Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 11th Aug 2006 23:25 UTC
Mono Project Sam of Port25 sits down with Miguel de Icaza, VP Development Platform at Novell and co-founder of Ximian. In this interview Sam and Miguel talk about the history behind Mono, the current state of the project and Miguel's thoughts on Mono as it relates to .NET.
Thread beginning with comment 151644
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Mono
by Sodki on Sat 12th Aug 2006 01:40 UTC in reply to "Mono"
Sodki
Member since:
2005-11-10

In Spanish slang, a "mono" (donkey) is a person that imitates behavior, attitudes, costumes, etc. from another person.

Nice try, but "mono" actually means "monkey".


Mono is the same: An imitation of the Microsoft .NET framework rebuilt by an open source community.

No, it's mostly an implementation of a standard. I am an anti-Microsoft guy, sometimes to the point of being ridiculous, but I don't think there is anything wrong with Mono. On the contrary, I think it is a great effort. Kudos to Miguel.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Mono
by ebasconp on Sat 12th Aug 2006 01:53 in reply to "RE: Mono"
ebasconp Member since:
2006-05-09

"Nice try, but "mono" actually means "monkey".".

You're right, but the bad translation is because my bad English: actually I'm an hispanoparlante (Spanish native speaker) ;)

Kudos to Miguel, of course! that's a fantastic job, things like Gtk# or support for the System.Windows.Forms are really amazing! But the point to me is that the people programming in Unix-like OSes, generally works against the BEAST (MS) and if the people starts developing software using Mono, they will work agains the BEAST with tools provided by the beast.

Do you realize my point?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Mono
by joelito_pr on Sat 12th Aug 2006 03:42 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono"
joelito_pr Member since:
2005-07-07

Aunque a ninguno de estos "gringos" le gustarķa confundir un mono con un burro.

And Miguel throws a nice argument about how mono could actually help MS in the long run by ensuring .Net's position as a viable cross plataform framework for development.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Mono
by jessta on Sat 12th Aug 2006 07:28 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono"
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

It's more like, a standard provided by the beast.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Mono
by segedunum on Sat 12th Aug 2006 12:17 in reply to "RE: Mono"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

No, it's mostly an implementation of a standard.

No it isn't. It's an implementation of what people think is a standard, and the ECMA specs are so thin on the ground as to what you need you need to at least bootstrap or reverse engineer parts of what Microsoft has done to get anywhere.

Additionally, Microsoft has publicly stated many years ago that to they have clear patents on implementing the technology that they came up with, like the CLR - not just the extensions and the wider framework. Also keep in mind that the patents are specific to .Net technology, and are not broadly applicable as in the case of others. The standard argument that comes up like 'Oh, you could be sued if you did this in Java' does not apply.

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/0,14179,2887217...

Given that the ECMA has been absolutely terrible at providing a cast-iron agreement where patents are not allowed, or a grant is given forever, anyone who implements them needs to fully understand what they're getting into. What you're actually entering into is an agreement with Microsoft, not with the ECMA.

Even if Microsoft intends to do nothing, the fear that a few well placed press releases engender would be absolutely huge. I suppose the question is, certainly for the open source community, is it worth it? Question marks over the so-called 'MP3 patent' have been bad enough.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Mono
by david g on Sat 12th Aug 2006 22:02 in reply to "RE[2]: Mono"
david g Member since:
2005-07-08

No it isn't. It's an implementation of what people think is a standard, and the ECMA specs are so thin on the ground as to what you need you need to at least bootstrap or reverse engineer parts of what Microsoft has done to get anywhere.

You clearly have no idea what the ECMA specs are. They're only what people *think* is a standard?! You obviously have no respect for the ECMA or what they stand for. They don't grant standard status to any old piece of garbage thrown their way. They're very serious about this stuff.

Additionally, Microsoft has publicly stated many years ago that to they have clear patents on implementing the technology that they came up with, like the CLR

Yes, they patent *implementation*. Any one else is free to make their own implementation.

Given that the ECMA has been absolutely terrible at providing a cast-iron agreement where patents are not allowed

This is an API standard. For ECMA, patents don't come into play, as you can't patent an API.

I suppose the question is, certainly for the open source community, is it worth it?

Obviously, many people feel it is, or else there would be no mono.

Reply Parent Score: 3