Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC, submitted by PLan
Mono Project We've already seen some heavy discussion on Mono and C# here on OSNews the past few weeks, as it became clear the patent situation regarding the ECMA parts of Mono was anything but faith inspiring. This issue seems to be resolved now: Microsoft has made a legally binding promise not to sue anyone who uses or distributes implementations of said ECMA standards. Following this news, Mono will be split in two; the ECMA standard parts, and the rest.
Order by: Score:
v Any other ammunition?
by soulrebel123 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:01 UTC
RE: Any other ammunition?
by sukru on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:15 UTC in reply to "Any other ammunition?"
sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

Come on, give them a break already.

MS now has both open standards (ECMA), and open promise not to sue, and you bring on more "doubts". If what you're doing is not FUD, I don't know what it is.

Reply Score: 11

RE[2]: Any other ammunition?
by Beta on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Any other ammunition?"
Beta Member since:
2005-07-06

MS now has both open standards (ECMA)

ECMA does not make open standards - it’s just a publishing house.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Any other ammunition?
by japh on Wed 8th Jul 2009 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Any other ammunition?"
japh Member since:
2005-11-11

Also, C# isn't really an open standard by many common definitions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
It's pretty much what Microsoft already implemented, which isn't how open standards are created.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Any other ammunition?
by gustl on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Any other ammunition?"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

I do not doubt that Bob Muglia and Brian Goldfarb want to do the right thing, but I very much doubt that none of those guys who actually lay out the WORDING want to do it in a way that has no gotchas.

And even if we can be sloppy with other company's wording, we should scrutinize EVERYTHING that comes from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 2

So the whining was worth it ..
by kragil on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:08 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

I don't think without the constant bickering about the patent situation we wouldn't have this good result.

Good times

Reply Score: 5

RE: So the whining was worth it ..
by Jokel on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:34 UTC in reply to "So the whining was worth it .."
Jokel Member since:
2006-06-01

I think you are right, but before we happily jump around I still have some toughts (I have written it on that page also). Here it goes:


And Microsoft never ever broke a promise in it's entire existence... right?


You know. A promise is something different than a contract or official written unbreakable declaration. You can promise anything, but as long as it is no official statement you can always declare someone is acting not right on some vague grounds, and declare the promise not longer binding. As long as there is no written contract a promise means nothing...


And it's only a part of the story. Mono is partly tied to closed API's from Microsoft. Microsoft can easily "upgrade" those API's to make them incompatible with a part of Mono. They also can continuously "extend" those code to make mono always lag behind, making mono the second citizen ands less desirable than the "original". That last thing can then be used in the marketing FUD as a example how Linux is "not capable"...


I still am not convinced - sorry...


Just my 2 cents.

Reply Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

It might be called a promise, but it's legally binding. Do you understand legally binding? It's a perpetual, legally binding one-way patent license that does not require signing or royalties.

Reply Score: 5

edogawaconan Member since:
2006-10-10

as you said, we need to call lawyer to clarify this... before some people start pretending as lawyer ;)

Edited 2009-07-07 09:51 UTC

Reply Score: 1

boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

I don't know about that: I think Microsoft's position has been made pretty clear, at this point.

Reply Score: 1

TemporalBeing Member since:
2007-08-22

It might be called a promise, but it's legally binding. Do you understand legally binding? It's a perpetual, legally binding one-way patent license that does not require signing or royalties.


You do realize that Microsoft is famous for breaking even legally binding contracts, don't you?

There is, after all, a good history of that going all the way back to its founding. Of exceptional fame is Microsoft's move to break its PC-DOS/MS-DOS contract with IBM when sales were greater than expected so that it could continue to extract royalties beyond the contract's provisional period.

Yeah - never trust Microsoft to keep its word - even if legally binding. It's a reputation they earned.

Reply Score: 3

Hey
by TBPrince on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:18 UTC
TBPrince
Member since:
2005-07-06

This was rather obvious. I hope this will end this rather boring story.

Now it's time to compete and show that those Unix/Linux technologies are truly better than others ;-)

Personally, I think .NET is a great technology and I'm expecially amazed by the big eco-system of additional modules/technologies/solutions/extensions developers are building upon it. While most of interesting ones are still made by MS itself, there are lots of interesting stuff by independent developers.

As a developers, we're fairly interested in being able to spread our software to Linux/Unix variants, as long as there's a good compatibility degree.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hey
by wanderingk88 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 19:55 UTC in reply to "Hey"
wanderingk88 Member since:
2008-06-26

Now it's time to compete and show that those Unix/Linux technologies are truly better than others ;-)


I can see the reason behind people who would like to use C# over GTK+'s C.

On the other hand, I cannot see the reason to use C# in favor of Qt's C++. The latter is just so beautifully done that coding in it feels easier than Java for the most part.

Must be the reason why C# hasn't taken up at all among most KDE devs.

Reply Score: 2

Broken implementations
by Sodki on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:26 UTC
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

One thing that bothers me about the Promise is that it only covers those implementations that implement all required portions of a specification; partial implementations are not covered. I'm not entirely sure what this means in practice, but it does raise a few questions.

This means that you can't ship broken implementations. I'm not entirely fond of that limitation, but i'm not bothered by it either.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Broken implementations
by TBPrince on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:23 UTC in reply to "Broken implementations"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

One thing that bothers me about the Promise is that it only covers those implementations that implement all required portions of a specification; partial implementations are not covered. I'm not entirely sure what this means in practice, but it does raise a few questions. This means that you can't ship broken implementations. I'm not entirely fond of that limitation, but i'm not bothered by it either.


And don't forget that shipping broken implementation could be done by purpose to fragment or to lead to confusion and problems or to counter technologies that could harm your own stuff by removing that threat from your implementation (even if this is unlikely in specs which only cover language implementations).

Microsoft knows this tactic very well ;-)

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Broken implementations
by arpan on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:34 UTC in reply to "RE: Broken implementations"
arpan Member since:
2006-07-30

Well, what if Microsoft updates C# and doesn't get the standard updated.

Then Mono would need to be updated to remain compatible, but the updated Mono would not be compatible with the standard specification and hence would not be covered under this promise.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Broken implementations
by TBPrince on Tue 7th Jul 2009 13:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Broken implementations"
TBPrince Member since:
2005-07-06

Well, what if Microsoft updates C# and doesn't get the standard updated. Then Mono would need to be updated to remain compatible, but the updated Mono would not be compatible with the standard specification and hence would not be covered under this promise.


Actually, that's not needed. MONO could just delivery compatibility with latest version covered by that promise. Then, anyone interested in achieving compatibility with MONO would use that version.

Reply Score: 2

Discussions
by invent00r on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:51 UTC
invent00r
Member since:
2009-04-27

It's definitely a step in the right direction.

I'm glad all these discussions and fuzz around Mono and particularly C# have led somewhere..

Reply Score: 3

Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 09:55 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

That is nice but how much is actually covered? in the case of .NET, does the promise cover both the ECMA components as well as the likes of ASP.NET, Winforms, WPF etc.? The issue isn't the boring and mundane components but the sexy parts that sit on top which Mono require for compatibility between their implementation on *NIX and the Windows implementation.

The way I read the agreement is that the promise is only over the ECMA specifications; which basically means nothing in the grand scheme of things. Without those components outside the ECMA specification, .NET is pretty much useless. It is the stuff that sits ontop of the ECMA specification in the form of ASP.NET, WinForms etc. that bring value - and .NET needs to implement those technologies for compatibility (whilst persuading programmers to use GTK# instead of WinForms).

We're back to square one until Microsoft makes a promise for the whole .NET stack and not just the ECMA specifications.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by bsharitt on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
bsharitt Member since:
2005-07-07

I agree that this doesn't do to much for those that want to do .NET on Linux, but it should be a big boon to those who aren't interested in the entire .NET stack and instead just see the C# language itself as something of interest.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:25 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

I agree that this doesn't do to much for those that want to do .NET on Linux, but it should be a big boon to those who aren't interested in the entire .NET stack and instead just see the C# language itself as something of interest.


Its useless for someone interested in C# because anything of any value sits above the ECMA specification and if they wish to turn it into a real world skill then they'll have to learn about the technologies about the ECMA specification. C# has no value unless there are some value added components that sit on top - and given that Windows holds the dominances, compatibility with the value added components on top of the ECMA specification is paramount, not only for compatibility, the viability of interoperability but also for developers interested in C# and turning it into a real world skill.

Just as there is no value in C, C++ or any other language without the stack that sits on the top, be it win32 in the world, .NET Framework when it comes to managed C/C++ or the SUS03 specification when it comes to the *NIX world. Microsoft is the only company I can think of right now who threatens third party projects who reimplement a given framework on an alternative operating system. Ballmer first threatens opensource programmers over the re-implementation of win32, file formats, 'icon lay outs' etc. on *NIX by claiming that Microsoft will 'exert it's patent portfolio". When it comes to the .NET Framework they do the least humanly possible on the parts that have the least amount of value, namely, the ECMA specification is covered by a promise but anything of any value is still threatened by Microsoft's business policies.

This is Microsoft as usual, muddy the water in a hope that the murkiness will hide what their real business plan is - suck developers and third parties into an abyss so difficult to escape that when the time is right, they can screw those organisations for all they're worth. The patent challenge to TomTom was merely a shot over the bow, "f*ck with us, and we're happy to tear you a new hole - even over a trivial thing like an ancient file system driver".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by darknexus on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:37 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
darknexus Member since:
2008-07-15

Actually, it's not useless at all. It is useless for .net, but not everybody cares about .net itself and some just want to use the language with other components. C# is actually quite a nice language imho, and it's nice to have this part, at least, finally cleared up.
It should be interesting to see what happens with regard to the .net portions of mono. Somehow, I have this sneaking suspician they won't be so kind to Mono when it comes to .net.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by setec_astronomy on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:09 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

On the issue of the non-ECMA specified parts, I pretty much agree with you. Developers interested .Net as an exit strategy from Win32 are essentially in the same (legaly unclear) situation as before the community promise. And frankly, it would not be in Microsofts current interest to make it easier to move away from their operating system and plattforms. They may have mellowed on the idea of F/OSS developments, but only as long as it happens to target Win32, preferably exclusively.

That being said, a legally safe(r) ECMA C# implemenation is of benefit to FOSS projects like GNOME, which are in need of an alternative to the C/GLib-GObject/GTK+ combo as a first class development platform which (from the outside, judging from comments from the developer community) seems to be possible with C# / CLI / GTK#, if for no other reason than recruiting people who have no desire to get their hands dirty using C.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

On the issue of the non-ECMA specified parts, I pretty much agree with you. Developers interested .Net as an exit strategy from Win32 are essentially in the same (legaly unclear) situation as before the community promise. And frankly, it would not be in Microsofts current interest to make it easier to move away from their operating system and plattforms. They may have mellowed on the idea of F/OSS developments, but only as long as it happens to target Win32, preferably exclusively.


What hacks me off is the fact that you don't see the sort of patent happy stupidity from the UNIX world if people dare to implement the SUS03 specification, we didn't see Sun sue third parties that implemented the Java framework (as long as they didn't call it Java), and we haven't seen Apple sue GNUStep developers for reimplementing OpenStep. Why is Microsoft the only company who seems to have this desire to be the ultimate prick of the software world?

That being said, a legally safe(r) ECMA C# implemenation is of benefit to FOSS projects like GNOME, which are in need of an alternative to the C/GLib-GObject/GTK+ combo as a first class development platform which (from the outside, judging from comments from the developer community) seems to be possible with C# / CLI / GTK#, if for no other reason than recruiting people who have no desire to get their hands dirty using C.


Ok, lets say they go down the route and develop a uniquely open source framework ontop that is oriented around GNOME - it doesn't answer the $64,000 question: who is going to implement these on Windows? GTK+ right now is a giant mess with little attention being paid by anyone - GTK# is dependent on GTK+, so if the GTK+ is horrid, then the GTK# is going to be horrid too.

It has to be re-implemented or otherwise you loose one of the key features of .NET, add to that the requirement to integrate these frameworks into a decent development environment like Visual Studio (ever used Mono Develop? it is a really bad joke) so that developers can drag, drop and assign code to GTK# widgets like they would with Winforms.

Like I said, I believe the ECMA promise that Microsoft has given to the community but the problem that I have, however, is the stuff that sits on top - there needs to be a compelling enough way of making the mono open source framework (that sits on top) compelling and transparent enough for Windows .NET developers to adopt as to expand the ecosystem to include Linux as a platform to aim for during development of applications.

Edited 2009-07-07 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by jpobst on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

What hacks me off is the fact that you don't see the sort of patent happy stupidity from the UNIX world if people dare to implement the SUS03 specification, we didn't see Sun sue third parties that implemented the Java framework (as long as they didn't call it Java), and we haven't seen Apple sue GNUStep developers for reimplementing OpenStep. Why is Microsoft the only company who seems to have this desire to be the ultimate prick of the software world?


We also haven't seen Microsoft suing Mono for reimplementing .NET. In fact, this is them going out of their way to make it explicit that they will not sue, something that I doubt Sun/Java (pre-GPL) or Apple/OpenStep ever did.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:39 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

We also haven't seen Microsoft suing Mono for reimplementing .NET. In fact, this is them going out of their way to make it explicit that they will not sue, something that I doubt Sun/Java (pre-GPL) or Apple/OpenStep ever did.


Did you read the article? the promise only covers what is standardised under the ECMA standard - the interesting parts like gdiplus, winforms, asp.net and so forth are excluded - so the threat still stands for those banking on mono to turn their winforms application into a multiplatform solution without needing to do extensive re-coding.

Reply Score: 3

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by jpobst on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
jpobst Member since:
2006-09-26

Did you read the article? the promise only covers what is standardised under the ECMA standard - the interesting parts like gdiplus, winforms, asp.net and so forth are excluded - so the threat still stands for those banking on mono to turn their winforms application into a multiplatform solution without needing to do extensive re-coding.


Yep, I read the article, however the article has nothing to do with your comment or my response. You were saying that Sun hasn't sued anyone over Java and that Apple hasn't sued anyone over OpenStep, and then insinuated that somehow that made them different than Microsoft. I then pointed out to you that Microsoft has also not sued anyone over Mono.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by JeffS on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:05 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Again, winforms and asp.net, et al, are not the only interesting things about .Net. Those are useful libaries for doing Windows specific GUI development (WinForms), and Windows specific server side development (ASP.Net). For Linux, those things are useless, other than for possible cross platform migration.

But, again, the C# language itself is useful. The CLI itself is useful. And GTK# is very useful.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
modmans2ndcoming Member since:
2005-11-09

1) Neither Sun nor Apple ever promised not to sue for their patents. It is just the FOSS community's paranoia that is driving the distrust of MS.

2)MONO is not the WINE of .net. Who cares if GTK+ sucks on windows? the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:46 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Neither Sun nor Apple ever promised not to sue for their patents. It is just the FOSS community's paranoia that is driving the distrust of MS.


You are correct about that but given that Apple hasn't said, "implement OpenStep and die" as Ballmer threatened the opensource community with such an announcement - I feel pretty safe. As for Java, they made it clear; the only request was don't call it Java - call it Chocolate Milkshake if you want but if you want to make it Java you have to pay a fee.

2)MONO is not the WINE of .net. Who cares if GTK+ sucks on windows? the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.


If your goal is to make a replacement to C, only use the ECMA standardised components and create a uniquely GNOME integrated .NET like Framework - then all power to them. The problem is that there will be those who expect it to be multiplatform - something that mono needs to state, therefore, that multiplatformness is a secondary priority when compared to making Mono into *the* framework, and C# the language to use.

Its good that they've split the two but I'd like to see an explicit removal of the non-ECMA components from the mono-project altogether. Make it a pure ECMA + Open Source with a declaration they have no interest re-implementing the non-ECMA components.

Reply Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Jul 2009 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice to see this forum is filled with the usual maggots who moderate posts down they disagree with instead of entering dialogue. Every time I see my posts being marked down it tells me that I am correct and there are a pack of cowards in this site who are intellectually deficient when it comes to mounting a counter argument.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by niemau on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.


hah. no, it is not! it's about creating a clone of .NET. period. straight from the horse's mouth:

Provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server applications on different platforms.


i am so tired of people making this just about patents. of course microsoft is going to continue to make shallow and/or vague patent threats in perpetuity. just like they ALWAYS have.

the only thing this 'promise' does is extend novell's insufficient coverage to others. it still doesn't cover everything.

but even if there was NO patent threat, it is flabbergasting that so many people have no problem with playing a constant game of catch-up, forever and ever. mono will ALWAYS be a 'me-too' or a 'second best implementation'. that is the very nature of the project. considering MS's... errr... history, why would anybody even *want* to take that on?

that simple fact is why a good number of people don't want to be any further entrenched in mono than necessary. that is why we shouldn't be pushing mono as a development platform. a compatibility option, sure. but never installed by default. and NEVER critical.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:30 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

hah. no, it is not! it's about creating a clone of .NET. period. straight from the horse's mouth:

Agreed. I do believe that Miguel de Icaza's original goal was to make C and C# the dual pillars of Gnome development. And that is where the errant perception likely comes from. But Miguel, smart as he is on technical matters, can be a real fruitcake when it comes to what is reasonably possible in dealing with real OSS developers and real OSS projects.

At most, C# is or will become one language, among many, that one can write Gnome apps in.

Edited 2009-07-07 16:31 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by dagw on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

it's about creating a clone of .NET. period.

That's one of the goals of Mono, however it is not the only goal. Hopefully this splitting of the mono project will make that clearer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by kelvin on Tue 7th Jul 2009 18:10 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

but even if there was NO patent threat, it is flabbergasting that so many people have no problem with playing a constant game of catch-up, forever and ever. mono will ALWAYS be a 'me-too' or a 'second best implementation'.

FFS... this again. Mono is NOT playing catch-up. Mono already implements C# 3.0. Who cares what Microsoft is doing in its stack on top of the ECMA-bits? The Free stack is not a moving target, and that's what's important.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by setec_astronomy on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

Ok, lets say they go down the route and develop a uniquely open source framework ontop that is oriented around GNOME - it doesn't answer the $64,000 question: who is going to implement these on Windows? GTK+ right now is a giant mess with little attention being paid by anyone - GTK# is dependent on GTK+, so if the GTK+ is horrid, then the GTK# is going to be horrid too


As far as I can tell (and I might be completly wrong in this, because it has been some years since I did some GTKmm development and am pretty much out of the loop wrt developments in GTK land since then) the most probable answer to your question seems to be that they (=most of the GNOME devs, including pro-Mono segment) don't care that much about the cross-plattformness of their Apps, e.g. if it runs on *nix systems (up to but not necessarily including Mac OS X) then great, everything beyond that is a bonus and up to the individual developers or projects to handle (e.g. there seems to be no policy of targetting Win32 and OSX as fully supported "alternative" plattforms like for example in the case of KDE4).

There - quite obviously, given the number of times people tout the superiority of C# - is enough interest among F/OSS developers of having soley C# together with either GTK# or - as it would be my preference, if I ever had or wanted to use C# - via Qyoto / Kimono with Qt 4.x and KDE 4.x as an alternative to C or C++, respectively. I can't comment on the quality of the GTK# bindings or the available tools (incl. monodevelop), but if Qt/Jambi is something to go by, then Qyoto does not necessarily has to suck that bad.

To sum it up: If you want to use the C# together with a "pure" F/OSS higher level toolkit / stack, this community promise *might* improve the legal uncertainity considerably. If you think that Microsoft will help anybody writing cross-desktop applications so that their OS is no longer the sole or even preferred plattform for deploying the products: I would not hold my breath while waiting for that happening

Edited 2009-07-07 15:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by dagw on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:49 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

C# has no value unless there are some value added components that sit on top

Mono can and does supply its own independent stack that sits on top of C#. Some people who know more about this than I do even claim that some of the mono bits are better than the equivalent .Net bits. Unless you are porting a windows .Net app I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to write fully usable Mono/C# apps without touching any of the .Net bits.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by JeffS on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:58 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Not useless at all. Period. First, the C# language itself is a very good language, with a lot of great features, nice familiar syntax, great power, with ease of development. Next, the CLI has great value. It's a great garbage collecting VM, and has great multi-language support.

Finally, the GTK# / Gnome# bindings are very valuable. Of all the various development stacks for Gnome/GTK, I have found GTK# to be the most powerful, useful, and productive.

Then there are things like the Unity framework, which uses Mono for it's scripting, and gives you the ability to rapidly develop games for both iPhone and Wii.

There are other examples as well.

BTW - the Community Promise is legally binding. There is no muddy water. At all. ECMA bits are free and clear. ASP.Net, ADO.net, WinForms, etc, are not. But I'm fine with that as well, as those things are pretty much Windows specific anyway, and if MS wants to license those things, that's totally fine with me, and it's well within their rights. As a big fan/user of open source software, I'm quite happy using FOSS technology, along with using for-pay proprietary technology (where there is added value). I also earn my living and support my wife and kids working for a proprietary software company (a very small one), and I think proprietary software has it's place (and is needed where open source can't fully deliver).

As far as I'm concerned, the whole Mono controversy is now officially put to rest. If you like Mono, and/or Mono apps, use 'em. Don't worry, be happy.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Tue 7th Jul 2009 17:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Just as there is no value in C, C++ or any other language without the stack that sits on the top, be it win32 in the world,


I completely disagree with that statement. Having used C & C++ on Classic Mac OS, MSDOS, Linux, Windows, BeOS, and in embedded systems, there is most defiantly some value in having the same language constructs independent of what ever libraries you also have available. That doesn't make every program written for any of the platforms perfectly portable, but it does meant that a sizable part of your skill set is. And from the looks of it, the CLI & C# language specification contains most of the stack you would use ( with the exception of winforms and ado.net).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by jhominal on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:22 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
jhominal Member since:
2009-07-07

That is nice but how much is actually covered? in the case of .NET, does the promise cover both the ECMA components as well as the likes of ASP.NET, Winforms, WPF etc.?

Everything I have read here seems to mean that only the ECMA parts (CLI, C#) are covered by that promise.

What this promise accomplishes, AFAIU, is that applications developed with the "Community promise + Free software" stack will be as much at risk from patent litigation from Microsoft as any other free software.

As for .NET being useless without the "sexy parts", I can only argue that GNOME Do and Banshee (Music player) are two very useful applications, for which I have yet to see better alternatives for my Gnome desktop.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

[quote]As for .NET being useless without the "sexy parts", I can only argue that GNOME Do and Banshee (Music player) are two very useful applications, for which I have yet to see better alternatives for my Gnome desktop.[/quote]

Dare I say it, but Amarok and Krunner would be two at least as useful applications for your Linux KDE4 desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:59 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Except Amarok has vertical tabs, for which its developers will be sent to hell.

And of course, he was talking about the GNOME desktop.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:10 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Except Amarok has vertical tabs, for which its developers will be sent to hell.

And of course, he was talking about the GNOME desktop.


Of course he was talking about the GNOME desktop.

What he said (when you boil it down) was that in some cases, if you want the best applications for GNOME, then you must have Mono installed ... and I agree ... and what I then went on to say was that if you want equivalent good applications for Linux, without Mono dependencies, then the thing to do is switch your desktop to KDE4.

I tried to be brief ... but some people try to twist your meaning when you do that ... so if you want me always to ramble on with long explanations like the above, Thom, then you are going the right way about it.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by elsewhere on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

and what I then went on to say was that if you want equivalent good applications for Linux, without Mono dependencies, then the thing to do is switch your desktop to KDE4.


Switching desktops is overkill, KDE4 apps will run in Gnome; if anyone is willing to accept the overhead of mono for a music app or app launcher, then the kde base libs shouldn't be an issue either.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 01:33 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"and what I then went on to say was that if you want equivalent good applications for Linux, without Mono dependencies, then the thing to do is switch your desktop to KDE4.
Switching desktops is overkill, KDE4 apps will run in Gnome; if anyone is willing to accept the overhead of mono for a music app or app launcher, then the kde base libs shouldn't be an issue either. "

Well yes, except that if you take the approach of running the equivalent KDE4 apps under GNOME, then you still have the problem of having to have Mono installed.

So what I actually said still stands: "if you want equivalent good applications for Linux, without Mono dependencies, then the thing to do is switch your desktop to KDE4".

Just as GNOME can run KDE4 apps, so too can KDE4 run GNOME apps.

Edited 2009-07-08 01:34 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by r_a_trip on Wed 8th Jul 2009 14:35 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

Lemur, as an INTP to an INTJ, it sometimes does pay off to add more "fluff". I have no problems grasping the frame from which you write your posts, but our types form two minorities in the world.

I've always bumped into people not understanding me, to the point of me now explaining pretty much everything. Sometimes to the annoyance of the people around me.

As for KDE4 having comparable technology... Good to see alternatives available. It doesn't help though if you <u>want</u> to run Gnome as your desktop.

Still, if you only use ECMA-MONO + Gnome technology, you can use Tomboy, FSpot, Beagle and Gnome-DO safely, without having to worry about MS dragging you to court over their core .NET patents.

Now that MS has clarified their position on their patents, I wonder what the other ECMA participants Intel and HP think about their patents and the core of .NET.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by setec_astronomy on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
setec_astronomy Member since:
2007-11-17

Apperantly, Amarok 2 (afaik starting with 2.2) will use a breadcrumb - alike navigation concept to replace the vertical tabs.

http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/1016-From-the-Post-2.1.0-Git-Va...

http://amarok.kde.org/blog/archives/1056-From-the-Post-2.1.0-Git-Va...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:11 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

As for .NET being useless without the "sexy parts", I can only argue that GNOME Do and Banshee (Music player) are two very useful applications, for which I have yet to see better alternatives for my Gnome desktop.

Dare I say it, but Amarok and Krunner would be two at least as useful applications for your Linux KDE4 desktop.


There is also SongBirdNest which is pretty good - its a little newish and rough around the edges but it is a nice for those who want an iTune'ish like interface that is themeable.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai
by Cymro on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:37 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai"
Cymro Member since:
2005-07-07

I don't find there's much to choose between Banshee & Rhythmbox to be honest.

Songbird (Songbirdnest is just the web domain) looks like being the future in a Firefox-y way. It's quick, stable and usable for me and the plug-in community is excellent. You'll need a separate CD rip/burn, video player and podcast downloader but they're apparently coming in the next 6 months or so...

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

That is nice but how much is actually covered? in the case of .NET, does the promise cover both the ECMA components as well as the likes of ASP.NET, Winforms, WPF etc.?

...

The way I read the agreement is that the promise is only over the ECMA specifications


Agree. No parts of .NET are covered except C# and CLI.

This conclusion is strongly supported by the act of Mono splitting itself into two parts ... essentially being one part which is covered, and one which is not.

What it does mean, happily, is that recent announcements by Debian and Ubuntu have lost a lot of import ... both can now ship just one half of Mono (the covered half) as part of the default install.

So GNOME will have the covered parts of Mono installed by default ... that is almost a guaranteed outcome now.

This will quite possibly cause some defections from GNOME.

Reply Score: 3

v RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by memson on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by Slambert666 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

So GNOME will have the covered parts of Mono installed by default ... that is almost a guaranteed outcome now.

This will quite possibly cause some defections from GNOME.


I completely agree, and I think it is a good thing. The gnome community will come out of this much stronger than it was before.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

So GNOME will have the covered parts of Mono installed by default ... that is almost a guaranteed outcome now.

What this does is to allow decisions regarding the covered portions to be made on a technical basis. Mono has some problems on that front; Notably, resource usage. But those issues have, so far, mostly gotten lost in the heated political debate.

This will quite possibly cause some defections from GNOME.

Ever the KDE troll, huh, Hal? An alternative, or perhaps complementary view, would be of an influx of devs who prefer a safer, managed language to the buffer overflow minefield that is C++.

I'm hardly an enthusiastic Mono/C# fan. But at least this legally binding promise, and clear separation of code, will neutralize the political doomsayers and allow the debate to move on to matters of technical merit.

Edited 2009-07-07 16:18 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Jul 2009 01:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"So GNOME will have the covered parts of Mono installed by default ... that is almost a guaranteed outcome now.
What this does is to allow decisions regarding the covered portions to be made on a technical basis. Mono has some problems on that front; Notably, resource usage. But those issues have, so far, mostly gotten lost in the heated political debate.
This will quite possibly cause some defections from GNOME.
Ever the KDE troll, huh, Hal? An alternative, or perhaps complementary view, would be of an influx of devs who prefer a safer, managed language to the buffer overflow minefield that is C++. I'm hardly an enthusiastic Mono/C# fan. But at least this legally binding promise, and clear separation of code, will neutralize the political doomsayers and allow the debate to move on to matters of technical merit.
"

http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Qyoto

http://techbase.kde.org/Development/Languages/Smoke

Edited 2009-07-08 01:43 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by vivainio on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:03 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

The issue isn't the boring and mundane components but the sexy parts that sit on top which Mono require for compatibility between their implementation on *NIX and the Windows implementation.


I think much of the drama has been about the "boring parts". Namely, the boring parts ensure that Tomboy, F-Spot, Banshee and Gnome-Do are on firm legal foundation.

Which is just snazzy. Congratulations for everyone involved.

Edited 2009-07-07 11:03 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by chris_dk on Tue 7th Jul 2009 18:52 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
chris_dk Member since:
2005-07-12

Namely, the boring parts ensure that Tomboy, F-Spot, Banshee and Gnome-Do are on firm legal foundation.


As far as I know, F-spot uses ADO.NET to interact with sqlite. So they need another database technology. This has been known for YEARS.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by kaiwai
by dagw on Tue 7th Jul 2009 20:55 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

As far as I know, F-spot uses ADO.NET to interact with sqlite.

I just took a quick gander at the code and it seems to use Mono.Data.SqliteClient. I didn't find any reference to ado.net, but I only looked quickly. Even if it does use ado.net in some corner of the code it should be fairly trivial to replace it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by abraxas on Tue 7th Jul 2009 13:11 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

We're back to square one until Microsoft makes a promise for the whole .NET stack and not just the ECMA specifications.


It's not a problem for Linux software. Linux applications don't use WinForms or any other non-standardized code from Microsoft.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by kaiwai
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:04 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by kaiwai"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"We're back to square one until Microsoft makes a promise for the whole .NET stack and not just the ECMA specifications.


It's not a problem for Linux software. Linux applications don't use WinForms or any other non-standardized code from Microsoft.
"

Precisely.

Also, if as a developer you are looking to be able to write cross-platform C# applications, then the obvious thing to do now is write the apps on Linux with Mono/Gtk#/C#/CLI in the first place, and then deploy them on all platforms. Even better if there is a Qt# library instead of Gtk#.

Make sure however that you don't install the "bad half" of Mono. You are then covered by Microsoft's promise, and your application's users won't have to pay any license fee to Microsoft.

Edited 2009-07-07 14:06 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by google_ninja on Tue 7th Jul 2009 13:13 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

There are two things that mono tries to do. The first is provide a modern, free platform to develop against. The second is to provide an easy way to port existing .net apps to linux.

If you are using mono to develop linux apps, you aren't going to use anything that is not covered by this promise, you are going to use the linux stack that has been built on top of mono. If you are using mono as a compatibility layer to deploy your .net apps on linux, the future legality of that is still up in the air.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by redbeard on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:09 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
redbeard Member since:
2006-03-11

Basically it is a promise to keep their promise required under the EMCA standard?

"Microsoft will be applying the Community Promise to the ECMA 334 and ECMA 335 specs."

It only applies to the ECMA specification material, yes a step in the right direction but doesn't do that much for mono implementation as mono is much more than the ECMA specs. So again, lot of current and future MS "IP" still out there to be wary of.

This basically is just an easy way to comply with the ECMA standards RAND requirements. Now MS doesn't have to deal with RAND licensing request . . .

BTW still not posted (9am CST, 7-7-09) on the Microsoft Community Promise web site, so this is a promise by a blogger ATM . . .

Edited 2009-07-07 14:12 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by kaiwai
by boldingd on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:02 UTC in reply to "Comment by kaiwai"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

We're not "back to square one" at all. As I understand it, Mono is being used to develop GTK applications, mainly targeting the Gnome desktop; potentially providing compatibility with .net applications targeting Windows is a side-benefit, not the main goal. The "sexy windows bits" can be removed completely -- and apparently will be, in one of the distributions -- and Mono will still be able to perform its primary intended function (of enabling GTK/Gnome development) perfectly.

Reply Score: 2

setec_astronomy
Member since:
2007-11-17

As someone with rather deep suspicions about the Mono/.Net patent situation in the past, I would like to first of all give credit where credit is due and say "kudos" to the Mono devs and to Microsoft for taking this (first, big) step towards clearing the legal situation.

In a different parallel universe, I would write endless lines, woundering about why this took so damn long, how this is supposed to be big news since the Mono folks always pointed out that the ECMA specified part was safe from patent threats and everybody doubting this clearly had to be a MS/Mono/Novell hater or even worse a KDE user, etc.

But this development is causing optimistic feelings, and I try to enjoy this unfamiliar emotions as long as they last :-)

Since wearing a tinfoil hat sooner or later grows into a full - time occupation, I would like to wait for comments and analysis from other stakeholders (particularily the SFLC / Mr. Kuhn, FSF, RedHat and Fedora etc. ) before I pop the champange, though.

And while we are at it / at the risk of sounding ungratious and while the MS lawyer seems to be in the house: Could somebody please ask MS to clarify the therms of their Silverlight/Moonlight patent promise? Whenever I feel the need to get dizzy cheaply and legally, I only have to read the passages about who qualifies for a patent license.

PS.: Out of sheer ignorance: Is there any testing suite / documented and freely available reference implementation which can be used to gauge whether a specific implemenation is conformant to the standard or not? Thanks in advance

Edited 2009-07-07 10:17 UTC

Reply Score: 2

A small step in the right direction
by michi on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:09 UTC
michi
Member since:
2006-02-04

I think this is a small step in the right direction. However, why could they not use a patent license like the one used by Google for Wave (http://www.waveprotocol.org/patent-license)? The Google patent license makes it quite clear that you are free to implement the wave protocol while for this Community Promise you probably need to be a lawyer to actually understand it.

Second: as far as I understand, this only covers C# and the CLI. While this is nice, what about the class library? Without that C# is pretty worthless.

Anyway, this is better then nothing and it is a step in the right direction.

Reply Score: 2

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

EMCA covers the core libraries (System, System.Collections and stuff like that) but not MS specific stuff (Microsoft.*, System.Windows.* etc.) You can therefore use C# happily with Gtk# etc and not touch the MS specific stuff.

Reply Score: 6

v Embrace, extend and extinguish
by stanbr on Tue 7th Jul 2009 10:09 UTC
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Yeah, they're embracing, extending, and... Extinguishing... Their own work...?

Uh-huh.

Reply Score: 1

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

"They copied most of it from other languages anyway, so why not use Java, Ruby, C++, Object-C, Object-Pascal, Python, Smalltalk, ..?"

You meant IKVM, IronRuby, C++/CLI, Oxygene, IronPython, S#, right?

Ok, just kidding. But to let you know, the current project I'm working on uses C#, Python, Java, and JavaScript under the same code base thanks to .Net architecture.

Reply Score: 2

sukru Member since:
2006-11-19

I know about that (except for the "created by evil itself" part).

For example IronPython (and DLR) has been done by Jython creator (Jim Hugunin) - who is now working for Microsoft btw. So you can do many stuff for JVM, too. (I think there was lisp for JVM, too).

Nevertheless, MS has added support for special constructs that made the VM flexible enough for many languages (e.g: I can directly use Pytho standard lib sources from CPython in IronPython without any modifications):

* Generics in the VM itself
* Extensive metadata
* Faster reflection based calls (from .Net 2.0)
* Nullable type support for the VM
* Several functional language constructs
* DLR (is actually an open source extension, but utilized by Python, Ruby and JavaScript implementations).

So, basically, MS did look at where Java fell short, and also at their own mistakes (like VB), and did a good job. And it helps me with my project, double kudos to them.

Edited 2009-07-07 11:40 UTC

Reply Score: 4

stanbr Member since:
2009-05-22

So lets do the same. Lets see what are the advantages of .NET, the problems, and lets try to create or extend what we have with this new ideas. And not abandon everything to start over. If we abandon what we have everytime something new appears, we have a big problem ;) Speacily if these include us losing (some of) our freedom.

Reply Score: 1

memson Member since:
2006-01-01

They copied most of it from other languages anyway, so why not use Java, Ruby, C++, Object-C, Object-Pascal, Python, Smalltalk, ..?


Java copied Smalltalk. Objective-C *seriously* ripped off Smalltalk. Object Pascal was originally an Apple project that Borland ripped off, reshaped, remolded in the the Delphi variant. Python and Ruby I don't know at all, but from casual looking seem pretty similar in syntax.

C# took ideas from a number of places... C for syntax, Java for class extensions in part, C++ in other ways. Object Pascal in a lot of ways too (though the C#/.Net architect also invented the Delphi Object Pascal syntax extensions, so that is hardly surprising..)

Nothing is original any more and using that as an excuse is not valid.

Reply Score: 6

Bad news, actually
by madcrow on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:06 UTC
madcrow
Member since:
2006-03-13

The fact they're saying "we won't sue you for implementing the base language" seems to imply (at least to me) "We reserve the right to sue if you implement anything of ours on top of that base language.

While this is essentially a green light for the GNOME people to stuff their desktop with all the bloated Gtk# stuff they want, it leaves those of us who really just want a way to write cross-platform apps (and run Windows .NET apps) in a worse position than we were before.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Bad news, actually
by lemur2 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:17 UTC in reply to "Bad news, actually"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

The fact they're saying "we won't sue you for implementing the base language" seems to imply (at least to me) "We reserve the right to sue if you implement anything of ours on top of that base language.


Precisely. Very succinctly stated.

While this is essentially a green light for the GNOME people to stuff their desktop with all the bloated Gtk# stuff they want,


Yes.

it leaves those of us who really just want a way to write cross-platform apps (and run Windows .NET apps) in a worse position than we were before.


Perhaps not. It now seems possible to legally write cross-platform apps in C#/Gtk#. You can even write them using Mono on Linux as your development platform, then carry them straight across to Windows.

Reply Score: 3

On Mono
by unavowed on Tue 7th Jul 2009 11:20 UTC
unavowed
Member since:
2006-03-23

It looks like this promise is legally binding and and unrevokable in many jurisdictions, which is definitely a good thing. However, it has some loopholes:

1. It only covers a *full* implementation of the required portions of the specs, which means that even if a small part is missing in an implementation, it could potentially fall out from under the promise.

2. It only covers .NET versions up to the current version. It does not cover any future versions, which means Microsoft can change their minds at any given moment, leaving Mono to either remain stagnant or continue with the risk of being sued.

I can imagine a scenario where .NET 5.0 comes out and some company invents a great way to make money using Mono, directly in competition in Microsoft. Do you think Microsoft would hesitate to discontinue the promise when they release .NET 5.1?

People using Mono don't give Microsoft any direct benefit. Microsoft's strategy may be to expect more developers turning to them for support or buying their software because they're already familiar with C#. What's of note is that Microsoft are in direct competition over these developers with Java. What happens when Java gets marginalised by .NET/C#? Mono will have no more advantage to Microsoft, and they may decide to act against it. It already happened to other unfortunate companies.

And even if this promise were to remove all lawsuit threats and Mono could be used without any fear, it will still essentially remain under Microsoft control. What many people fail to notice is that Microsoft is calling all the shots on the direction where .NET is headed. I would feel very uncomfortable with part of the Free Software ecosystem depending on something under their control. I feel uncomfortable even having it in the default install of Ubuntu. It's like everyone forgot who we're dealing with here.

Not to mention the technical deficiencies like encouraging closely coupling your program to native libraries, the inelegance of putting x86 DOS code into the header of every .NET program, and the mess of a standard library.

In my opinion, if we must use a statically-typed interpreted language, we should go with Java. Some folks have been maintaining Gtk/GNOME bindings for Java (http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/4.0/), why not give them a try?

Edited 2009-07-07 11:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

RE: On Mono
by google_ninja on Tue 7th Jul 2009 13:20 UTC in reply to "On Mono"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05


Not to mention the technical deficiencies like encouraging closely coupling your program to native libraries, the inelegance of putting x86 DOS code into the header of every .NET program, and the mess of a standard library.


P/Invoke is the absolute last resort in .net, just like JNI is for java, to say its "encouraged" is completely false. And .net compiles to IL, which get JITd to native code on the first run, just like java and bytecode. I think someone has been feeding you lies.

In my opinion, if we must use a statically-typed interpreted language, we should go with Java. Some folks have been maintaining Gtk/GNOME bindings for Java (http://java-gnome.sourceforge.net/4.0/), why not give them a try?


Because Java sucks? There are fewer and fewer people even in the java world that like java, which is why there is such an interest nowadays in stuff like scala, groovy, and javafx.

Java vs C#, C# is the clear and obvious winner. When it comes to static languages, scala is IMO the most elegant, modern, and downright cool language around nowadays. And while I haven't gotten into it too much yet, javafx looks like a fantastic language for UI, much better then general purpose languages.

Edited 2009-07-07 13:24 UTC

Reply Score: 2

GPL compatibility?
by raboof on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:29 UTC in reply to "On Mono"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

It only covers a *full* implementation of the required portions of the specs, which means that even if a small part is missing in an implementation, it could potentially fall out from under the promise.


If this is true, doesn't this make Mono GPL-incompatible (assuming the 'promise' is needed beyond mere clarification)?

I seem to remember the GPL requires it must be possible to distribute modified versions. If the 'promise' only covers full implementations, modified versions which omit part of the Mono stuff are not allowed, thus violating that part of the GPL.

The fact that it's MS who introduces this restriction (rather than the distributor of the GPL'd software) shouldn't make a difference (section 12 of GPLv3, but something similar was in v2 iirc).

I might be mistaken here, but please, make a convincing rebuttal rather than just shouting FUD at me ;) .

Reply Score: 3

RE: GPL compatibility?
by vivainio on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:49 UTC in reply to "GPL compatibility?"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


I seem to remember the GPL requires it must be possible to distribute modified versions. If the 'promise' only covers full implementations, modified versions which omit part of the Mono stuff are not allowed, thus violating that part of the GPL.


A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: GPL compatibility?
by raboof on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:07 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL compatibility?"
raboof Member since:
2005-07-24

A promise does not imply that the stuff not covered by the promise is forbidden. Therefore, this does not cause GPL incompatibility.

Right, hence my "assuming the 'promise' is needed beyond mere clarification".

So either (a) the 'promise' is redundant and unneeded, and Mono was already unproblematic in whole and in part regardless of it, or (b) the promise is useful, but renders any project actually depending on it (such as parts of Mono) GPL-incompatible?

Edited 2009-07-07 16:09 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Devil Dealing.
by systyrant on Tue 7th Jul 2009 13:38 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

When dealing with a devil always be prepared to be tricked. It's really that simple. I would rather see resources put into another language that has no ties to Microsoft.

(btw referencing the devil is a metaphor and not a reference to bill gates.)

Reply Score: 2

Just my two cents
by Lazarus on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:45 UTC
Lazarus
Member since:
2005-08-10

Great news. Good times =D

Reply Score: 2

I might actually try Mono now...
by Moochman on Tue 7th Jul 2009 17:55 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

...as soon as they remove the X11 requirement for GTK# on the Mac. ;)

Reply Score: 2

Still no trust.
by Zyyx on Tue 7th Jul 2009 19:31 UTC
Zyyx
Member since:
2008-10-23

If they were serious they would just release the patents to the public ensuring without any level of doubt they could ever be used as ammo.

Reply Score: 1

Had i known...
by eantoranz on Tue 7th Jul 2009 21:33 UTC
eantoranz
Member since:
2005-12-18

... that Miguel was waiting for me to mail him (http://maratux.blogspot.com/2009/07/miguel-you-man-open-letter-to-m...) to make people at microsoft say something clear about Mono, I'd have done it a long while ago. :-D

Reply Score: 2

Great news indeed.
by AlexandreAM on Wed 8th Jul 2009 03:28 UTC
AlexandreAM
Member since:
2006-02-06

I'm very happy to hear of that! I don't have much to say, other than that, though.

I've been saying this for a few months already, that this should be done to ensure that the legality of C# implementations on free software was firmly based.

I do still have my personal distrust for Microsoft, when it comes to free software (not that I'm implying they're "evil" or anything, but I just can't see a reason for them to help direct competitors) but I have to say they scored quite a few points in my opinion with this move.

There are a few not-perfect things here and there, and I'll feel more happy after consulting this with a lawyer, but I can finally say I have no pressing reason to recommend not using C# now.

Thanks for all who got involved in the process of making this happen. Let's just hope the free software community now puts it to good use.

Reply Score: 2

Money rules, not Mono
by Dr-ROX on Wed 8th Jul 2009 15:04 UTC
Dr-ROX
Member since:
2006-01-03

Now here's the deal with Mono and patent lawsuits. Yes, mono uses patented Microsoft technologies, but they are somewhat useful to MS.
MS will never sue opensource projects, because they have no money or aren't doing something, that is decreasing MS incomes. But MS will definitely sue companies, that will create software using Mono and that software will somewhat compete with MS products.
Now remember FAT and TomTom. There were some time after MS patented FAT. But Linux or other company, that uses linux wasn't sued. TomTom is the largest player in GPS market. MS also has some GPS market. So MS saw some cash and sued the richest GPS company, that uses Linux with FAT. Now TomTom are going to WindowsCE. Why?
So here comes Mono. If there wil be no good commercial programs, that requires mono, MS will not even bother to start legal actions. But if some big company releases some big product - MS will react. Imagine, what would happen, if Google made it's Google Earth with Mono. They will be sued to death by MS. The same case works for distros. For example if Ubuntu somehow would impact Windows sales, MS definitely would search for some eveidences to throw that competition out of the ring.
So Mono is even good for MS, MS can wait for some big corp to come and use it. MS will then try to sue some money out of it.
My thoughts.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Money rules, not Mono
by vivainio on Wed 8th Jul 2009 16:46 UTC in reply to "Money rules, not Mono"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

If there wil be no good commercial programs, that requires mono, MS will not even bother to start legal actions. But if some big company releases some big product - MS will react. Imagine, what would happen, if Google made it's Google Earth with Mono. They will be sued to death by MS.


It's exactly the other way around.

Microsoft would love the fact that something great was done with Mono. It's the mindshare and programmers hearts they are after. If mono was to become a "standard" way of writing Linux software, it would leave Microsoft at the "choke point", and utterly neutralize the threat of Java. They can basically start escalating the value of .Net stack rapidly (in areas not covered by the promise), and leave Linux eating dust; again to attract developers ("we are already halfway using .Net - why not go all the way now and benefit from $NEW_TECH).

It doesn't hurt that the stuff written in Mono would run better on Windows.

MS will then try to sue some money out of it.


Hah, the money from lawsuits is peanuts for Microsoft. The lawsuits are done to ensure their dominant position.

Reply Score: 2