Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 13th Dec 2010 19:27 UTC, submitted by lemur2
Mono Project For the most time, I've been firmly in the largest camp when it comes to the Mono debate - the 'I don't care'-camp. With patent lawsuits being hotter than Lady Gaga right now, that changed. For good reason, so it seems; while firmly in the 'ZOMG-MICROSOFT-IS-T3H-EVILL!1!!ONE!'-camp, The-Source.com investigated the five most popular Mono applications, and the conclusion is clear: all of them implement a lot of namespaces which are not covered by Microsoft's community promise thing.
Thread beginning with comment 453351
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Evil Companies
by debackerl on Mon 13th Dec 2010 20:17 UTC
debackerl
Member since:
2008-09-10

A year or two ago, many open source developers were in favor of Sun's Java because Sun was so kind, created an open system to design the Java spec (JSR), and all that stuff. Google was in, now Google is busted with Android, LibreOffice wants to reduce dependance on Java, and everbody else is just scared.

Now look at Microsoft, they released the source code of IronPython, IronRuby, F#, ASP.NET MVC, and a widget toolkit for Silverlight. They changed a lot, but in the right sense. 10 years ago nobody would have thought that Microsoft would release open source applications. Also the risk of Microsoft being purchased by Oracle is non significant.

Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!

Maybe the only real alternative for a modern/fast/efficient/open/OO language is D.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Evil Companies - Silverlight
by jabbotts on Mon 13th Dec 2010 20:24 in reply to "Evil Companies"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

.. ah.. Silverlight.. Microsoft hasn't released the Silverlight DRM I notice. Handy that for keeping Silverlight compatibility crippled on unblessed general purpose OS isn't it? We're the newer "open" Microsoft.. sort of.

Reply Parent Score: 9

RE: Evil Companies
by f0dder on Mon 13th Dec 2010 20:32 in reply to "Evil Companies"
f0dder Member since:
2009-08-05

Good points, but do we have any guarantee it's not part of an embrace/extend/extinguish strategy? Or that, if it really isn't and MS's intentions are (currently) noble, that they won't come around later because it makes sense businesswise?

I do C#/.NET development on Windows, and I like the platform - and really wouldn't mind being able to use C# on other platforms, too. But I don't feel that it's entirely safe to do so... but it's not like I trust Java any more, after Oracle got into the picture.

Maybe the only real alternative for a modern/fast/efficient/open/OO language is D.
Which seems to be a pretty nifty language, but it's relatively small compared to C# and Java... guarantees about it not going away, performance being good enough, compiler/stdlib bugs being fixed timely, availability etc?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Evil Companies
by nt_jerkface on Tue 14th Dec 2010 00:19 in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

I do C#/.NET development on Windows, and I like the platform - and really wouldn't mind being able to use C# on other platforms, too.


Yea I used to think that until trying Mono in OSX.

It's ok in Linux but I would look towards ASP or Silverlight if you want use C# and deliver cross-platform.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Evil Companies
by vivainio on Mon 13th Dec 2010 21:05 in reply to "Evil Companies"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Maybe the only real alternative for a modern/fast/efficient/open/OO language is D.


Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it, and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE[2]: Evil Companies
by Zifre on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:35 in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

Have you heard of this C++ thing? Almost all the software you run is written in it

No, actually very little software on a typical Linux desktop is written in C++. KDE is the largest user, and most distros default to GNOME.

and it's neither encumbered nor irrelevant.

Yes, but I think it fails the "modern" requirement. C++ is better than C, but there are so many thing it got wrong that it's not even worth discussing (although there are a lot of things that I like very much about C++). There's also the fact that a lot of people are going to want a pointer-less language with fast, precise garbage collection. You can argue all you want, but it can hardly be argued that a good, open-source, unencumbered, fast, modern, GC-ed, OO language would not increase development for Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE: Evil Companies
by lemur2 on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:02 in reply to "Evil Companies"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!


Microsoft doesn't have a patent on FAT itself.

FAT first appeared around 1980, so even if Microsoft did apply for a patent on it then, that patent has long expired by now.

However, Microsoft does still hold some patents related to the method they used to implement "long file names" in a FAT filesystem (originally, FAT file names had to conform to an 8.3 template, and had to be upper case only, "long file names" overcame these restrictions).

"Long file names" have long been a feature of more advanced operating systems such as UNIX. Microsofts patents do not cover long file names per se, but rather, the patents specifically cover a method of recording both a long file name and a short 8.3 file name for the same file at the same time on a FAT filesystem.

Linux doesn't do that. Linux writes either a long file anme or a short file name, but never both, on a FAT filesystem.

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/07/vfat-linux-patch-co...

Just as Linux systems have avoided Microsoft's FAT patents by simply avoiding the patented functionality, so too should they avoid any Microsoft patents in .NET. This is only common sense.

There is an exceedingly simple way to ensure that ... don't use Mono.

If one doesn't install Mono, doesn't use it, doesn't run it, doesn't install any applications that depend on it on one's Linux system, then one cannot be accused of violating Microsoft-held patents, (even by people who do not know what is actually patented).

Thankfully, very decent alternatives exist to all of the Mono-based Linux applications. Avoiding Mono is dead easy (in fact, easier than avoiding FAT-related patents), and completely painless. One doesn't even have to endure a long-winded examination of namespaces that are not covered by Microsoft's Community Promise, if one simply isn't running Mono in the first place.

BTW: Microsft has sued a company called TomTom over FAT-related patents and TomTom's use of Linux.

Edited 2010-12-13 22:15 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Evil Companies
by fran on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:04 in reply to "Evil Companies"
fran Member since:
2010-08-06

MS is not going all altruistic on us now.
NOPE not really

http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/12/12/1327248/Microsoft-Seeks-1-C...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Evil Companies
by Treeno on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:56 in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
Treeno Member since:
2010-12-13

I was thinking about free software development. If we see what happened to Java and now, not surprisingly, learn that C# is not an option, I wonder what is now a good, free, proven, modern, static checked programming language with a state of the art IDE that supports multiple platforms that could become a successor of C/C++?

The open source community seems to have very strong solutions when it comes to dynamic languages, but not so much for statically checked ones?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Evil Companies
by segedunum on Mon 13th Dec 2010 22:58 in reply to "Evil Companies"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!

The difference here, of course, is that Microsoft did not release .Net under the GPL and then turn around and claim they need to be paid because of the usage of one file. .Net is also unquestionably Microsoft's invention. There's is no one else in the mix with prior art as there is with FAT and protocols like SMB.

That's another weak argument dropped around by many Mono advocates, the notion that somehow this is all just the same as any other patent threat. There is something to be said for reducing your risk......

Edited 2010-12-13 23:03 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Evil Companies
by lemur2 on Mon 13th Dec 2010 23:15 in reply to "RE: Evil Companies"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Maybe you are right to be scared of Microsoft, but then stop using Linux Kernel, it has an implementation of FAT!
The difference here, of course, is that Microsoft did not release .Net under the GPL and then turn around and claim they need to be paid because of the usage of one file. .Net is also unquestionably Microsoft's invention. There's is no one else in the mix with prior art as there is with FAT and protocols like SMB. That's another weak argument dropped around by many Mono advocates, the notion that somehow this is all just the same as any other patent threat. There is something to be said for reducing your risk...... "

Samba has specifications supplied by Microsoft, and the SMB protocol itself is originally an IBM invention.

Any patent on FAT itself has long expired by now.

FAT and Samba are both "interoperability" functionality, and in many cases that would mean that other implementations are permitted by law - anti lock-in laws if you like.

.NET has none of these considerations.

Thankfully, Mono-based applications on Linux are simply not required. One can easily replace all of the Mono-based applications for Linux, and not miss a single thing.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Evil Companies
by fithisux on Tue 14th Dec 2010 05:54 in reply to "Evil Companies"
fithisux Member since:
2006-01-22

I totally agree. D is the next big thing. And there is a gcc implementation. The LLVM one is not in very good shape.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Evil Companies
by jabjoe on Wed 15th Dec 2010 11:30 in reply to "Evil Companies"
jabjoe Member since:
2009-05-06

You know the fat was trimmed into a non-infringing form right? http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20090401152339514

That kind of thing is >MUCH< easier to do if you not trying to follow a standard which leads you across the mine field.

Reply Parent Score: 2