Vice president of developer platform for Novell in Boston, de Icaza, 32, took a moment to discuss with Howard Wen the primary legal concerns and technical issues with Mono, its current and near-future status, and why you should consider developing your next project with it. Elsewhere, Beagle 0.0.8 was released, the first version reasy for wide consumption.
Miguel de Icaza Explains How to “Get” Mono
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
To get get Mono, you have to have as many people as possible sneeze at you, -try going to a public swimming pool. A friend of mine was a swimming sports player for the university of St Andrew’s and she got Mono.
Its an aweful condition and it took her the best part of 3 years to recover from it. She used to be such an athlete and Mono really ruined that for her. It was during 2nd year as well.
My concerns with Mono are still legal ones.
Now that’s comedy gold!
Is anyone actually using Mono in the coporate world ?
I hope he’s better at programming and managing than he is at naming a project.
But why do open source people waste their time, energy and money on lame ideas like cloning moronic microsoft garbage? Novell is so busy with cloning exchange, outlook and every other crappy, stupid microsoft software that they couldn’t come up with an original idea if it came up and bit them on the ass. What’s going to happen once all that junk has been cloned by everyone and their uncle? Sit on their thumbs and wait for microsoft to put out more stuff they can copy? How about some originality! Is that too much to ask?
Because that “moronic microsoft garbage” have 93% of the market. If by cloning them Novell manages to grab a 2 or 3% of that market (a market that wants interoperability with MS), it’s already enough for Novell’s pockets. Now, who’s the moron?
Because they can, .NET is good tech, open source has no history of innovation, fanboy irrational hatred of Microsoft doesn’t concern them.
The first Beagle-version for wide consumption ? At GNOME-files (and at the Beagle-website) I can download a tarball with Beagles sources. I guess that I can then compile those with the Mono-tools ? When I read ‘wide consumption’ I guess I can download a binary, extract/install it and run it. But I guess that Beagle has not reached that far yet…
Since I have heard so many complaints about the sluggishness of Apple Spotlight product.
Beagle is too tight to one’s mono installation and surrounded deps. A binary for suse wouldn’t work for red hat, for example. Source is still the best way to get the most out of it.
Packaging binaries isn’t the Beagle team’s job–that job is for your distro.
I wonder how it comes that beagle is the best rated application at gnomefiles. 9.48 out of 10, hei, this must not only be ready for “public consumption”, it must be the freaking best thing since sliced bread.
I mean, do so much people actually tried something which was not even ready for “public consumption” (which AFAICT means “this won’t even compile or will crash every 10 minutes”) ?
…which AFAICT means…
well, it doesn’t.
“I hope he’s better at programming and managing than he is at naming a project.”
It’s not English – It means “monkey” in Spanish. It’s kind of funny that you think it’s entirely a clone – guess you haven’t really looked at it.
When I read ‘wide consumption’ I guess I can download a binary, extract/install it and run it. But I guess that Beagle has not reached that far yet…
Beagle 0.0.8 is actually (as I write this) being packaged for several distributions. So, all you should have to do is point your package-manager of choice at the appropriate beagle mirror, and auto install it & its dependencies.
By “ready for wide consumption,” they mean that they think it is sufficiently stable and well-behaved for most people to use. (This version is going into Suse Linux 9.3, for instance.)
reading the mono article, I notice that Miguel talks about a vb.net compiler.
Is this possible given that MSFT has patented the IsNot operator?
open source has no history of innovation
Ummmm….
– The first HTTP servers: NCSA, Apache
– many Apache modules which pre-dated their commercial counterpart
– Sendmail, the first MTA
– BIND, the first DNS implementation
– Large parts of Unix from the very beginning were open source, later becoming 386BSD and then FreeBSD.
– scripting languages like TCL/Tk, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc… each innovated in different ways
– Tex typesetting system
– Mozilla’s XUL app framework — there is still nothing commercial that attempts this.
– PHP (the first inline HTTP scripting language) actually predated ASP and JSP.
– Many interesting network-oriented tools like BitTorrent, gnutella, rsync, etc…
– many, many other small (and fun) utilities and apps that have no commercial counterpart.
I want to get started on Mono development. I am good with C, C++, Java, Python Developer. Could some one please point me to a good Mono Book or set of tutorials.
Wow, that’s one heck of a changelog
Though I hope this isn’t the version going into SuSE 9.3, if they want it to be a core component. One item on the changelog says, roughly:
“Renaming or moving files now works in most cases”
Before beagle becomes a core distro component it’d really be quite nice if that said:
“Renaming or moving files now works in ALL cases”
🙂
Definitely a big improvement on 0.0.7, though, by the looks of it. This will likely be the version that goes in Mandrakelinux 2005’s contrib repository, unless 0.0.7.1 or 0.0.8 comes out very soon indeed.
erm, I meant “0.0.8.1 or 0.0.9”, obviously.
It’s not English – It means “monkey” in Spanish. It’s kind of funny that you think it’s entirely a clone – guess you haven’t really looked at it.
Plus, Ximian -> Simian (monkey/ape).
>> Because that “moronic microsoft garbage” have 93% of the market.
But .Net itself has a miniscule mindshare, with declining levels of obligation from MS over time (they don’t mention .Net in their PR anymore, removed it from product names, killed Hailstorm, etc).
To this day I have not heard a suitable explanation regarding the ambiguous legal grey zone mono continues to inhabit.
My understanding is that we are basically assuming Microsoft will continue to extend goodwill through royalty-free licensing…I prefer tools that are specified and developed by the community (perl,python,etc) so you don’t have these risks.
Right. As far as I know, Microsoft has not provided a free license to its mono-related patents to the Free Software world. There are an email message or two from people inside Microsoft which are often cited as evidence of legal safety, but those email messages don’t legally count (in the US anyway) as Microsoft granting free use of the patents.
Microsoft may simply be waiting for mono & c# to become deeply intertwined with Linux distributions before filing patent infringement suits.
beagle is a useless tool.
Mono also means the following in spanish (besides monkey or ape):
-lovely, pretty, charming
-cold turkey (withdrawal symptoms)
and so is google….
but ontopic, i really like the .net framework and the c# language, i hope they don’t run into legal issues…
But .Net itself has a miniscule mindshare, with declining levels of obligation from MS over time (they don’t mention .Net in their PR anymore, removed it from product names, killed Hailstorm, etc).
The .NET name is to be replaced by WinFX, the new framework used in Longhorn. Managed code (C#/VB.NET) is still going to be used in WinFX.
The new Team Foundation Server used in Visual Studio 2005 for source control, build automation, reporting etc is written entirely in managed code and can handle 1000 concurrent users. Just so know that real products are produced with .NET.
“Ummmm….
– The first HTTP servers: NCSA, Apache
– many Apache modules which pre-dated their commercial counterpart
– Sendmail, the first MTA
– BIND, the first DNS implementation
– Large parts of Unix from the very beginning were open source, later becoming 386BSD and then FreeBSD.
– scripting languages like TCL/Tk, Perl, Python, Ruby, etc… each innovated in different ways
– Tex typesetting system
– Mozilla’s XUL app framework — there is still nothing commercial that attempts this.
– PHP (the first inline HTTP scripting language) actually predated ASP and JSP.
– Many interesting network-oriented tools like BitTorrent, gnutella, rsync, etc…
– many, many other small (and fun) utilities and apps that have no commercial counterpart.”
Excellent post.
Open source does rock for innovation!
somebody know if kde have something like beagle?
When MS hired the creator of Delphi to make a version of Java called .Net, you knew that it would be decent. .Net is so huge you can’t really call it “great” or “bad.” It has great chunks and it has bad chunks. But on the hole it’s a cool take on the Java mindset.
Personally, I think pursuing Java would be a better and safer road for open-source people drawn to this paradigm of programming, but still Mono is a nice effort. You go Miguel.
Two issues with going Java:
First, Java is not open. Sun maintains control of it. As long as Sun is in control of it, developers have to live by their whim.
Second, the Java virtual machine and the Java language are very tightly coupled. The virtual machine that Mono uses is not designed so specificially for a single language, which makes the entire thing much more versatile. (Face it, there are a lot of things for which Java is a terrible terrible language – there is not and never will be a One True Programming Language.)
http://www.gnome.org/~seth/blog/mono
http://gnomedesktop.org/node/2162#comment-35608
This is not bullshit or tinfoil hat stuff. Miguel and mono are the kiss of death for gnome.
“The sky is falling, the sky is falling” Get a tincup and hang out on the corner of Yonge & Dundas preaching it. Change is a good thing – even if it does rock *your* world a little.
But .Net itself has a miniscule mindshare, with declining levels of obligation from MS over time (they don’t mention .Net in their PR anymore, removed it from product names, killed Hailstorm, etc).
You are confusing .net as a marketing term with the .net framework that is foundation of all future windows development.
The framework itself has full MS obligation. They are betting the company on it. 2.0 release of the framework is just around the corner in fact.
Are we supposed to be re-assured by de Icaza’s explanation (brushing off) of looming legal concerns? The ‘wait and see’ explanation is the same one he offered last July:
http://news.com.com/More+than+an+open-source+curiosity/2008-7344_3-…
certainly not convincing.
Mono’s legal status is unclear.
The linux legal status also unclear. And the state most of other softwares also unclear. At least I don’t know what M$ or other patents exists. I’am not a lawyer, but IMHO if M$ want they can sue wine, samba, the most media players (mplayer, xine, etc), the linux kernel (ntfs, fat32, etc), the main desktops (KDE,GNOME), and who know what other software (probably the PHP, Python, etc also unsafe: if you have N x 10 000 patents you can find the proper for any purpose).
Sun and M$ concerned, but IMHO this agreement not have reference to open source java implementations. The legal state of gcj, klasspath, kaffe, etc IMHO not mutch better then mono. And if SUN out of business, the state of Java platform will unclear on every platform. At this moment at least the .NET on windows is safe.
“The linux legal status also unclear.”
I’m amazed at the number of people who use this sort of argument to defend the use of mono. First of all, your comparison to kaffe, etc is relly misleading. There are other free implementations of java available for linux. The only thing in danger of sun patents if people were to embrace java on linux would be kaffe itself. There is not C# runtime or class library that is freely available to linux. So if gnome became dependent on mono and then mono died, gnome would die.
Also the idea that you should not worry about the legal status of mono because in general the status of all software patents is so uncertain is just utter bull shit. Seriously, there is a huge difference between the unknown chance that you are accidentally putting yourself at rist and intentionally and knowingly using IP who’s legal status is *known* to be unclear and where the patents are held by a company that:
a) has said linux is a thread
b) has a history of ruthlessly destroying their competition
c) has a history of being unscrupulous
d) has incredible financial and legal recources
Basically, your point is crap. Using mono is just plain dangerous. There needs to be a unified call by all involved groups ( distros, gnome, kde, users, etc ) to refuse to move forward or use mono *at all* until this legal status has been clarified.
Your point is to recognize that the wold is just a dangerous place so why worry about it? To live you need to do that, I agree. My point is that, yes the world is dangerous, but mono is like knowingly playing with a loaded gun with the safety off. Stupid.
I don’t think there will be legal problems regarding the use of Mono. Mono is also making strides, but personally I have more respect for Java. I like the originality of Java. I felt that Microsoft copied Java with .Net and Miguel copied .Net with Mono.
I don’t think that the ultimate programming framework and tool are available yet, that work is yet to be completed, but I wish that FOSS would start soon. My favorite languages are Standard C and Standard C++. Once you use a framework some of the features of Java and C# are available, but these are extensions of the OOP paradigm more than anything.
I wish that IBM would work with Redhat and Chinese developers or some fresh talent somewhere, to build a better development platform taking into account standard 3d graphics, multi-paridgm programming, and originality. Than it’s just a matter of documentation.
Consider: Novell purchased Ximian to get Mono, which it has been aggressively utilizing ever since. Prior to that purchase what must have happened? That’s right, Novell’s general counsel would have had to sign off on the leagl viability of the project. Mono’s MS compatibility stuff–ASP.NET, ADO.NET, WinForms–is a bit questionable, but Mono and it’s C# implementation appear to be in pretty good shape.
Oh, and as for Seth, while he’s without doubt a very, very intelligent person, he’s not a lawyer, much less a lawyer with expertise in the area software patents. His opinions may be thoughtful and informed, but they are hardly informative.
And to top it all off, MS will find that its having been found to be a monopoly in a Federal court will severely hinder any attempt to utilize it’s patent portfolio to affect even vaguley anti-competitive ends.
I wrote:
His opinions may be thoughtful and informed, but they are hardly informative.
Whereas what I meant was:
His opinions may be thoughtful and informed, but they are hardly authoritative.
First of all, your comparison to kaffe, etc is relly misleading. There are other free implementations of java available for linux. The only thing in danger of sun patents if people were to embrace java on linux would be kaffe itself. There is not C# runtime or class library that is freely available to linux. So if gnome became dependent on mono and then mono died, gnome would die.
I can’t see a big difference between mono/portable .NET or gcj or any other free java implementation. The M$ can sue mono or gcj, SUN (or if it is out of business the purchaser, like SCO) can sue the free java implementations. And M$ also can sue the free java implementations – SUN and M$ concerted , but M$ and OSS community is not.
Seriously, there is a huge difference between the unknown chance that you are accidentally putting yourself at rist and intentionally and knowingly using IP who’s legal status is *known* to be unclear
IMHO the mono will the last linux technology what M$ will sue with their patents. At this moment the mono increase the acceptance the .NET and helps kill the java (java also will dead without mono, but mono accelerate the progression). Later, when .NET will rule the net they can’t risk a new antithrust action, at least IMHO.
yes – and seths blog as already been discused at length (it’s a year old dumbass). you’re a little late that party. I think if you had an independent thought you’d be dangerous. Mono has added much to the c# community and has given fruit beyond the scope of their specific implimentation and project. Legal questions abound are interesting but if your business requirements don’t allow you to use that specific technology then you can just not use it. You are very concerned about gnome, which is great, but mono can/is be much bigger/different than that. Oh, btw, I ready Seth’s blog waaaaaaaaaay back when he wrote it.
took from http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm
The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis
so.. take your time to understand that phrase..
Everything is patented. Get over it.
just a wate of time. what they did was
– copy the java lucene to C#,
– index the files with lucene.
– make a simple gui and wrap lucene search methods up..
if they would make it with java,
– they didnt have to copy lucene, or and pdf related tool.
– it would be faster
– it would work everywhere..
yawn.
beagle? why not a better real cross platform application.. with java?
http://aduna.biz/products/autofocus/index.html
“took from http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/codeofconduct.htm
The General Assembly of Ecma shall not approve recommendations of Standards which are covered by patents when such patents will not be licensed by their owners on a reasonable and non-discriminatory basis
so.. take your time to understand that phrase..”
Actually, you should take time to understand the real world meaning of this phrase. This is in fact one of the key dangers regarding mono. People are fooled into thinking that this means they are free and clear but the meaning of “reasonable and non-discriminatory” could end up meaning something that is totally impossible of OSS to comply with. That term was drafted and can only be interpreted in the context of traditional capitalist business models. It does *not* mean it is 100% free or OSS. Everyone knows this. Even Miguel.
And as for those of you who try to point out that Seth’s blog is old, it may be a year old but it is far from old news. In fact the signficance of Seth’s blog has grown considerably since he wrote it because Mono is starting to really make inroads into gnome and because Miguel and Novell have still totally failed to come up with real assurances on the legal status of Mono. This is Seth’s worst prediction actually starting to come true! So I mention it not because it is old or new but because it is very relevant right now and people should not loose sight of that.
they patented an operator of the language, how is it possible to write a vb.net compiler withouth paying royalties or being sued?
In the interest in K.O.ing 2 monkey threads with one stone:
I don’t want to look at monkeys, I’m a computista. When was ‘mono’ supposed to appeal (namewise)?
If I patent a component in language, are there many good or perfect, unenbumbered ways remaining to do a similar thing, or of course simply understand the patented use? Yes. Does MS have a temporary claim on the particular operator? If we feel generous (but are nonetheless in a non-patent-crushing mood!) Who’s afraid of a reasonable fee?