Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 10:37 UTC, submitted by John Mills
Mono Project The Mono project has released Mono 2.0. As most of you will know, Mono is an open-source implementation of Microsoft's .NET framework for Linux, Mac OS X, Windows, and other operating systems. The 2.0 release comes packed with new features, the main ones being the compiler upgrade to C# 3.0 with support for LINQ, as well as the inclusion of ADO.NET 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and System.Windows.Forms 2.0. The release notes detail all the changes and new features.
Thread beginning with comment 332617
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Amazing"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Yes they are doing great work. Pity that MS isnt doing that work.

Imagine MS said "ntfs is open, you just have to reverse engineer it." Why are MS not releasing some of the code to Mono? To duplicate work is just plain stupid. Mono will never catch up with the latest MS .NET version.


MS have said that parts of .NET are open specifications. These parts are ISO standards even.

In typical MS fashion, though, only parts of the .NET framework are open:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.NET_Framework#Standardization_and_lic...

Specifically, CLI and the C# programming language are ECMA standards (ECMA 335 and ECMA 334) which later became ISO standards.

However:
However, this does not apply for the part of the .NET Framework which is not covered by the ECMA/ISO standard, which includes Windows Forms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET. Patents that Microsoft holds in these areas may deter non-Microsoft implementations of the full framework.


Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

That is a red flag, right there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Reference_License#Microsoft_...

Microsoft Reference Source License (Ms-RSL)

This is the most restrictive of the Microsoft Shared Source licenses. The source code is made available to view for reference purposes only. Developers may not distribute or modify the code for commercial or non-commercial purposes.


Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleB...

http://www.oreillynet.com/windows/blog/2006/11/microsofts_ballmer_l...

http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/17/ballmer-linux-users-.html

The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.

Edited 2008-10-06 13:18 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE[3]: Amazing
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.


Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: Amazing
by Soulbender on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:46 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yeah, especially when individuals aren't legally responsible for patent infringements (real or imagined) in products they have "purchased".

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"The easy thing by far to do then is to avoid Mono like the plague, and don't use SuSe Linux.

Personally, with most GNOME distributions now including Mono applications (Tomboy notes, Banshee, F-Spot, Beagle search et al) by default, I'd make it even simpler and just use a KDE distribution.


Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.
"

It is not the suing, I believe, that is Microsoft's interest here. Linux would just sue back, and no-one would win.

I would hazard a guess that Microsoft's primary interest is to keep alive the ability to make threats against Linux users (without any actual action), so as to be able to keep up a pretense that there is some legal liability in using Linux.

This is, after all, the entire bluster behind Ballmer's "undisclosed liability" nonsense.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Amazing
by segedunum on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:24 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, because there's just SO much precedent out there of Microsoft suing individuals or other companies for patent infringement.

I know people like to dredge up this one time and again, but it has been debunked so many times it is ridiculous. The point is, they don't have to sue anyone. It doesn't mean to say that they can't though. Even then, there is still enough behind how the ECMA manages the whole situation that has left the legal situation far from clear regarding an open source implementation of Mono not distributed to Novell's customers. Why bother when there is other open source technology that doesn't have that explicit milestone around its neck?

Why on Earth do you think Microsoft signed a deal with Novell and then sent out letters to Novell's own customers saying "Don't worry if you use open source software and Novell. You're safe with us [but we can't vouch for you if you're not]".

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by jstedfast on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:21 in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
jstedfast Member since:
2007-06-21

You don't have to install Windows.Forms support, it's not a core part of Mono. Nor are ASP.NET or ADO.NET.

You are able to install just the ECMA/ISO standardized portions of Mono. Most (all?) Linux distributions already package it like this, anyway.

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 13:38 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You don't have to install Windows.Forms support, it's not a core part of Mono. Nor are ASP.NET or ADO.NET.

You are able to install just the ECMA/ISO standardized portions of Mono. Most (all?) Linux distributions already package it like this, anyway.


If Mono's purpose is to allow porting to Linux of Windows applications originally written under the .NET framework, then Mono 2.0 installed without Windows.Forms, ASP.NET or ADO.NET has no purpose.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mono_(software)

Since version 1.9, Mono now apparently contains Moonlight. Moonlight is an implementation of Silverlight, and it includes binary codecs supplied by Microsoft to the Moonlight project.

It would seem that the whole purpose of Mono has now changed. Its purpose now appears to be solely to get Microsoft dependencies installed by default on (some) Linux systems.

BTW: My KDE 4.1.2 Linux system, which is absolutely functional, has no Mono installed on it at all. Not all Linux systems have the Mono trojan installed on them.

This is, I believe, exactly why there has been a bit of an attack campaign launched against KDE 4 recently.

Edited 2008-10-06 13:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Amazing
by rramalho on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
rramalho Member since:
2007-07-11

FUD

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: Amazing
by abraxas on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

You, like many other misguided users, haven't the slightest clue about Mono. The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology. Mono does provide some parts of non-standard .NET but this is for compatibility. GNOME doesn't use Windows.Forms or any other garbage like that. They use GTK just like every other GNOME application. The entire Mono stack for GNOME is their own technology other than the language which is a standard. Why do we have to dispell these paranoid myths every time a Mono article appears?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Mon 6th Oct 2008 14:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You, like many other misguided users, haven't the slightest clue about Mono. The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology. Mono does provide some parts of non-standard .NET but this is for compatibility. GNOME doesn't use Windows.Forms or any other garbage like that. They use GTK just like every other GNOME application. The entire Mono stack for GNOME is their own technology other than the language which is a standard. Why do we have to dispell these paranoid myths every time a Mono article appears?


Well, Mono 2.0 includes Moonlight.

Moonlight includes Microsoft-supplied patented binary codecs.

Mono 2.0 also includes Windows.forms, ADO.NET and ASP.NET, which are also patented Microsoft technologies which are specifically marked as "not for commercial redistribution" by Microsoft. Unless licensed from Microsoft.

All of these technologies require a license from Microsoft in order for people to be allowed to run them. It really is that simple.

In other words ... buy a Microsoft-endorsed Linux (specifically SLED) or have no Linux at all ... that is the clear aim.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by segedunum on Mon 6th Oct 2008 19:36 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The parts of Mono actually used by Linux applications like Banshee, Tomboy, F-Spot, and Beagle are based on standards not proprietary Microsoft technology.

What makes you think that the CLR specification and the Common Language specification core technologies are safe? Irrevocable RAND terms have not been granted regarding those technologies, and it is merely governance of the ECMA that is keeping it in place.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Amazing
by google_ninja on Wed 8th Oct 2008 06:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Amazing"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

You are downright trolling about this stuff lemur.

Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

...

Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.


You would have a great point, except that the mono team requires that all contributers have never read BCL or ROTOR source, and that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: Amazing
by lemur2 on Wed 8th Oct 2008 08:45 in reply to "RE[3]: Amazing"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

You are downright trolling about this stuff lemur.

"Interestingly, Microsoft has made available much of the source code for the .NET Framework Base Class Library (including ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation) under the shared source Microsoft Reference License.

...

Since Mono 2.0 includes Systems.Windows.Forms 2.0, ASP.NET 2.0 and ADO.NET 2.0 I'd say pretty much that anyone who installs Mono 2.0 on their Linux system has what Steve Ballmer refers to as an "undisclosed liability" to Microsoft right there.


You would have a great point, except that the mono team requires that all contributers have never read BCL or ROTOR source, and that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source.
"

To violate a patent, you don't have to copy the source.

Copyright law protects the expression of an idea. If a copy of the actual text of the code that MS released under the shared source Microsoft Reference License appeared in Mono, that would be a copyright violation.

Patent law is not copyright law. Patents protect the idea itself, and not just the expression of it in source code.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent

ASP.NET, ADO.NET and Windows Presentation Foundation are protected (I believe) by patents. If so, it doesn't matter one whit if Mono contributors have never read BCL or ROTOR source, or that they wrote all three implementations years before ms released their source. They would still be in violation of Microsoft IP if they do not have a license from Microsoft to use the protected IP.

I believe that Mono Project developers (on Novell's staff) may in fact have such a license, as part of the Microsoft/Novell deal.

This however does not mean that anyone else (downstream) can use the Mono Project source code, as THEY certainly do not have such a license.

PS: Thankyou for admitting that I have a point.

Edited 2008-10-08 08:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1