Slashdot Mirror

If the ability to build your own defines free in your mind... then really .NET (or at least the CLR and CLI) is just free as well, after all, both are well documented in the ECMA standard #335.

After all, off of what do you think all of the .NET clones were built?

I'll rest my case here and here.

The only things that you would catch trouble for trying to "make your own home-grown version" of would be things like ASP/ADO.NET and Winforms, which are not part of the ECMA spec.

Personally, I don't "hate" MicroSoft. I just don't trust them.

For example, take the .net and C# stuff. It doesn't look all that bad, it has some great ideas. It's also semi-standardized by ECMA (see for example this and this) and there is also the open and free Mono initiative.

But I just don't trust MS anymore. After all, even the windows API was an ECMA standard, (here) but even so they kept changing and "extending" it to deliberately be sure that their implementation was the only working one (see wine, always running behind the newest stuff). So why should I spend my time to learn something that WILL be obsolete in a year or so (this is just ONE example)?

MS has done just about everything they could to make sure everybody would lose every bit of trust in their action. Some hate is just one of the consequences...

Personally, I don't "hate" MicroSoft. I just don't trust them.

For example, take the .net and C# stuff. It doesn't look all that bad, it has some great ideas. It's also semi-standardized by ECMA (see for example this and this) and there is also the open and free Mono initiative.

But I just don't trust MS anymore. After all, even the windows API was an ECMA standard, (here) but even so they kept changing and "extending" it to deliberately be sure that their implementation was the only working one (see wine, always running behind the newest stuff). So why should I spend my time to learn something that WILL be obsolete in a year or so (this is just ONE example)?

MS has done just about everything they could to make sure everybody would lose every bit of trust in their action. Some hate is just one of the consequences...

Personally, I don't "hate" MicroSoft. I just don't trust them.

For example, take the .net and C# stuff. It doesn't look all that bad, it has some great ideas. It's also semi-standardized by ECMA (see for example this and this) and there is also the open and free Mono initiative.

But I just don't trust MS anymore. After all, even the windows API was an ECMA standard, (here) but even so they kept changing and "extending" it to deliberately be sure that their implementation was the only working one (see wine, always running behind the newest stuff). So why should I spend my time to learn something that WILL be obsolete in a year or so (this is just ONE example)?

MS has done just about everything they could to make sure everybody would lose every bit of trust in their action. Some hate is just one of the consequences...

Javascript is [...] not standardized

I am pretty sure I am not the only Linux veteran irritated by the increase in its user-friendliness, and mourning the loss of the good olde Linux, accessible only to those who enjoy kernel debugging. This is why I have decided to launch a new GNU/Linux distribution which requires extensive knowledge of Linux and of the computer system's internals.

The distribution shall be available in the combination of a floppy and a CD-ROM image. Why not only a CD-ROM image? I thought it would be a little too easy, and know you think that too; the CD-ROM is only accessible if you can read it, and this is why I provide a floppy: it contains an assembler and a linker, all you need to write a CD-ROM file system driver (and a partition driver to install the files). Here, I'll give you a head start: ISO 9660 specification. Don't expect every task to be so simple, I won't be giving the answers each time.

The distribution is somewhat minimalistic, but can do pretty much everything one demands from a modern computer.

Obviously, all tasks are accomplished through the command line interface (no GUI is provided).

A Web browser isn't included (as if you expected one to be anyway), just telnet to port 80 of the Web sites to surf the Internet.

As for an email client, telnet to port 25 and learn how to use your email server.

For FTP capabilities, you may telnet to port 21 and use the standard commands.

As I have demonstrated, this is a very versatile and capable GNU/Linux distribution, meanwhile staying available only to real men who back up to FTP and not to tape (to ensure this, legacy support for tape drives is excluded).

Since potential users may have varying levels of experience, I am hence providing different versions of the distribution:

• a version without a TCP/IP stack, because I knew some among you would complain it would be too easy otherwise, so you can write it yourself from the floppy;
• a boxed set for you novices out there, including the floppy, the CD-ROM, a modified version of telnet supporting Connection: Keep-Alive, and ssh for tinfoil hat-wearers -- and because I'm generous, I've added to the package a printed manual featuring the ISO 9660, HTTP 1.1, HTTPS and FTP specifications.

Your suggestions are welcome, and I hope you enjoy using my GNU/Linux distribution.

While I agree that Microsoft's way leaves much to be desired (primarily because AJAX on IE requires that you leave your browser open to ActiveX insercurities), I'm afraid there isn't really a "correct" way to do it. Your way (testing for the native XMLHttpRequest object, and then falling back to the ActiveX object if necessary) is certainly the best way, however.

IIRC, Mozilla's XMLHttpRequest object was created to mimic the functionality of Microsoft's ActiveX version, and then Safari and Opera (to a certain extent) followed suit. However, the XMLHttpRequest has never been part of ECMAScript (the standard that Javascript is based on) nor the W3C DOM. It has always been an "extension" that Microsoft has foisted upon the world, much like the <marquee> tags and layers we love to hate.

As such, it is inconsistently supported -- particularly in Opera and Safari 1.3/2.0. There are also minor differences (e.g. the number of arguments that the send method accepts) that arise due to the lack of a standard specification.

Fortunately, because of its immense utility in creating modern web-apps, it has become a de-facto standard and thus rather reliable. I would love to eventually see browsers support a standards-based version of AJAX (something like the W3C Level 3 DOM Load and Save specification), but until then, there is no truly "correct" way to do it.

Flash has ActionScript, which is a nearly-complete implementation of ECMAScript, which is the standard version of JavaScript (ECMA-262). So porting it shouldn't be too difficult, unless it uses a lot of nasty browser-dependent stuff.

Because there were many variants before anyone thought of this (JavaScript, JScript). But there is a standard - ECMA Script. It's basically the greatest common subset of those. I know Opera usess this as a reference for scripting implementation.

I just wish that FF would let us going document.element instead of force us to write document.getElementById("element")

Thinking more about it, what you may want is an implementation of E4X, which looks cool. I think it's going into newer mozilla-based browsers soon.

It lets you address a parsed XML file in XPath-ish terms, like rootelement.child.text and such.

I said they were supportive. Discussions on mailing lists, blog entries, that sort of thing. Encouraging.

Please note that Macromedia is being supportive to their own developer community. Also every tool (open source or not) that has a chance to provide added value to their own platform while not being a competitive threat to their own product line is likely to get some (little) support as well. That does not even compare to what other companies do, by really embracing the free software / open source movement. IBM offered a couple of dozzens of programs to the open source community (list) one of them being an Integrated Development Environment (IDE) for Laszlo. Sun open sourced Star Office, Netbeans and will soon open source Solaris. Laszlo Systems open sourced their RIA Platform (OpenLaszlo). These and others are companies being supportive to the open source community. Macromedia however is not one of these companies. On a greed scale they would be somewhere very close to Microsoft.

Flash (which, btw, costs half of what you said)

I don't know where you live but in Germany the half cripple Macromedia Flash MX 2004 costs 694.84 euro (=855.926701 US$) and the full Macromedia Flash MX Professional 2004 costs 973.24 euro (=1,198.868952 US$).

If you don't like it -- don't buy it.

You can bet I won't. I already told about OpenLaszlo. That is what I would use, should I ever consider writing Flash applications again. For now I am a lot better off using SVG and JavaScript for the open source projects to which I contribute. SVG and JavaScript are both open standards while Macromedia's technologies are proprietary. Supporting Macromedia's technologies would help Macromedia more than anybody else, and would surely hurt web standards and interoperability.

If this is like the standard submitted for .NET, the container of the file format will be completely open but the format of the actual data inside will be obscure. If you read the details of ECMA-335, something that trade press and PHB's can't be bothered to do, you will see that large portions of the .NET class library that you need to do anything useful, like Windows Forms, ASP.NET, and ADO.NET, are not part of the standard.

Microsoft knows that the devil is always in these kinds of details.

E4X is a standard published by the same group that publishes the ECMAscript standard. I don't think the array extras are described by any standard.

They're not futzing around with ECMAScript; they're implementing parts of ECMA-357.

This specification has been around since June 2004, look it up on http://www.ecma-international.org/

There may not be a Microsoft .NET Framework for Unix or Linux, but there is a (largely) .NET-compatible implementation in Mono.

Mono isn't 100% compatible with all of .NET, and may never be (infrequently used parts haven't been implemented, such as System.EnterpriseServices, System.Messaging, COM Interop, etc.), but what it does provide is an implementation of the underlying ECMA standards (for C# and for the Common Language Infrastructure), plus an effort for .NET compatibility in all that is reasonable (I/O, XML, app configuration, ASP.NET support via XSP and mod_mono, Database access, and more). Initial support for System.Windows.Forms is planned for the next release, 1.2, due around September.

Mono also provides it's own extensions, such as a GTK+ binding (Gtk#) and Unix-integration libraries.

Mono is already useful and in use.

Now, I'm not saying that any piece of .NET software will be able to run unchanged under Mono. In general, this isn't possible as it could rely on Windows-specific functionality, such as COM Interop, or rely on Windows-specific libraries. I am saying that Mono provides a portable base to build software upon, much as the ANSI C and the POSIX.1 standards do. You can write portable software, but you are not required to do so. Guidelines for writing portable .NET code can be found in the book Cross-Platform .NET.

There may not be a Microsoft .NET Framework for Unix or Linux, but there is a (largely) .NET-compatible implementation in Mono.

Mono isn't 100% compatible with all of .NET, and may never be (infrequently used parts haven't been implemented, such as System.EnterpriseServices, System.Messaging, COM Interop, etc.), but what it does provide is an implementation of the underlying ECMA standards (for C# and for the Common Language Infrastructure), plus an effort for .NET compatibility in all that is reasonable (I/O, XML, app configuration, ASP.NET support via XSP and mod_mono, Database access, and more). Initial support for System.Windows.Forms is planned for the next release, 1.2, due around September.

Mono also provides it's own extensions, such as a GTK+ binding (Gtk#) and Unix-integration libraries.

Mono is already useful and in use.

Now, I'm not saying that any piece of .NET software will be able to run unchanged under Mono. In general, this isn't possible as it could rely on Windows-specific functionality, such as COM Interop, or rely on Windows-specific libraries. I am saying that Mono provides a portable base to build software upon, much as the ANSI C and the POSIX.1 standards do. You can write portable software, but you are not required to do so. Guidelines for writing portable .NET code can be found in the book Cross-Platform .NET.

So why has the standards committee in all their wisdom never added a MENU tag? It would have been so easy, just allow nested tags and voila. On any platform, menus are so common that implementing such a tag is as easy as killing babies.

Although I agree it might be nice to make a new (x)html element (not tag) for use in menus, it makes perfect semantic sense to use unordered lists anyway so it would be superflous to requirements.

I know why. It would put them out of a job. Try to standardize something like JavaScript and CSS and you're ensured of employment for a lifetime.

Thing is, the w3 didn't standardise JavaScript at all, that was the ECMA, what the w3 did was standardise the DOM (Document Object Model) which browsers should implement to allow JavaScript to manipulate the markup. As for CSS, they wrote the fucking standard from scratch with the noble aim of seperating content from presentation - the only problem with it is MS' unwillingness to support the spec fully and correctly.

Please, repeat with me:

C#
is not a Microsoft product

Thank you for your post. I was one of those that believed because it was an ECMA standard that it was free and open.

I went to the ecma site and saw this page:

WARNINGS

The liability and responsibility for the implementation of an Ecma Standard rests with the implementor, and not with Ecma.

Below that was a warning and a linke about settling patent issues pertaining to ECMA standards. Scary.

B

Bullshit. The advent of mature and stable standards along with browsers that actually support them is opening up worlds of possibilities that didn't exist in the heyday of the browser wars.

I've been making web pages since '94, and DOM+ECMA+CSS is one of the most powerful things I've seen in quite a while. It's exactly what the web was supposed to be before the browser wars came along and screwed it all up with blink tags and other useless shit.

Take a look at Google Maps in a fully compliant browser and see what's possible. This is the dynamic web as it was meant to be. It's got nothing to do with which browser you prefer to use - but if you want to play with these amazing standards, then you need a browser that supports them.

Yes, you could do the same thing with Flash or ActiveX. I'll leave the reasoning behind why that is wrong as an exercise for the reader. You get a hint by looking at the TLD for each of the above links...

• HTML 2.0
• HTML 3.2
• HTML 4.0
• HTML 4.01
• XHTML Basic
• XHTML 1.0
• XHTML 1.1
• XHTML 2.0
• CSS 1.0
• CSS 2.0
• CSS 2.1
• CSS 3.0
• ECMA-262 (a.k.a. JavaScript)

Also, does it still execute arbitrary code from WWW sites without the user's permission? Or is this considered a feature by Microsoft?

CLI is fine too. They have a lot of acronyms. If it starts with a "C", it probably means something in .Net.

As many others have said, that's not everything but it's a start.

As many others have said, that's not everything but it's a start.

True... but then why did they submit the CLR and C# specs for ECMA for standardization?

Specificly...

Standard ECMA-334: C# Language Specification
Standard ECMA-335: Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)

True... but then why did they submit the CLR and C# specs for ECMA for standardization?

Specificly...

Standard ECMA-334: C# Language Specification
Standard ECMA-335: Common Language Infrastructure (CLI)

To be proper, it's not javascript or Javascript, it's JavaScript. Although really if everyone referred to it as ECMAScript there would be less confusion.

and is *NOT* a standardized language (what approved "forum" such as ANSI or ISO has standardized Javascript?)

As a .Net developer myself, I endorse it over J2EE. Compatibility and ease of maintenance are the main benefits. The ./ community can't diss .net, just look at the Mono http://www.mono-project.com/about/index.html project. C# has actually gained pretty good legs as a language standard. It even has ECMA http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/sta ndards/Ecma-334.htm certification, which DOES mean something.

..and the class libraries be damned! Or?

Which class libraries? :-)

ECMA-335, which the grand-parent referenced, standardizes some of the class libraries. In particular, this file contains All.xml, which contains documentation for all namespaces, types, and type members (fields, methods, properties, etc.) for all standardized types.

What's actually covered? Enough to get the ball rolling -- I/O, XML, Reflection, Collections, Platform Invoke, etc. Basically, the .NET equivalent of the standard C library, and then some. (Well, much more than the standard C library, which lacks XML, Reflection, Collections.... But you get the drift.)

What isn't covered? Much more -- System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, System.DirectoryServices, System.EnterpriseServices, etc. Much of this makes sense, as it doesn't already exist in a standardized form. Furthermore, much of it is specific to Microsoft Windows -- System.Windows.Forms is highly windows-specific, and will be "dropped" by Microsoft in favor of Avalon eventually, anyway. Other items have open-source equivalents -- LDAP can work for System.DirectoryServices.

To put it in perspective, ~295 classes are standardized, out of the ~7000 in .NET. (Number completely made up, but Mono has over 7000 .cs files in CVS, and Mono hasn't fully covered .NET either. Of course, many of those classes aren't public, and thus couldn't be used by external developers, but the number should be in the neighborhood...)

Whether this is "bad" or not is outside the scope of this response. :-)

..and the class libraries be damned! Or?

Which class libraries? :-)

ECMA-335, which the grand-parent referenced, standardizes some of the class libraries. In particular, this file contains All.xml, which contains documentation for all namespaces, types, and type members (fields, methods, properties, etc.) for all standardized types.

What's actually covered? Enough to get the ball rolling -- I/O, XML, Reflection, Collections, Platform Invoke, etc. Basically, the .NET equivalent of the standard C library, and then some. (Well, much more than the standard C library, which lacks XML, Reflection, Collections.... But you get the drift.)

What isn't covered? Much more -- System.Windows.Forms, ASP.NET, ADO.NET, System.DirectoryServices, System.EnterpriseServices, etc. Much of this makes sense, as it doesn't already exist in a standardized form. Furthermore, much of it is specific to Microsoft Windows -- System.Windows.Forms is highly windows-specific, and will be "dropped" by Microsoft in favor of Avalon eventually, anyway. Other items have open-source equivalents -- LDAP can work for System.DirectoryServices.

To put it in perspective, ~295 classes are standardized, out of the ~7000 in .NET. (Number completely made up, but Mono has over 7000 .cs files in CVS, and Mono hasn't fully covered .NET either. Of course, many of those classes aren't public, and thus couldn't be used by external developers, but the number should be in the neighborhood...)

Whether this is "bad" or not is outside the scope of this response. :-)

Not quite. A better comparison,

Mono is Novell's implementation of this standard.

On the other hand, .NET is Microsoft's implementation of this standard.

Same standard, 2 different implementations of the standard.

Not quite. A better comparison,

Mono is Novell's implementation of this standard.

On the other hand, .NET is Microsoft's implementation of this standard.

Same standard, 2 different implementations of the standard.

OK - how's this?

Back in April, Slashdot reported the announcement of a Universal 3D File Format by Intel, Microsoft & others - to be "as open as MP3". Of course, that's not all that open. And this turns out to be the sneaky part. There is a real open standard already - X3D is ISO-ratified, royalty-free, and has multiple open source implementations. U3D is "going to be submitted to ISO" - one day - but right now they're talking to ECMA, which allows royalty-bearing patents.
I found this article by Tony Parisi, co-chair of the X3D Working Group a fascinating insider's picture of the standards wars, along with insights into what it takes to release an online game, what really killed VRML, and why open standards do (and don't) matter.
I mean, a royalty-bearing, pseudo-open universal 3D format from Intel and Microsoft? Sorry, guys. That trick doesn't work anymore


BTW, I need to get a life.

What, you mean like this: http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/sta ndards/Ecma-234.htm? Considering that "most" of the core Windows API has remained constant since Windows 95 days, this specification isn't quite as worthless as it's date may lead you to believe. Just like the C# standard from ECMA is unlikely to keep pace with MS's innovations in their compilers...

You can look through the ECMA document for a Hello World example. Also check out last months Ars Technica Linux.Ars article on Mono as it provides a couple of examples too.

Yup, good 'ol Javascript & ECMAScript.

Have fun.

Peace & Blessings,
bmac

Maybe this has an impact?

Also, Sun continues to strangle the life out of Java with its grip of death on all aspects of the language + vm. Sun is holding Java back.

Look at how C# + Mono has exploded in popularity in comparison to Java in the same timeframe.

It will be a sad say indeed when developers are tied to a specific language for a specific platform just because that is what someone has mandated from on high.

Er, PHB's have always done this since the dawn of computing. Before Java and before C#. Hell, they did this before microsoft even existed. Nothing has changed.

Uninformed slashdotters with tin foil hats should click this link.
ECMA-335 Common Language Infrastructure (of which .NET, Rotor and Mono are implementations.)

Well put! That's why I use a standard language like C# over Java. (Can't link to the Java standard because there isn't one!)

I don't think Javascript is TC.

It most certainly is.

The only information that is needed for the success of mono is the following: are the relevant ECMA standards 334 and 335 and just RAND, or are they really RAND and royalty free as miguel and others have claimed?

If it is really RAND and royalty free, it will become my favorite development platform. Working with .NET is really very nice and productive. Microsoft will finally have made a valuable and lasting contribution to computer science.

If not, it is just another poisoned fruit by microsoft.
--

The only information that is needed for the success of mono is the following: are the relevant ECMA standards 334 and 335 and just RAND, or are they really RAND and royalty free as miguel and others have claimed?

If it is really RAND and royalty free, it will become my favorite development platform. Working with .NET is really very nice and productive. Microsoft will finally have made a valuable and lasting contribution to computer science.

If not, it is just another poisoned fruit by microsoft.
--

Wake up: the ECMA standard covers c# only.

Funny you should suggets the parent to your comment was a troll. There is an ECMA standard for the CLI (i.e. .net's runtime) and you can find it here.

I mean no disrespect to the GCJ project, or Classpath or any of the other contributions to the goal of a fully compatible free software Java implementation. But... Saying that GCJ's existence proves Java is not proprietary is a bit like saying that WINE proves Windows is not proprietary.

Java is a language defined by a specification. The spacification is not proprietary in the sense that anyone can develop a clean room implementation of it without being subject to IP/patents infringement.
Sun's implementation of Java can be considered by some as proprietary because it is not free software, but it is not the only implementation.
BTW, according to ECMA (the origanization who says C# is a standard) Windows is a standard. See ECMA standard 234.
So, to me, the fact that the Java specification is not controlled by an organization like ECMA is of no great importance. Who really considers the windows api an international standard?
I would trust more the JCP (the organization that drives the Java and related specifications) than an organization who states windows is a non-proprietary standard.

http://www.ecma-international.org/memento/members. htm

isn't pixar one of the more popular 3d companies? at least in movies they are, and their RenderMan 3d format is pretty damn popular among photorealistic renderers. There's nothing that I know of that a RenderMan file cannot represent. I'm wondering why they're not making some effort to collaborate in this.

another question: why is apple a part of this when Pixar is not? Steve Jobs is CEO of both companies, as we all know.

That being said, the companies involved are all heavy users of patents, in many cases aggresively. They're also using ECMA as their standards body, who has a very premissive policy on patents. For anybody who reads that link, "reasonable and non-discrimantory licensing" means "everybody who uses this 'standard' can be made to cough up some dough.

You know, the *only* time I've heard much about ECMA standards has been in the context of C#.

Here's a list of ECMA standards. I find it a little distressing that the bulk of them relate to data formats and communication protocols -- two areas where Microsoft and other heavy-hitting IP nasties work hardest to leverage IP to prevent free interoperation.

So what's the point here? Will this enable me to model dancing hamsters and spinning thingies in Alias or Rhino and export them directly to Front Page and Power Point? Be still, my beating heart.

I believe the references to JPEG and MP3 were just examples of other popular standards, not meant to point out patent-encumbered standards.

That being said, the companies involved are all heavy users of patents, in many cases aggresively. They're also using ECMA as their standards body, who has a very premissive policy on patents. For anybody who reads that link, "reasonable and non-discrimantory licensing" means "everybody who uses this 'standard' can be made to cough up some dough."

So yes, in all likelyhood, this "standard" will be patent-encumbered and will require any new kids on the block to pay what will likely be extortion-rate fees (though they'll be "reasonable" fees in that any multinational with billions in the bank can afford them). The companies involved in creating the standard (the ones who don't like competition and in some cases have been convicted for price-fixing and illegal monopolistic practices) will simply cross-license the relevant patents amongst themselves, meaning they're free to implement it without cost.