Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 19th Sep 2005 17:02 UTC, submitted by Eli M. Dow
Mono Project Build applications for Linux while maintaining cross-platform capabilities using .NET languages.
Thread beginning with comment 33607
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Summary of arguments
by g2devi on Mon 19th Sep 2005 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE: finally..."
Member since:

> It only repeats the "two stacks" fallacy that only
> serves to confuse the discussion.

Actually, this is the way I see it:

1) The ECMA standard *might* have problems with patent licensing. Novell and friends have wagered that it doesn't and Miguel thinks that he can rewrite around any patent issue that happen to arise. RedHat and friends have wagered that it does have problems that cannot be worked around easily and is a afraid that even the threat of "patent issues" may hold back GNOME the way it held back BSD.

2) Using the Gtk# stack plus the ECMA standard will reduce your risk and work seemlessly on Linux/Unix, but since the Gtk# stack is not native to Windows, you'll gain no portability advantage over PyGtk++ or portable native UI support over Java/SWT or wxPython..

3) Using the WinForms/ASP.NET stack will decrease your porting time from Windows, but it will expose you to the more risk than (2) because Microsoft has not licensed patents to those parts. WinForms/ASP.NET apps might not also be directly portable to Linux (e.g. SharpDevelop has to be forked as a separate project (MonoDevelop), because SharpDevelop can't compile under Mono despite the desire to do so by the SharpDevelop team.)

4) Mono supporters believe that even if they have to abandon the "Windows" Stack, the "Gtk#" Stack presents several useful technologies that are not available anywhere else. Mono detractors believe that Mono provides little value that is no available in other languages/APIs.

5) Mono supporters believe that they can develop so much Mono software that they can play a part in defining the .NET standard and if they are wrong, the advantages of (4) will leave this point moot. Mono detractors believe that Microsoft.NET will always be the defactor standard and as a consequence Mono will always be playing catchup and will have little or no say in the .NET standard.

6) Mono supporters see Mono as another Samba -- Linux will always need it to survive in the corporate world. Mono detractors see Mono as another WINE -- WINE may have some uses as a transitional technology to move off of Windows, but it's generally a bad idea to write new apps using WineLib (e.g. Corel Office) and if possible native apps should be used over WineLib apps.

Have I missed anything?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Summary of arguments
by on Mon 19th Sep 2005 20:35 in reply to "Summary of arguments"
Member since:

>Have I missed anything?

Just that MS has a fairly broad patent application for .NET.

See -- ".Net patent could stifle standards effort"

If this patent is approved, I'd like to see how Miguel could "rewrite around" it.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Summary of arguments
by Jamie on Mon 19th Sep 2005 21:34 in reply to "RE: Summary of arguments"
Jamie Member since:

Most software patents are flawed and unenforcable and when challenged in court the majority dont stand up.

Broad patents are especially vulnerable to being overruled in a court as its one of the main things a judge will take into account.

Lastly, anti-monoopoly laws prohibit a monopolist from using patents to stifle legitimate competition so MS's entire patent haul is totally worthless (whilst they remain a monopolist of course).

Additional : in the EU and generally outside the US software patents are worthless and unenforcable period.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Summary of arguments
by Soulbender on Tue 20th Sep 2005 06:05 in reply to "Summary of arguments"
Soulbender Member since:

" a afraid that even the threat of "patent issues" may hold back GNOME the way it held back BSD."
There are no patent issues that has held back the BSD's.

Reply Parent Score: 1