Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:29 UTC
Mono Project We've had a lot of debates recently on the merits - or dangers - of Mono. We've had troubles with how Microsoft views Mono and whether or not everyone is safe using it, but we also had a public back-and-forth among Debian maintainers. During all this, Richard Stallman remained pretty mum on the issue, today he broke the silence on the FSF website.
Order by: Score:
Re: Confusion
by JMcCarthy on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:40 UTC
JMcCarthy
Member since:
2005-08-12

"He's arguing against writing Free applications in C#, but he's happy there are Free C# tools. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it."

If you have a choice in the matter, there are better choices. If you don't, something is better than nothing.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Re: Confusion
by kragil on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:16 UTC in reply to "Re: Confusion"
kragil Member since:
2006-01-04

Exactly. You can say a lot of things about RMS, but he certainly does not have a low IQ.(Remembering all the emacs commands alone will raise your IQ 20 points ;) )

Basically what he says is: Use it to run windows code or if you must, don't if you can help it.

Edited 2009-06-30 22:17 UTC

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Re: Confusion
by daedliusswartz on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:48 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Confusion"
daedliusswartz Member since:
2007-05-28

Something is better than nothing equates to a high IQ? Hmm..

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Re: Confusion = thinking
by jabbotts on Wed 1st Jul 2009 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Confusion"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It indicates enough IQ to think the issue through beyond ideology. He's not blindly saying it's evil and should be abolished. He's actually sticking to his point about hardware drivers and other software; if you don't have a choice then a closed source or similar program is what you have to go with. When an alternative becomes available, consider that instead of the closed source.

For hardware, I want my GPU and wifi NIC to work first and formost which usually means a closed source blob. AMD's ATI open development has probably made a difference. When I was still using ATI graphics, the vendor provided binary blob was horrid compared to the community developed support. It may not have had all functions covered but I got frame rates well above what the ATI provided support offered. Now I'm running an Nvidia and the closed driver support but I'll switch happily if the community developed support exceeds it. I'd much rather drivers that have full community development support behind them; more features and faster fixes.

(applications may be a companies bread and butter but hardware companies should be providing interface specs; there is no strategic advantage in closed drivers which benefits the consumer in the short or long term.)

Wifi is the other sticky case due to firmware in the driver rather than on the board. A flash chip on board would be as easy to update as the firmware wrapped inside the drivers. Again, no benefit to the end user in the ongoing need to pretend there is some wifi secret sauce. If you have a wifi card from a close minded company though, it's better to have it work with ndiswrapper and the windows driver then to not work at all.

Anyhow, the point is that RMS thinks about the problem beyond the knee jerk reaction. Until Hurd can compete, use Linux. Until open drivers can compete, use the closed ones. Until your C# app has a replacement, use Mono or portable.NET. But don't make these things part of the default install without offering the user the choice.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Re: Confusion
by theTSF on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Confusion"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

Having a high IQ doesn't make you right, or even smart. It just means you can learn things faster then other people. RMS views are in essence pure academic and not based on real life. Tools like Mono really helps more then it hinders. We see a benefit from mono, RMS is worried about a possible backlash in the distant future. Heck SCO showed us that such a backlash can happen even for an all Free product.

Real life you need to be vigilant about trends but not paranoid about them. Free Software is here to stay and so is commercial software.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Re: Confusion - SCO
by jabbotts on Wed 1st Jul 2009 15:45 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Re: Confusion"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

SCO didn't have a legal foot to stand on and in the end, it was made very clear that the backlash over an open product was not a valid claim.

Microsoft has a history of such backlash strategies and given no definitive reason that such backlash won't happen easily in the future. Heck, most of that hydra's heads are still pumping out the propaganda. This is the same company which is still claiming 400+ patent infringements in the competitor's kernel though show no interest in actually discussing those infringements so they could be addressed; it's more valuable to spin that out through marketing rather than proper due process.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Re: Confusion - SCO
by gustl on Wed 1st Jul 2009 17:42 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Re: Confusion - SCO"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

That seems to be a problem with US law.

Where I come from, I could get an injunction against Microsoft, to either get the facts on the table, or never again say that Linux infringes some 42 patents of Microsoft.

Another problem with US law is the unclear status of software as patentable subject matter. On the other Hand, slowly the pendulum reverses it's direction.
But as long as the USPTO thinks making software patentable is good, it will be a looooong way to get them out of the way.

Reply Score: 4

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I can't disagree with either point. Luckily, I'm outside of US law. The downside is that we often try to implement the same bad ideas the US starts. A bad law hits the books in the states and it's time to start watching for the same bill trying to weasel through our parliament.

We've got one trying to go through now requiring ISP provide police with full disclosure without a warrant. Tell me that law isn't going to get abused right quick.

Reply Score: 2

DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

I can't disagree with either point. Luckily, I'm outside of US law. The downside is that we often try to implement the same bad ideas the US starts. A bad law hits the books in the states and it's time to start watching for the same bill trying to weasel through our parliament. We've got one trying to go through now requiring ISP provide police with full disclosure without a warrant. Tell me that law isn't going to get abused right quick.


Good thing warrants are still required here in the US. A system without warrants would quickly and easily be abused.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

It seems similar to the warrantless wire taping in combination with imposed data retention times for ISP.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Re: Confusion
by FunkyELF on Wed 1st Jul 2009 15:31 UTC in reply to "Re: Confusion"
FunkyELF Member since:
2006-07-26

If you have a choice in the matter, there are better choices. If you don't, something is better than nothing.


Right, its like supporting Flash in web-browsers. Avoid it at all costs, but if you need it there are free crappy implementations.

Don't include those implementations by default because that will encourage people to use C# or Flash.

Reply Score: 2

ok this is just getting old
by poundsmack on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:42 UTC
poundsmack
Member since:
2005-07-13

So the gist of it is, "writing your apps in C# puts them at risk if MS decides to pull a patent coupe and ask for money (or whatever they want)." Has anyone frmo the Mono team or, more importantly, Novel asks MS to sign a fair use document? Something along the lines of "If in the future you decide you want to control C# we are safe from said impending dangers?"

Fear for the sake of fear is pointless. If this is a real concern then it needs to be addressed as such now, and not "when it happenes/if it hapens"

Reply Score: 3

RE: ok this is just getting old
by AlexandreAM on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:14 UTC in reply to "ok this is just getting old"
AlexandreAM Member since:
2006-02-06

So the gist of it is, "writing your apps in C# puts them at risk if MS decides to pull a patent coupe and ask for money (or whatever they want)." Has anyone frmo the Mono team or, more importantly, Novel asks MS to sign a fair use document? Something along the lines of "If in the future you decide you want to control C# we are safe from said impending dangers?"

Fear for the sake of fear is pointless. If this is a real concern then it needs to be addressed as such now, and not "when it happenes/if it hapens"


There is the very problem, my friend. I've been following this discussion for a while: being a C#.Net developer by trade, on Windows-world, I'd be quite interested to use that knowledge in my free software projects, also.

But the thing is: I couldn't find no proof that the tools are going to be available for as long as I need them. And if I have to choose to use an "inferior" (in the sense that I don't have the skills in them) language or risk it (yeah, what you call "fear for the sake of fear") using Mono C# and having to port a much bigger application by the time (if it happens) it's platform is no longer available, then I'll stay with the "inferior" any day.

I don't know about you, but I have enough of incredibly boring do-it-all-over-again porting legacy code at work to even risk it at a "pet project". I'd surely let a big free project of mine die, if I had to choose between it's death or porting a big app to a new language for free.

So, my opinion in that matter is (really surprinsingly, as I rarely ever do) agreeing with Stallman. Use the platform to run non-free code, it has a very good potential in that area. But don't start developing software that was supposed to be free until anyone (be it Microsoft, Novel, Miguel de Icaza's hamster, whatever) can show proof that the technology can't be used to pull the ground off the feet of free projects in the future.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: ok this is just getting old
by kihaji on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:37 UTC in reply to "RE: ok this is just getting old"
kihaji Member since:
2009-06-30

There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by flynn on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
flynn Member since:
2009-03-19

There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.

No.

Standards just define a set of features the vendor must implement for his product to be consider 'valid', for lack of a better word. That does not mean that any vendor is free to provide implementations. The originator of the technology still has IP rights over it and may require vendors to purchase a license.

Reply Score: 6

AlexandreAM Member since:
2006-02-06

There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.


Problem here is that Microsoft has a history of threatening (even if not DOING anything) legal action based on patents.

Being standardized by ECMA means the set of features are well defined, and the IP necessary to implement them should be available under RAND Terms (Reasonable And Non Discriminatory, if I recall correctly).

The thing with that, and with the fact that SW Patents usually are enforced in terms of the installed base size, is that I doubt any open source project with major parts of it being dependant on Mono (Some worst-scenario Gnome futures, for instance) would be able to pay even a nominal fee (say their "two cents") per installed instance of the app, if Microsoft decided that should be the license.

And the above hypothetical fee is clearly possible and definitely "RAND" (if Microsoft asks the same to every patent licensee).

I don't want people to stop using Mono, actually.

What I'd really like is for a full strength movement stating to Icaza, to Novel and indirectly to Microsoft: Either put the license terms in a clear statement or shut up.

What I really want is for the limbo-like place where the mono licensing details hides now to become clear.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: ok this is just getting old
by Beta on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ok this is just getting old"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

Being an ECMA standard does not make the spec(s) Royalty Free.
Since Novell (and Microsoft) have not stated (see the recent ITWire article) that they have unrevokable coverage on rights relating to these specs, shit creek springs to mind.

Reply Score: 5

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Being an ECMA standard does not make the spec(s) Royalty Free. Since Novell (and Microsoft) have not stated (see the recent ITWire article) that they have unrevokable coverage on rights relating to these specs, shit creek springs to mind.


It is worse than this.

Only parts of .NET are ECMA standards. Other parts of .NET are NOT ECMA standards, specifically Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are NOT ECMA standards.

Microsoft has made an "Open Specification Promise" that appears to make it OK for open implementations of things that it covers ... but the problem is that this promise covers only the parts of .NET that are ECMA standards (such as C# and CLI). Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are NOT covered, at all.

I think this is the whole point. If Mono included just that functionality that was covered by Microsoft's "Open Specification Promise", then it may be OK. But the problem is, Mono doesn't limit itself to only parts of .NET that are so covered:

http://www.mono-project.com/Main_Page

Microsoft Compatible API
Run ASP.NET, ADO.NET, and Windows.Forms 2.0 applications without recompilation


Oh dear. Where does one get a license for that feature of Mono? It most certainly is NOT covered by any promise from Microsoft.

This may be the problem that Stallman was alluding to. If Mono were just C# and CLI and Gtk#, then there probably wouldn't be any problem with Mono applications in GNOME.

However, since Mono does include patented technologies that are not covered by any promises, and which apparently need a license from Microsoft to be installed on any system, then we are all immeasurably better off not using Mono and Mono applications (or even having any such installed).

Reply Score: 7

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Let alone, the fact, that we all know what Microsoft's promise is worth 0, based on rather long history.

Reply Score: 2

silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

But the packaging in most distros does keep windows.forms and other things in seperate packages. A default install does not contain those packages. Check the debian/ubuntu/fedora repos : it's actually quite spread out.

So only people choosing to install the extra mono libraries for windows.forms, etc. are under risk. You *CAN* run a mono installation without this cruft.

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

But the packaging in most distros does keep windows.forms and other things in seperate packages. A default install does not contain those packages. Check the debian/ubuntu/fedora repos : it's actually quite spread out. So only people choosing to install the extra mono libraries for windows.forms, etc. are under risk. You *CAN* run a mono installation without this cruft.


Perhaps, but it is still trying to get Linux desktops users to depend upon C# applications.

That is dangerous, no matter which way you try to slice it.

It is a bit like cigarettes ... you are much better off if you never start smoking, even though the first few years of smoking probably won't kill you.

Therefore, my strong recommendation remains: don't install/use Mono. If your distribution includes Mono by default ... for your own good, time to start thinking about choosing another distribution. Right now, any transition between distributions is relatively painless (for the users).

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

At the moment, it only seams one need change window manager. KDE isn't dependent on Mono yet though Gnome is on it's way that direction. Mono by default in Debian sucks but I'm still a third party too it since it's a Gnome requirement.

No need to dump the whole distro, just the window manager.

Reply Score: 3

daveak Member since:
2008-12-29


However, since Mono does include patented technologies that are not covered by any promises, and which apparently need a license from Microsoft to be installed on any system, then we are all immeasurably better off not using Mono and Mono applications (or even having any such installed).


Does it? Which patents are those then? Provide the numbers. Additionally when did free software worry about patents so much? http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5546528 has been used, and recently yet no one says we shouldn't have tabbed applications.

Reply Score: 1

daan Member since:
2005-07-07

That only patents something where two toolboxes, which at the beginning are visible at the same time, are combined into one tabbed toolbox.

It does not cover webbrowsers, because the web pages aren't toolboxes.

It does not cover sidebars, because you ususally can't display two tabs at the same time.

It might cover, however, the toolboxes and sidebars of applications like Delphi and NetBeans.

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.


Why do you fail to mention the parts of Mono that are most decidely NOT ECMA standards of any kind?

Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are all included in Mono. None of them are ECMA standards.

Now there is also Moonlight, and support for Moonlight built in to Mono. Also most decidedly NOT any kind of an ECMA standard.

Reply Score: 3

kihaji Member since:
2009-06-30

"There already is, they are called ECMA-334 and ISO/IEC 23270 for C# and ECMA-335 and ISO/IEC 23271 for the CLI. These are the standards that Mono is developed upon, and they (especially the ISO ones) carry the same guarantee as most other standardized languages out there, like C and C++.


Why do you fail to mention the parts of Mono that are most decidely NOT ECMA standards of any kind?

Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are all included in Mono. None of them are ECMA standards.

Now there is also Moonlight, and support for Moonlight built in to Mono. Also most decidedly NOT any kind of an ECMA standard.
"

Because Stallman did not say ASP.Net, or ADO.NET, or Windows.forms, he said C#.

If the bearded rabble rouser would have said "Depending on .Net or non-standardized C# libraries is bad", I'd be right there with you, but he said C#. Microsoft wouldn't sue over implementing the ISO, read those last 3 letters again as they are also in front of such languages as C and C++, and I don't think we are expecting AT&T to sue over implementations of C++, as it would mean patent nuclear war by all parties.

C# and the CLI are good technology, and to get your panties all in a bunch because "OMG MICROSOFT" is stupid.

Reply Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" Why do you fail to mention the parts of Mono that are most decidely NOT ECMA standards of any kind? Windows.forms, ASP.NET and ADO.NET are all included in Mono. None of them are ECMA standards. Now there is also Moonlight, and support for Moonlight built in to Mono. Also most decidedly NOT any kind of an ECMA standard.
Because Stallman did not say ASP.Net, or ADO.NET, or Windows.forms, he said C#. If the bearded rabble rouser would have said "Depending on .Net or non-standardized C# libraries is bad", I'd be right there with you, but he said C#. Microsoft wouldn't sue over implementing the ISO, read those last 3 letters again as they are also in front of such languages as C and C++, and I don't think we are expecting AT&T to sue over implementations of C++, as it would mean patent nuclear war by all parties. C# and the CLI are good technology, and to get your panties all in a bunch because "OMG MICROSOFT" is stupid. "

The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.

The problem (or ambiguity) is C# and CLI. They do not have a similar encumberance, and on the surface it would seem to be OK to use them.

The problem in turn with that thinking is that the only way to use C# and CLI on Linux is via using Mono, and we already clearly established that we should not be using Mono (or even having it installed on our Linux system unused).

Ergo, as Stallman says, we are better off not using C# at all.

Edited 2009-07-01 03:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

which makes it anathma for freedom software.

"Freedom Software"? Nah. Doesn't really work, does it? Sounds stilted, retarded, fanatical. "Free Software" sounds like a cheap give-away of worthless crap. Freeware? Nope. More worthless crap. Try again.

Basing the name on the ambiguous and troublesome word "Free" is just a bad idea. A bad idea which has become an obsessive pursuit for some. It doesn't work. Try something completely different.

Edit: Those who would respond that the word "Free" is not ambiguous in a certain language will please do so in that language.

Edited 2009-07-01 03:53 UTC

Reply Score: 4

wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Libre software? ;)

Reply Score: 1

Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.


What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point?

Reply Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

" The problem or confusion here is, then, not over the use of Mono ... there is no doubt that Mono should not be used. It has patented bits in it which require a license from Microsoft, which makes it anathma for freedom software.
What is it you are getting at here? Do you know something that nobody else knows or are you just plain making things up to prove a point? "

Say what?

C# and CLI are ECMA standards, other parts of Mono are not. Microsoft claims patents on some technologies which are part of Mono.

As an example, this page used to tell you the information that Windows forms was Microsoft proprietary technology:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Forms

Now I see that the page is mute on that topic. Interesting.

However, it is clear that this is not an ECMA standard, nor is there any mention of it being covered by an Open Specification promise (so you can be very assured that it isn't covered).

So, despite the removal of the clear statement on Wikipedia that this is Microsoft proprietary technology, it still remains so, without any doubt. It is not a secret.

Nor is it any secret that Mono contains an implementation of it.

All of this is not a secret in any way, it is public knowledge.

I'm not sure exactly what your question is, then.

Edited 2009-07-01 04:43 UTC

Reply Score: 1

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem in turn with that thinking is that the only way to use C# and CLI on Linux is via using Mono

No, this is not correct. It might seem that way, but there is the largely forgotten GNU Portable.NET. An ECMA implementation of .NET from the GNU project.

If RMS says that C# is dubious, he probably has valid reasons to assume that the ECMA/ISO specs aren't that free at all.

The problem with the FOSS .NET stuff is that by now several FOSS big wigs have said stuff about it, but the public at large has never seen one shred of the backing "evidence" on which they base their positions.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: ok this is just getting old
by Delgarde on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:43 UTC in reply to "RE: ok this is just getting old"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

But the thing is: I couldn't find no proof that the tools are going to be available for as long as I need them.


Actually, I consider the existence of Mono a means of mitigating that exact problem. Without it, MS is the sole supplier of any support for C#/.NET, and I've been bitten before by having to work with products no longer supported by their makers. Having multiple implementations, and/or an open-source implementation makes me a lot more comfortable dealing with a technology.

Reply Score: 4

JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Multiple implementations are always good, but not when one of the parties can unilaterally pull the plug.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ok this is just getting old
by mabhatter on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:14 UTC in reply to "ok this is just getting old"
mabhatter Member since:
2005-07-17

So the gist of it is, "writing your apps in C# puts them at risk if MS decides to pull a patent coupe and ask for money (or whatever they want)." Has anyone frmo the Mono team or, more importantly, Novel asks MS to sign a fair use document? Something along the lines of "If in the future you decide you want to control C# we are safe from said impending dangers?"

Fear for the sake of fear is pointless. If this is a real concern then it needs to be addressed as such now, and not "when it happenes/if it hapens"


There was a whole article about this in the last few months. According to the EMCA to be a spec, it's supposed to have RAND terms. But those terms are only available from the company submitting the spec.... somebody tried to get those terms and simply... couldn't.

Microsoft is banking on their fanbois at Novell with their non-license, "agreement" to spread the C# love. Outside Novell's position, Microsoft won't issue an official statement.

RMS has a point though, with all the good, truly free stuff out there, why even bother with C#. Mono will always be "red headed step child" of C# because only the language and VM model is open spec. All the interesting stuff is part of .Net and expressly patented and expressly not-free... Microsoft has said that much publicly. So why is Novell wasting MILLIONS of dollars on developer salaries and arm-twisting the community into something that's not really free... from a company we all know will f--k us over.

Languages only survive if developers use them... let C# rust in the bin with PL-SQL or RPG IV as a proprietary language tied to just one vendor's little fief. Why is everybody chomping at the bit to use something from the "big bad wolf" anyway as they've basically "taken their ball and gone home" to anybody not using Windows with the whole .Net thing.

Reply Score: 6

What I think he means is...
by mbpark on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:45 UTC
mbpark
Member since:
2005-11-17

that while a free C# implementation is good, and allows people to freely use C#, there is the risk of Microsoft using software patents to prevent or hinder compatible implementations of their pay products.

Therefore, to minimize the potential risk that could be caused by Microsoft utilizing software patents as a weapon, core applications for a Linux distribution should not be based on technology that has such a risk.

However, I believe he means that an add-on package that's not a part of the base distribution is perfectly fine, as its removal won't cause many issues.

Edited 2009-06-30 21:46 UTC

Reply Score: 6

RE: What I think he means is...
by tyrione on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:38 UTC in reply to "What I think he means is..."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

that while a free C# implementation is good, and allows people to freely use C#, there is the risk of Microsoft using software patents to prevent or hinder compatible implementations of their pay products.

Therefore, to minimize the potential risk that could be caused by Microsoft utilizing software patents as a weapon, core applications for a Linux distribution should not be based on technology that has such a risk.

However, I believe he means that an add-on package that's not a part of the base distribution is perfectly fine, as its removal won't cause many issues.


If he had said that it would have not been a disjoined collection of paragraphs that dances around the subject, though he can't call it [Debian's notion of including Mono as part of the default installation] unethical; and even touts the Portable.NET project before he quickly concludes it's best to just ignore C# for fear of Microsoft retroactive legal repercussions.


This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used...



We should systematically arrange to depend on the free C# implementations as little as possible...



In other words, we should discourage people from writing programs in C#...



Therefore, we should not include C# implementations in the default installation of GNU/Linux distributions, and we should distribute and recommend non-C# applications rather than comparable C# applications whenever possible.


I mean, make up your freakin' mind. Talk about a spiral downward towards impending doom if you dare write something in C# Mono.

Personally, he didn't have to comment on the matter as anyone knows the man could give a rat's behind about Mono or anything indirectly under Microsoft's net.

Reply Score: 2

Clarification
by fretinator on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:48 UTC
fretinator
Member since:
2005-07-06

I think I can clear up the confusion.

Remember when Java was non-free (as in freedom). Stallman had no problems with free implementations of the jvm (gnu had one of their own). This allowed people to run java applications that they might need. However, he did have a problem with people using Java to write Java applications - since it was a non-free language. At some point, Sun could have sued the FSF for their free jvm implementation (saying it violated their patents), and the user would then be left with a gpl app that they couldn't run (if they wanted to stay free).

The same could be said of Gnash - it is a good program that lets you run Flash applications. He would have no problem with Gnash, but I think he would have a problem with writing applets in Flash, since it is non-free.

Does that make sense?

Reply Score: 11

RE: Clarification
by KermitTheFragger on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:30 UTC in reply to "Clarification"
KermitTheFragger Member since:
2008-06-12

Well both Flash and Java had a official Linux Runtimes. Even though they weren't opensource it does tell something about the vendors attitude towards Linux.

As for Java; Sun has always been cooperative in ragards to Java; just look at FreeBSD (http://www.freebsd.org/java/) : "The FreeBSD Foundation has negotiated a license with Sun Microsystems to distribute FreeBSD binaries for the Java Runtime Environment (JRE™) and Java Development Kit (JDK™)".

Also for as far as I know there are no official licensees for the .NET platform. In contrast to Java where there are lots of them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Java_virtual_machines)

So I think we can safely say there is a world of difference between Sun's Java Platform and Microsoft's .NET Platform.

I also wonder why people today want to use .NET in a *nix environment (where Mono obviously lags behind its reference implementation) when you can use Java, a similar platform that is a 100% open source ?

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Clarification
by ebasconp on Wed 1st Jul 2009 16:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Clarification"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

I also wonder why people today want to use .NET in a *nix environment (where Mono obviously lags behind its reference implementation) when you can use Java, a similar platform that is a 100% open source ?


Because in several aspects, C# is better than Java:

* Properties are a nice and elegant way to expose object attributes.

* Delegates are an easier way to provide callback behavior instead of creating inner or anonymous classes.

* Autoboxing in C# is more natural and built from teh ground. In Java is an adding to the Java programming language, but not in the JVM.

* Generics in C# are supported for the CLR, the generic specialization is done when instancing a class [the assembly is loaded into the CLR with the specific types]. In Java, generics are just "syntactic sugar".

* For the last point, generics in C# provide information about the types specialized in every instance. Java forgets everything and marks everything as Object [type erasure].

* java.util.ArrayList<Integer> performs poorly compared to System.Collections.Generic.ArrayList<int>

* PInvoke infrastructure is easier to use than JNI

* The "override" keyword in C# avoids several errors.


And about Mono, yes, it goes behind the reference implementation, but they are also implementing new and interesting stuff [Gtk#, Cocoa#, Mono.Posix, etc.]


DISCLAIMER: I am a Java programmer.

Edited 2009-07-01 16:31 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Clarification
by graffic on Sun 5th Jul 2009 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
graffic Member since:
2009-07-04

* Properties or how to spend your life typing { get; set; }. It is so "automatic". Sometimes I guess if they're "really" useful.

* Not being able to create a dummy anonymous class using an interface is not a good reason to put "delegates". So you get the compiler creating special classes and special objects to have a pointer to a type safe function. And you end up using the event keyword to use them on interfaces. Messy...

* Autoboxing and the using System for the upper case s in the string (String). "totally integrated"

* Generics, if they work don't care much how.

* Well, while working inside a generic class you don't know the future types unless you ask for the type and do your "hacky" things. What hacks are you doing in your code?

* I'm sure that there are 100 things in C# that work better than in java. But I'm sure of the opposite too.

* I felt the same "pain" invoking outside things in java, C# and python.

* The override and new keywords can "create" several errors. But as always it's on you, programmer, to use them right.

Mono is the ugly brother of c#. While your pretty brother has static reflection and many other nice things, you just say "hey, but I have cookies". Well, you can eat all your cookies.

DISCLAIMER: I was a java programmer, I'm a C# programmer.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Clarification
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Jul 2009 02:13 UTC in reply to "Clarification"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You don't get it because you refuse to listen or read. Both Adobe and Sun have said since God was a teenager that they are not going to go after third party implementations of their respective technologies and they have put it in writing.

When is Microsoft going to publicly declare that they have no interest in suing third party implementations of .NET? Balmer has stated on many occasions that they're interested in exerting their patent portfolio and maximise returns on their investments which was then followed up by the establishment of a new technology licencing programme.

You may dance around Minguel all you like but the reality is that the CEO has stated that no one will get a 'free ride'. Microsoft have .NET patented from top to bottom, especially those parts which are remotely useful when it comes to cross platform compatible. Pointing to ECMA means nothing because it still allows them to collect royalties.

This has NOTHING what so ever to do with hating Microsoft and everything to do with a company who refuses to clarify as to the nature of third party implementations - that is the problem. .NET is like a snake that no one knows whether is poisonousness or harmless - are you willing to put your arm in the holding pen to find out?

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Clarification
by Slambert666 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 04:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Clarification"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Both Adobe and Sun have said since God was a teenager that they are not going to go after third party implementations of their respective technologies and they have put it in writing.


So when was it that God was a teenager? Sun sued Microsoft over the MS-java third party implementation in 1997 and it was settled in 2001. Sun is to my knowledge the only company in the history of software that has ever actually sued anyone over a programming language.

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Clarification
by r_a_trip on Wed 1st Jul 2009 09:01 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Sun sued Microsoft over the MS-java third party implementation in 1997 and it was settled in 2001. Sun is to my knowledge the only company in the history of software that has ever actually sued anyone over a programming language.

With good cause to boot. MS got a commercial license from Sun to produce a Sun Java compliant MS JVM. MS went ahead and tried to use Embrace Extend Extinguish with their Java implementation to kill Sun Java. Sun Java was at the time a possible threat to MS' desktop stranglehold.

Since MS grossly overstepped the bounds in their license, Sun took them to court after they refused to mitigate their dirty deeds.

Sadly, although MS lost the case, they got what they wanted. Java on the desktop is all but dead.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Clarification
by wakeupneo on Wed 1st Jul 2009 09:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Wrong. Sun sued Microsoft because they were bastardising the language with their own Windows only 'extensions' while at the same time continuing to promote their implementation (J++) as being fully "Java Compliant". This was clearly in violation of the licensing agreement they had with Sun so they were correctly taken to task for it.

Here's a good analysis of what went down...

http://www.aaxnet.com/news/J010124.html

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Clarification
by Slambert666 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Clarification"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

he he :-)

So if Microsoft sue Mono for not being 100% compatible with dotNET (bastardizing dotNET to work better on Linux) then it is ok with you?

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Clarification
by wakeupneo on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 02:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Clarification"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

he he :-)

So if Microsoft sue Mono for not being 100% compatible with dotNET (bastardizing dotNET to work better on Linux) then it is ok with you?


Talk about not getting it. Please feel free to show me the licensing agreement Mono has with Microsoft.

As for Mono in general...something about a 10 foot pole comes to mind...

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Clarification
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 05:55 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Clarification"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Talk about not getting it. Please feel free to show me the licensing agreement Mono has with Microsoft.

As for Mono in general...something about a 10 foot pole comes to mind...


Dare I say it, don't feed the troll. Slambert666 within almost a year has accrued 4 posts in total - can anyone say, "trolling account"? say something that is patently false to incite a torrent of replies and sit back and watch the war of words - that is the name of Slambert666's game.

I believe that Slambert666 is a troll because no one can be that stupid and contort the meanings of sentences so badly as to not even get the gist of what the original poster was saying.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Clarification
by wakeupneo on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Clarification"
wakeupneo Member since:
2005-07-06

Dare I say it, don't feed the troll.


Too true Kaiwai. As the old saying goes...never argue with an idiot. They'll simply drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Clarification
by MollyC on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:30 UTC in reply to "RE: Clarification"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

What's it matter what Adobe or Sun *said*? Where is their legally binding document? Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EU for implementing supposedly free-to-implement ISO standard PDF in Office 2007. So much for Adobe's statements. Adobe reserves the right to sue implementors of their technologies at their whim, and have made use of that whim in the past, regardless of what they've previously "said".

Now that I think of it, Sun also sued implementors of Java that weren't to their liking.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Clarification
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No, Sun sued for trademark infringement. That is a totally different story.
Short version of witch is, that if you want to use the trademark Java and executable name java you have to pass TCK and agree to it's license. The big spat with Apache Harmony is all about the trademark, nothing else.
While MS can pull the plug on the technologies themselves. And noone in any case can use the .NET as their product name.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Clarification
by kaiwai on Wed 1st Jul 2009 07:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Clarification"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

What's it matter what Adobe or Sun *said*? Where is their legally binding document? Adobe threatened to sue Microsoft in the EU for implementing supposedly free-to-implement ISO standard PDF in Office 2007.

So much for Adobe's statements. Adobe reserves the right to sue implementors of their technologies at their whim, and have made use of that whim in the past, regardless of what they've previously "said"


Adobe have stated that third party implementations of PDF and Flash will not be sued; they've stated it both in word and in licensing. The issue with PDF and Microsoft was bundling and nothing to do with them implementing it (look at the EU filing - oh, I don't expect you to, then you'd face epic fail in your argument). Stop lying to prop up a failed and broken argument. Btw, Office 2007 implemented PDF before it became an open specification and before Adobe declared that one can implement it free of royalty payments. Interesting that Microsoft now has PDF support in Office 2007 Service Pack 2 and Adobe hasn't sued.

When are we going to see Microsoft openly declare that they they're not going to sue third party implementations and sign an agreement with the Free Software Foundation or Open Source Initiative stating they have no intention of suing third parties who implement .NET Framework and associated technologies.

Now that I think of it, Sun also sued implementors
of Java that weren't to their liking.


More lies - then again, I'm not surprised given your past behaviour. What ever credibility has gone so far down the toilet it's already out to sea.

Edited 2009-07-01 07:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Clarification
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:56 UTC in reply to "Clarification"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

FYI: All you need to do to be able to use the Java trademark is to pass the TCK and agree to it's license. And that license is non revocable on the part of Sun.

Reply Score: 2

My two cents
by runjorel on Tue 30th Jun 2009 21:54 UTC
runjorel
Member since:
2009-02-09

1. Using C# in linux (or other non-MS OS's) = pretty sweet

2. Microsoft not providing any guarantee that C# will continue to be usable\updated for non-MS OS's = sucks!!

if(issue#2 == resolved)
{
continue; //to use c#
}
else
{
break;
}

// Sorry, had to do it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: My two cents
by XCoder on Wed 1st Jul 2009 05:10 UTC in reply to "My two cents"
XCoder Member since:
2006-08-11

if (csharp_is_supported(os.linux))
develop(os.linux);
else
forget(os.linux);

:-)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: My two cents
by vivainio on Wed 1st Jul 2009 08:31 UTC in reply to "RE: My two cents"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


if (csharp_is_supported(os.linux))
develop(os.linux);
else
forget(os.linux);


csharp *is* supported, and will probably remain so. Nobody is going to take c# away from you. What we are talking about here is "general policy" of avoiding it if it can be helped (e.g., if a company is to write Linux software, they should not use C# as their first choice unless .NET porting is invoved).

It's funny. I recall seeing pretty much the same RMS pronouncement ages ago. He was reiterating the same thing, everyone else is repeating their own stances like broken records. All that can be said about this has been said already.

I recommending checking out this blog post and *doing* something about it instead of whining:

http://blog.davebsd.com/2009/06/28/five-steps-to-vanquish-mono/

Reply Score: 3

RE: My two cents
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 1st Jul 2009 20:14 UTC in reply to "My two cents"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

1. Using C# in linux (or other non-MS OS's) = pretty sweet

2. Microsoft not providing any guarantee that C# will continue to be usable\updated for non-MS OS's = sucks!!

if(issue#2 == resolved)
{
continue; //to use c#
}
else
{
break;
}

// Sorry, had to do it.



while(true)
{
useJava();
}


// There, fixed it for you.

Reply Score: 3

Today?
by saynte on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:03 UTC
saynte
Member since:
2007-12-10

That post appears to be from July 26th, last week. Maybe you meant "I saw this post today" ?

Reply Score: 3

v ...
by Hiev on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:04 UTC
RE: ...
by Beta on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:45 UTC in reply to "..."
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

- Saying no means you are vulnerable to MS FUD.

No, only the Mono fans are spinning it that way.
To make a choice is not to spin FUD.

- From the technical point of view it is a beatiful languaje full of features, Ruby Python and java cannot equal, period.
This isn’t related to the argument.

- It is multiplatform.
.Net is not by design. Mono is, but by only working to the design of .Net, so it’s akin to .doc support in productivity apps.

- The detractors of mono are people with an agenda, MS haters or Qt pushers. I haven't seen any real argument.
RMS just had a real argument. He’s not a Microsoft hater (arguable, he only hates certain actions, not themselves) nor a Qt pusher.

- Deny mono is using doble standars, free software is made of reverse anginering patented tools also. mono is in pair.
Same argument mentioned in the article, do what you must, but do not rely on it. If ffmpeg couldn’t ship with Linux tomorrow, it would be for the exact same reason.

*waffle*

But mono is out of any troll reach anymore, is big, is great it has a lot of popularity. No one can stop it, not even MS.
Mono rocks!!!!.

You come across as a crazy zealot.

Reply Score: 10

v RE[2]: ...
by Hiev on Wed 1st Jul 2009 00:25 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
RE: ...
by unoengborg on Wed 1st Jul 2009 00:31 UTC in reply to "..."
unoengborg Member since:
2005-07-06

I give a totally YES! to mono.

- Saying no means you are vulnerable to MS FUD.
- From the technical point of view it is a beatiful languaje full of features, Ruby Python and java cannot equal, period.
- It is multiplatform.


So is e.g. java.

The problem is that even if mono is multiplatform, most Windows users will use .Net i.e. the Microsoft version of C# with accompanying Microsoft libraries.

Java applications on the other hand, looks the same on both Windows, Linux, Solaris,...


- The detractors of mono are people with an agenda, MS haters or Qt pushers. I haven't seen any real argument.


The problem is that the mono platform lags behind .Net platform from Microsoft. This means that from the users point of view C# application will run best on windows.


- Deny mono is using doble standars, free software is made of reverse anginering patented tools also. mono is in pair.
- Hell of productive languaje, many people knows it.


Even more people knows Java, that is just as easy to code in. There are also more tools available for Java development.


- GNOME-DO, TomBoy, etc. great.
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrIQjv58RgE


Yes, they are all great, but they are also quite small apps, it's sort of waste of diskspace to use a large framework like mono to get that functionality. Even though people have large disks these days, it could be a problem if you e.g. would like to make a Live CD.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ...
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 01:24 UTC in reply to "..."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

But mono is out of any troll reach anymore, is big, is great it has a lot of popularity. No one can stop it, not even MS. Mono rocks!!!!.

But please tell us again. How much do you love your God?

Reply Score: 6

RE: ...
by JAlexoid on Wed 1st Jul 2009 06:02 UTC in reply to "..."
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

No one can stop it, not even MS..


Hello Mono, I am a software patent and I am always there to stop you!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: ...
by Slambert666 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE: ..."
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

Hello Mono, I am a software patent and I am always there to stop you!


Let me correct that statement for you so you don't sound like a patent apologist:

Hello software, I am a patent and I am always there to stop you!

Reply Score: 1

depend != use
by jack_perry on Tue 30th Jun 2009 22:07 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought he was saying that distributions should depend as little as possible on C# and mono, not that implementations should make available C# and mono as little as possible. "Depend" and "make available" are not at all the same thing.

For example, a lyx package is available on pretty much every Linux distribution that I know of, but it isn't necessary. Deselecting sendmail, on the other hand, sends nearly every RPM in Fedora 11 into a "dependency removed" tizzy.

Based on that, it seems to me that what he's saying is the only sensible thing I've heard on the subject.

Edited 2009-06-30 22:07 UTC

Reply Score: 7

eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

I think he is saying that C# implementations are good for running applications on free platforms that wouldn't be possible to run otherwise. That's the brighter side.

But, on the other hand... a much bigger hand for him I think, FOSS related people should try to avoid using C# as it poses a (future) risk. In other words: don't touch it with a 10-foot flag pole.

Reply Score: 5

my take
by project_2501 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:08 UTC
project_2501
Member since:
2006-03-20

my take is this:

1. You are a user:
If for some reason you are in the unfortunate position of needing to run an application developed in C# then you do have the option of trying the free and open C# implementations available for GNU systems.

2. You are a developer:
Please try not to develop new applications using C# - Microsoft may pull the rug from under you at some point in the future or send you into a goal-post chasing game. Use an environment which has stronger guarantees about its future reliability with respect to openness and patents.

Reply Score: 9

nice
by ntpb on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:15 UTC
ntpb
Member since:
2009-02-03

I read the article and one thing that struck me is how this guy writes. Very deliberately and clearly. I can guess he's read Orwell's 'Politics of the English Language'.

Refreshing.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by mtzmtulivu
by mtzmtulivu on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:40 UTC
mtzmtulivu
Member since:
2006-11-14

A lot of things can be said about RMS, inconsistency wont be one of them ..he said the same thing about java back in the days ..

To build stuff on mono is equivalent to build your house on somebody else's land. What if the owner of the land wants it back later one? ..a house cant easly be moved and you are better off building it on a piece of land you are certain wont be taken away from you

It is no secret that microsoft has patents on C#/.net ..it is not clear what those patents are and what do they plan to do with them ...why arent the likely of migues pressuring them is making public statements and take a position one way or the other?

microsoft is being ambiguous for a reason and all this infighting in the FOSS world primarily comes from microsoft's ambiguity.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Tue 30th Jun 2009 23:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

microsoft is being ambiguous for a reason and all this infighting in the FOSS world primarily comes from microsoft's ambiguity.


I'd argue for a slightly more sinister cause than that. I'd argue that there is a big push from Microsoft supporters to pretend to be Linux supporters and try to make waves to get the Linux desktop to become dependent on Mono.

There is already some fairly strong evidence to support such a theory here in this very thread.

Fortunately, there is always KDE.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 00:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Lemur. You are going well out of your way to attempt to incite a DE war. And I'm calling you on it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 04:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Lemur. You are going well out of your way to attempt to incite a DE war. And I'm calling you on it.


I would have zero problem with any DE that does not try to include Mono. Mono is the problem, not GNOME.

Unfortunately, it is getting very hard these days to find an up to date distribution featuring GNOME that does not include Mono.

If it were different, I would remain mute on recommending any one desktop over another.

However, through no doing of mine, the current situation has arisen, and in the best interests of end users and avoiding the possibility of their getting sued, indeed at this time I am recommending that people do not run GNOME, because of the potential risk of becoming dependent on Microsoft technologies and owing Microsoft an unearned royalty.

I have no qualms about recommending one thing, and not recommending another, based on what I have assessed to be, in my view, the best for people to use.

If you want to "call me out" on that ... shrug ... go right ahead.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 06:19 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'd argue for a slightly more sinister cause than that. I'd argue that there is a big push from Microsoft supporters to pretend to be Linux supporters and try to make waves to get the Linux desktop to become dependent on Mono.

There is already some fairly strong evidence to support such a theory here in this very thread.

Fortunately, there is always KDE.


I've always had a problem with the idea of integrating Mono into GNOME - and the problem is just how much sway Minguel and his supporters have within GNOME and the open source community by way of branding themselves as the 'pragmatic wing' as opposed to the 'fundamentalist wing' lead by Richard Stallman - those who oppose them are labelled as 'fundamentalist' and plonked in the Stallman camp.

If Mono and Java wish to provide wrappers to all of the GNOME framework then I see nothing wrong with that but the problem is when it is used to extend or make applications and frameworks bundled with GNOME dependent on Mono or Java. Keep the GNOME development framework and bundled applications written in pure C, provide bindings for other languages and allow distributors to choose to provide additional applications based on those applications utilising the wrapped frameworks for a given language.

Edited 2009-07-02 06:22 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by vivainio on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 06:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Keep the GNOME development framework and bundled applications written in pure C, provide bindings for other languages and allow distributors to choose to provide additional applications based on those applications utilising the wrapped frameworks for a given language.


This (writing *apps* in C) is the losing game they are actually wanting to get rid of by advocating Mono. Contrasting with C, the productivity advantages of Mono are staggering. We can't really demand Gnome developers to remain at the stone age "because we want them to", concrete drive for improvement should happen (C++ renaissance, anyone?). There probably should be statically typed middle ground between C and Python.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 07:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

This (writing *apps* in C) is the losing game they are actually wanting to get rid of by advocating Mono. Contrasting with C, the productivity advantages of Mono are staggering. We can't really demand Gnome developers to remain at the stone age "because we want them to", concrete drive for improvement should happen (C++ renaissance, anyone?). There probably should be statically typed middle ground between C and Python.


But why Mono? Why not Objective-C 2.0 which has all the yummy goodness of .NET without all the draw backs that come with it? why not work with Python and LLVM? The point I was trying to make (which wasn't clear in my post) was that there are other technologies which have all the benefits of .NET but without the legal uncertainties of Mono.

I'm being honest here; I'm gradually working through and refresh my C skills - I've had a brief look at Objective-C and it seems a more logical step up from GNOME's C roots than taking the Mono tangent.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by vivainio on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 07:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


But why Mono? Why not Objective-C 2.0 which has all the yummy goodness of .NET without all the draw backs that come with it? why not work with Python and LLVM?


I'm a huge pythonista (that's the only language I volunteer my free time on), but I realize Python is not perfect for everything. Think of, say, a big application developed by changing team of 10 mediocre developers over a long period of time. Static typing probably is a big help there, as opposed to having a small team of good developers do an app with quick deadline (where Python shines). Isn't Objective C dynamically typed as well?

The point I was trying to make (which wasn't clear in my post) was that there are other technologies which have all the benefits of .NET but without the legal uncertainties of Mono.


I'm suggesting C++ & Qt4 for this same purpose - existence of which the Gnome community ever so conveniently ignores (perchance due to social reasons / community dynamics?).

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by kaiwai on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 09:26 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I'm a huge pythonista (that's the only language I volunteer my free time on), but I realize Python is not perfect for everything. Think of, say, a big application developed by changing team of 10 mediocre developers over a long period of time. Static typing probably is a big help there, as opposed to having a small team of good developers do an app with quick deadline (where Python shines). Isn't Objective C dynamically typed as well?


Not too sure about the nature of Objective-C given I've just had a look but Objective-C 2.0 brings in garbage collection and a whole host of other ideas. The benefit is that you tap into a large number of programmers who are gradually migrating to Objective-C as Apple move developers to Cocoa.

Personally if I was GNOME I'd be cleaning up the whole desktop, adding Objective-C bindings and getting behind LLVM because so far the work Red hat, Novell and Ubuntu have been abysmal in regards to getting Linux up to speed with the desktop. All three have pretty much thrown in their towel when it comes to the desktop thus leaving one last company left who are actively investing into real solutions for end users and no pie in the sky half baked ideas.

What I mean by that is, look at all the things that Apple are contributing to (LLVM, improvements to Objective-C, contributions back to various projects used by GNOME, Webkit being the biggest of the lot) that of some real value; when are we going to see the big three actually do something about the horribly crap HAL for example which sucks up power like no bodies business; then there is the disjointed GNOME desktop where parts are continually in a state of flux in transition between gnome-vfs to gvfs based on gio.

I'm suggesting C++ & Qt4 for this same purpose - existence of which the Gnome community ever so conveniently ignores (perchance due to social reasons / community dynamics?).


Why not GTKmm or possibly create a Objective-C 2.0 wrapper to gtk. The rejection of Qt4 is understandable given that if one were going to do that, one might as well give up on GNOME altogether and work on KDE. I know I dream of that day when pragmatism and common sense prevail - when developers go, "why are we duplicating work when if we combine our energies we could steam roll over Microsoft", but I doubt it'll happen. Far too many egos and Prima donna's out there vying for the spotlight.

Edited 2009-07-02 09:30 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by mtzmtulivu
by vivainio on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by mtzmtulivu"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Not too sure about the nature of Objective-C given I've just had a look but Objective-C 2.0 brings in garbage collection and a whole host of other ideas.


c++0x also defines an ABI for garbage collectors. However, I believe the garbage collection thing has been a bit oversold as a "mandatory" thing for productivity. Certainly manual memory management is crap, but that's why much of it happens "behind the scenes" in modern C++ programming. I'm not only thinking of shared_ptr, but also basic classes that support implicit sharing (done by Qt).

The benefit is that you tap into a large number of programmers who are gradually migrating to Objective-C as Apple move developers to Cocoa.


The upcomimng resource pool of Qt4 programmers will come from people coding for Nokia phones. I believe this will be a better market to be in, and hence draw more developers. Also don't forget general desktop market that will find Qt viable now, because of LGPL.

Personally if I was GNOME I'd be cleaning up the whole desktop, adding Objective-C bindings


If mature bindings don't exist already, I'm not very optimistic about this outcome. Thought I don't see why bindings are that important in the first place - what the user sees is what the application looks like, not whether it "really" uses Gtk under the hood.

Why not GTKmm


It seems GTKmm has failed to become popular, I don't know why that would suddenly change. Perhaps gNote could help turn the tide in its favor.


The rejection of Qt4 is understandable given that if one were going to do that, one might as well give up on GNOME altogether and work on KDE.


I suppose there is more to Gnome than using Gtk. There is the look, the app design philosophy, and the widespread corporate backing. It all boils down to the developers, and what they want to write their apps in. I wonder how psychologically devastating it would be to bring in libqt4 as dependency for Gnome because somebody wrote a Gnome app in that. It might be a nice psychological excercise, compare that with the current Mono brouhaha ;-).

Reply Score: 2

In this case...
by sbergman27 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 00:09 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

In this case, I would have to say that I pretty much agree with Richard.

(Please excuse me for a moment while I wash my mouth out with soap... gargle gargle gargle...)

I find the Mono situation to be somewhat similar to the Samba situation. I wish we didn't need it but I'm very glad we have it. We need it for compatibility. But just as we would not want to replace NFS with Samba, we probably would be wise not to become unnecessarily dependent upon Mono.

That is the message that Richard is trying to get across. A Free implementation of .Net is good. Becoming unnecessarily depedent on it is bad.

ECMA rubber-stamp or no. I just don't think we should trust it.

Edited 2009-07-01 00:10 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Mono threat == Wine threat
by 3rdalbum on Wed 1st Jul 2009 02:03 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

"While I'd prefer that people didn't write programs only for Windows, I'm glad that Wine exists to give me a fighting chance of using those programs on Linux."

==

"While I'd prefer that people didn't write programs in .NET, I'm glad that Mono exists to give us the chance of those programs being available for Linux".

Mono poses the same threat as Wine. Both projects re-implement Microsoft APIs and tread on Microsoft patents without permission. Although, in honesty, Mono poses less threat - Microsoft has given it implicit support and if Microsoft tried to sue over Mono the case would probably be thrown out of court.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mono threat == Wine threat
by mtzmtulivu on Wed 1st Jul 2009 02:17 UTC in reply to "Mono threat == Wine threat"
mtzmtulivu Member since:
2006-11-14

wine would be on the same situation if linux developers started writing linux apps agains wine and have those applications included in default disto isos and worse if a major module of DE was written against it. It is only a matter of time before a critical component of gnome is written in mono ..

the first step is to include it because certain applications depends on it. Later on, it will be something like "well, we already have it in the default configuration, why not write critical components using it"?

would you be ok with any critical FOSS component writted agains wine?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Mono threat == Wine threat
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 03:41 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono threat == Wine threat"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

wine would be on the same situation if linux developers started writing linux apps agains wine and have those applications included in default disto isos and worse if a major module of DE was written against it. It is only a matter of time before a critical component of gnome is written in mono .. the first step is to include it because certain applications depends on it. Later on, it will be something like "well, we already have it in the default configuration, why not write critical components using it"? would you be ok with any critical FOSS component writted agains wine?


Wine is an implementation of the win32 ABI (which is a published specification). Wine performs this feat by translating the calls to the OS made by running win32 applications into the equivalent calls to the Linux kernel and libraries.

Hence Wine works in an entirely different way to what Windows does, clearly and obviously.

Even if Microsoft held a valid patent on any part of the win32 ABI (which is doubtful anyway because there is decades of prior art on how to arrange for applications to make calls to an OS) ... then since Wine does it in an entirely different way to how Windows does it, Wine would not violate such a postulated patent.

Edited 2009-07-01 03:42 UTC

Reply Score: 3

middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

Tens of different vendors do what MIPS does in very different way, but they all need to pay MIPS for instruction set patent. Independent re-implementation does not walk around patent. That's exactly why, while most accept software copyright (which can be walkarounded by re-implementation), most think software patent is insane.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Mono threat == Wine threat
by vivainio on Wed 1st Jul 2009 08:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono threat == Wine threat"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

It is only a matter of time before a critical component of gnome is written in mono ..


That's unlikely; Gnome developers would be jumping ship in droves.

Later on, it will be something like "well, we already have it in the default configuration, why not write critical components using it"?


More like, "we already ship the framework, so this app doesn't pull too much extra dependencies - let's add it too!". It's not a bad thing as such.

Reply Score: 2

Can no one see the elephant in the room?
by srackham on Wed 1st Jul 2009 02:08 UTC
srackham
Member since:
2009-07-01

The problem is not Mono, MS or RMS; the real issue is software patents -- they're a very, very, very bad idea and we should work harder towards abolishing them. The software patent industry is a cosy
little rort perpetuated by industry encumbents in order to control and stifle the competition.

Don't take my word for it:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/29707/Letter-to-the-Patent-Office-From-Do...
and don't confuse software patents with copyright (copyright is a very good idea).

I say go out of your way to use Mono, Samba (along with any other useful pieces of software rumored to have patents hanging over them) and use them widely; in the event that MS pulls their piece on the lane then stage massive civil disobedience to get the patent laws changed.

Reply Score: 3

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I say go out of your way to use Mono, Samba (along with any other useful pieces of software rumored to have patents hanging over them) and use them widely; in the event that MS pulls their piece on the lane then stage massive civil disobedience to get the patent laws changed.

I'm trying to imagine this massive civil disobedience your are conjuring. Most of the people I deal with either don't care at all... or associate patents with Free Enterprise, Democracy, The American Dream, and Apple Pie. We do have a God Given right to get rich simply from having an idea and registering it, right?

Reply Score: 4

srackham Member since:
2009-07-01

I'm not against patents per se, just software patents, and I guess "massive" civil obedience is a tad OTT.

Reply Score: 1

sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I'm not against patents per se, just software patents, and I guess "massive" civil obedience is a tad OTT.

Perhaps a lesser amount of civil disobedience might do? ;-)

Reply Score: 2

silix Member since:
2006-03-01

We do have a God Given right to get rich simply from having an idea and registering it, right?


really, don't we?
i always thought that every person has the right to capitalize on what (s)he genuinely conceives, if it's something that others find useful (as, say, a novel kind of screw with such mechanical, torque, etc, characteristics, that anyone in the mechanic industry would want to use over other screws)

moreover, although some recent cases of utterly trivial concepts have exposed the the patent system as of late, that "simply having an idea" you mention doen not hold true in many other cases

most often than not, the "simple idea" is really the result of years of research and/or experimentation with some concepts - in turn funded by prolonged investment to the company's (or university's) research department

say that instead of a screw, you investigate wavelet mathematics and, after some years, you come out with a novel variation on wavelet transformation, that can produce dramatic results if applied to data compression - and that the algorithm and the math behind it, albeit complex, can be easily and efficiently implemented in code or hw - like many wavelets

wouldnt you desire some kind of compensation for the research you've made?
would the awareness of being the inventor of a new compresson algorithm be enough for you, when others start developing (and maybe selling) their own implementations of your algorithm, perhaps without even mentioning you?

Reply Score: 1

it makes sense, but I disagree
by jessta on Wed 1st Jul 2009 07:16 UTC
jessta
Member since:
2005-08-17

* Don't write applications for Windows, but develop wine so we can run windows applications.
* Don't encode your videos in WMV but develop mplayer(memcoder) so we can play them
* Don't make .doc files, but develop openoffice so we can read and edit them.
etc.

That's pretty much his point.
I disagree, I think no matter what software you write you're probably infringing on some number of patents so it's best just to ignore them.

Edited 2009-07-01 07:34 UTC

Reply Score: 4

easy, like wine/
by emilsedgh on Wed 1st Jul 2009 07:30 UTC
emilsedgh
Member since:
2007-06-21

ah, man its really easy to understand.

having WINE is good because we will have windows-applications support but writing applications for linux using wine, sucks.

having mono is good because we will have C#/.NET-applications support but writing applications for linux using mono, sucks.

Reply Score: 2

No software patents in EU - I'm safe
by jokkel on Wed 1st Jul 2009 08:55 UTC
jokkel
Member since:
2008-07-07

Since there are no software patents in Europe, I'm not at risk. Only US users take a risk using Mono.

Reply Score: 2

emilsedgh Member since:
2007-06-21

but that doesnt change the fact that software patents are there and are a danger.

Reply Score: 1

RMS
by marcp on Wed 1st Jul 2009 10:57 UTC
marcp
Member since:
2007-11-23

I can't say I agree with RMS in every point, because he doesn't understand the meaning of "FREE" software right [as opposed to - say - Theo De Raadt], but in this particular point he might be right. I think he's just cautious and that's no crime to thik "what if ...".

Reply Score: 1

Mono = Novell software
by Kishe on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:29 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Novell made that sweet deal with Microsoft, therefore Mono should be supposedly safe?

Reply Score: 3

RE: Mono = Novell software
by shotsman on Wed 1st Jul 2009 13:59 UTC in reply to "Mono = Novell software"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

Novell is safe BUT and this is the killer, anyone else distributing MONO/.NET for Linux is not covered by their agreement/sellout to Microsoft.

So the likes of Debian, Mandriva, Red Hat & Canonical (to name but a few) could feel the wrath of Microsoft's legal counsel if the head honchos in Redmond get out of bed the wrong side one day.
Therefore as a Red Hat & Mandriva user, I remove any trace of it from any of my systems should it get accidentally installed.
We also have to remember that the Novell/Microsoft honeymoon could end in tears and then even Novell could be at risk.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Mono = Novell software
by Bonus on Wed 1st Jul 2009 14:07 UTC in reply to "RE: Mono = Novell software"
Bonus Member since:
2005-12-23

I think if Mono became at risk they would just flush out the parts that are more patented. Some people should be afraid to use Mono and others not. At that point the situation would really deteriorate anyway for MS.
RMS is just trying to advertise portable.net in a sneaky way just like any other salesman.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Mono = Novell software
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 15:39 UTC in reply to "Mono = Novell software"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Novell made that sweet deal with Microsoft, therefore Mono should be supposedly safe?


... for Novell customers to use.

Reply Score: 2

explain
by l3v1 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 11:38 UTC
l3v1
Member since:
2005-07-06

He's arguing against writing Free applications in C#, but he's happy there are Free C# tools. I'm sorry, but I just don't get it.

You see, encouraging free tools for lawn mowing doesn't simultaneously mean encouraging mowing the lawn. One is a new possibility for choice, the other is the choice being made. While being happy for further choices, one might not be so happy when seeing a particular choice being made.

Edited 2009-07-01 11:39 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: explain
by Slambert666 on Wed 1st Jul 2009 12:03 UTC in reply to "explain"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

You see, encouraging free tools for lawn mowing doesn't simultaneously mean encouraging mowing the lawn. One is a new possibility for choice, the other is the choice being made. While being happy for further choices, one might not be so happy when seeing a particular choice being made.


Personally I think RMS was right when he was against software patents, now he has crossed the line and is supporting patents as a basis for making choices about what software to use.
Isn't that what microsoft would want you to do?

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: explain
by l3v1 on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 06:00 UTC in reply to "RE: explain"
l3v1 Member since:
2005-07-06

I wouldn't think so, because there are big differences in the - sometimes philosophical, sometimes practical - goals of RMS and of MS. Whatever RMS says, one can be fairly certain he is all in FOSS's benefit. Sure, most of the times he sounds somewhat extreme, but sometimes even extremes are good, at least for keeping the crowds in line.

Reply Score: 2

Oh my, Stallman, take off the tinfoil hat.
by ringham on Wed 1st Jul 2009 13:34 UTC
ringham
Member since:
2006-03-23

The problem is not unique to Mono; any free implementation of C# would raise the same issue. The danger is that Microsoft is probably planning to force all free C# implementations underground some day using software patents. (See http://swpat.org and http://progfree.org.) This is a serious danger, and only fools would ignore it until the day it actually happens. We need to take precautions now to protect ourselves from this future danger

Probably planning to force? Where has Microsoft ever given the indication that was "probably" going to happen? Christ, Stallman needs to shut the hell up. He sounds like (and has always sounded like) a nutjob conspiracy theorist to me.

Reply Score: 0

Use it with portable.net or parts of Mono.
by Bonus on Wed 1st Jul 2009 13:40 UTC
Bonus
Member since:
2005-12-23

If I can use C# with portable.net and that is not patented then that should be fine. RMS is jumping to conclusions too quickly.
Do your project in Mono, but just avoid the libs that are most likely to be patented like Mono's ASP.NET.
Any company that just uses Mono or .NET blind-face probably wont last long anyway.
For him to say not use C# is biased, right?
C# in and of it's self is just, yet another language, and if people like it then good. It doesn't matter, just avoid what is patented so you can have optimal strength to port and convert down the road. But C# itself will no doubt remain.

Also C#, like C++, is a free standard. There are plenty of C++ add-on libraries that are patented as well just the same as C#. It's the same but the standards are free.

Edited 2009-07-01 13:48 UTC

Reply Score: 1

adkilla Member since:
2005-07-07

Do your project in Mono, but just avoid the libs that are most likely to be patented like Mono's ASP.NET.
Any company that just uses Mono or .NET blind-face probably wont last long anyway.
For him to say not use C# is biased, right?
C# in and of it's self is just, yet another language, and if people like it then good. It doesn't matter, just avoid what is patented so you can have optimal strength to port and convert down the road. But C# itself will no doubt remain.


Why even bother dealing with such a minefield? Wouldn't it be wiser to use a framework that does not have patent/license booby traps?

-Ad

Reply Score: 4

neighborlee Member since:
2007-08-06

We were taught as children to avoid danger, especially when the danger signs have been so amazingly and clearly shown to us via large blinking caution signs, yet so many seem to want to convey safety in light of sound reason to the contrary. It would be nice if the world existed in a safe bubble where we all worked together to one mutally productive goal,but we're not quite there yet so we need to navigate the waters carefullly.

I and others have said for a very long time the dangers of using mono, yet others ( and some distros very sadly, which is why I wont use anything but fedora atm ) sing its praise, those very same people that 'seem' to be using and supported linux , yet want to infect it with software that currently has NO ECMA license, and can ONLY but downloaded from one location. How can anyone claim they truly support FOSS , yet say we should use mono when its obvious that its based on a Microsoft technology, has patents and comes from a company that says 'linux is a cancer', and so clearly went out of its way to made ooXML the standard instead of odf ? I guess you could argue a company which has been convicted of being a monopolist, yet some in the 'community' think all of a sudden we should trust them. I have yet to see this new leaf they have turned over and to the contrary its same old .

http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/10/microsoft...

What FOSS user would risk using something from a company that calls linux a cancer, and that clearly has patents and a NON existing ecma license, considering that we have many alternatives to choose from in our community ?

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/25215/1090/1/0/

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20080528133529454

Those are the realities..the much trumpeted ECMA rand license is non forthcoming ( no word so far now for months,and it takes how long to get one exactly ? ), and its clear from groklaw that these are patent encumbered as they are downloadable ONLY from one source so thats hardly FOSS:
" -- it is not limited just to Novell as Mono is." "
:

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-10535-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=4776...

So much for mono 'detractors' as being evil-minded conspiracy theorists and haters...

http://www.tuxmachines.org/node/37436#comment-10749 < see 'eet' comments and others there.

thanks for listening
nl
http://heartseed.sf.net

Reply Score: 2

Whenever Stallman opens his mouth
by deathshadow on Wed 1st Jul 2009 16:18 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

My approach is a bit like Ramses to Moses in the movie "The Ten Commandments"

"Let him speak so that sane men may know him mad."

His rampant paranoia, unrealistic world views, and cult messiah status makes most anything he says irrelevant to any serious discussion about technology - and if not for the ignorance and gullibility of the typical high school or college student, career educator, or professional lecturer - the rampant fanboyism of back-room server geeks, and the success of projects DUMB ENOUGH to choose the license he created to use loopholes in contract law to circumvent normal laws, he would have faded into obscurity ages ago.

Naturally it's little more than more raging against the "evil corporations", and a chance to plug more projects that are pretty much irrelevant to anyone who actually wants to get work done... The gratuitous plug for portable.net, which nobody actually gives a flying *** about is a watered down version of his hissy fits over calling it just "Linux".

I often get the feeling he'd like to have the GNU acronym slapped before the name of any program that is compiled in GCC and is released on a open source license - More the shame.

Edited 2009-07-01 16:19 UTC

Reply Score: 2

vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

Naturally it's little more than more raging against the "evil corporations", and a chance to plug more projects that are pretty much irrelevant to anyone who actually wants to get work done... The gratuitous plug for portable.net, which nobody actually gives a flying *** about is a watered down version of his hissy fits over calling it just "Linux".


Judging by this comment on the article:

This is not to say that implementing C# is a bad thing. Free C# implementations permit users to run their C# programs on free platforms, which is good. (The GNU Project has an implementation of C# also, called Portable.NET.) Ideally we want to provide free implementations for all languages that programmers have used.


He's essentially saying: "fsck C#, though Mono in itself is not a bad thing - we did one ourselves as well". I don't think he would be too pleased to see people doing C# on Portable.NET either.

Reply Score: 2

Gnome is not in danger
by 3rdalbum on Wed 1st Jul 2009 16:44 UTC
3rdalbum
Member since:
2008-05-26

People in this thread have been saying "Gnome is becoming more and more Mono-dependent, some day you won't be able to install Gnome without installing Mono!"

Not true. A long time ago, the Gnome developers decided that Mono was not allowed into the core desktop. Tomboy, F-spot and Banshee are not part of the core desktop and will not be available in a default Gnome install. If there are any patent problems with Mono, then Gnome can simply remove all references to Mono-based apps, no re-coding required.

Gnome has Vala, anyhow.

Reply Score: 2

Trust Microsoft
by Ding on Wed 1st Jul 2009 18:54 UTC
Ding
Member since:
2009-04-11

"Come into my parlor" said the
Spider to the Fly.

Reply Score: 2

It's not just about patents
by ndrw on Wed 1st Jul 2009 19:26 UTC
ndrw
Member since:
2009-06-30

Sure, patents put developers of Mono applications and Mono itself at risk. But even if there weren't any patents in Mono using it for writing opensource applications is, to say the least, not smart.

.Net is an application development/runtime environment for Windows. period. The whole discussion whether it is good or not to write Linux applications using .Net is irrelevant because there is no .Net for Linux. Not even a binary blob.

Mono may look like a viable alternative but unless Microsoft starts developing it on par with the rest of the .Net platform it's always going to be a crippled cousin of its Windows counterpart. Incompatible, unfinished, patent ridden solution.

Now, free software mean also freedom of writing software for any platform - including proprietary ones. No one is ever going to forbid it. However, doing this we should be aware that we are actively undermining free platforms and free software in general. In a long term we would be better off promoting our solutions (like Python or Java) and pushing them to proprietary platforms. The difference is subtle but very important - our platform is then the "first class solution" instead of always being the "secondary/tertiary/..." one.

Reply Score: 1

RE: It's not just about patents
by ndrw on Wed 1st Jul 2009 20:15 UTC in reply to "It's not just about patents"
ndrw Member since:
2009-06-30

BTW, why not to port Tomboy et al. to java-gnome? With not-so-recent licensing changes and several free and proprietary implementations available on almost any platform it's a perfect and safe replacement for .Net.

Reply Score: 1

Oh yes, definitely it's not a good idea
by wawrzyn on Wed 1st Jul 2009 21:20 UTC
wawrzyn
Member since:
2009-03-24

Why Mono, if we can use colors since more than 20 years without any problems? ;-)

And I think, that we shouldn't believe too much in good intentions of corporations like Microsoft. The good side is that Novell is investing into Mono. Another one is that C# is very good language. I must say, that personally I prefer Java, although I think there are too much issues with Java desktop applications deployment. In fact, this is the reason I'm slowly moving my attention to C#. Now, if we will have Mono on our side then great... We will don't need Java, maybe, in the nearest future even on server-side web applications for enterprises. Seems there is such a chance.

But on the other side, I have a lot of sentiments to Sun Microsystems (I don't know why? Maybe because of SPARCs and Solaris?) - and I like them. Moreover, they are now acquired by Oracle, a commercial corporation to which I have a big sentiment (because of Oracle DB on which I was working a lot in one of the projects I was involved in the past). So it's not an easy decision for me to choose between C# and Java. Please also see, that Oracle will probably invest into Java (as they were investing a lot for many years before) and... We will have permanent Java/JVM vs C#/Mono war.

Same story like with the Coca-cola and Pepsi.

This can only be good for us.

Reply Score: 2

Trademark infringement?
by Johann Chua on Thu 2nd Jul 2009 00:33 UTC
Johann Chua
Member since:
2005-07-22

Is it really a good idea for GNU to call their C# implementation Portable.NET? Look at all the name changes Firefox went through. Gnu's Not Unix, after all.

Reply Score: 2

itomato
Member since:
2006-05-18