Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 7th Jul 2009 08:51 UTC, submitted by PLan
Mono Project We've already seen some heavy discussion on Mono and C# here on OSNews the past few weeks, as it became clear the patent situation regarding the ECMA parts of Mono was anything but faith inspiring. This issue seems to be resolved now: Microsoft has made a legally binding promise not to sue anyone who uses or distributes implementations of said ECMA standards. Following this news, Mono will be split in two; the ECMA standard parts, and the rest.
Thread beginning with comment 372096
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai
by modmans2ndcoming on Tue 7th Jul 2009 14:41 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by kaiwai"
modmans2ndcoming
Member since:
2005-11-09

1) Neither Sun nor Apple ever promised not to sue for their patents. It is just the FOSS community's paranoia that is driving the distrust of MS.

2)MONO is not the WINE of .net. Who cares if GTK+ sucks on windows? the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Tue 7th Jul 2009 15:46 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Neither Sun nor Apple ever promised not to sue for their patents. It is just the FOSS community's paranoia that is driving the distrust of MS.


You are correct about that but given that Apple hasn't said, "implement OpenStep and die" as Ballmer threatened the opensource community with such an announcement - I feel pretty safe. As for Java, they made it clear; the only request was don't call it Java - call it Chocolate Milkshake if you want but if you want to make it Java you have to pay a fee.

2)MONO is not the WINE of .net. Who cares if GTK+ sucks on windows? the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.


If your goal is to make a replacement to C, only use the ECMA standardised components and create a uniquely GNOME integrated .NET like Framework - then all power to them. The problem is that there will be those who expect it to be multiplatform - something that mono needs to state, therefore, that multiplatformness is a secondary priority when compared to making Mono into *the* framework, and C# the language to use.

Its good that they've split the two but I'd like to see an explicit removal of the non-ECMA components from the mono-project altogether. Make it a pure ECMA + Open Source with a declaration they have no interest re-implementing the non-ECMA components.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by kaiwai on Wed 8th Jul 2009 03:21 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice to see this forum is filled with the usual maggots who moderate posts down they disagree with instead of entering dialogue. Every time I see my posts being marked down it tells me that I am correct and there are a pack of cowards in this site who are intellectually deficient when it comes to mounting a counter argument.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai
by niemau on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:09 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by kaiwai"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

the goal of MONO is to replace C with C# as the preimire dev technology on GNOME.


hah. no, it is not! it's about creating a clone of .NET. period. straight from the horse's mouth:

Provides the necessary software to develop and run .NET client and server applications on different platforms.


i am so tired of people making this just about patents. of course microsoft is going to continue to make shallow and/or vague patent threats in perpetuity. just like they ALWAYS have.

the only thing this 'promise' does is extend novell's insufficient coverage to others. it still doesn't cover everything.

but even if there was NO patent threat, it is flabbergasting that so many people have no problem with playing a constant game of catch-up, forever and ever. mono will ALWAYS be a 'me-too' or a 'second best implementation'. that is the very nature of the project. considering MS's... errr... history, why would anybody even *want* to take that on?

that simple fact is why a good number of people don't want to be any further entrenched in mono than necessary. that is why we shouldn't be pushing mono as a development platform. a compatibility option, sure. but never installed by default. and NEVER critical.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by sbergman27 on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:30 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

hah. no, it is not! it's about creating a clone of .NET. period. straight from the horse's mouth:

Agreed. I do believe that Miguel de Icaza's original goal was to make C and C# the dual pillars of Gnome development. And that is where the errant perception likely comes from. But Miguel, smart as he is on technical matters, can be a real fruitcake when it comes to what is reasonably possible in dealing with real OSS developers and real OSS projects.

At most, C# is or will become one language, among many, that one can write Gnome apps in.

Edited 2009-07-07 16:31 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by dagw on Tue 7th Jul 2009 16:43 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

it's about creating a clone of .NET. period.

That's one of the goals of Mono, however it is not the only goal. Hopefully this splitting of the mono project will make that clearer.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[7]: Comment by kaiwai
by kelvin on Tue 7th Jul 2009 18:10 in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by kaiwai"
kelvin Member since:
2005-07-06

but even if there was NO patent threat, it is flabbergasting that so many people have no problem with playing a constant game of catch-up, forever and ever. mono will ALWAYS be a 'me-too' or a 'second best implementation'.

FFS... this again. Mono is NOT playing catch-up. Mono already implements C# 3.0. Who cares what Microsoft is doing in its stack on top of the ECMA-bits? The Free stack is not a moving target, and that's what's important.

Reply Parent Score: 2