Paranoid much?

What does the namespace have to do with the question of whether or not some implementation infringes on a patent; or are we saying that class names can be patented now?

What it *doesn't* mean is that the Mono implementation of that API is infringing on patents - only that any infringements that do exist aren't protected by the assurances around the ECMA stuff.

Maybe the only real alternative for a modern/fast/efficient/open/OO language is D.

Maybe the only real alternative for a modern/fast/efficient/open/OO language is D.

Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!

Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

"Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it

"and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!

"Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!

but I wouldn't entirely dismiss the possibility of them shutting down mono or other projects if it suddenly makes sense from a business perspective.

I do C#/.NET development on Windows, and I like the platform - and really wouldn't mind being able to use C# on other platforms, too.

Considering the state of affairs, isn't that bad enough though? :/

... it is 4 each for GNOME and KDE by default.

IDE? I'm not sure why one would want one, but some people _seem_ to want to program with a mouse...
I don't know anything about them, other than I... don't get it. Emacs user...

Most people who speak of an IDE wouldn't include Emacs or VIM + *insert extension(s)* in the class of "IDE".
They usually mean "Approachable GUI IDE".

"... it is 4 each for GNOME and KDE by default.

and most distros default to GNOME

Only in the fanboy wars of osnews would a point like this go unnoticed...
"That would be a crazy though but could mono have replicate the namespace name for compatibility sake and make a compatible implementation without copying the actual implementation, if true then they should be safe right ? "

Of COURSE your right.. thats how come MS can have j# (or j++) but cant call it java.

Thats the premise ANDROID is based on.

I would rather represent myself in court than take any legal advice from here. You people are delusional.. havent you realised almost everything in a pc has an infringing patent?

You all were obviously born yesterday and dont remember...
memory mapped files (owned by sgi).. sold to 3dfx.. purchases by MS for the xbox.. every graphics implementation of open GL and every graphics card infringes on this MS HAS NOT SUED

SAMBA Reverse engineered from MS standards (isnt that illegal in the US?)

and reversed the security apis (isnt that breaking DMCA if ms declares their code to be obfuscating)

FAT 32 support for linux

, NTFS support for linux

Apple patented the top line of pixels on the screen (thats why windows menus at the bottom).. MS now breaks this patent (you can close a window by clicking on the top line of pixles only AFTER win2k not before)

I am so sick of this site being ruined by spamming of people who simply dont understand what they are talking about.

"Only in the fanboy wars of osnews would a point like this go unnoticed... "That would be a crazy though but could mono have replicate the namespace name for compatibility sake and make a compatible implementation without copying the actual implementation, if true then they should be safe right ? " Of COURSE your right.. thats how come MS can have j# (or j++) but cant call it java. Thats the premise ANDROID is based on.

I would rather represent myself in court than take any legal advice from here. You people are delusional.. havent you realised almost everything in a pc has an infringing patent? You all were obviously born yesterday and dont remember... memory mapped files (owned by sgi).. sold to 3dfx.. purchases by MS for the xbox.. every graphics implementation of open GL and every graphics card infringes on this MS HAS NOT SUED

That was when MS could win by its tactic of pressuring OEMs to offer nothing but Windows to consumers. That isn't going to work in the mobile market, as the article points out Microsoft does not control the OEMs in this market. BTW, Microsoft HAS sued TomTom and Motorola over FAT long file names.

SAMBA Reverse engineered from MS standards (isnt that illegal in the US?)

No, not at all. Reverse engineering is a perfectly valid approach to try to uncover a trade secret. SMB is IBM's invention, not Microsoft's, so the only "IP protection" Microsoft has over its networking software is the fact that its implementation is a trade secret.

and reversed the security apis (isnt that breaking DMCA if ms declares their code to be obfuscating)

How does Samba recording and analysing "data on the wire" represent an attempt to uncover Microsoft copyrighted code? This is what you need to attempt to answer.

FAT 32 support for linux

, NTFS support for linux

This one is problematical. However, I don't see how Microsoft can really expect to uphold any patent on a filesystem ... there are heaps of filesystems as prior art.

Apple patented the top line of pixels on the screen (thats why windows menus at the bottom).. MS now breaks this patent (you can close a window by clicking on the top line of pixles only AFTER win2k not before)

I am so sick of this site being ruined by spamming of people who simply dont understand what they are talking about.

No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++.

Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++).

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux.

The CLR hasn't been standardized by the ISO, but C# has, twice.
http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/catalogue_ics/catalogue_detail...

The day I let legal arguments influence my technical choices is the day I chose another occupation.
Those who lead lives in fear of lawsuits are truly to be pitied not debated.

Under DMCA claims involving the circumvention of technological protection systems, courts analyze whether or not the reverse engineering in question qualifies under any of the exemptions contained within the law...

someone elses words not mine... reverse engineering is not simply protected and allowed in the usa.. its under legal debate.. so obviously you wouldnt want to reverse engineer anything ever if you were worried about legal issues. Since we are "worrying" about legal issues my point is perfectly valid.

It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

"
No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++.

"and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

I don't see huge advantages with using C#;

notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.

I believe managed languages mostly belong to server side.

Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.

The rules in the DMCA disallow reverse engineering of a "technological protection measure" which has been put in place to prevent copying of copyrighted content.

There is no disassembly of Microsoft code involved, and there is no copying of Microsoft code either in binary or source code form that results. No copyrights are broken by the activity.

The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.

...legally obtained from Microsft.

Microsoft support
Shortly after the first demo at MIX 07 in Paris, Microsoft began cooperating with Novell to help the building of Moonlight.[17] Support includes exclusive access given to Novell for the following Silverlight artifacts:[18]

Microsoft's Test suites for Silverlight,
Silverlight specification details, beyond those available on the web,
Proprietary codecs made available free-of-charge for Windows Media Video and Audio, for VC-1 and MP3, and in the future H.264 and AAC, only licensed for use with Moonlight when running in a web browser.

Other potential decoders include GStreamer and FFmpeg (used during the development stage) but Novell will not provide prepackaged versions of Moonlight with those libraries, because those decoders have not been granted licensing for the use of patented codec technologies.

Microsoft has released two public covenants not to sue for the infringement of its patents when using Moonlight. The first one covered Moonlight 1 and 2, is quite restrictive and it covered only the use of Moonlight as a plugin in a browser, only implementations that are not GPLv3 licensed, and only if the Moonlight implementation has been obtained from Novell. It also notes that Microsoft may rescind these usage rights[19].

The second covenant is an updated and broader covenant that no longer limits the covenant to users that obtain Moonlight from Novell, it covers any uses of Moonlight regardless of where it was obtained. The updated covenant covers the implementations as shipped by Novell for versions 3 and 4, it no longer distinguishes Novell from other distributions of Moonlight and expands the covenant to desktop applications created with Moonlight. The covenant is not extended to forks that choose to license under the GNU GPL (Moonlight is Lesser GPLv2)[20]

What's that supposed to solve? It's just running on top of a JVM and solves nothing in regard to patents.

(Java situation is much worse).

First, there is a legal binding patent grant from Sun/Oracle: http://java.sun.com/javase/6/jdk-6u21-doc-license.txt

But that's not my point. My point is, if one chooses a platform based on technical aspects, there is no reason to use Mono. Scala is a much better language than C# oder F#. The JVM, especially the garbage collector and the Java class library (especially things like SoftReferences, NIO, java.util.concurrent.*) are much better than what .Net/Mono has to offer.

That promise is worthless. It protects nobody but the implementors of a fully correct implementation. The ordinary developer cannot use that promise to anything. Besides that the promise is a swizz cheese - just look at Google and tell me: What worth does that promise have? Nada, I tell you. Nada.

"
The Samba code that is designed and written to implement the protocols is not a copy of Microsoft code, nor is it based on Microoft designs.

Is that your personal opinion or do you have some facts to back up your statement? Personally I prefer Java over C# and Borland C++, but this has nothing to do with the VM in question, nor anything technical, but is simply a better of what I'm accustomed to. OTOH, I prefer Syllable/Haiku API (C++) over Java, and Object Pascal over Syllable/Haiku API. Not at all objective but simply a matter of taste. I don't find Scala to be anything special, but perhaps I'm just showing my age...

This does not protect you at all as a developer using Java. It only protects you if you are implementing a functionality/interface-perfect clone of the JVM. It is unrelated to the languages in question and is of no use as an ordinary developer. Oracle has not promised not to sue users of Oracle JDK or OpenJDK. They have only promised not to sue implementors of Oracle SDK to the extent the implementation is fully correct.

Paranoid much?

What does the namespace have to do with the question of whether or not some implementation infringes on a patent; or are we saying that class names can be patented now?

Oh noes "System.Media" was referenced! We must be worried about potential lawsuits.

java for example is being under same wagon

That promise is worthless. It protects nobody but the implementors of a fully correct implementation. The ordinary developer cannot use that promise to anything. Besides that the promise is a swizz cheese - just look at Google and tell me: What worth does that promise have? Nada, I tell you. Nada.

If you do not agree sit back and think for a sec.. nobody has proven ANY theft of any code.. the only thing for debate is the names of the libraries NOT the way they are implemented.

All this stuff about oracle not going to sue java implementations is nice conjecture and big call given the current environment..and given that sun /oracles future is in serious doubt and needs $ .. due mainly to MS SQL clusters

Microsoft is no more likely to (or be able to) sue mono than java... or android.. or me... or you.

The only patents that are in question are software implementation patents that apply to ALL software that implements them.

Yeah... When you get OpenJDK's sources you are granted the source under GPL. From GPL Preamble I quote:
"Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all"

Microsoft, on the other hand, has only given a promise, which is not legally binding, that they won't sue anyone that implements parts of .Net.

Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?

A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies. As stated in the CP, the only time Microsoft can withdraw its promise against a specific person or company for a specific Covered Specification is if that person or company brings (or voluntarily participates in) a patent infringement lawsuit against Microsoft regarding Microsoft’s implementation of the same Covered Specification. This type of “suspension” clause is common industry practice.

. If you create a compatible implementation then most likely you will infringe on a patent.

Oracle is as entrenched in enterprises as much as Microsoft Office is. They also have a s***load of $$$ and a very dependable revenue stream.

Yet, it's at patent holders digression who to sue, they are not obliged to sue everyone...

Microsoft could even sue them for implementing core .Net classes because the community promise is not legally binding.

Q: Is this Community Promise legally binding on Microsoft and will it be available in the future to me and to others?

A: Yes, the CP is legally binding upon Microsoft. The CP is a unilateral promise from Microsoft and in these circumstances unilateral promises may be enforced against the party making such a promise. Because the CP states that the promise is irrevocable, it may not be withdrawn by Microsoft. The CP is, and will be, available to everyone now and in the future for the specifications to which it applies.

Agreed - all this means is that those applications rely on an API that falls outside of Microsoft's assurances around patent infringement.

Market cap
Oracle 150 Billion
Microsoft 233 Billion

KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.

C++ is "good enough", esp. when you use Qt framework. I don't see huge advantages with using C#; notably, Qt does memory management for you so GC is no biggie. Closures would be nice to have, but we will have them in c++0x.

Again, developers picking up Qt would increase development more than yet another new language that remains fashionable for a while, without ever growing to commercial relevance.

Is this your personal opinion or that of your employer - Nokia?

I've used Qt.. it's okay. It's nice, but it's no Objective-C, even though Trolltech did a damn fine job making it one of the better C++ UI's out there.

Speed.

Simplicity. Modern features. I seriously could not live without reflection, for example, and reflecting in C++ was painful at best.

The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.

Free Nokia advertisement aside - people could do a lot worse than take up Qt. It is probably the least offensive C++ UI library. Now that it has more agreeable licensing, it is probably worth looking at.

Whoa, Qt does not do memory management "for you". You still have to delete just like any C++ framework.

Whoa, Qt does not do memory management "for you". You still have to delete just like any C++ framework.

For other things there are always auto_ptr and shared_ptr to ensure proper deletion when resources go out of scope.

Hmm.

Writing anything solely for money isn't a safe activity, indeed.

You either end up starving, frustrated, and lonely, wondering why no one will compensate you for what you want to do, or you end up writing trite crap novels with titles like "A is for Alibi", if one's writing prose.

I suggest writing for the sake of writing, and then finding a way to make money, be it from said writing or other means.

That said, your bitter rant has little to do with the subject at hand.

I'm surprised to see someone likes ObjC, I've understood it doesn't really have much virtues by itself, esp. when compared with C++.

"Speed.

"Simplicity. Modern features. I seriously could not live without reflection, for example, and reflecting in C++ was painful at best.

"The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.

The only reason Oracle sues Google for Android and not Novell for Mono is that Android is successful and there is some chance to get a lot of money and Mono is not successful, so it is not worth suing them.

"The fact that adding a virtual method to a base class will break the ABI for everything is really bad. It makes shipping applications a real PITA.