Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 30th Mar 2009 18:43 UTC, submitted by elsewhere
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Any discussion about GNOME vs. KDE is sure to end in tears. It's basically impossible to discuss which of these two Free desktop environments is better than the other, mostly because they cater to different types of people, with different needs and expectatotions. As such, Bruce Byfield decided to look at the two platforms from a different perspective: if we consider their developmental processes, which of the two is most likely to be more successful in the coming years?
Thread beginning with comment 356025
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: There is no argument
by segedunum on Tue 31st Mar 2009 13:51 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: There is no argument"
segedunum
Member since:
2005-07-06

Mono is not .NET. I am sick and tired of hearing this BS line. Mono is C# and the CLR with its own libraries.

You cannot separate the two, which is what Mono's weak FAQ attempts to do. You can create your own libraries within Microsoft's implementations, but that doesn't stop you needing the pre-requisites - a .Net environment to run them in.

From another standpoint as far as Microsoft is concerned, and with everything I have ever seen filed by them over .Net, you are deemed to be covered if you are running within a compatible CLR as per the ECMA specifications - regardless of what libraries you use. That means Mono. In addition, the ECMA does not stop them ever filing something over those specifications in the future, which is why the ECMA specifies you need to license them under RAND terms for as long as they are ECMA standards.

Now, the obvious question is: How long will that RAND license last? That's the problem. It certainly isn't forever I can tell you that, and nothing makes it so.

Think the ECMA provides protection for you? Think again. That's what a lot of people have difficulty with, and it's an issue that has never been addressed. For open source projects they just can't live with that kind of uncertainty.

Class libraries are entirely different and they are the bulk of what makes up Mono.

No, they are not, so please stop regurgitating the Mono FAQ. It is wrong. It really doesn't matter what libraries you use, you can be covered with one brush by using the CLR, CLS and anything covered by the ECMA because that's what you need for those class libraries to be worth anything. They are very much a part of the .Net environment.

Reply Parent Score: 7

RE[4]: There is no argument
by Hiev on Tue 31st Mar 2009 15:06 in reply to "RE[3]: There is no argument"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Wow, your post is so inaccurate, I wouldn't know where to start.

But hey, anything to promote a political cause, right?

Edited 2009-03-31 15:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: There is no argument
by abraxas on Tue 31st Mar 2009 18:44 in reply to "RE[3]: There is no argument"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

You cannot separate the two, which is what Mono's weak FAQ attempts to do. You can create your own libraries within Microsoft's implementations, but that doesn't stop you needing the pre-requisites - a .Net environment to run them in.


This is entirely incorrect. You don't need a .NET environment to run Mono. I think you are confusing terminologies. .NET is an implementation of the C# language/CLR with class libraries meant specifically for Windows. Mono is an implementation of the C# language/CLR with TOTALLY DIFFERENT class libraries other than the few bits that have been standardized. Yes Mono also ships .NET compatible libraries but this isn't the basis for any GNOME applications.

Think the ECMA provides protection for you? Think again. That's what a lot of people have difficulty with, and it's an issue that has never been addressed. For open source projects they just can't live with that kind of uncertainty.


Why single out Mono then? Javascript is an ECMA standard. There is nothing preventing ANYONE from claiming a patent in Javascript yet I haven't heard a single person make any noise about that or any other ECMA standarized language. You're tying to pretend this is about ECMA standards when it's really about your hatred of Microsoft. Why else single out Mono?

No, they are not, so please stop regurgitating the Mono FAQ. It is wrong. It really doesn't matter what libraries you use, you can be covered with one brush by using the CLR, CLS and anything covered by the ECMA because that's what you need for those class libraries to be worth anything. They are very much a part of the .Net environment.


Do you even know what .NET consists of? A majority of it cannot even be included in Mono because it is Windows specific in so many areas. I wish you would stop your blatant misrepresentation of Mono when it is obvious you haven't even glanced at the .NET class libraries. If your worry is that Microsoft will call out patent claims then you might as well hide under a rock because anyone can get hit with software patent claims at any time, it isn't a Mono specific threat.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: There is no argument
by lemur2 on Wed 1st Apr 2009 05:10 in reply to "RE[4]: There is no argument"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Why single out Mono then? Javascript is an ECMA standard. There is nothing preventing ANYONE from claiming a patent in Javascript yet I haven't heard a single person make any noise about that or any other ECMA standarized language.


A description of the difference between Mono and ECMAscript is (essentially) to be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECMAScript#History

JavaScript was originally developed by Brendan Eich of Netscape under the name Mocha, later LiveScript, and finally renamed to JavaScript. In December 1995, Sun Microsystems and Netscape announced JavaScript in a press release. In March 1996 Netscape Navigator 2.0 was out, featuring support for JavaScript.

Due to the wide-spread success of JavaScript as a client-side scripting language for web pages, Microsoft developed a compatible dialect of the language, naming it JScript to avoid trademark issues. JScript added new date methods to fix the non-Y2K-friendly methods in JavaScript, which were based on java.util.Date. JScript was included in Internet Explorer 3.0, released in August 1996.

Netscape submitted JavaScript to Ecma International for standardization; the work on the specification, ECMA-262, began in November 1996. The first edition of ECMA-262 was adopted by the ECMA General Assembly of June 1997.


ECMAscript is (essentailly) Netscape/Sun IP, adopted also by Microsoft.

.NET is Microsoft IP, some parts of which have been submitted by Microsoft as ECMA standards. It is vitally important to keep in mind the qualifier "parts of which".

Since Netscape donated their code to open source, I would imagine that there is some kind of accompanying pledge which prevents other parties from claiming after-the-fact patents in Javascript and other related technologies.

Edited 2009-04-01 05:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: There is no argument
by segedunum on Wed 1st Apr 2009 10:03 in reply to "RE[4]: There is no argument"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

This is entirely incorrect. You don't need a .NET environment to run Mono. I think you are confusing terminologies.

Hmmmmm, no. I'm not. You need at least part of the .Net environment in order to get Mono running or to use any of those class libraries you say are all so neatly independent.

Mono is an implementation of the C# language/CLR with TOTALLY DIFFERENT class libraries other than the few bits that have been standardized.

No. Like I said, stop trying to separate class libraries and things that you believe to have been 'standardised'. Whether you add your own class libraries and namespaces to an implementation of the .Net environment really doesn't matter.

You also don't seem to realise that the ECMA specifications specify very little that you will need to get a CLR actually running, with the classes that you need - rather like Rotor. Rotor was absolutely useless for running any practical applications with the framework. Mono has had to reverse engineer a reasonable amount to get to where it is.

Yes Mono also ships .NET compatible libraries but this isn't the basis for any GNOME applications.

The .Net compatible libraries aren't at issue. They are libraries with names and no more.

Why single out Mono then? Javascript is an ECMA standard.

Because JavaScript is not a submission that is the work of only one company, it has umpteen implementations proven and running on umpteen platforms and ECMAScript is also an ISO standard.

You're tying to pretend this is about ECMA standards when it's really about your hatred of Microsoft. Why else single out Mono?

Ahhhhhh. Someone give him a hug. When you're in a tight corner then tell everyone that it's because they hate Microsoft. Listen to yourself.

On a mailing list some time back someone brought this up and the Mono guys sheepsihly stated they had a letter from Microsoft and HP that the RAND licensing would not be revoked. Needless to say, it never materialised. That is what I'm talking about.

The ECMA is pretty much worthless as a standardising body because what I've described is exactly what it allows. It allows RAND licensing for the duration that it is an ECMA standard. ECMAScript being an ECMA specification would be worthless if it wasn't submitted by an independent body and it hadn't also become an ISO standard.

Do you even know what .NET consists of?

.Net is a generic term so asking what it consists of is pointless, but if you're using a CLR then you are using the most important part of it.

If your worry is that Microsoft will call out patent claims then you might as well hide under a rock because anyone can get hit with software patent claims at any time, it isn't a Mono specific threat.

Ahhhhh, and here we have the standard, generic response - tell everyone that this isn't a Microsoft-specific thing.

As I've said, I'm afraid that Microsoft cover you by stating that it applies if you are running within an ECMA compatible CLR. If you were to create the same kind of code or innovation running in a JVM for example, you're OK. Their claims actually state that.

What Microsoft is doing is a very clear "You can do whatever you like, but keep off our turf" message, but you just do not want to see it do you?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[5]: There is no argument
by gustl on Fri 3rd Apr 2009 10:27 in reply to "RE[4]: There is no argument"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Why single out Mono then? Javascript is an ECMA standard. There is nothing preventing ANYONE from claiming a patent in Javascript


It still is a difference to know that Microsoft actually HAS patents which are necessarily infringed by Mono and Microsoft is willing to ENFORCE them as soon as it can gain some advantage by this, or some hypothetical patents which may be in the hands of somebody or not who might as well be completely ignorant to all entities who cannot pay large amounts of money.

Reply Parent Score: 2