the subject is very superficial, and as such you draw your conclusion from bumper stickers.


"More nonsense. Mono is not about C#, its about the CLI. But even if the "syntax" was available C# has plenty of features not available in either Parrot or Vala.


Such as? Every GTK# project I've used/seen uses the same wrapped libraries as a Vala one, yet a Vala-generated application runs native, without any interpretation overhead.
"

Well, Mono is not an interpreter, so you got that one wrong. But engaging in this discussion is merely an exercise in an opinion on who's dick is bigger.

Your knowledge is still razor thin, or I would not have to point out all the C# 2 and 3 features (or 1) that are different from what Vala supports (iterators, query expressions, lambdas, expression trees). And then follow up with features in the framework itself (garbage collection, reflection, delegates, asynchronous invocation framework).

Miguel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Thu 13th Mar 2008 06:52 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, that is because your understanding of the subject is very superficial, and as such you draw your conclusion from bumper stickers.


Quite to the contrary. And I don't appreciate the personal attacks in lieu of substance.

Well, Mono is not an interpreter, so you got that one wrong.


It must be especially embarrassing that you accused me of not knowing anything and in the same breath demonstrate such ignorance yourself. JIT is still interpretation and even if you maintain that this is debatable (Wikipedia and any CS major would disagree with you), it still qualifies as overhead when compared to, you know, compiled native machine code.

Your knowledge is still razor thin, or I would not have to point out all the C# 2 and 3 features (or 1) that are different from what Vala supports (iterators, query expressions, lambdas, expression trees). And then follow up with features in the framework itself (garbage collection, reflection, delegates, asynchronous invocation framework).


Whose knowledge is thin? Did you even bother to look up Vala? It does support iterators, lambdas, and delegates, as per the website. I'll admit that, sadly, I'm not familiar with expression trees. What are they useful for? I'm sure that if a need is expressed, they can be rolled in.

Reference counting seems to work just fine for Vala's memory management. It is, after all, merely a wrapper around GObject's ref()/unref(). It could use some work, though. Does Mono use some other mechanism when it wraps G* libraries?

Reflection/introspection are under active development (in fact, Jürg, the lead developer of Vala, has been instrumental in pushing the gobject-introspection project). This development is implemented low enough in the framework that any language will be able to take advantage of it, too, in true open source spirit.

Similarly, asynchronous invocation, query expressions, and other framework enhancements are being implemented on a low level outside of Vala itself so that everybody can benefit from their modularity and language agnosticism.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Destructive
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Destructive"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Should I point the battle between RAMBUS and JEDEC members? [1]
Readers digest: RAMBUS sat at the JEDEC (Joint Electron Device Engineering Council) sessions surrounding SDRAM and DDR standards, while in-fact, they were attempting to patent key technologies that were discussed by JEDEC members that were considered common knowledge.
Shortly after RAMBUS retired from JEDEC and started suing JEDEC members for "patent infringement".

Somehow I won't be shocked if MS pulls a "RAMBUS" on mono/silverlight users/developers.

- Gilboa
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambus

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Destructive
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 11:57 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Do you remember how the RAMBUS fiasco ended? I'm sure microsoft does. They got told that they could not encourage their intellectual property to be used by everyone, and then turn around and sue the industry.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Destructive
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 13:38 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Destructive"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Do you remember how the RAMBUS fiasco ended? I'm sure microsoft does. They got told that they could not encourage their intellectual property to be used by everyone, and then turn around and sue the industry.


Should I -really- point out that RAMBUS was (at it's peak) around 1/100 the size of Microsoft?
... Should I -really- add that unlike RAMBUS (that sued far bigger targets then itself) - Microsoft is 50 times bigger then its intendant targets?

No? didn't think so.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

v RE[2]: Destructive
by tomcat on Wed 12th Mar 2008 02:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
RE[3]: Destructive
by monodeldiablo on Wed 12th Mar 2008 03:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Destructive"
monodeldiablo Member since:
2005-07-06

This issue is all about technology licensing, not politics. The only ones who are going to care about the politics are the Kool-Aid drinkers such as Stallman, who consider commercial licensing to be anathema.


For a platform build on FOSS, it is.

P.S. Blanket discounting of opposing opinions is childish and intellectually disingenuous.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Destructive
by tomcat on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Destructive"
tomcat Member since:
2006-01-06

For a platform build on FOSS, it is.


Reread my comment. You obviously care about the TECHNOLOGY LICENSING ISSUE, not the politics. Politics is about appearances ... you know, the meaningless bullshit attendant to human existence ... And, like I said, only the zealots care about the politics. The LICENSING, on the other hand, is a legitimate issue.

P.S. Blanket discounting of opposing opinions is childish and intellectually disingenuous.


I didn't. You simply didn't understand the nuance of my comment.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Destructive
by miguel on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27


I find it funny when people like me raise these questions, the only response I've received so far on this site is 'froth froth, you hate Microsoft, froth froth' - yeap, that is the level of maturity I see on this site when it comes to discussing the legal implications of creating a .NET compatible framework.


That sounds like a strawman, because it has never been a problem of portraying someone as being a zealot for raising valid questions.

The issue has always been that people raise the same issues that have been beaten to death for years. Extensive blog postings and answers have been posted to countless forums and my own blog that go into the details.

I pointed this out on that thread on Usenet, the piece that Sam selectively chose to ignore in the same section of my reply (it would have ruined his argument had he done so).

Miguel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Destructive
by crystall on Wed 12th Mar 2008 07:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
crystall Member since:
2007-02-06

But one can't avoid the inevitable face off when it comes to Microsoft and the patents which exist on the technologies in Mono.

Since everybody seems so worried about patents, can you point out exactly which 'technologies' present in Mono can be subject to those patents? For example there is not a single chance in hell Microsoft can use part of their patents portfolio against Mono VM. The Mono VM is pretty much run-of-the-mill stuff, there's lots and lots of prior art on pretty much every aspect of the VM, no patent on those technologies would stand for more than 5 minutes in a court.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Destructive
by lindkvis on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
lindkvis Member since:
2006-11-21

Can you please name ONE Microsoft patent that you would infringe upon by creating a GNOME application with Mono and GTK#?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Destructive
by mabhatter on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:10 UTC in reply to "Destructive"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

it's ALL about politics... when you lie with dogs, you get the fleas.

There's no point in an open source C# implementation. It's nice to think you can play in Microsoft's world, but nobody can. period. It's played out countless times that they eat their partners. While Microsoft may have supported Mono, they basically accused all of the other linux technology Novell used to support it as "infringing" what great business partners!!!

The technology of C# was just a copy of Java anyway. Again, basically stolen from their attempt to implement Java under contract with SUN when Microsoft bailed on them. The whole point is that Mono will ALWAYS be a closed box.. always behind... This guy was determined hell or high water to drag Gnome right into the middle of this mess.

There were a lot of other projects that could have used the help, Gnome should have used python or such that was already established, and runs just fine on windows. Miguel is still thinking old school, like Charlie Brown, that Lucy (Microsoft) will let his company kick the football this time.... really! It is politics, Microsoft doesn't play fair, it's time to build our OWN way of doing things and somebody hugely important, with the resources to do it, is trying to be buddy with the one company with a proven record of not playing fair... what a waste of years and millions of dollars, not to mention the diminishment of a great linux distro (SuSe) into an also-ran.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Destructive
by spikeb on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:13 UTC in reply to "Destructive"
spikeb Member since:
2006-01-18

free software is inherently political.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Destructive
by Redeeman on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:58 UTC in reply to "Destructive"
Redeeman Member since:
2006-03-23

You dont have to pocess a skill to be able to criticize others who do it badly.

By your logic, if i couldnt drive a car, i would not be able to point out that someone else is a terrible driver, even though he has a license....

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Destructive
by aesiamun on Wed 12th Mar 2008 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE: Destructive"
aesiamun Member since:
2005-06-29

In the same sense, I can't direct a movie, but Uwe Boll films are horrible... ;)

Reply Score: 3

all politics
by djames on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:23 UTC
djames
Member since:
2006-04-18

Have you all wondered if Microsoft/Novell deal is a propaganda from Microsoft to stall MONO's future?

Are companies going to invest in MONO? NO.
Are developers willing to invest in MONO for their job's sake? NO.

Why? Because they don't know what the future holds.

And if you do invest in it - is there a possibility a lawsuit would force you to switch to an alternative solution by our good friends at Microsft. YES

Edited 2008-03-12 01:25 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: all politics
by Almafeta on Wed 12th Mar 2008 01:28 UTC in reply to "all politics"
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Are companies going to invest in MONO? NO.


If you change that to "Have companies invested in MONO," you would get a "Yes."

Edited 2008-03-12 01:29 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: all politics
by google_ninja on Wed 12th Mar 2008 02:13 UTC in reply to "all politics"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Companies are have already invested in mono. Developers are getting paid to work full time on mono. Mono is under an ECMA standard, so the core technology is safe (what is up for debate is extra stuff like winforms or the asp.net port) Fairly large companies (Second Life for example, but there are others) are already using mono as a robust scripting engine. There isn't really any chance they would be sued, as the core technology which they use is under ECMA.

Your entire post is almost a poster child of the massive amounts of FUD that are being spread around this project. There are legitimate concerns around mono, but you didn't even touch on any of them.

Reply Score: 8

RE[2]: all politics
by djames on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:49 UTC in reply to "RE: all politics"
djames Member since:
2006-04-18

"There isn't really any chance they would be sued, as the core technology which they use is under ECMA."

I apologize. Instead of stating the two words "Microsoft" and "lawsuit" I should have clearly used "Microsoft" and "f*cking over a project without the court system".


"There are legitimate concerns around mono, but you didn't even touch on any of them."

You've proved my point WHY Fortune 500 companies are not investing in MONO.

MONO has one advantage. MIGRATION. Company wants to port their Windows .NET infrastructure to Linux? Use MONO as the bridge and gradually port. Company wants to move from Linux to MS .NET? Use MONO.

As you notice, it's a whole lot easier to port from Windows .NET to Linux using MONO. HENCE A THREAT TO MICROSOFT. Do I need to remind you Microsoft makes $$$ on middle tier infrastructure?

Reply Score: 1

Sigh, am I really doing this?
by elsewhere on Wed 12th Mar 2008 04:55 UTC
elsewhere
Member since:
2005-07-13

Wow, I never in a million years thought I'd be posting in defense of mono, but the cliche'd rhetoric is getting over the top.

mono and the Windows .net compatability components are two separate things. C# is an ECMA standard, and MS has provided a will-not-sue provision. Their developers have even worked with, though not contributed alongside, the mono developers. Microsoft's ability to sue for patent infringement has been effectively waived. Of course there's nothing to stop them from trying, but their ability to actually win a legal challenge, alongside the fallout they could receive for trying, makes the probability virtually nil. The fact that Fedora accepted mono should also be an endorsement of that position, because despite the arms-length separation of Red Hat, there's no way they would have permitted it if legal felt there was a liability. Blogosphere pundits may have their own opinions, but I suspect that Red Hat's lawyers have opinions that are somewhat more qualified.

Now, the Windows components are a separate issue. But you can develop quite comfortably with mono and GTK#, and Gnome really needed a comprehensive application framework, which nobody had stepped up to deliver. Even KDE is going to be providing C# bindings. It's about providing options to developers.

I find mono to be ridiculously bloated and resource intensive from my own experience with mono-apps, but I will also acknowledge that the developers have been going to great pains to try and improve it, with respectable results.

I don't need mono, I don't particularly want mono, but I will defend mono if the best argument against it amounts to "ick, Microsoft". Argue on technical merits, argue on design merits, argue on the simple fact that beagle fries CPUs, but let's at least keep the arguments rational. Please, I don't want to ever have to defend mono again.

Reply Score: 11

RE: Sigh, am I really doing this?
by gilboa on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:44 UTC in reply to "Sigh, am I really doing this?"
gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

Fedora != RedHat.

I can only assume that RedHat's lawyers decided that mono was safe for "free" distribution (Fedora), but not for commercial one (RHEL).

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 3

GNU products
by fithisux on Wed 12th Mar 2008 06:46 UTC
fithisux
Member since:
2006-01-22

get more and more relevant. DotGNU is a viable alternative and I wish they built it on LessTif(which needs polishing) another anti-proprietary alternative. I have to find some time to checkout their code and start contributing.

Reply Score: 1

what is the cause of free software?
by Googol on Wed 12th Mar 2008 07:24 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

and is all free software only written to serve that cause or can there be other reasons, too..?

Reply Score: 1

Moonlight
by irbis on Wed 12th Mar 2008 09:55 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

Yes, the article is one-sided and biased... When submitting this news, I was hoping that the following, hopefully rational and civilized discussion in the comments section would bring clarity to the problematic issues (instead of people just calling names and blaming each other...).

Let's concentrate on real factual issues instead of personal attacks etc. Despite ECMA nobody can deny that many people like companies still seem to be feeling at least somewhat insecure about using Mono and related technologies like Moonlight from a legal point of view. Why is that, and what could be done about that?

I quote the Wikipedia Moonlight page here as it summarizes some of the problems clearly:

Proponents such as Groklaw argued early on that the licensing rights are only granted to Novell and Novell's customers. This claim was confirmed when Microsoft released a public covenant not to sue anyone that makes use of Moonlight, but with very restrictive conditions (Microsoft reserves the right to discontinue the covenant, it covers only uses of Moonlight as a Plugin on a browser, only if Moonlight has been obtained though Novell, and providing it has not been developed on a GPLV3-like license).

Some commentators have argued that this may be an attempt by Microsoft to both gain support from those in the open source community[16], and attract them to a proprietary Microsoft technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonlight_%28runtime%29

Any comments on that?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Moonlight
by segedunum on Wed 12th Mar 2008 11:25 UTC in reply to "Moonlight"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Any comments on that?


Other than a referral to Mono's patents FAQ, I doubt whether you will get a response.

What's happening here is that Microsoft have always liked to used technical restrictions to protect their technology from competition. It doesn't make them better or worse than any other company, but they can do this because they control Windows. However, with the advent of things like Samba, and Wine to a lesser extent, and with the advent of people virtualising Windows on other platforms, they quickly realised this wasn't enough. When Microsoft releases anything publicly it is now under a plethora of academic-only licenses and restrictive terms and conditions.

The trouble with Silverlight is that it doesn't have a critical mass of usage, so Microsoft has to try and boost its it. They can do this through creating a Mac port, and allowing projects like Moonlight to exist. However, the dominant implementation will still be Microsoft's Silverlight, so fully expect to see the Mac port stagnate and Moonlight to have real difficulty implementing various features in successive versions - and for Novell's access to the test suites to disappear.

Silverlight is mainly used for video right now (if at all), so if you want to use it then you will need to compile Moonlight with ffmpeg yourself. Amusingly, this has patent issues according to Miguel in his post so Novell won't do this, so they are going to do some licensing of patents to allow this to happen at an unspecified date. This means that if you're using an implementation or distribution that isn't Novell's, you're out of luck.

Edited 2008-03-12 11:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Moonlight
by miguel on Wed 12th Mar 2008 16:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Moonlight"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27


Silverlight is mainly used for video right now (if at all), so if you want to use it then you will need to compile Moonlight with ffmpeg yourself. Amusingly, this has patent issues according to Miguel in his post so Novell won't do this, so they are going to do some licensing of patents to allow this to happen at an unspecified date. This means that if you're using an implementation or distribution that isn't Novell's, you're out of luck.


The issue is very simple, unless we are able to transfer the same patent rights that we have to third parties when we redistribute ffmpeg code, we are not allowed to distribute ffmpeg.

As we are going to become licensor (for other reasons beyond Moonlight) to MPEGLA's VC-1 we can not distribute ffmpeg ourselves.

This should not prevent anyone from distributing it themselves, and those that do not have valid VC-1 patents in their countries to do so.

Miguel.

Reply Score: 3

Jesus wept
by lindkvis on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:10 UTC
lindkvis
Member since:
2006-11-21

If we are to worry so much about possible patents in Mono that we ignore this very good software development platform, we have lots of other things to remove. To name a couple:

* We need to remove FAT32 support. Microsoft HAS been granted patents covering this file system. With it goes support for camera memory cards and using USB keys interchangeably between Linux and Windows.
* We need to remove Samba/CIFS. Microsoft has patents here which they may sue about in the future.

The only reason people aren't screaming as loudly about these as Mono, is that these two projects are utterly essential and it would really ruin the experience if they are taken away.

The sad fact is that many Linux projects infringe on some patents, but the good news is that many of these patents will never be sued over.

Why?
a) Because the patent holder knows the patents wouldn't hold up in court, and
b) Because the patent holders are bound to infringe on patents held by the likes of IBM and Red Hat.

It is a shame Novell signed a patent covenant that sort of legitimised Microsoft's over the top claims, but this does not mean that Mono is useless.

The parts of Mono that is needed to create a superb GNOME development platform are standardised through ECMA (the core) or has no relation with Microsoft (ie. gtk#) whatsoever.

The chances of running into any trouble by using the c#, the mono core and gtk# or Qt# to create GNOME/KDE applications is so small it isn't a risk worth worrying about.

Reply Score: 1

Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by segedunum on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:19 UTC
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

I still can't believe that people still believe these myths that come out of the Mono community on this topic:

As anyone who is even remotely familiar with this discussion knows, parts of the framework are under ECMA and therefor safe to use, and other parts are not. The parts which are not are things like ADO.net......


Mono is under an ECMA standard, so the core technology is safe...


...platform are standardised through ECMA (the core) or has no relation with Microsoft (ie. gtk#) whatsoever.


This is completely false. The situation is that when Microsoft submitted the CLR, CLS and C# specs to the ECMA, and they were accepted, they had to enter into an agreement that any patents they had on them would be overlooked on the basis of reasonable and non-discriminatory terms (RAND). You can verify these here:

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm

However, what ECMA does not do is stop Microsoft from having patents on the technology, now and in the future, and it does not stop Microsoft from using them at such a time as it sees fit. The agreement is not legally binding, and the ECMA is powerless to do anything. The only thing that will probably happen, and can happen, is that should Microsoft decide to break the RAND terms then the ECMA will take them down as their own standards and cancel them. Everyone who used them is left to face the consequences.

This is why there was some hoo-ha a while ago about Miguel and the Mono people allegedly having a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP about these RAND terms being guaranteed indefinitely. Needless to say, no letter ever materialised.

I have never seen anyone get this. Anywhere.

The second myth that does the rounds is that Mono is at much the same risk from patents as anyone else. The reasonably clever thing that Microsoft have done with their .Net patents is that they have stated that the scope of the patent is anyone who implements a CLR according to the ECMA specifications. I'll have to dig out an example of this, but the USPTO links are impossible to post because of their length. Microsoft like to box in and protect what they see as their IP - regardless of whether it has been submitted to a standards body or not. Microsoft are not into general patents as others are, and prefer technical restrictions. You see this with OOXML as well and what you need to implement it. I'm really not surprised that Miguel doesn't answer questions well on the subject of patents, Microsoft and the usefulness of cloning their technology.

There are other issues related to cloning Microsoft technology, but those are related to technology and the practicality and usefulness of it. For Mono, and Moonlight, to be really useful Microsoft's implementations would essentially have to be put in very dominant positions. Ironically, Mono and Moonlight would have helped .Net and Silverlight to get there. As a result of that dominant position, there is no guarantee that successive versions of .Net and Silverlight will remain compatible with Moonlight and Mono - excessive use of DRM in Windows Media etc. In that sense, yes, you have to ask if you can trust Microsoft and it is not a subject for Cosmo or Teen magazine.

Anyone who doesn't get that isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the box, and yes, the article is slightly inflammatory, but it does give an insight into how Miguel and the Mono people would like to trivialise this. Why they would want to do that, one can only guess. Maybe they just don't understand it.

Edited 2008-03-12 10:22 UTC

Reply Score: 17

RE: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by KenJackson on Wed 12th Mar 2008 10:43 UTC in reply to "Myths About ECMA 'Safety'"
KenJackson Member since:
2005-07-18

I really, really want to you a plus for this, segedunum, but I can't because I already posted something further up the page. I just don't understand why OSN put in that limitation.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by miguel on Wed 12th Mar 2008 16:32 UTC in reply to "Myths About ECMA 'Safety'"
miguel Member since:
2005-07-27

Read our FAQ, you clearly did not do it.

Microsoft licenses the ECMA core under RAND-Z (Z stands for "Zero cost").

Miguel.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by segedunum on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Read our FAQ, you clearly did not do it.


You can't keep hiding behind the FAQ Miguel. Nowhere on the FAQ does it answer what was written. It merely perpetuates the myth that the ECMA implemented stuff is safe. It isn't the more you read.

Microsoft licenses the ECMA core under RAND-Z (Z stands for "Zero cost").


I'm sorry, I have to take a double-take there. Did you read what was written? Microsoft only licenses the ECMA core stuff because the ECMA requires them to if they want this to continue being a set of ECMA standards.

Problems:

1. Microsoft does not have to license the core material under RAND terms forever. They can change this whenever they like. Most likely is that Microsoft will stop contributing to the ECMA core stuff, but they can cause a lot more damage and scaremongering if they feel like it.

2. The ECMA is powerless to stop Microsoft having patented material within their standards, or acquiring them later.

3. The ECMA is powerless to stop Microsoft revoking the RAND terms, other than cancelling the standards altogether.

4. The ECMA has no legal power at all to hold Microsoft to these RAND terms.

They're legitimate concerns which I think others have raised, but I haven't seen them follow through on.

Why do you think Microsoft licenses Rotor and various other things under strictly academic style licenses? They aren't going to let this go, and that's what they see anything that implements the ECMA core as - an academic project that helps them. Nothing more. In short, you just built your town on a piece of land with an awful lot of mine workings underneath. It might go tomorrow, next week or next year - but it will go.

Edited 2008-03-13 01:52 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: Myths About ECMA 'Safety'
by elsewhere on Thu 13th Mar 2008 04:15 UTC in reply to "Myths About ECMA 'Safety'"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

However, what ECMA does not do is stop Microsoft from having patents on the technology, now and in the future, and it does not stop Microsoft from using them at such a time as it sees fit. The agreement is not legally binding, and the ECMA is powerless to do anything. The only thing that will probably happen, and can happen, is that should Microsoft decide to break the RAND terms then the ECMA will take them down as their own standards and cancel them. Everyone who used them is left to face the consequences.

This is why there was some hoo-ha a while ago about Miguel and the Mono people allegedly having a letter from Microsoft, Intel and HP about these RAND terms being guaranteed indefinitely. Needless to say, no letter ever materialised.


To both of your paragraphs, Microsoft engineers have actually worked with mono developers, and important point that will make sense in the following paragraph, and yes, it's important to note that HP and Intel strong-armed MS into agreeing to terms that were far more lenient than ECMA's RAND requirements. Don't forget that HP and Intel are probably the two companies, next to IBM, that could render MS most vulnerable to the much referred to "MAD" scenario in patent warfare.

There also exists a doctrine of prosecution laches in US law. There is established precedent for companies being denied patent enforceability in situations where they were deemed to have intentionally delayed legal remedy while knowing infringement was occuring. One particular precedent set by the circuit court held that 6 years of knowing infringement was occurring without seeking legal relief rendered the claim invalid. And such and such. Frankly, I suspect this is the actual reason Ballmer has been on his public "linux steals our IP and should license it" campaign, it's an attempt to mitigate the laches defense, should MS ever choose to pursue legal action (not likely to happen), but there have been no such claims made against mono in particular.

Point is that it is not as black and white as you're making it out to be. MS are bastards, I don't think anybody would deny that. They have an established history of eating their own children. But if every company or organization refrained from creating technology under the grounds that it might infringe MS (or anyone else's) ambiguous IP claims, then the industry would have crawled to a standstill years ago.

It's also worth noting that MS has never executed a patent-infringement lawsuit, with only one exception I'm aware of, and that their defense against the various patent lawsuits they constantly face actually helps serve to reduce the validity of software patents.

At the end of the day, the patent mess is more-or-less restricted to the US, and it's a system on the verge of imploding on itself. There's no reason the rest of the world should refrain from innovative coding, in the meantime.

Like I said, I'm not particularly for mono, and I'm not that impressed with it. Just trying to keep the arguments intelligent and on track.

Reply Score: 2

What a Cheapshot ...
by dindin on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:01 UTC
dindin
Member since:
2006-03-29

and it worked. look at all the traffic it generated including mine. This is more worthy of Tabloid news.

Reply Score: 1

Mono is a Bad Idea
by BrendaEM on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:01 UTC
BrendaEM
Member since:
2005-11-23

Why ride a horse you can't steer.

I find it disturbing that that asking reasonable questions, or expressing an opinion equals flamebait.

I think that Mono is bad for Gnome too.
There are so many other things to work on.

Reply Score: 2

I see why MS is so successful.
by jboss1995 on Wed 12th Mar 2008 14:42 UTC
jboss1995
Member since:
2007-05-02

The majority of people are gullible enough to keep trusting them. I refuse to continue filling sorry for people and companies that get in to bed with MS only to wakeup with there throat cut. The saying holds true: "Full me once shame on you full me twice shame on me".

Reply Score: 0

Usability and Regression
by BeJay on Wed 12th Mar 2008 15:57 UTC
BeJay
Member since:
2005-10-30

Well what ever the pros and cons on other issues the author is right about usability and regression. Everytime I have tried Ubuntu there has been some bug or other whether with syncing with my Palm device, sound, or more usually network cards. Network bugs seem to be part of the Ubuntu culture and experience. I have a bug with my current card that has lasted over three releases. Why does no one fix these things!
The process of trying to identify, hack or fix these bugs via the Linux terminal, complicated by sudo, is excruciating! Sorry guys it does not 'just work' like it is supposed to!

Reply Score: 1

Oh no! Miguel is thinking for himself!
by MollyC on Wed 12th Mar 2008 18:19 UTC
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

I'm not sure why this story made it to OSNews, it's about nothing except Miguel (an OSNews member) defending himself from attacks launched by the lunatic fringe portion of comp.os.linux.advocacy. There's no story here (or if there is, it's so horribly written that one can't see it).

That being said:
God forbid that an OSS advocate has different opinions on certain things than the slashdot crowd and comp.os.linux.advocacy Usenet crowd, for such is a heretic and Judas who must be shunned, ostracized, and crushed!!

It is quite irrational to spend so much time and energy trashing a programmer that is simply doing work as he sees fit. He's not committing any crimes, or committing sins, or anything like that, but he's publicly attacked for having the gall to create open source software that is not blessed by the OSS priesthood.

The irony is that Miguel has done more good OSS work than his all of his detractors combined.

Reply Score: 6

Mono is a trojan horse
by shapeshifter on Wed 12th Mar 2008 19:24 UTC
shapeshifter
Member since:
2006-09-19

placed inside the Linux community.
And Miquel is riding.

Anybody who can read and has been around for a while knows what Microsoft is about.
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which makes it a criminal organization, equivalent to a mafia engaged in organized crime.

If history has anything to say, then it clearly shows that Microsoft doesn't take prisoners.

And sensible people don't associate or make deals with criminals.

But why are we surprised about Novell making deals with Microsoft and pushing that trojan horse called Mono?

Microsoft already killed Novell once before, remember Netware anyone?
Novell is now just a zombie doing Microsoft's dirty work.
Or kind of like that greasy haired, sweaty weasel informant running hunched to the big boss making reports on its progress.
I'd rather stick my fingers into a snake pit than touch Mono.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mono is a trojan horse
by fretinator on Wed 12th Mar 2008 20:13 UTC in reply to "Mono is a trojan horse"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff. He put us all at risk. He should have known that ATT, er... Novell, er... SCO, er... TigerDirect would come after us some day to get that UNIX license from us. It was all a secret plot by Linux to get us to submit to running AIX.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono is a trojan horse
by fretinator on Wed 12th Mar 2008 22:11 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono is a trojan horse"
fretinator Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff. He put us all at risk. He should have known that ATT, er... Novell, er... SCO, er... TigerDirect would come after us some day to get that UNIX license from us. It was all a secret plot by Linux to get us to submit to running AIX.


Bad spelling, too late - replace Linux above with Linus.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono is a trojan horse
by segedunum on Thu 13th Mar 2008 01:49 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono is a trojan horse"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

True, that Linux dude really made a mistake when he decided to make a Free implementation of that Unix stuff.


Independent implementations were developed that followed the Unix model loosely, as well is implementing a genuinely open standard such as Posix. GNU stands for GNU is Not Unix, remember. Implementing a set of standards that are licensed for an unspecified amount of time under reasonable and non-discriminatory terms, and where you're following these standards, is a bit of a different ball game and it's simply not one worth playing.

As a comparison, you could create a runtime environment inspired by the CLR, but which doesn't follow the ECMA core, and create APIs that look vaguely like the .Net framework but which don't map to it one-to-one, and you'd be in the clear - and Microsoft's own patent text would confirm it for you!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mono is a trojan horse
by Bit_Rapist on Wed 12th Mar 2008 20:57 UTC in reply to "Mono is a trojan horse"
Bit_Rapist Member since:
2005-11-13

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which makes it a criminal organization, equivalent to a mafia engaged in organized crime.

Not to get off subject here but if you actually read about the case you'll find that MS was tried in a civil court of law.

Using the logic that any individual or company convicted in any court (civil or criminal) puts them on equal footing with organized crime is ridiculous at best.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Mono is a trojan horse
by Soulbender on Thu 13th Mar 2008 05:45 UTC in reply to "Mono is a trojan horse"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist, which makes it a criminal organization, equivalent to a mafia engaged in organized crime.


Your grasp of the legal system is hilariously bad.

Reply Score: 2

People so concerned about Mono ...
by JeffS on Wed 12th Mar 2008 19:58 UTC
JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

... should just do with Parrot, Python, Vala, whatever, what has been done with Mono - i.e great IDE like Monodevelop, great tools, great GTK bindings, great docs, great libraries, and so on.

Then few would have any reason to use Mono.

In the meantime, of all the GTK+ bindings I've seen, GTK# is the best. Of all the IDEs and GUI forms designers for Gnome/Linux I've seen, Monodevelop is the best. So there is a compelling reason to use it.

Migration is also compelling. There are real life examples of Windows/.Net to Linux/Mono migration, particularly on the Web/ASP.Net side.

Reply Score: 2

PlatformAgnostic Member since:
2006-01-02

Reading your post and remembering Stallman's insistence on calling it GNU/Linux made me chuckle.

We have GNOME/Linux now and Windows/.NET. I'm sorry, but you can't call it .NET because that disregards all of the contributions made by the Windows organization... You must only speak of Windows/.NET.

In fact Windows isn't appropriate either. It's really Win32/NT/.NET.

Reply Score: 2

irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

As long as Microsoft claims that Linux violates (something like) 235 of its patents, I do not wonder at all if people in the Linux camp don't want to touch software technology that is designed by Microsoft. Why would they want to enforce Microsoft's patent claims?

What might those MS patents be? Maybe nothing but just thin air.

Of course, as Microsoft does not want to clarify what those infringed patents might be, it may only be bluffing, maybe trying to extort money and more patent deals, and especially to scare people away from Linux. But even if it was all just baseless FUD and extortion, it seems only natural to me if many Linux people do not trust Microsoft and if they are also afraid to use Microsoft related open source software like Moonlight and Mono however open standards many of those technologies are claimed to be. It seems perfectly natural human behaviour to me when facing threats from others.

Reply Score: 3

DonnyEMU
Member since:
2007-01-29

Come on folks,I am an RIA developer myself. I love working in Silverlight and the fact that those applications are going to be runable on Linux and Mac OS X makes me absolutely extatic. I can now make an application that I write once and it will run everywhere with a featureset and a framework that I love to work in.

There are other folks and companies here who benefit from Silverlight other than Microsoft. It's kind of important to remember them to. There is nothing wrong with commerce either..

At the end of the day isn't it about the software experience people are having..

Reply Score: 1

Gnome and Mono
by sargek on Thu 13th Mar 2008 11:26 UTC
sargek
Member since:
2007-07-12

Fortunately, Gnome does not have any core technology based on Mono. Technology aside, anything even remotely derived from Microsoft "technologies", and I use that term loosely, is a trojan horse in the making. Microsoft cannot be trusted in any way, shape or form. They are evil incarnate, want only world domination in the software world and will do anything in their power to achieve it. Fortunately, they produce some of the worst software products on the planet and people are now starting to wake up to this.

The article seems to incite FUD and this is certainly not something we in the FOSS community need to be doing.

Reply Score: 2

JeffS
Member since:
2005-07-12

Mono and Monodevelop are nice, but I'm really intrigued with Vala. You get a lot of the advantages of the syntax, memory management, but without the VM overhead.

I've also always really like regular old GTK, or Gtkmm. They're fast and powerful, and relatively easy to work with. And using Anjuta with Glade makes them really easy.

Really, the only time I'm actually interested in a VM language/environment/platform is for cross platform development. For that, Java/Swing have become really good as of late.

Otherwise, Vala, Gtk, GTKmm are great for me.

Also, as a user, I'd rather use a natively compiled application over a VM/JIT application every time. With the native app, I get faster start up time, less overhead, and generally speaking better over all performance.

Reply Score: 2

About bridging
by trenchsol on Fri 14th Mar 2008 01:09 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Perhaps Mr. Icaza could focus on bridging between .NET and other technologies instead of trying to mimic Microsoft. That would do much good for the developers. For example, making easy to call .NET (disputed compatibility) web service from Java, Python or PHP.

I don't care much about Free Software, although I use it, and don't care much about GNome which I never use. Anyway, Mr. Icaza will never catch up with Microsoft, and Gnome should be Gnome, not .NET.

DG

Reply Score: 2