Miguel thinks of the future of OS-development under Windows and GNOME/Mono. Have a look here.
Miguel de Icaza on PDC Lessons
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Xaml as an HTML replacement.
Xaml is HTML merged with the Desktop UI
Although Xaml seems to be only a cute idea, it is simple enough, and each one of the individual components are powerful enough that it is very likely that Xaml could replace HTML as a way of creating rich content on Windows platforms. It would leave out of the equation Linux, Solaris and MacOS.
I had a feeling this is what Microsoft are really up to. They’ve already announced that IE6 is the last version of IE on any platform which means that in future, web rendering will be amalgamated into what appear to be ‘standard’ windows programs – like Explorer etc.
What this means, is that browsing the web as an autonomous activity will vanish in the users mind. Web content/applications will appear to be just an extention of Windows which happens when the user is connected to a network. Once that state of mind is achieved, this Xaml can be used in increasingly in place of HTML, delivering ‘better’ more ‘consistent’ “rich” applications to the users desktop.
De icaza is correct that Linux, Solaris and MacOS will be left out of this picture. What I disagree with, however, is his solution of constantly playing catch up implementing these features into MONO. MONO will always be behind .NET and by not presenting a clear alternative, MONO is hastening the establishment of Xaml and conceding that Microsoft can and will dictate and control the future of the web.
That’s how I see it, anyhow
And what is that “clear alternative”. The open source people have to come up something and not just say “don’t copy MS”.
And what is that “clear alternative”. The open source people have to come up something and not just say “don’t copy MS”.
Precisely, but most of “the open source people” don’t seem to be awake to this as an issue. In a way, alot of OpenSource projects are followers, as opposed to innovators, in the sense that many of said projects exist purely to provide an “Open” or “Free” version of a propritary product. Maybe the whole culture is based on following rather than innovating?
I think that strengthening and backing the W3C standards is probably the “clear alternative”. Not really sure on that one <SHRUGS>
Microsoft has taken another bold move in moving all of their new API development into .NET.
I would call it necessary, not bold. If bold is the word, it’s bold in that it shows a commitment to .NET. But, otherwise, it is part of the general path that MS must take to get more and more of its system levered on top of the .NET framework.
Not only are the new operating system features cool, but they have turned them into an API.
All of these things have to be exposed, otherwise it’s a canned demo, and then what’s the point.
It is now our turn in the open source world to track these innovations, and expose turn applications into API providers.
“Since we can not actually lead, we now have to catch-up.”
I’m curious how much of the .NET functionality coming out of Longhorn is actually going to end up at ECMA.
This also means that Mono has to stick with the strategy that “Mono is only as good as Microsoft”. This means they can’t efficiently take their platform in any new direction as they need to spend all of their time cloning MS. Rather than using the CLI/CLR and C# from ECMA as an inspiration for a similar to .NET, but new platform, they have to stick with .NET. Also, since .NET is not only integrated deeply into the OS layer of Longhorn, it’s integrated deeply into the Window shell layer, which means that they’ll need to do similar things to GNOME.
It is important for Mono to continue its path (Note: we should do this in an orderly fashion, in peace if you will. Not screaming, waving our hands and banging our heads against the wall).
“We’ve just been ambushed by a bazillion new changes, but don’t panic we stil have 2 years to catch up, so no pushing and shoving just get busy”.
We have to leverage what is unique about Linux, iFolder, Gnome, Cairo, the VFS, our databases and expose those features to the managed world.
“We have to convert everything that’s different about our stuff and make them work like Windows because that’s what the .NET APIs want.”
Mono needs to become a core feature of every application.
“Since every new Windows app will implicitly live atop a .NET API, if even in a limited way, the only way to get similar functionality in Linux, is to do the same thing — make new applications based upon .NE^H^H^HMono”
This is so fascinating that all of this effort goes into a system that they have no control over, yet they must maintain compatability.
No longer is it simply a C# clone and a bunch of libraries. As such it was as valuable as C# is valuable. But now that value as been greatly expanded beyond C#. Much like Java today, it’s the libraries and API that define the true value of the language, not its syntax, nor necessarily its runtime environment (though, obviously the garbage collector is a great enabler).
Of course, Javas libraries are more inclined to be platform independent, though they certainly have a bitter taste of POSIX in them. But POSIX is pretty minimal and has wide support.
Here, .NET is designed to really leverage the new Windows OS (and this is a good thing IMHO), but that makes Mono need to bring a LOT of baggage to be compatable.
And then, there are the potential patents involved…whee!
This doesn’t worry me.
At one level, XAML is no different from HTML w/Javascript.
On the other though, their scripting language can be tightly bound to application logic, BUT that’s only really valid if that application logic is actually LOCAL to the system.
Web pages don’t fit the criteria at all, so XAML is as limited in comparison to HTML, so there will be little motivation to actually switch.
That’s not to say that it won’t be possible to write network enabled .NET objects that interact with XAML pumped from a server as an intelligent “thick” “web” client, but that basically means folks are going to have to download CLR DLLs etc from “strangers”, and it’s not clear to me that the populace at large is willing to do that. For corporate systems, it’s a completely different story, but still no big deal IMHO.
I guess this iFolder 3.0 is going to be a major upgrade because iFolder 2.0 appears to just be a syncronizable web accessable folder on a server for the same old boring files we’ve been limited to for the past bazillion years. Useful, but not even close to what WinFS promises.
http://www.novell.com/products/ifolder/
I think Miguel did an excellent write up, very very informative. I am surprised though that he was surprised that they used Emacs and VI, Emacs and VI are the standard on any platform I use windows now more than ever at work and I regularly use Emacs and Pico, On all of our Windows Installations, Open Source software is the standard. The one thing I am glad about is that at work we are trying to break away from QT, we are trying to decide on wxWindows or GTK, the only thing I havent seen is Glade or any of the GTK build tools for Windows. If I am wrong someone please point me in the right direction.
but that basically means folks are going to have to download CLR DLLs etc from “strangers”, and it’s not clear to me that the populace at large is willing to do that. For corporate systems, it’s a completely different story, but still no big deal IMHO.
People have been running Java applets in their browsers for a long time now. The applications downloaded from the web will probably not have full application rights, or at least enable the users to have control over the application.
Basically, Mr Miguel wants to transform Linux into a Longhorn complaint OS. I say we ditch Windows/Longhorn and focus on developing our open/standard and powerful development env. We already have one, but we could make it easier, simpler and more integrated that it is at present.
All these wonderful Microsoft prophecies. All these things they SAY they’re going to do. We’ll see when the finished product finally gets here if they can actually deliver and if it actually holds together.
No actually we will really see what happens when MS sees this project as competition and then moves to crush it like it does with some many other things/projects/companies that tried to be friendly with them and work along side them. Let’s remember the 3 E’s, Extend, Embrace, Extinguish.
I think Will is wrong and Ez is right.
Before IE was the defacto standard MS had to go along with the World. Now that they own the internet (95%) of it anyway, XAML will replace HTML. There will be all kinds of free WYSIWYG editors as well as FrontPage which will use XAML as the default markup, of course Dreamweaver will have to implement XAML as well as GoLive. These pages will of course be more like real apps and as such will be “better” than HTML, XHTML.
I hope Novell takes what they have and stops playing copycat, leave that to the part time contributers. They should use there cash to create tools and API’s which enhance Gnome. Make it really easy to create apps which run on Linux and Windows. More importantly though make it cheaper.
Also use your cash to send a clear Message,
“We have an open solution”, “Choose us or get locked into MS and pay exhorbitant fees later when you have invested too much in the next generation software and cannot afford to opt out”
MS are like crack dealers that way. People inherently take the short term easy way out which is bad in the long run.
We’ll see when the finished product finally gets here if they can actually deliver and if it actually holds together.
Too high velocity can be dangerous when it comes to product development. It might not even fly at all.
Miguel de Icaza’s article was informative but its viewpoints were restricted to his own products. His comments were also noticeably very pro-Novell. But that is should be expected since he is owned by Novell now.
XAML is unlikely to replace HTML period. The biggest use of XAML that I can see for, is giving retail companies and easier time to create richer online retail sites for their Windows customers yet maintain their traditional websites for everyone else. Anybody who have used iTunes music store for OS X or Windows is what XAML will really be used for early on(i.e. the Amazon.com demo).
Longhorn represents learned lessons from Unix/Linux(about time) and several major evolutions(not revolutions). The Linux community will have to get off its butt and program their asses off to complete against Microsoft in a multitude of areas which are not easy to do in an open source environment. Microsoft has spent billions in R&D to achieve its goals for Longhorn and the Linux Community will have to replicate that amount of effort. But the community will fail in one key category courtesy of Microsoft.
Mind share, how you ask, simple, expect the largest advertisement campaign in history. I fully expect Microsoft to go through 1 Billion(with a B) advertisement dollars in 6 months flat. Linux can not compete with that.
The biggest use of XAML that I can see for, is giving retail companies and easier time to create richer online retail sites for their Windows customers
Isn’t that what happens now. Web Developers only code for IE. The majority seem to work that way now. So it seems that they will just code for XAML and say to everyone else. “You don’t use Windows?”
I hope you are right though.
Isn’t that what happens now. Web Developers only code for IE. The majority seem to work that way now. So it seems that they will just code for XAML and say to everyone else. “You don’t use Windows?”
Anybody still coding for IE only retail websites deserve to be castrated. The only things I have used IE for this year is the use of Windows Updater and for checking web pages that I have made so that they run fine under IE, other than that, Firebird works grandly for me.
I see that there is a number of ABM’ers here. The fact is, XAML is VERY popular in the developer community so wouldn’t it be better to create a compatible implementation and then expand on it? if Mono can make a compatible implementation and implement features that programmers REALLY want then wouldn’t it be natural that the developer will choose Mono over Microsofts .NET implementation?
Sure, I like the occasional bash at Microsoft just as the next guy does, however, when all is said and done, if one can’t even see the slightest bit of positive light in what Microsoft is offering, one really needs to grow up. Microsoft doesn’t care about interoperability because their main focus is providing interoperatibility between their own products. If the side effect is incompatibility between Microsoft and non-Microsoft products, then so be it. If interoperability is so important, people naturally should be shunning Microsoft at every turn, however, the fact remains that unless the opensource community can come up with something SUPERIOR to what is on offer, people aren’t going to move.
Sure, Mono SHOULD provide compatibility BUT unlike Microsoft, Mono is in the perfect position to focus on the needs of programmers. Unlike Microsoft, Mono doesn’t have a huge layer of bloat and that the .NET implement is opensource, meaning, if there is a sizable demand for a feature, these programmers can then work with Mono to develop the idea and get it included with the next version of mono that is released.
As for compatibility with .NET, I think the more important thing that should be concerntrated on is providing good GNOME integration between Mono and GNOME so that developers who are used to C# and VB.NET can transpose their skills without the need of learning whole new language. If mind share increases then the likelihood in the future of seeing commercially applications being made available will increase.
I use Firebird on Windows and Epiphany on Linux. Today a Lady complained about Internet Explorer. I said try … and before I could get a the word out she said, “I am not trying Mozilla”. I tried it and I HATE it.” Okay I am praphrasing. So I pretty much had to leave it at that. It was clearly not going to be a discussion.
I am a South African studying in the US. Occassionally I go to an SA wesite to order gifts for Birthdays etc. Well many of the sites don’t work properly with anything but IE. I always send them an email asking how it can be possible that a large company can be so inconsiderate as to require everyone to use IE. I ask them nicely to do the right thing and code to standards and not for a particular vendor.
BASICALLY I AM WITH YOU.
s for compatibility with .NET, I think the more important thing that should be concerntrated on is providing good GNOME integration between Mono and GNOME so that developers who are used to C# and VB.NET can transpose their skills without the need of learning whole new language.
I hope the focus in the OSS world changes.
Look at Mozilla, originally resources were provided by Netscape/AOL and they created cool technology like XUL. We need more OSS or solutions for GNU/Linux / BSD / Unix that aim at solving problems.
“As for compatibility with .NET, I think the more important thing that should be concerntrated on is providing good GNOME integration between Mono and GNOME so that developers who are used to C# and VB.NET can transpose their skills without the need of learning whole new language.”
I hope the focus in the OSS world changes.
Look at Mozilla, originally resources were provided by Netscape/AOL and they created cool technology like XUL. We need more OSS or solutions for GNU/Linux / BSD / Unix that aim at solving problems.
Well, the one problem that has always existed is a lack of co-operation between projects, for example, XUL + Mono as a competitor to XAML + .NET would be a good start. Right now XUL is an intepreted language, however, if they make it possible for the XUL to be compiled into MSIL and to run on Mono, it would be a great leap forward.
There needs to be greater co-operation and integration between the different projects to bring about a competitive solution to Micosoft. SUN has realise it, hence the reason they’re slowly integrating their server end with their client applications. The opensource world need to do the same. Instead of re-inventing the wheel, work together. Apache for example is making its won application server, wouldn’t it be better off working with JBOSS and Mono to bring about greater integration between Apache and the two competing (Java and .NET/C#) ASP frameworks.
“Before IE was the defacto standard MS had to go along with the World. Now that they own the internet (95%) of it anyway, XAML will replace HTML. There will be all kinds of free WYSIWYG editors as well as FrontPage which will use XAML as the default markup, of course Dreamweaver will have to implement XAML as well as GoLive. These pages will of course be more like real apps and as such will be “better” than HTML, XHTML. ”
*shakes head*
That 95% (as in 95% of statistics…) is on the client side. Microsoft doesn’t have 95% on the server side. One has to have good percentages on both ends before anyone can even start claiming that Microsoft “owns” the Internet.
It depends what one means by “owns the internet”.
The fact is that if XAML does become needed to compete on the client side and IE is the only way you can view a XAML page then sadly end users wanting to use the internet are going to have to have Windows unless they decide to avoid all XAML sites.
Of course this is all conjecture and a minimum of 2 years away. A lot can happen, I hope it does.
I personally feel Mono is a good thing, because Microsoft is dominant on the desktop due to Windows, and will help bring more people to Linux.
For example, Here in Bangalore, India in my class in one of the top technological institutions, only a handful of people including me use Linux, let alone use it as their main OS.
When Mono 1.0 comes out, people will now have an option to deploy their applications to Linux too, which is very good indeed. Then, people will become more and more aware of Linux and open-source tools which in the long run is a good thing.
However, one thing sure bugs me. Why is it that the open-source community has not come up with projects with a big vision such as .NET or the LongHorn components have. For example, why isn’t XUL popular? Why is it that XAML already has more fans than XUL?
– Swaroop
When developers realise that no one pill cures all ailments, they would as well confirm the weaknesses of the mono and .NET frameworks. Beware of that healer who claims to have a solution to all your problems. He/She is most likely a quack.
It is unfortunate that we, open source advocates, mock our tested, trusted and tried practices/concepts/philosophies by adopting experimental cultures alien to what has made our products withstand the test of time. And that has issued foth uncomparably better quality products.
Unix, over the years, has embraced a silent philosophy and practice. Develop a tool that performs one function remarkably well, rather than one that does all functions averagely well.
Open source Unix has excellent tools. Tools that perform the exact same function that mono aims to achieve. Or at least, with a little tweaking, will perform those functions. Did we really need a rewrite?
It’s unfortunate we sometimes discard flexibility, power and efficiency for ease and convenience. This has been the trend in the desktop arena. Where it is believed that a graphical user interface is supposedly the cure to all desktop related problems in Unix. When, clearly, the command line interface is exponentially more powerful, more flexible and efficient. Unfortunately, this culture is rearing its ugly head into the open source development atmosphere.
Think twice before you sacrifice power, efficiency and speed in favor of ease and convenience. It is synonymous to sacrificing your power as President because being a janitor is easier and more convenient. Are we really killing Unix?
“I personally feel Mono is a good thing, because Microsoft is dominant on the desktop due to Windows, and will help bring more people to Linux. ”
And why would they want that to happen?
“When Mono 1.0 comes out, people will now have an option to deploy their applications to Linux too, which is very good indeed. Then, people will become more and more aware of Linux and open-source tools which in the long run is a good thing.”
Last time I checked this was already happening irrespective of MONO, hence Microsoft’s present (and previous) behaviour.
“However, one thing sure bugs me. Why is it that the open-source community has not come up with projects with a big vision such as .NET or the LongHorn components have. For example, why isn’t XUL popular? Why is it that XAML already has more fans than XUL?”
Isn’t marketing grand? The same force that brought us the hula hoop and pet rocks, brings “fans” to XAML.
“The biggest use of XAML that I can see for, is giving retail companies and easier time to create richer online retail sites for their Windows customers yet maintain their traditional websites for everyone else.”
—————
You actually think that retailers create two versions of the same website?
If you mean one version that works in IE and the “alternate” one that just says “Download IE 6.0 Here/Your Browser is not Supported,” I guess maybe your right.
Expect the same with .NET/XAML.
Even though 80-90% of the supported technology and capabilites of IE are also shared with Mozilla/KHTML, that doesn’t stop sites from programming just one or two NECCESSARY LINES that take advantage of that 10-20% that is proprietary…
Not to mention those sites all over the place that autoload custom active-x plugins that only run on x86 windows and IE…one of the reasons I always laughed at MS’s IE for Mac as part of thier antitrust settlement…it realy didn’t bring compatibility except with thier proprietry HTML tags…